Human-Oriented World Model
Organizations: Beijing Normal University · WATRIX AI
Abstract
Supporting a person over repeated interactions requires interpreting their current state in context and anticipating its subsequent evolution. We formulate the Human-Oriented World Model (HOWM) as a conceptual framework centered on task-relevant human states and their evolution. HOWM connects current observations and individual history with environmental and social context to organize continuing state estimation, personalized dynamics prediction, and action support. Dynamic expectations and new observations jointly inform the current estimate, which in turn anchors personalized forecasts based on shared knowledge and individual experience. An external policy relates forecasts under alternative conditions to the person's goals, preferences, and constraints when considering support. Actual responses and outcomes provide evidence for revising the state estimate and personal dynamic patterns, thereby informing subsequent estimation, prediction, and support. We illustrate the framework through hypothetical training and learning scenarios. Our research agenda asks whether accumulated interaction experience improves subsequent estimation and prediction, and whether using the model helps the person pursue their goals over time.
Figures & tables
| Symbol | Meaning and role |
|---|---|
| Identifiers and uncertain assignments of observations or references to individuals. | |
| Task-relevant human, environmental, and relational states being modeled. | |
| System estimates of the joint and individual states, including uncertainty. | |
| Evidence available by time and newly available evidence at the current update. | |
| Available information or estimates about the person’s environmental and social context. | |
| Retained evidence and summaries with sources, times, and applicability conditions. |
| Focus | Question and comparison | Assessment targets |
|---|---|---|
| Continuing estimation | Does the estimate follow change? Vary state propagation, context, or personal history (H1) under common observations. | Successive estimates, uncertainty, and recovery after gaps or task changes, using appropriate state references. |
| Personalized dynamics | Does the model anticipate individual development? Compare shared, personal-baseline, and temporal-pattern predictors; examine historical contributions (H2). | Future change and trajectories at common origins and horizons, with starting-state information and contextual coverage declared. |
| Action support | Does using forecasts help the person? Compare support policies and separately examine action-conditioned prediction (H3). | Forecast quality under realized conditions; choices, burden, and outcomes relative to the person’s goals. |
| Continued updating | Does experience improve later use? Compare adapted and retained personal patterns on common later observations; assess corrections. | Later estimation and prediction, adaptation to change, recurring errors, and usefulness of subsequent support. |
| Study focus | Required evidence | Validation targets |
|---|---|---|
| Continuing estimation and initial prediction | Repeated observations, context, activities, times, state references or later outcomes. | Successive estimates and forecasts followed by new evidence and updating; simple baselines and H1 comparisons. |
| Personalized dynamics | Individual trajectories across activities or sessions, relevant conditions, and outcomes. | Prediction of change beyond personal baselines; H2 historical contributions and adaptation with experience. |
| Conditional prediction and assistance | Proposals, human choices, executed actions, outcomes, goals, and observation conditions. | H3 predictive contribution; separate policy comparisons and human outcome assessment. |
| Learning and revision across stages | Successive model and information versions, interaction feedback, corrections, later observations, and references. | Later estimation, prediction, and support; adaptation and recurring errors, with original forecasts preserved. |
| Modeling role | Sports and training | Education and learning |
|---|---|---|
| State and evidence | Movement control and training condition inferred from movement and reports. | Understanding and difficulty inferred from task responses and learner feedback. |
| Individual history | Associated practice trajectories, cue schedules, reports, and personal baselines. | Linked task sequences, hints used, feedback, and performance on comparable material. |
| Context | Exercise demands, court conditions, coach or partner roles, and cue pace. | Problem demands, instructions, and teacher or peer assistance. |
| Personal dynamics | Timing and stability in adapting to cue schedules, with applicability and uncertainty. | Progress across supported and independent tasks, with applicability and uncertainty. |
| Conditional futures | Movement trajectories and completion under the proposed practice arrangement. | Performance over a task sequence with specified assistance conditions. |
| Goals and support | Consistent footwork at manageable effort informs pace changes or clarification. | Independent problem solving guides consideration of demonstrations, hints, or further attempts. |
World Models
World models represent and predict how environments change, helping agents plan, act, and reason about possible futures.
See all 388 papers