Physical Experience Builds Continual Spatial World Models
Organizations: University of Washington
Abstract
World models are increasingly used to support prediction and planning in embodied agents, but the knowledge is usually established before deployment and then carried into later encounters. Continual operation faces a different problem. A familiar environment may change, and the agent must use previous experience without allowing old expectations to override current physical evidence. This study asks what repeated physical experience must contribute for a spatial world model to become progressively more useful rather than simply more persistent. A physics-grounded dynamic maze separates recurring spatial change from the continuous consequences of action. Cross-episode Spatial Change Memory learns relations among environmental transformations, while state-action-outcome experience refines predictions of motion. Structured experience progressively reduces the need for future route correction and transfers to spatial transitions not encountered during learning. The advantage disappears when past changes contain no information about future ones. Continuous navigation further shows that predictive memory changes behavior when a previous decision becomes invalid but leaves behavior unchanged when the decision remains correct. Physical tests expose a complementary limit: correct topology does not guarantee correct action prediction, and accumulated physical experience reduces this mismatch within the modeled dynamics. The results characterize continual world knowledge as experience that improves future prediction and action beyond stored episodes while remaining revisable by the physical outcomes it is intended to predict.
Figures & tables
| Test | Main comparison | Observation | Claim supported |
|---|---|---|---|
| Structured accumulation | 0 vs 64 past episodes | accuracy 0.564 0.898; corrections 1.744 0.406 | experience lowers future correction |
| Held-out transfer | Shared SCM vs episodic/position/reactive | 0.898 vs approximately 0.566 | transferable relation, not route cache |
| Zero-information control | I =0 with increasing history | accuracy remains approximately 0.50 | memory cannot create predictive structure |
| Continuous navigation | memory vs reactive, decision-changing | obsolete-target time 7.806 s 0.0083 s | prediction changes action before direct observation |
| Physical accumulation | inaccurate vs continually updated dynamics | parameter and prediction error decrease | action outcomes revise physical prediction |
Appendix figures & tables1 asset
Supplementary material from the paper’s appendix.
Appendix
| Quantity | Result | Role in the study |
|---|---|---|
| Effective mass check | expected 0.056 kg; measured 0.056 kg | verifies rolling-sphere reduction |
| Observation-radius effect | adaptation latency decreases monotonically with radius | establishes information-access limit |
| Distance-latency association | Spearman , | links reactive delay to information arrival |
| Structured SCM at 64 episodes | accuracy 0.898; Bayes limit 0.900 | shows near-limit use of repeated structure |
| Random change at 64 episodes | accuracy approximately 0.50 | zero-information negative control |
| Held-out shared SCM | accuracy 0.898 vs approximately 0.566 baselines | tests transfer beyond stored location |
World Model Learning
World model learning builds predictive models of how environments change under actions to support planning, simulation, and decision-making.
See all 434 papers