CWM: Contrastive World Models for Action Feasibility Learning in Embodied Agent Pipelines
On the map: World models → Embodied and robot world models
also in 1 more
Abstract (arXiv)
A reliable action feasibility scorer is a critical bottleneck in embodied agent pipelines: before any planning or reasoning occurs, the agent must identify which candidate actions are physically executable in the current state. Existing approaches use supervised fine-tuning (SFT) to train action scorers, but SFT treats each candidate independently and does not explicitly teach the model to discriminate between actions that are physically correct and those that are subtly wrong. We propose the Contrastive World Model (CWM), which fine-tunes a large language model (LLM) as an action scorer using an InfoNCE contrastive objective with hard-mined negative examples. The key idea is to push valid actions away from invalid ones in scoring space, with special emphasis on hard negatives: semantically similar but physically incompatible candidates. We evaluate CWM on the ScienceWorld benchmark through two studies. First, an intrinsic affordance evaluation on 605 hard-negative test pairs shows that CWM outperforms SFT by +6.76 percentage points on Precision@1 for minimal-edit negatives -- cases where a single word changes the physical outcome -- and achieves a higher AUC-ROC (0.929 vs. 0.906). Second, a live filter characterisation study measures how well CWM ranks gold-path actions against all valid environment actions during task execution. Under out-of-distribution stress conditions, CWM maintains a significantly better safety margin (-2.39) than SFT (-3.96), indicating that the gold action is ranked closer to the top. These results support the hypothesis that contrastive training induces representations that capture physical feasibility more faithfully than SFT alone.
Key facts. No citing papers in the map yet (data through 7 Oct 2026). Placed in Embodied and robot world models, one of 11 directions in World models. Builds on 14 of its 16 references that are in the map. First posted on arXiv 25 Feb 2026.
Builds on
14 of 16 references.
References · 14
- 2021LoRA: Low-Rank Adaptation of Large Language Modelscited by 14,084
- 2022ReAct: Synergizing Reasoning and Acting in Language Modelscited by 8,355
- 2023Direct Preference Optimization: Your Language Model is Secretly a Reward Modelcited by 7,916
- 2018Representation Learning with Contrastive Predictive Codingcited by 7,662
- 2024Qwen2.5 Technical Reportcited by 4,713
- 2023Reflexion: Language Agents with Verbal Reinforcement Learningcited by 4,064
- 2022Do As I Can, Not As I Say: Grounding Language in Robotic Affordancescited by 2,302
- 2020Contrastive Learning with Hard Negative Samplescited by 619
- 2022ScienceWorld: Is your Agent Smarter than a 5th Grader?cited by 298
- 2024Trial and Error: Exploration-Based Trajectory Optimization for LLM Agentscited by 194
- 2023SwiftSage: A Generative Agent with Fast and Slow Thinking for Complex Interactive Taskscited by 166
- 2015Deep Reinforcement Learning with a Natural Language Action Spacecited by 88
Built on by
Not cited yet.
Similar, not cited
Close in wording, no citation either way
- 2026Hy-Embodied-VLM-1.0: Efficient Physical-World Agents
- 2026From Assumptions to Actions: Turning LLM Reasoning into Uncertainty-Aware Planning for Embodied Agents
- 2023Plan, Eliminate, and Track -- Language Models are Good Teachers for Embodied Agents
- 2026Think Twice, Act Once: Verifier-Guided Action Selection For Embodied Agents
- 2026HarnessWAM: Bridging Prediction and Deliberation in World Action Models
- 2025Beyond Description: Cognitively Benchmarking Fine-Grained Action for Embodied Agents
- 2026World Action Models: The Next Frontier in Embodied AI
- 2023Language Models Meet World Models: Embodied Experiences Enhance Language Models