Why Does the Future Branch? Identifiable Closure Tests for Stochastic Physical World Models
On the map: World models → Latent predictive world models
Abstract (arXiv)
A calibrated stochastic world model can reveal how uncertain a future is without revealing why it branches. The same conditional future law can arise because an observation aliases physical states or because dynamics remain random after the declared full state is fixed. We prove that ordinary transitions cannot identify these two sources, even for a perfect probabilistic predictor. ClosurePairs makes them identifiable by crossing compatible microstates with repeated exogenous disturbances and estimating state, noise, and state-noise interaction variance. The central consequence is operational: under finite hierarchical sampling, forecast difficulty governs the useful compute scale, while the alias/process composition provides complementary information about its direction-resolving the current state or sampling future randomness. ClosurePairs recovers source attribution at unchanged likelihood, reduces equal-budget decomposition error in a nonlinear interaction benchmark, and supports observation-only routing. On exact-marginal MetaWorld twins, an output-only allocator is at chance while a Closure-supervised probe on frozen JEPA-WM features routes 89.8-100%. In an independent ManiSkill PushCube confirmation, a stochastic RSSM's outputs and latents remain at chance, whereas an RGB-only Closure probe routes 100% under both ID and geometry/camera OOD over five seeds, matching direct allocation rather than exceeding it. Across five unseen allocation menus, the same Closure probe routes 92.5%/90.4% ID/OOD with no new oracle labels, versus 37.9%/32.9% for a frozen direct allocator. ClosurePairs is therefore an identifiable, reusable mechanism target that cannot be recovered from forecast quality alone.
Key facts. No citing papers in the map yet (data through 7 Oct 2026). Placed in Latent predictive world models, one of 11 directions in World models. Builds on 11 of its 28 references that are in the map. First posted on arXiv 1 Aug 2026.
Builds on
11 of 28 references.
Closest ancestors · 1
Same direction, newest first
Other references · 10
- 2015Dropout as a Bayesian Approximation: Representing Model Uncertainty in Deep Learningcited by 4,416
- 2016Simple and Scalable Predictive Uncertainty Estimation using Deep Ensemblescited by 3,888
- 2017What Uncertainties Do We Need in Bayesian Deep Learning for Computer Vision?cited by 2,335
- 2018World Modelscited by 1,444
- 2023Physion++: Evaluating Physical Scene Understanding that Requires Online Inference of Different Physical Propertiescited by 53
- 2024Rethinking Aleatoric and Epistemic Uncertaintycited by 40
- 2024On the Benefits of Memory for Modeling Time-Dependent PDEscited by 30
- 2025On Rollouts in Model-Based Reinforcement Learningcited by 10
- 2025Learning Stochastic Multiscale Modelscited by 3
- 2025STORI: A Benchmark and Taxonomy for Stochastic Environmentscited by 2
Built on by
Not cited yet.
Similar, not cited
Close in wording, no citation either way
- 2026Event-Conditioned Diagnostics of Kinematic, Contact, and Object-Permanence Structure in Passive Object-State World Models
- 2026World Models with Predictable Long-Horizon Marginals
- 2026World Models Under Asynchronous Sensor Observations
- 2026Branch-JEPA: Finite-Support Predictive Distributions for JEPA World Models
- 2025One Life to Learn: Inferring Symbolic World Models for Stochastic Environments from Unguided Exploration
- 2026When Should a World Model Move? Loss-Conditioned State Execution
- 2026Identifiability Without Gaussianity: Symbolic World Models and Near-Infinite Temporal Consistency
- 2026Is the Future Compatible? Diagnosing Dynamic Consistency in World Action Models