Where World Models Break: Natural-Input Failure Discovery
On the map: World models → World models for language agents
Abstract (arXiv)
World models predict action-conditioned futures and serve as critical internal simulators for downstream planning and control. However, catastrophic prediction failures of world models could dangerously propagate through the control pipeline, as subsequent agent or model training and decision-making depend heavily on the continuous environment evolution forecasted by these world models. Existing evaluations overlook this systemic risk: by aggregating average errors over benign generations from general queries, they fail to stress-test the model against catastrophic collapses under rare or unobserved condition-action combinations. To bridge this gap, we formalize the natural-input failure discovery problem: under a finite query budget, finding environment-valid conditions and action prefixes that induce severe prediction risk, verifying whether these failures reproduce on fresh seeds, and testing their persistence under nearby valid edits. Discovering such critical failures is computationally challenging, as valid condition-action combinations explode exponentially, rendering exhaustive search or standard sampling infeasible given the high cost of noisy rollouts. To tackle this, we propose BasinLens, which exploits the underlying structure of valid inputs, where each coordinate possesses environment-defined semantic types and admissible domains, by pairing uncertainty-guided global search with typed local replacements. Across diverse benchmarks and world-model families, BasinLens exposes reproducible and locally persistent failure modes that conventional evaluations fail to reveal, showing that average-case benchmarks can mask important vulnerabilities in world-model-driven control.
Key facts. No citing papers in the map yet (data through 7 Oct 2026). Placed in World models for language agents, one of 11 directions in World models. Builds on 9 of its 41 references that are in the map. First posted on arXiv 23 Aug 2026.
Builds on
9 of 41 references.
References · 9
- 2014Explaining and Harnessing Adversarial Examplescited by 7,287
- 2026LeWorldModel: Stable End-to-End Joint-Embedding Predictive Architecture from Pixelscited by 237
- 2026iWorld-Bench: A Benchmark for Interactive World Models with a Unified Action Generation Frameworkcited by 14
- 2026WorldBench: Benchmarking Physical Understanding of World Models by Isolating Physics Conceptscited by 12
- 2026When World Models Dream Wrong: Physical-Conditioned Adversarial Attacks against World Modelscited by 11
- 2026Foundational World Models Accurately Detect Bimanual Manipulator Failurescited by 11
- 2026dWorldEval: Scalable Robotic Policy Evaluation via Discrete Diffusion World Modelcited by 11
- 2026WMAttack: Automated Attack Search for Adversarial Evaluation of World-Model Agentscited by 6
- 2026TRAP: Tail-aware Ranking Attack for World-Model Planningcited by 4
Built on by
Not cited yet.
Similar, not cited
Close in wording, no citation either way
- 2026Dual-Frontier: When Can an Agent Trust Its World Model?
- 2026stable-worldmodel-v1: Reproducible World Modeling Research and Evaluation
- 2026World Models Dream of Success: Diagnosing and Repairing Failure Insensitivity in Robot World Models
- 2025Why Do LLM Agents Fail in Exploring New Environments? A World-Modeling Perspective
- 2026What Must a World Model Distinguish for Planning?
- 2026Rethinking World Models for Safety-Critical Embodied Systems
- 2026Is the Future Compatible? Diagnosing Dynamic Consistency in World Action Models
- 2026Baba in Wonderland: Online Self-Supervised Dynamics Discovery for Executable World Models