Search arXiv⌕ Search

arXiv · 2610.02542

How To Train Your World Model: Fine-tuning vs RAG for LM-based World Modeling

Abstract

World models (WMs) simulate the transition dynamics of environments, enabling agents to plan over the consequences of their actions. In text-based environments, fine-tuning a Language Model (LM) to serve as a WM has emerged as a dominant paradigm. However, despite the widespread success of non-parametric approaches such as Retrieval Augmented Generation (RAG), retrieval for LM-based world modelling remains underexplored. We conduct a systematic evaluation across five diverse environments spanning embodied, web navigation and social settings, comparing fine-tuning and RAG-based approaches for LM-based world modelling. Our study reveals that fine-tuning often outperforms RAG, with fine-tuned WMs enabling agents to obtain higher rewards on 15/20 settings. While both construction paradigms benefit from additional and more diverse exploration, RAG-based approaches prove more data-efficient, and fine-tuning approaches disproportionately benefit from scaling the amount of experience collected. With a focus on RAG-based WMs, we devise a procedure that uses counterfactual intervention to estimate the error rate of the retrieval stage, and show that retrievers consistently surface suboptimal transitions from the experience buffer. Hoping to address this failing, we study a variety of query reformulation strategies, demonstrating that a hierarchical approach outperforms the traditional retrieval pipeline. Finally, we compose our findings into a hybrid world modelling system that parametrically captures core environment dynamics, while learning to rely on retrieval from an actively maintained memory store. Our hybrid system consistently outperforms other methods across multiple environments and models, showcasing the robustness of the approach and the applicability of our findings.

Explore related subjects

Keep this discovery

Explore connections, maps & timelines

BibTeXRIS

Dhananjay Ashok, Shantanu Agarwal, Vivek Datla, Jonathan May, Alfy Samuel. 2026-10-01. How To Train Your World Model: Fine-tuning vs RAG for LM-based World Modeling. https://arxiv.org/abs/2610.02542

Cite the original work for its findings. Save a collection to share your selection of sources.

KEEP EXPLORING

Related papers

AstroAgentBench: Evaluating Agentic Planning on Space Mission Planning Tasks

Recent LLM-for-Space systems address mission planning, scheduling, operations support, simulator control, and autonomy, but their evaluations use different task contracts, control settings, simulators, and success criteria. We introduce AstroAgentBench, a seven-family benchmark for executable space mission planning in the domains of scheduling, observation planning, constellation design, and relay support. For each case, an agent submits a planning artifact that is checked by an external verifier for schema, timing, geometry, resources, and mission value. Results report validity and normalized scores, with comparisons to task-specific solver references. Across five LLM agent systems and 35 held-out cases, the strongest systems approach or exceed solver-reference scores on several families, while weaker systems often fail to produce high-value valid plans and even strong systems lose quality on geometric, product-level, or design-heavy tasks. Trace analyses separate two failure points: task-contract misformulation and weak solution construction. Successful runs instead calibrate agent-written implementations against verifier feedback and adapt search to case-specific structure. Ablations show that procedure injection and memory accumulation help selectively, when they supply the missing formulation, calibration, or search support.

cs.AI↗

LPS-Bench: Benchmarking Safety Awareness of Computer-Use Agents in Long-Horizon Planning under Benign and Adversarial Scenarios

Computer-use agents (CUAs) execute multi-stage tasks through tools, where an early unsafe decision can propagate to consequential actions. Evaluating only final outcomes can miss such decisions, while constructing executable environments for new tasks can make benchmark expansion costly. We present LPS-Bench, a benchmark of long-horizon planning safety in MCP-style tool workflows under benign requests and adversarial steering. A template-guided multi-agent pipeline generates user instructions, simulated toolkits, and case-specific safety criteria, followed by human review. This design supports scalable case expansion without building a separate application environment for every test case. LPS-Bench comprises 570 cases derived from 65 scenarios across 7 task domains and 9 planning-risk types, with representative cases additionally adapted to reusable skills. An LLM-based evaluator applies case-specific criteria to complete interaction records, examining tool choices, arguments, and responses to environmental feedback throughout execution. Evaluations of 13 LLM agents reveal persistent failures in both benign and adversarial settings. Prompt-based interventions yield model-dependent gains, but substantial safety failures remain.

cs.AI↗

On the Tip of the Tongue: Why LLMs Hallucinate Answers They Can Decode

A language model can give the wrong answer even when the correct answer is decodable from its intermediate states. To study this gap between decodability and selection, we distinguish \textit{read} from \textit{write} at the first answer token. Read asks whether the gold token can be decoded from intermediate residual states under same-relation decoy controls. Write asks whether the final readout ranks that token first among content tokens. Under three different readers, with a randomized-label control, a substantial fraction of failures remain readable while another content token is selected. We explain this through the selection margin at the final readout, the difference between the answer logit and the logit of its strongest alternative, which is answer support minus alternative support, and can also be split into a context-averaged baseline linked to token frequency and an item-specific term. Setting the answer support to the level typical of successful generations is sufficient to recover first-token selection for the majority of failures in most of the models we study; the original alternative remains ahead in most remaining failures under this edit, and this outcome follows directly from the readout geometry. Removing the frequency direction alone shifts selection but rarely recovers the answer. Prompt variants of the same fact that succeed supply support that transfers to failing variants through the residual stream and through late MLP outputs, with less consistent effects through late attention. First-token recovery leaves most full answers wrong, which limits the recovery achieved by these edits and separates three things that are easily conflated, decodability, recoverability, and generation.

cs.AI↗