← 研踪 PaperTrailarXiv:2611.11887 · v1
How Many Candidates Does a One-Step World Model Need? A Random-Codebook Account of Nearest-of-m Training on Frozen DINO Tokens
首次提交 2026-11-09 13:09
版本更新 2026-11-09 13:09
雷达观测 2026-11-10 13:18
摘要
One-step stochastic world models avoid the mode averaging of deterministic feature predictors without the tens of network evaluations per step that diffusion and flow matching require. The simplest such objective is nearest-of-m matching (conditional implicit maximum likelihood estimation, IMLE): draw m candidate futures and pull only the one closest to the observed outcome. Recent work conjectures that a small m suffices for feature-space world models and that a strictly proper energy score should replace the hard minimum. We test both claims with one-step world models on frozen DINOv2/v3 patch tokens, using benchmarks whose futures can be enumerated. Under mode-like uncertainty, nearest-of-m with m=16 covers the enumerated futures better than 50-step flow matching (at about 1/30 of its latency), one-step flow generators and an energy-score generator at matched parameter counts, and its rollouts stay on the token manifold where flow rollouts drift. One quantity governs the choice of m: the nearest-of-m objective is the expected distortion of a random codebook of m draws from the generator. This view yields three predictions, recorded before the corresponding runs: (i) memorization of the realized outcome in contexts that never repeat, whose strength is governed by the codebook's miss distortion I(m) rather than its miss probability, and which an energy-score generator does not escape by raising m; (ii) a flattening of mode probabilities with m, matching a known optimum within 0.01; and (iii) under-dispersion on continuous high-dimensional outcomes, which bounds the method on real robot video. Per-step matching on self-rollouts cuts long-horizon error by a third on a stochastic Push-T variant; an ablation separates its manifold and coverage benefits. Planning success does not improve despite accurate risk estimates, a negative result we report with its diagnosis.
作者备注：30 pages (12-page main text, appendices A-H). Code: https://github.com/thddydgnl/nearest-of-m-world-models
观测到的版本
相邻记录可能跳过中间版本；首次发现 v2 及以上也会标为版本更新。
v1 · 2026-11-09 13:09 · 最新观测版本
How Many Candidates Does a One-Step World Model Need? A Random-Codebook Account of Nearest-of-m Training on Frozen DINO Tokens
One-step stochastic world models avoid the mode averaging of deterministic feature predictors without the tens of network evaluations per step that diffusion and flow matching require. The simplest such objective is nearest-of-m matching (conditional implicit maximum likelihood estimation, IMLE): draw m candidate futures and pull only the one closest to the observed outcome. Recent work conjectures that a small m suffices for feature-space world models and that a strictly proper energy score should replace the hard minimum. We test both claims with one-step world models on frozen DINOv2/v3 patch tokens, using benchmarks whose futures can be enumerated. Under mode-like uncertainty, nearest-of-m with m=16 covers the enumerated futures better than 50-step flow matching (at about 1/30 of its latency), one-step flow generators and an energy-score generator at matched parameter counts, and its rollouts stay on the token manifold where flow rollouts drift. One quantity governs the choice of m: the nearest-of-m objective is the expected distortion of a random codebook of m draws from the generator. This view yields three predictions, recorded before the corresponding runs: (i) memorization of the realized outcome in contexts that never repeat, whose strength is governed by the codebook's miss distortion I(m) rather than its miss probability, and which an energy-score generator does not escape by raising m; (ii) a flattening of mode probabilities with m, matching a known optimum within 0.01; and (iii) under-dispersion on continuous high-dimensional outcomes, which bounds the method on real robot video. Per-step matching on self-rollouts cuts long-horizon error by a third on a stochastic Push-T variant; an ablation separates its manifold and coverage benefits. Planning success does not improve despite accurate risk estimates, a negative result we report with its diagnosis.
查看此版本解读 →查看此版本原文 ↗