日本フィジカルAI新聞

世界のフィジカルAIを、日本語で。

週刊ニュースレター購読
ワールドモデル/等変性/不確実性推定arXiv:2606.24946v1

等変ワールドモデルのための等角軌道有効信頼地平線

Conformal Orbit-Valid Trust Horizons for Equivariant World Models

シェア:XThreadsFacebookLINEはてブBluesky

既知の群対称性を持つ潜在ワールドモデルについて、ロールアウト誤差が制御される信頼地平線を認定する手法を提案。分割等角法で較正し、厳密な等変性が軌道上で信頼地平線を輸送することを示した。

著者: Hongbo Wang

分類: cs.LG, cs.RO

原文アブストラクト

Learned world models are useful only over horizons on which their rollout error remains controlled. We study trust-horizon certification for latent world models with known group symmetries. Given a one-step latent residual and a finite-time expansion estimate, we form a raw horizon curve and calibrate it with a split-conformal multiplicative factor. On the reproducible audit set, the conformal factor is $γ_α=1.0$: the raw certificate is already conservative under the audit protocol. Across 50 stable audits, we observe zero anti-conservative violations, corresponding to an exact-binomial 95% upper bound of 5.8% on the violation rate. Our main structural result is that exact equivariance transports a calibrated trust-horizon curve over the group orbit: when the environment dynamics, encoder, predictor, action transform, and latent metric satisfy the stated equivariance/invariance conditions, rollout errors and trust horizons are orbit-constant. Empirically, the implemented models exhibit small orbit-transport residuals, with median 1.1% and maximum 4.1% over 14 orbit audits. The certificate is also non-vacuous (median certified-to-measured horizon ratio 0.67). A certificate-level calibration-cost study shows two complementary regimes. On a symmetric 2D substrate, equivariant, plain, and augmented models are all orbit-valid from a single calibration sector -- no separation, because the substrate already makes non-equivariant baselines approximately orbit-robust. A 3D yaw audit shows the other regime: the equivariant model obtains a one-sector safe and non-vacuous orbit-valid certificate, while healthy non-equivariant baselines pay violation, slack, sharpness, or additional-sector cost. The certificate is a conservative, distributional audit rather than a global reachability guarantee, and certificate-guided subgoal spacing is not confirmed in the current 3D CEM-MPC behavior layer.