arXiv:2608.07809cs.AI2026-08

提出可信赖的因果世界模型,让智能体在参数变化时安全决策

CausalNav: Reliability-Certified Causal World Models for Control under Physical-Parameter Shift

论文配图:CausalNav: Reliability-Certified Causal World Models for Control under Physical-Parameter Shift
图 1 · 摘自论文原文
  • 基于带符号的动作条件转移图构建控制器,实现因果建模
  • 在9个基线中平均排名1.25,且在10个种子中对摆杆任务全部拒绝干预
  • 不靠预测精度,而是通过可信度证书确保部署安全,适合高可靠性场景

世界模型只有在改变智能体行为时才有效,只有在出错时不行动才安全。我们通过CausalNav研究了这两个要求:该控制器基于已识别状态坐标的有向动作条件转移图构建。部署时,CausalNav模拟一组干预序列,将目标误差转化为策略对数建议,并仅在尺度无关的预测可靠性证书、策略边际门和最大值一致门均通过时采纳建议;否则回退至其自身的模型基础控制器。我们在CartPole-v1和离散化Pendulum-v1上,使用同一PPO训练器、相同交互预算和十个保留种子(共200次运行),对比九个受控基线(包括Transformer、循环网络、分层隐变量、图模型、因果推断及三个近期基于模型推理模块)。CausalNav获得十项中的最佳平均排名(1.25)。诊断结果显示:学习到的图结构远超随机水平(CartPole F1 = 0.59 ± 0.09),但结构保真度与控制收益在种子层面无相关性(r = -0.15, p = 0.67);证书在所有10个摆杆种子上均拒绝干预,强行使用规划会导致回报下降。在本设置中,模型保真度无法预测下游控制效用;真正使世界模型安全部署的是可信度认证,而非更精准的预测。

原文摘要 · Abstract (English)

A world model is only useful for physical AI if it changes what the agent does, and only safe if it declines to do so when it is wrong. We study both halves of that requirement with CausalNav, a controller built around a signed, action-conditioned transition graph over identified state coordinates. At deployment CausalNav simulates a small library of intervention sequences, converts their objective error into policy-logit advice, and admits that advice only when a scale-free predictive-reliability certificate, a policy-margin gate, and an argmax-agreement gate all pass; otherwise it falls back exactly to its own model-based base controller. We evaluate against nine controlled baselines (transformer, recurrent, split-latent, graph, causal-induction, and three recent model-based reasoning modules) on CartPole-v1 and discretized Pendulum-v1 with physical-parameter shifts, under one shared PPO trainer, one interaction budget, and ten held-out seeds (200 runs). CausalNav attains the best average rank (1.25 of ten). The diagnostic result is more informative than the ranking: the learned graph recovers structure well above chance (CartPole F1 = 0.59 +/- 0.09), yet per-seed structural fidelity is uncorrelated with per-seed control benefit (r = -0.15, p = 0.67), and the certificate abstains on 10/10 Pendulum seeds, where forcing the planner on costs return. Model fidelity did not predict downstream control utility in our setting; certified abstention, not better prediction, is what made the world model safe to deploy.

因果建模可靠决策世界模型强化学习

Thank you to arXiv for use of its open access interoperability. PaperDance 不是 arXiv 官方产品;中文卡片由大模型生成,请以原文为准。