ArXiv

BadWAM: When World-Action Models Dream Right but Act Wrong

Authors
Qi Li, Xingyi Yang, Xinchao Wang
Categories
cs.LG, cs.RO
arXiv
https://arxiv.org/abs/2607.15207v1
PDF
https://arxiv.org/pdf/2607.15207v1

Brief

BadWAM introduces a unified framework for World-Action Drift Attacks that break the alignment between a WAM's imagined future and its executed actions. The authors formalize attack strength vs. stealthiness and instantiate action-only and imagination-preserving attacks, evaluate them across WAM variants, report a drop from 96.5% to 43.1% success for the action-only attack, and highlight a vulnerability that moderate future-preserving regularization can partially mask.

Why it matters

BadWAM defines World-Action Drift Attacks against World-Action Models (WAMs), characterizing the attack surface along two criteria—attack strength and stealthiness—and instantiates two attacks: an action-only attack and an imagination-preserving attack.

Key details

  • Under closed-loop execution the action-only attack drops task success from 96.5% to 43.1% on evaluated WAM variants, demonstrating large end-to-end degradation.
  • The imagination-preserving attack induces harmful action shifts while keeping predicted futures close to clean imaginations; the authors show moderate future-preserving regularization can retain strong attack performance while reducing imagined-future drift, revealing a WAM-specific vulnerability.
Source evidence

Abstract

World-action models (WAMs) are emerging as a promising foundation for embodied control: rather than predicting actions alone, they learn representations that couple action generation with future world prediction. This coupling is often viewed as a source of robustness, interpretability, and safety, as a robot's action can in principle be checked against its imagined future. In this paper, we show that this assumption is fragile. We introduce BadWAM, a unified framework for modeling and evaluating World-Action Drift Attacks: a new class of WAM-specific adversarial attacks that use small visual perturbations to break the alignment between what a WAM imagines and what it executes. BadWAM characterizes this attack surface along two natural criteria: attack strength and stealthiness. When the adversary prioritizes disruption, BadWAM instantiates an action-only adversarial attack, which directly drives the model toward task-failing actions. When the adversary additionally prioritizes stealth, BadWAM instantiates an imagination-preserving adversarial attack, which seeks to induce harmful action shifts while keeping the model's predicted future close to its clean imagination. Together, these two attacks capture a spectrum of WAM-specific failures: from overt action hijacking to stealthier cases where the model appears to imagine a plausible future but executes a desynchronized action. We evaluate BadWAM across different variants of WAMs. Results show that our attacks substantially reduce task success rates under closed-loop execution. For example, our action-only attack reduces the model performance from 96.5% to 43.1% success. The results of our imagination-preserving attack further exposes a WAM-specific vulnerability: moderate future-preserving regularization can maintain strong attack performance while reducing future imagination drift.