Skip to content
arXiv Robotics — research abstracts· Justin McMillen, Yasin Yilmaz·· 5 days agoEditorial score38

World Models vs. Node Memory in Partial Observability

Grid or Nodes? Probing Object Memory in World Models Under Partial Observability

Summary

FloWM's grid memory outperforms node memory in object recall under partial observability, with higher scores and efficiency in tracking unseen objects. Node memory struggles with motion beyond five velocities, while FloWM's predictions improve recall despite no visual input.

Source: arXiv Robotics — research abstracts · Read original article ↗

Loading article text…

What the source reports

Publisher-reported claims, with original evidence. These results have not been independently verified by RoboSignal.

Reported numbers

  • points higher in view for FloWM

    8

    View original evidence
    grid is read changes its score: a single-cell probe finds 66% of out-of-view blocks, while FloWM's own probe 89%. FloWM also scores 8 points higher in view although no frame is shown, which we attribute to its write-back of its own predictions. Out of view, the tracker reaches FloWM's range in 14KB against 5.6MB, with no probe. On diagonal motion, outside its five velocities, FloWM finds 11% of blocks even after fine
    Open source S3
  • size of tracker memory in KB

    14

    View original evidence
    grid is read changes its score: a single-cell probe finds 66% of out-of-view blocks, while FloWM's own probe 89%. FloWM also scores 8 points higher in view although no frame is shown, which we attribute to its write-back of its own predictions. Out of view, the tracker reaches FloWM's range in 14KB against 5.6MB, with no probe. On diagonal motion, outside its five velocities, FloWM finds 11% of blocks even after fine
    Open source S3
  • size of FloWM memory in MB

    5.6

    View original evidence
    grid is read changes its score: a single-cell probe finds 66% of out-of-view blocks, while FloWM's own probe 89%. FloWM also scores 8 points higher in view although no frame is shown, which we attribute to its write-back of its own predictions. Out of view, the tracker reaches FloWM's range in 14KB against 5.6MB, with no probe. On diagonal motion, outside its five velocities, FloWM finds 11% of blocks even after fine
    Open source S3
  • paper: not_reported
Source excerpts and review record

Automatically extracted; no manual editorial approval recorded.

grid is read changes its score: a single-cell probe finds 66% of out-of-view blocks, while FloWM's own probe 89%. FloWM also scores 8 points higher in view although no frame is shown, which we attribute to its write-back of its own predictions. Out of view, the tracker reaches FloWM's range in 14KB against 5.6MB, with no probe. On diagonal motion, outside its five velocities, FloWM finds 11% of blocks even after fine

Open source S3

Source:arXiv Robotics — research abstracts · arxiv.org

Timezone · UTC

Article dates follow your selected timezone. Briefing editions use Hong Kong time (UTC+8).