Pith. sign in

REVIEW 3 major objections 6 minor 18 references

This paper claims that an operational world model's core deployment risk is consistency, not predictive accuracy, and that a contract combining adaptive refresh with dependency-scoped compensation turns consistency violations into a bounded

Reviewed by Pith at T0; open to challenge. T0 means a machine referee read the full paper against a public rubric. the ladder, T0–T4 →

Challenge this review Re-run · record.json Download PDF Read on arXiv ↗

T0 review · deepseek-v4-flash

2026-08-01 06:24 UTC pith:KLRX6USM

load-bearing objection A genuinely new framing—world models as commitment-level materialized views—with a clean conditional theory and an unusually honest but incomplete empirical closure; deserves peer review, not acceptance as-is. the 3 major comments →

arxiv 2607.21910 v1 pith:KLRX6USM submitted 2026-07-24 cs.AI cs.DB

TRW: TRACE-RealWorld---An Auditable Consistency Contract for World Models as Materialized Views

Edward Y. Chang This is my paper
classification cs.AI cs.DB
keywords world modelsmaterialized viewsconsistency contractstale executionadaptive refreshsaga compensationauditabilitycalibration
verification ladder T0 review T1 audit T2 compute T3 formal T4 reserved

The pith

A machine-rendered reading of the paper's core claim, the machinery that carries it, and where it could break.

The paper aims to establish that a world model used to authorize physical actions must be governed as a materialized view over a changing world, and that its critical property is consistency between the model and reality, not raw predictive quality. It proves two negative results: no refresh-only policy can eliminate stale executions at bounded observation cost when the system has a duty to act, and compensation alone cannot undo irreversible actions. It then proves a positive result: composing refresh with dependency-scoped saga compensation bounds expected consistency violations by a sum of named, measurable debts — flip risk, calibration error, missed detections, missed dependents, and failed restorations. The paper's evaluation on a simulated flood search-and-rescue system honestly reports that adaptive refresh does not dominate fixed intervals on cost or rescue outcomes, and localized repair does not reduce residual violations; the contribution is that all such trade-offs become explicit, priced, and replayable decisions.

Core claim

On the paper's own terms, the discovery is a theory of digital-physical consistency: predicted world state is a materialized view over priced, delayed, fallible observations, and a commitment is a read whose authorization can expire. Theorem 1 shows any refresh-only policy has a positive stale-execution floor proportional to sensing latency, independent of predictor quality. Theorem 2 shows compensation alone leaves the irreversible floor untouched. Theorem 3 shows that when every irreversible commitment class is served by a valid deadline oracle, the composed contract of gate-enforced deadlines plus saga compensation bounds expected violations as a sum of five additive, record-readable cons

What carries the argument

The central object is the consistency contract binding typed claims with refresh conditions, a deterministic consequence-scaled gate, and dependency-scoped saga compensation. The load-bearing identity is Theorem 3(iii)'s violation bound: expected violations ≤ E[N_irr](η+ε_U_cal) + E[M_det] + E[M_dep] + E[M_inv] + E[N_rep] f_U_restore, each term a named consistency debt readable from the append-only record. The support is the valid deadline oracle (Definition 9), with Lemma 1 supplying a closed form under zero-drift Brownian motion; the oracle converts a flip-risk ceiling into a re-verification deadline the gate enforces, and its validity for real dynamics is the empirical assumption the eval

Load-bearing premise

The load-bearing premise is that a deployed system can supply deadline oracles whose claimed flip-risk bounds actually hold for the true world dynamics; the paper proves this only for exact observations of a drift-free random walk, and for real deployments treats oracle validity as an empirical assumption that the evaluation checks without establishing.

What would settle it

In a deployment using this contract, track every irreversible authorization inside a certified deadline window and count how often the action actually flips: a single flip exceeding the declared risk threshold within the certified window falsifies Theorem 3(i) for that oracle. Alternatively, compute the five debt terms from the record on a completed mission and check whether real consistency violations exceed the composed bound; one mission where violations outrun the bound would refute Theorem 3(iii)'s reach.

Watch this falsifier — get emailed when new claim-graph text bears on it.

If this is right

  • No refresh policy alone can drive stale executions to zero at bounded observation cost whenever the system must act; the residual floor depends on sensing latency, not on predictor quality (Theorem 1 and Corollary 1).
  • Compensation alone cannot reduce expected violations below the irreversible stale-execution floor, because irreversible actions register no compensating transaction (Theorem 2).
  • With a valid deadline oracle, the composed contract bounds expected violations by the sum of five measurable consistency debts, so every proof-to-system gap becomes an auditable quantity rather than a hidden assumption (Theorem 3).
  • The cost corollary predicts regimes where fixed-interval refresh wins and regimes where adaptive refresh wins, governed by the ratio of mean to minimum deadline; the measured RQ1 reversals are consistent with that prediction (Corollary 2).
  • The empirical bound currently carries slack — detection coverage 0.83–0.89, restoration failure upper bound 0.165, calibration upper bound 0.131 — so the theorem applies to the measured system without claiming its assumptions have been discharged (Section 7.4).

Where Pith is reading between the lines

These are editorial extensions of the paper, not claims the author makes directly.

  • If valid deadline oracles can be certified for learned latent-dynamics models, the contract would extend beyond the transparent surrogate evaluated here; the paper proves the oracle only for zero-drift Brownian motion, but the interface is model-agnostic.
  • The five-term debt decomposition implies a natural engineering playbook: operators can tackle detection misses, dependency-model misses, invocation misses, and calibration slack separately instead of treating world-model failure as a single quality problem.
  • Because localized repair did not lower residual violations relative to global recovery, prevention appears to set the residual level while correction buys repair economy and auditability; a testable extension is varying the irreversible-to-reversible commitment mix to find regimes where correction also reduces violations.
  • The consistency-debt accounting may transfer to other settings with priced observation and compensable actions — software rollouts, market monitoring, or automated laboratory workflows — as a design argument the paper states but does not empirically claim.

Editorial analysis

A structured set of objections, weighed in public.

Desk editor's note, referee report, simulated authors' rebuttal, and a circularity audit.

Referee Report

3 major / 6 minor

Summary. The paper introduces TRACE-RealWorld (TRW), a consistency contract for world models treated as materialized views over a physical world. The contract comprises typed and calibrated claims, consequence-conditioned adaptive refresh, a deterministic gate, dependency-scoped saga compensation, and append-only provenance. The theoretical core proves three conditional results: synchronization alone cannot drive consistency violations to zero at bounded observation cost (Theorem 1); compensation alone cannot remove the irreversible floor (Theorem 2); and their composition, under named assumptions, bounds expected violations as a sum of measurable consistency debts (Theorem 3). A model-conditional lemma (Lemma 1) supplies a closed-form deadline oracle under zero-drift Brownian dynamics with exact observations. The Flood-SAR evaluation, run under pre-registered protocols with frozen operating points and held-out seeds, measures calibration transfer, refresh trade-offs, recovery economy, the revalidation guard, and audit-layer cost. The paper is candid about what it does not establish: adaptive refresh does not dominate, localization does not reduce residual violations relative to global recovery, and several Theorem 3(iii) cells are not numerically instantiated.

Significance. If the conditional theorems are taken as the contribution, the paper is valuable: it gives the world-model community a precise data-management framing, names assumptions explicitly, and makes 'consistency debt' a record-defined measurable quantity. Strengths include the parameter-free Lemma 1 under its declared model, the pre-registration discipline with frozen operating points and held-out seeds, the artifact with reproducible traces and verified chains, and the honest reporting of null results and trade-offs. The central risk is that the advertised empirical instantiation lags the theory: the valid-deadline-oracle assumption is not measured for the deployed Flood-SAR system, and the middle terms of the Theorem 3(iii) bound are reported only as exposure proxies. The significance is therefore real but conditional; the paper reads as a strong framework paper whose end-to-end empirical bound remains partially open.

major comments (3)
  1. [§4.4, Definition 9, Lemma 1, Table 1, RQ5] Theorem 3(i) and the irreversible term E[N_irr](η+εU_cal) in Theorem 3(iii) require a valid deadline oracle under the true dynamics. Lemma 1 supplies such an oracle only for zero-drift Brownian motion, exact observations, and no intermediate evidence. Appendix B states that Flood-SAR has positive drift and is used only to test the lemma's qualitative scheduling implication, and §4.4 says the deployed guards' validity is 'an empirical assumption the evaluation checks.' But RQ5 checks only that the revalidation guard blocks superseded predictor versions; it does not estimate action-specific flip risk under the true dynamics. Thus Theorem 3(i)'s execution-consistency guarantee and the irreversible part of the violation bound are not instantiated for Flood-SAR by any measured observable. Please either measure action-specific flip risk on gate-cleared irreversible executions under the deploye
  2. [§7.4, Table 6, Theorem 3(iii)] The five-term bound of Theorem 3(iii) is not numerically evaluated: the middle three cells M_det, M_dep, M_inv are never counted. The paper reports exposure proxies (U_det, affected-set miss counts) and states 'no cell count is claimed' and 'does not yet numerically instantiate every term.' Only εU_cal and fU_restore are entered into the bound, with fU_restore=0.165 and εU_cal=0.131. Consequently the abstract's phrase 'their composition bounds expected violations' overstates what the evaluation delivers: the theorem is proved conditional, but the composition campaign does not produce a fully instantiated numerical bound. Please qualify the headline claim to 'bounds expected violations under named assumptions, with measured slack for the irreversible and restoration terms and exposure diagnostics for the remaining three cells,' or add the frozen per-violation classifier's cell counts.
  3. [§7.4, O6, A1] The selective-calibration analysis reports that all 12 strata meet identification floors but all simultaneous upper bounds exceed 0.05 and three point estimates exceed it; εU_cal=0.131 is then used in Theorem 3(iii). This is an honest measured-slack reading, but it should be stated more prominently that A1's marginal calibration precondition is not certified on the gate-cleared stratum at the declared 0.05 level, and that the theorem's irreversible term therefore inherits a considerably looser constant. This is not a fatal flaw, but it affects how a reader interprets the tightness of the advertised bound.
minor comments (6)
  1. [Abstract] 'Under explicit, measurable assumptions' overstates the state of measurement; some assumptions (oracle validity, M_det/M_dep/M_inv) are named but not measured. Suggest 'under explicit assumptions, with empirical slack reported for the measured terms.'
  2. [§4.4 / §6.4] Definition 9 and the reference to Lemma 1 appear before Lemma 1 is stated; add a forward reference and a one-sentence summary of the zero-drift/exact-observation regime to help the reader.
  3. [Table 3] The Clock column's cost of 67.800 is an order of magnitude larger than the other arms; a footnote explaining that the validity-clock baseline is an extreme reference point (and not a competitive policy) would improve readability.
  4. [§7.4, Finding 2] 'mean mission-level precision is 0.877 and 0.943' should explicitly state which value corresponds to adaptive and which to fixed refresh, to avoid ambiguity.
  5. [§7.4, Finding 3] The note that the fixed arm's 0.888 invocations 'coincides numerically' with the adaptive arm's 0.888 repair-work units is confusing; either remove the coincidence remark or rephrase to state the units clearly.
  6. [Appendix B] The statement that Flood-SAR has positive drift and is used only for qualitative scheduling implications is important and should appear near Lemma 1 or Definition 9, not only in an appendix.

Circularity Check

1 steps flagged

Central composition proof is conditional and not fitted; the main circularity burden is that load-bearing compensation assumptions A3/A5 are imported by self-citation to the authors' own SagaLLM rather than independently verified.

specific steps
  1. self citation load bearing [Section 4.2 (Assumption A5) and Section 4.4 (Scope paragraph; Theorem 3(ii)/(iii) assumptions)]
    "A5 (Isolation). Compensation executes with serial equivalence over the affected set: no interleaved commit reads or writes the set mid-repair. Inherited from SagaLLM’s isolation guarantee Chang and Geng [2025]. ... do not re-derive SagaLLM’s internal guarantees (A3 and A5 import them as cited machinery)"

    Theorem 3, the paper's central result that synchronization plus compensation bounds expected violations, depends on A3 (compensability) and A5 (isolation) as premises. Those premises are not proved or empirically established in this paper; they are imported from the authors' own SagaLLM paper. The paper explicitly says it does not re-derive these guarantees, so the compensation half of the composition theorem is supported by a same-author citation rather than by an independent derivation or verification in this manuscript. The theorem's conditional statement is internally honest, but the advertised 'composition' guarantee inherits its correctness from a self-citation chain.

full rationale

The paper's central theorems are not fitted to the measured numbers: epsilon_U_cal and f_U_restore are explicitly empirical inputs read into the bound, and Lemma 1 is a parameter-free closed form under its stated Brownian model. The insufficiency theorems (Theorems 1 and 2) are standalone analytic results, and Theorem 3(iii) is an exhaustive additive decomposition whose terms are defined from the record. The main circularity burden is the reliance on the authors' own prior work: A3/A5 are imported as 'cited machinery' from SagaLLM by the same authors, and the TRACE schema and Mnemosyne are likewise self-citations, though less load-bearing. The paper is explicit that the campaign estimates empirical slack rather than discharging assumptions, and that deployed deadline-oracle validity is an empirical assumption not supplied by the lemma; this is a missing-validation concern, not an equation-level circularity. Because the composition theorem has independent conditional content and the self-citation is load-bearing but not the sole derivation, a moderate score is appropriate.

Axiom & Free-Parameter Ledger

4 free parameters · 8 axioms · 2 invented entities

The paper is careful to separate analytic assumptions (Brownian dynamics, boundary-anchored tolerances) from deployed institutions (gate thresholds, RQ6 policy constants). The main unpaid debts are A1's selective calibration, A2's detection ceiling, A6's dependency quality, and the validity of the deadline oracle outside the lemma's exact regime. No new physical entities are introduced; the invented objects are interfaces and accounting cells.

free parameters (4)
  • RQ1 held-out operating points = adaptive eps_c=4, fixed k=600s, clock alpha=0.4
    Selected in validation from the 19-configuration development grid and frozen before test seeds; they determine the empirical trade-off results but are not fitted to test outcomes.
  • RQ6 consequence-aware adaptive policy thresholds = max ages 240/420 s; refresh triggers .055/.10; risk limits .12/.20
    Hand-set and frozen for the RQ6 campaign; the paper says no mapping to RQ1's eps_c=4 point is claimed.
  • Gate thresholds in trace_v1.yaml = support>=0.60, OOD<=0.35, calib unc<=0.30, horizon<=8, obs age<=1800s
    Declared institutional choices; they define what the gate clears and strongly shape measured coverage, staleness, and cost.
  • Isotonic calibration map (16 levels) = OOF ECE 0.00477; held-out ECE 0.00450
    Fitted to development labels and frozen; it is the empirical basis for A1's calibration precondition and is a fitted model in the pipeline.
axioms (8)
  • domain assumption dxt = sigma dWt (zero-drift Brownian substate)
    Used in Theorem 1, Lemma 1, and the Zeno analysis. Flood-SAR has positive drift, so the deployed guards' validity is an assumption, not the lemma.
  • domain assumption A1: marginal calibration validity with ECE bounded by eps_cal
    Checked on held-out horizon-1 route claims, but not per-claim conditional coverage; the gate-cleared stratum is not certified (three point estimates exceed 0.05).
  • domain assumption A2: sensing-to-authorization latency at least delta; invalidation detection within delta_d
    The physical latency floor is plausible; the detection ceiling was measured, with detection coverage 0.83-0.89, not always met.
  • domain assumption A3/A5: compensability and isolation from SagaLLM
    Imported from the authors' own prior VLDB paper; the present paper re-derives neither guarantee.
  • domain assumption A4: acyclic dependency graph D
    Enforced by the scheduler's construction, not empirically established.
  • domain assumption A6-C/A6-S: dependency completeness and soundness
    Architectural invariants tested rather than generally established; measured 2/58 affected-set recall misses and 16/58 missions with false-positive dependents.
  • domain assumption Existence of a valid deadline oracle for the true dynamics
    Definition 9 requires a valid oracle; Lemma 1 instantiates it only for zero-drift Brownian motion with exact observations. Outside that regime, validity is an empirical assumption.
  • domain assumption Boundary-anchored one-sided tolerance
    The analytic stale events are terminal exceedances toward the decision boundary, not the general two-sided discrepancy of Definition 5; this restricts the scope of the theorems.
invented entities (2)
  • Deadline oracle (Definition 9) no independent evidence
    purpose: Interface that supplies flip-risk deadlines for irreversible commitments, enabling Theorem 3(i)'s execution-consistency guarantee.
    Instantiated in closed form only for zero-drift Brownian motion; outside that regime validity is assumed, so no independent falsifiable handle is provided.
  • Consistency debt cells (Mdet, Mdep, Minv, restoration-failure cell) no independent evidence
    purpose: Partition residual violations so Theorem 3(iii) can give a bound whose terms are meant to be measurable from the record.
    The paper reports only exposure proxies; the frozen per-violation classifier that would measure the cells has not yet produced cell counts.

pith-pipeline@v1.3.0-alltime-deepseek · 37313 in / 17375 out tokens · 174328 ms · 2026-08-01T06:24:07.402033+00:00 · methodology

0 comments
read the original abstract

TRACE-RealWorld addresses a core data-management problem: maintaining an actionable materialized view over a continuously changing physical world when reads of the base state are priced, delayed, heterogeneous, and fallible. Its data-management contributions are a commitment-level validity abstraction for materialized predictions; consequence-conditioned adaptive view maintenance; transaction-style, dependency-scoped compensation for commitments invalidated after authorization; and append-only provenance supporting exact replay. The work builds directly on materialized-view maintenance, adaptive stream synchronization, transaction recovery, sagas, data freshness, and provenance. The end-to-end Flood-SAR evaluation treats sensing as physical data acquisition and measures freshness, verification cost, stale reads, recovery scope, restoration failure, and replayability through six pre-registered questions with held-out seeds. The contribution is therefore not a new predictive model, but a consistency, recovery, and accountability contract for deploying learned world representations as operational data systems.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2607.21910 by Edward Y. Chang.

Figure 1
Figure 1. Figure 1: The six-layer Flood-SAR architecture. Every arrow crossing into or out of the TRACE [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p016_1.png] view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. Figure 2: The Flood-SAR operational console over the Antioch delta geography asset. The map [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p017_2.png] view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. Figure 3: The composition read at a glance (cell means, 80 missions per cell). Refresh policy [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p026_3.png] view at source ↗
Figure 4
Figure 4. Figure 4: sketches the reasoning stack and the boundary it fixes; the operational console appears as [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p038_4.png] view at source ↗
Figure 5
Figure 5. Figure 5: Ten-bin reliability. ECE is count-weighted: 86.2% of OOF claims fall below 0.1 or [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p040_5.png] view at source ↗
Figure 6
Figure 6. Figure 6: Calibration process. Complete-seed folds prevent mission records from appearing on [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p040_6.png] view at source ↗
Figure 7
Figure 7. Figure 7: RQ1 development point estimates. The left-panel cost–staleness view favors adaptive [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p041_7.png] view at source ↗
Figure 9
Figure 9. Figure 9: RQ3 development outcome accounting; the bound [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p044_9.png] view at source ↗
Figure 10
Figure 10. Figure 10: RQ4 chain-length scaling on the stress trace. The raw-scale linear fit has [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p047_10.png] view at source ↗

discussion (0)

Sign in with ORCID, Apple, or X to comment. Anyone can read and Pith papers without signing in.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

18 extracted references · 1 canonical work pages

  1. [3]

    doi: 10.1145/3749421

    ISBN 979-8-4007-3197-6. doi: 10.1145/3749421. (First Amazon edition published in March 2024). Edward Y. Chang.System-2 Reasoning: From Semantic Anchoring to Causal Intelligence: The Path to Artificial General Intelligence, Volume II. ACM Books, 6

    doi:10.1145/3749421 2024

  2. [5]

    Edward Y

    doi: 10.14778/3750601.3750611. Edward Y. Chang, Longling Geng, and Emily J. Chang. Mnemosyne: Agentic transaction processing for validating and repairing AI-generated workflows,

    arXiv

  3. [6]

    Kurtland Chua, Roberto Calandra, Rowan McAllister, and Sergey Levine

    arXiv:2607.00269. Kurtland Chua, Roberto Calandra, Rowan McAllister, and Sergey Levine. Deep reinforcement learning in a handful of trials using probabilistic dynamics models. InAdvances in Neural Information Processing Systems 31 (NeurIPS),

    Pith/arXiv arXiv

  4. [7]

    de Oliveira Filho, Pedro R

    34 Eduardo Freitas, Assis T. de Oliveira Filho, Pedro R. X. do Carmo, Djamel Sadok, and Judith Kelner. Digital twin synchronization: towards a data-centric architecture.arXiv preprint arXiv:2601.23051,

    arXiv

  5. [8]

    Hector Garcia-Molina and Kenneth Salem. Sagas. InProceedings of the 1987 ACM SIGMOD International Conference on Management of Data, pages 249–259,

    1987

  6. [15]

    36 Paulo Tabuada

    arXiv:2605.22446. 36 Paulo Tabuada. Event-triggered real-time scheduling of stabilizing control tasks.IEEE Transac- tions on Automatic Control, 52(9):1680–1685,

    Pith/arXiv arXiv

  7. [16]

    near- boundary

    arXiv:2607.01537. 37 Appendix Contents ASupplementary Figures 38 BFormal Extensions and Theorem-Regime Checks 38 CCalibration Development Diagnostics 39 DDevelopment Operating-Point Evidence 40 ETrigger Taxonomy Reference 42 FRQ2 Mechanism Study 42 GRQ2 Trigger Diagnostics 43 HRQ3 Development Outcomes and Sensitivity 44 IRQ4 Scaling Detail 45 JFinal R-C C...

    Pith/arXiv arXiv

  8. [17]

    Pickup is kept distinct from safe-transfer completion; each stacked bar sums to 240 people. Section 7.5: observed triggers follow the passive report, structural triggers follow the registered debris closure, and normative triggers fire far from the physical boundary because the action class requires fresh evidence, so their zero expected regret is expecte...

    2079

  9. [21]

    Metric Adaptiveε c=7Fixedk=5stress TRACE versions 492 16,334 Repository size (MiB) 1.956 61.154 Append p50 / p95 / p99 .115 / .170 / .213 .111 / .172 / .231 Paired total 56.9 [56.5, 68.9] 2399.5 [2184.2, 2888.6] Verify cached / cold 40.1 / 82.6 1323.5 / 3023.7 Finding 1: per-version online cost is small, but record volume turns it into mission- scale work...

    2026

  10. [1994]

    Chang, and Yuan-Fang Wang

    Ankur Jain, Edward Y. Chang, and Yuan-Fang Wang. Adaptive stream resource management using Kalman filters. InProceedings of the 2004 ACM SIGMOD International Conference on Management of Data, pages 11–22, Paris, France,

    2004

  11. [2000]

    Best-effort cache synchronization with source cooperation

    Chris Olston and Jennifer Widom. Best-effort cache synchronization with source cooperation. In Proceedings of the 2002 ACM SIGMOD International Conference on Management of Data, pages 73–84,

    2002

  12. [2002]

    Adaptive filters for continuous queries over distributed data streams

    Chris Olston, Jing Jiang, and Jennifer Widom. Adaptive filters for continuous queries over distributed data streams. InProceedings of the 2003 ACM SIGMOD International Conference on Management of Data, pages 563–574,

    2003

  13. [2009]

    Uncertainty-aware robotic world model makes offline model-based reinforcement learning work on real robots.arXiv preprint arXiv:2504.16680,

    Chenhao Li, Andreas Krause, and Marco Hutter. Uncertainty-aware robotic world model makes offline model-based reinforcement learning work on real robots.arXiv preprint arXiv:2504.16680,

    arXiv

  14. [2018]

    2017.2769056

    doi: 10.1109/TKDE. 2017.2769056. Mido Assran, Adrien Bardes, David Fan, Quentin Garrido, Russell Howes, Mojtaba Komeili, Matthew Muckley, Ammar Rizvi, Claire Roberts, Koustuv Sinha, Artem Zholus, Sergio Arnaud, Abha Gejji, Ada Martin, Francois Robert Hogan, Daniel Dugas, Piotr Bojanowski, Vasil Khalidov, Patrick Labatut, Francisco Massa, Marc Szafraniec, ...

    arXiv 2017

  15. [2019]

    Mastering diverse domains through world models.arXiv preprint arXiv:2301.04104,

    Danijar Hafner, Jurgis Pasukonis, Jimmy Ba, and Timothy Lillicrap. Mastering diverse domains through world models.arXiv preprint arXiv:2301.04104,

    Pith/arXiv arXiv

  16. [2020]

    Cosmos world foundation model platform for physical AI.arXiv preprint arXiv:2501.03575,

    NVIDIA. Cosmos world foundation model platform for physical AI.arXiv preprint arXiv:2501.03575,

    Pith/arXiv arXiv

  17. [2025]

    URLhttps://arxiv.org/abs/2506.09985. Karl J. ˚Astr¨ om and Bo Bernhardsson. Comparison of periodic and event based sampling for first-order stochastic systems. InProceedings of the 14th IF AC World Congress,

    Pith/arXiv arXiv

  18. [2026]

    doi: 10.1145/3822380

    ISBN 979-8-4007-2804-4. doi: 10.1145/3822380. Edward Y. Chang and Emily J. Chang. TRACE: An operational reasoning schema for auditable agentic commitments,

    work page doi:10.1145/3822380