Internal world models (WMs) enable agents to understand the world’s state and predict transitions, serving as the basis for advanced deliberative reasoning.Recent large Vision-Language Models (VLMs), such as GPT-4o and Gemini, exhibit potential as general-purpose WMs. While the latest studies have evaluated and shown limitations in specific capabilities such as visual understanding, a systematic evaluation of VLMs’ fundamental WM abilities remains absent. Drawing on comparative psychology and cognitive science, we propose a two-stage framework that assesses **perception** (visual, spatial, temporal, quantitative, and motion) and **prediction** (mechanistic simulation, transitive inference, compositional inference) to provide an atomic evaluation of VLMs as WMs. Guided by this framework, we introduce **WM-ABench**, a large-scale benchmark comprising 23 fine-grained evaluation dimensions across 6 diverse simulated environments with controlled counterfactual simulations. Through 660 experiments on 15 latest commercial and open-source VLMs, we find that these models exhibit striking limitations in basic world modeling abilities. For instance, all models perform at near-random accuracy when distinguishing motion trajectories. Additionally, they lack disentangled understanding—e.g., they tend to believe blue objects move faster than green ones. More rich results and analyses reveal significant gaps between VLMs and human-level world modeling.

Neural language models (LMs) can be used to evaluate the truth of factual statements in two ways: they can be either queried for statement probabilities, or probed for internal representations of truthfulness. Past work has found that these two procedures sometimes disagree, and that probes tend to be more accurate than LM outputs. This has led some researchers to conclude that LMs “lie’ or otherwise encode non-cooperative communicative intents. Is this an accurate description of today’s LMs, or can query–probe disagreement arise in other ways? We identify three different classes of disagreement, which we term confabulation, deception, and heterogeneity. In many cases, the superiority of probes is simply attributable to better calibration on uncertain answers rather than a greater fraction of correct, high-confidence answers. In some cases, queries and probes perform better on different subsets of inputs, and accuracy can further be improved by ensembling the two.

This paper presents our system for the single- and multi-word lexical complexity prediction tasks of SemEval Task 1: Lexical Complexity Prediction. Text comprehension depends on the reader’s ability to understand the words present in it; evaluating the lexical complexity of such texts can enable readers to find an appropriate text and systems to tailor a text to an audience’s needs. We present our model pipeline, which applies a combination of embedding-based and manual features to predict lexical complexity on the CompLex English dataset using various tree-based and linear models. Our method is ranked 27 / 54 on single-word prediction and 14 / 37 on multi-word prediction.