AEWM: Direct Agent Correction via Editing World Models

Renmin University introduces AEWM, an editing world model that classifies and revises noisy agent actions in real time, improving long-horizon task performance across search, terminal, and software engineering benchmarks without fabricating tool feedback.

PaperAgent
PaperAgent
PaperAgent
AEWM: Direct Agent Correction via Editing World Models

Renmin University proposes AEWM (Agent Editing World Model), a new paradigm that shifts the world model's focus from predicting environment responses to judging and correcting how each decision affects task progress. In long-horizon tasks, errors persist in the interaction history, polluting the task state and misleading subsequent decisions. AEWM addresses this by directly rewriting the current reasoning and action before execution.

EditAct: Judge, Revise, Execute

The EditAct framework operates in three stages:

Judge : An Action Judge classifies the proposed action as critical (advances the task), exploratory (reduces uncertainty), or noisy (detrimental). The judge sees only the history and current proposal — no future information.

Revise : Only for noisy actions, a State Revision module replaces both the current reasoning and the action. Prior history is preserved; tool feedback is never fabricated.

Execute : The real tool runs the original or revised action. The new reasoning, action, and actual feedback are appended to the history for the next step.

An important distinction: actions that do not directly solve the task but prune reasonable branches are labeled exploratory and retained. AEWM does not merely suggest; it rewrites the next step.

Training pipeline for judgment and revision, and the connection between EditAct and AEWM-RFT (Figure 2 from the paper)
Training pipeline for judgment and revision, and the connection between EditAct and AEWM-RFT (Figure 2 from the paper)

Training: Mid-Training and Supervised Fine-Tuning

AEWM is built on Qwen3.5-35B-A3B . It undergoes mid-training on 52.16B tokens across search, terminal, and software engineering domains, followed by supervised fine-tuning on 120,000 high-quality samples (half judgment, half revision). Judgment labels come from retrospective annotation of complete trajectories, but the model input excludes future steps. Revision samples are kept only if actual execution yields measurable task progress.

Experiments: Judgment Accuracy and End-to-End Gains

On a 3,000-decision Action Judge benchmark, AEWM achieves 70.5% macro-F1 , surpassing the strongest baseline by 10.6 percentage points .

Action judgment performance across three domains and overall (Figure 3 from the paper)
Action judgment performance across three domains and overall (Figure 3 from the paper)

Integrating EditAct improves average scores over the strongest baseline by 6.7 (4B), 5.2 (9B), and 3.2 (35B-A3B) points across six benchmarks. For the 35B-A3B agent, BrowseComp rises from 40.9 to 48.1 and Terminal-Bench 2.0 from 37.1 to 48.3 . These are system-level gains from plugging in an independent AEWM; online judgment and revision require extra model calls.

35B-A3B: ReAct vs. EditAct comparison (partial Figure 1, separate y-axis scales)
35B-A3B: ReAct vs. EditAct comparison (partial Figure 1, separate y-axis scales)

Ablation: Direct Editing Outperforms Prompting and Resampling

Ablation shows that directly editing the action beats two alternatives: (1) asking the agent to resample after a negative judgment, and (2) providing only a reasoning hint. Editing both reasoning and action together also outperforms editing only one component.

A concrete terminal example illustrates the mechanism: the agent fails to see the service port in an IPv4 listing and suspects startup failure. AEWM redirects the check to IPv6, after which a real RPC call verifies functionality. The problem was not that the service failed to start, but that the inspection method missed the information.

Search behavior also shifts: the mean longest consecutive search sequence drops from 16.9 to 13.2 , while distinct pages visited per question rises from 7.7 to 10.1 . Agents perform fewer repetitive keyword searches and read more pages.

Search behavior comparison (Figure 5 from the paper)
Search behavior comparison (Figure 5 from the paper)

AEWM-RFT: Internalizing Correction via Rejection Sampling Fine-Tuning

AEWM-RFT uses EditAct to generate and verify high-quality trajectories, then fine-tunes the base agent per domain. At test time, AEWM is not called. Compared to Self-RFT, scores improve by 2.2–2.6 percentage points across the three domains. Relative to the base agent, average interaction turns decrease by 30.0% on BrowseComp and 16.7% on Terminal-Bench 2.0, though Doc2Repo turns increase — not all tasks become shorter.

Scores and average interaction turns; test-time without AEWM (Table 2 from the paper)
Scores and average interaction turns; test-time without AEWM (Table 2 from the paper)

Conclusion and Resources

AEWM demonstrates that a world model need not replicate the environment; it can learn how decisions influence task progress and rewrite erroneous steps before they compound. Real tools supply evidence; the model judges and corrects.

Paper: https://arxiv.org/abs/2609.28416
Code: https://github.com/RUCAIBox/Agent-Editing-World-Model
Hugging Face: https://huggingface.co/collections/RUC-AIBOX/agent-editing-world-model
Original Source

Signed-in readers can open the original source through BestHub's protected redirect.

Sign in to view source
Republication Notice

This article has been distilled and summarized from source material, then republished for learning and reference. If you believe it infringes your rights, please contactadmin@besthub.devand we will review it promptly.

QwenReinforcement LearningBenchmark EvaluationWorld ModelsLong-Horizon TasksAEWMAgent CorrectionEditAct
PaperAgent
Written by

PaperAgent

Daily updates, analyzing cutting-edge AI research papers

0 followers
Reader feedback

How this landed with the community

Sign in to like

Rate this article

Was this worth your time?

Sign in to rate
Discussion

0 Comments

Thoughtful readers leave field notes, pushback, and hard-won operational detail here.