HyperWorld: Hypergraph-Structured State Serialization
Improves Learned Textual World Models

We model a text environment as a partially observable MDP whose underlying state is a set of ground facts $s_{t}=\{f_{1},\dots,f_{m}\}$, where each fact $f=p(e_{1},\dots,e_{k})$ applies a predicate $p$ to entities $e_{i}$ (e.g., $\mathrm{in}(\text{key},\text{chest})$, $\mathrm{locked}(\text{chest})$). Executing action $a_{t}$ yields the successor state $s_{t+1}=(s_{t}\setminus R_{t})\cup A_{t}$, where $A_{t}$ and $R_{t}$ are the added and removed fact sets. Actions outside the admissible set leave the state unchanged.

A textual world model is a function

$$f_{\theta}\bigl(\sigma(s_{t}),\,a_{t}\bigr)\;\longrightarrow\;\begin{cases}(A_{t},\,R_{t})&\text{if }a_{t}\text{ is admissible in }s_{t},\\ \texttt{INFEASIBLE}&\text{otherwise,}\end{cases}$$

(1)

where $\sigma(\cdot)$ is a serializer that renders the symbolic state as text. The output vocabulary (canonical fact strings) is fixed across serializers, so the choice of $\sigma$ is the only manipulated variable.

Given the same fact set $s$, we compare four serializers (Figure 2):

Raw ($\sigma_{\mathrm{raw}}$): the textual observation produced by the environment (room description and inventory). This is what a purely text-based world model sees.

Sentences ($\sigma_{\mathrm{sent}}$): each fact rendered as an independent natural-language sentence (“The key is in the chest.”). A flat control condition that carries exactly the facts, with no relational structure.

Triples ($\sigma_{\mathrm{tri}}$): each fact rendered as a binary triple $(\text{head},\text{relation},\text{tail})$; unary predicates become $(\text{entity},\texttt{is},\text{predicate})$. This is the pairwise-graph representation used by graph-based world models [2, 3, 8].

Hyper ($\sigma_{\mathrm{hyp}}$, ours): facts are grouped into entity-centred $n$-ary units by a deterministic procedure. Each unit is a hyperedge over several entities, rendered on one line:

[chest | at: kitchen | state: closed, locked | contains: coin | key: rusty key]

The grouping covers the player (location and inventory), every object (location, unary states, contents, key bindings), and room connectivity (exits); a catch-all unit preserves any remaining facts, keeping the rendering lossless.

All fact-based serializers ($\sigma_{\mathrm{sent}},\sigma_{\mathrm{tri}},\sigma_{\mathrm{hyp}}$) are bijective renderings of the same fact set: they contain identical information and differ only in how facts are grouped on the page. This isolates structure as the experimental variable.

Transitions are collected from procedurally generated games by mixing goal-directed walkthrough trajectories with $\epsilon$-random branches, which yields diverse on-path and off-path dynamics. Infeasible actions are sampled from syntactically valid commands that are not admissible in the current state, providing negatives for feasibility learning.

The world model is a pretrained decoder-only LM fine-tuned with LoRA on the unified objective of Eq. (1), serialized as

STATE: $\sigma(s_{t})$ ACTION: $a_{t}$ EFFECTS: ADD: … | REMOVE: …

with cross-entropy on the target tokens only. Identical targets, hyperparameters, and data across serializers guarantee a controlled comparison.

To test whether better dynamics translate into better behaviour, we use the learned world model inside a greedy planner on live, unseen games. At each step, for every admissible command $a$, the planner queries the world model for imagined effects $(\hat{A},\hat{R})$ and scores

$$\mathrm{score}(a)=w_{g}\,\Delta_{\mathrm{goal}}(a)+w_{f}\,\mathbb{1}[\hat{\text{feasible}}]+w_{n}\,\mathbb{1}[\text{novel imagined state}]+w_{c}\,c(a),$$

(2)

where $\Delta_{\mathrm{goal}}$ is the imagined gain in satisfied goal facts, and $c(a)$ is the model’s mean token log-probability, a confidence signal that down-weights unreliable imaginations. The action with the highest score is executed. The planner is deliberately simple: it isolates the quality of the learned dynamics rather than the sophistication of search.

Table 1 reports effect exact match (EM) and fact-level F1 on test-IID and test-OOD splits across three model scales (bold = best per column). hyper is strongest overall at 0.5B and on most OOD columns, but it is not uniformly dominant: at 3B IID, triples reach the highest EM (0.956 vs. 0.952 for hyper), and sentences and triples tie hyper on IID fact F1 (0.980 vs. 0.984). The clearest advantage appears at 1.5B on OOD data, where hyper reaches EM 0.914 and fact F1 0.939—7.6 and 6.6 points above triples and well above raw text (EM 0.603). Under distribution shift, degradation also differs: at 1.5B, raw falls from 0.715 to 0.603 EM (IID$\to$OOD), whereas hyper falls only from 0.936 to 0.914; sentences actually exceeds triples on OOD EM at this scale (0.850 vs. 0.838), but both remain below hyper.

A complementary pattern emerges for feasibility detection (Table 2). Raw observations achieve the highest feasibility accuracy (0.965 IID / 0.944 OOD at 1.5B) because environment text mentions visible objects directly. Independent sentences and triples degrade feasibility sharply at 0.5B ($\sim$0.72 accuracy) by scattering joint preconditions across lines. hyper recovers much of this signal (0.944 / 0.913 at 1.5B) while predicting effects more accurately than fact-based flat or pairwise renderings in the same setting—a favorable trade-off, though not the best on feasibility alone.

At 3B, all fact-based serializers improve substantially. hyper achieves the best OOD fact F1 (0.975) and OOD EM (0.939), but IID EM favors triples. This suggests that higher-capacity models partially compensate for fragmented structure, narrowing—without eliminating—the benefit of hyperedge grouping.

Three random seeds at 1.5B confirm stability: OOD EM for hyper is $0.914\pm 0.004$ (mean$\pm$std), versus $0.826\pm 0.073$ for sentences and $0.805\pm 0.038$ for triples.

Figure 3 varies the training fraction at 1.5B. With only 10% of training data, all representations perform similarly on OOD EM ($\sim$0.63–0.64), so structure alone is insufficient in the extreme low-data regime. With 25% data, hyper reaches OOD EM 0.824, clearly above triples (0.703) and sentences (0.709); on IID EM at the same fraction, however, sentences (0.885) still exceed hyper (0.836). Hyperedge grouping therefore helps most on harder OOD generalization once a modest amount of training data is available, but does not dominate every metric at every budget.

We apply predicted deltas iteratively along recorded trajectories and measure state-set F1 at horizons 1–5. Figure 4 shows modest but consistent rollout gains for hyper at 1.5B: at horizon 5 on test-OOD, state F1 is 0.989 for hyper versus 0.980 for sentences and 0.983 for triples. Better single-step prediction therefore carries over, albeit with small margins, to multi-step imagination.

Table 3 evaluates the learned world models inside a greedy planner on 30 held-out test-IID games. With the default scoring rule, hyper attains 76.7% success, clearly above random (23.3%), sentences (53.3%), and triples (56.7%), and uses fewer steps on average (14.3 vs. 22.9–34.3). Better learned dynamics therefore transfer to downstream task completion under matched search.

Removing the confidence term $w_{c}\,c(a)$ in Eq. (2) raises hyper success further to 93.3% (9.9 steps), indicating that the default confidence weight is miscalibrated rather than helpful. We report both settings for transparency and leave calibrated confidence–planning integration to future work.

Consider a test game requiring: take rusty key, unlock chest with rusty key, take gold coin. In the initial state the planner must choose among admissible commands including open chest (infeasible while locked) and go east (irrelevant).

The raw world model often predicts feasible effects for open chest because the observation mentions the chest, yielding misleading positive imaginations. The triples model represents locked(chest) and match(rusty key, chest) on separate lines; it may predict partial unlock effects without jointly satisfying all preconditions. The hyper model renders [chest | state: closed, locked | key: rusty key] as one unit and correctly predicts INFEASIBLE for open chest and ADD: none | REMOVE: locked(chest) for unlock chest with rusty key, guiding the planner along the shortest successful path in 10 steps rather than exhausting the 40-step budget.