GlobeBench: Evaluating Text-Based World Model Capabilities for Scalable Environment Simulations
Abstract
GlobeBench introduces a standardized benchmark of 1,632 tasks across five domains to evaluate text-based world models, revealing that current LLMs struggle with propagating action effects across dependent objects.
Text-based world models have recently shown potential to simulate complex RL environment state transitions for a diverse set of use cases. However, no standardized benchmark exists to compare, study and improve these models. Through this paper, we attempt to solve this problem by building GlobeBench, a novel benchmark with 1,632 tasks across five separate domains and nineteen simulation skills. The tasks check whether models can predict the environment's response to a specific action given the full agent trajectory by understanding earlier state changes, following environment rules, and predicting the effects of actions on both related and unrelated objects. We compare the predicted environment response with an execution-derived reference, using a hybrid architecture with both deterministic gates and a semantic judge. Among 20 general-purpose LLMs and specialized text world models, GPT-6 Astra achieves the highest task success rate at 49.57%. We find that model accuracy decreases as actions affect a larger portion of the environment. Specifically, when the agent's changes must propagate to dependent objects, task success drops to an average of 5.1% across all 20 models. Although model strengths differ across tasks, 631 tasks remain unsolved by any model, suggesting a significant gap in general LLM capabilities as a world model.
Community
We introduce GlobeBench, a benchmark for evaluating LLMs’ ability to simulate stateful textual RL environments and predict the consequences of actions in said environments. Across 1,632 tasks, 20 models, and five domains, we find that even the best model (GPT-6 Astra) achieves only 49.57%, with performance dropping to 5.1% when actions trigger cascading changes. These results reveal fundamental limitations in models’ ability to maintain consistent world states and reason about action consequences.
Models citing this paper 0
No model linking this paper
Datasets citing this paper 0
No dataset linking this paper
Spaces citing this paper 0
No Space linking this paper
Collections including this paper 0
No Collection including this paper