Twin Rollouts: Noise-Coupled Counterfactual Branching in Interactive Video World Models

Interactive video world models generate rollouts autoregressively under an action stream, yet they are trained and evaluated almost exclusively on factual prediction. We study counterfactual generation inside the rollout: given a trajectory the model has itself generated, what would have happened had the actions differed from step t* onward? We formalize noise-coupled twin rollouts --- a factual and a counterfactual branch sharing the generated prefix and the future exogenous noise sequence, diverging only in the action stream at an intervention point. Because the factual branch is self-generated, its exogenous noise is known exactly: the abduction step of Pearl's counterfactual procedure is exact by construction, sidestepping the approximate-inversion problem faced by editing-based pipelines. Noise coupling further turns the minimal-change principle into a per-sample verifiable property: we define a spatiotemporal locality metric that penalizes divergence outside the causal descendants of the intervention, computable against simulator ground truth without a learned judge. Forking the simulator state at t* yields ground-truth counterfactual re-renders, which we use as verifiable rewards for post-training. This note establishes the formal framework, metric definitions, and positioning; experiments are forthcoming.

When Skills Meet Safety: Benchmarking and Characterizing the Adaptive Jailbreak Robustness of Skill-Merged LLMs

Model merging has become the default way to give an aligned language model new skills without retraining: a practitioner folds task vectors from math, code, or domain specialists into a safety-aligned base using task arithmetic, TIES, or DARE. This convenience is known to carry a safety cost, but almost all of that evidence rests on static refusal tests: fixed harmful prompts scored for compliance. We argue this is misleading. Because safety alignment is "shallow," concentrated in the first few generated tokens, a merged model's static refusal can stay clean while a real adaptive attack still breaks it. We introduce SkillSafe-Bench, a controlled benchmark that scores skill-merged models on static refusal, adaptive jailbreak robustness, and capability retention under a conservative two-judge AND rule. Across six open-weight bases (five families, two scales), static safety does not predict robustness to attack: under a semantic template attack, safe-looking merges on the fragile bases (both Qwen scales and Gemma) are jailbroken 60-76% of the time while others (Llama, Phi-4) stay robust. We further show the static effect of merging is base-conditional, characterize same-recipe abliteration-style safety erosion through a data-free geometric signal (the overlap of a task vector with a safety subspace), and outline SubSafe-Merge, which projects this overlap away to remove that erosion at held capability. Adaptive evaluation is not optional for merged LLMs: the models that most need it look safe under static screening.