Safety, Security, and Cognitive Risks in World Models

World models -- learned internal simulators of environment dynamics -- are rapidly becoming foundational to autonomous decision-making in robotics, autonomous vehicles, and agentic AI. Yet this predictive power introduces a distinctive set of safety, security, and cognitive risks. Adversaries can corrupt training data, poison latent representations, and exploit compounding rollout errors to cause catastrophic failures in safety-critical deployments. World model-equipped agents are more capable of goal misgeneralisation, deceptive alignment, and reward hacking precisely because they can simulate the consequences of their own actions. Authoritative world model predictions further foster automation bias and miscalibrated human trust that operators lack the tools to audit. This paper surveys the world model landscape; introduces formal definitions of trajectory persistence and representational risk; presents a five-profile attacker capability taxonomy; and develops a unified threat model extending MITRE ATLAS and the OWASP LLM Top 10 to the world model stack. We provide an empirical proof-of-concept on trajectory-persistent adversarial attacks (GRU-RSSM: A_1 = 2.26x amplification, -59.5% reduction under adversarial fine-tuning; stochastic RSSM proxy: A_1 = 0.65x; DreamerV3 checkpoint: non-zero action drift confirmed). We illustrate risks through four deployment scenarios and propose interdisciplinary mitigations spanning adversarial hardening, alignment engineering, NIST AI RMF and EU AI Act governance, and human-factors design. We argue that world models must be treated as safety-critical infrastructure requiring the same rigour as flight-control software or medical devices.

FusionMind -- Improving question and answering with external context fusion

Answering questions using pre-trained language models (LMs) and knowledge graphs (KGs) presents challenges in identifying relevant knowledge and performing joint reasoning.We compared LMs (fine-tuned for the task) with the previously published QAGNN method for the Question-answering (QA) objective and further measured the impact of additional factual context on the QAGNN performance. The QAGNN method employs LMs to encode QA context and estimate KG node importance, and effectively update the question choice entity representations using Graph Neural Networks (GNNs). We further experimented with enhancing the QA context encoding by incorporating relevant knowledge facts for the question stem. The models are trained on the OpenbookQA dataset, which contains ~6000 4-way multiple choice questions and is widely used as a benchmark for QA tasks. Through our experimentation, we found that incorporating knowledge facts context led to a significant improvement in performance. In contrast, the addition of knowledge graphs to language models resulted in only a modest increase. This suggests that the integration of contextual knowledge facts may be more impactful for enhancing question answering performance compared to solely adding knowledge graphs.

Efficacy of Machine-Generated Instructions

Large "instruction-tuned" language models (i.e., finetuned to respond to instructions) have demonstrated a remarkable ability to generalize zero-shot to new tasks. Nevertheless, they depend heavily on human-written instruction data that is often limited in quantity, diversity, and creativity, therefore hindering the generality of the tuned model. We conducted a quantitative study to figure out the efficacy of machine-generated annotations, where we compare the results of a fine-tuned BERT model with human v/s machine-generated annotations. Applying our methods to the vanilla GPT-3 model, we saw that machine generated annotations were 78.54% correct and the fine-tuned model achieved a 96.01% model performance compared to the performance with human-labelled annotations. This result shows that machine-generated annotations are a resource and cost effective way to fine-tune down-stream models.