World models aim to construct internal rep-1 resentations of the environment that support 2 predicting how the world evolves and enable 3 agents to plan actions through "imagination." 4 With rapid progress across game simulation, 5 autonomous driving, and robotics, the field 6 remains fragmented: different communities 7 adopt varying representations, interaction ab-8 stractions, and transition methods, leading to 9 distinct bottlenecks in physical consistency, 10 interaction reliability, and long-horizon sta-11 bility. In this survey, we adopt a minimal tran-12 sition formalism, s t+1 ∼ p θ (• | s t , a t), as a 13 unifying analytical lens and organize modern 14 world models around three irreducible design 15 dimensions: state representation (s t), action 16 representation (a t), and transition modeling 17 (p θ). Under this taxonomy, we examine (i) 18 2D video representations versus emerging 19 3D/4D state spaces and the trade-offs in scale, 20 metric structure, and latent physical factors; 21 (ii) semantic actions versus executable ac-22 tions and the tension between expressive spec-23 ification and reliable control; and (iii) im-24 plicit transition methods learned from data 25 versus explicit transition methods driven by 26 human-specified physical priors. Building 27 on these bottleneck-driven comparisons, we 28 further synthesize three research directions 29 motivated by current limitations: Active In-30 tervention Loop, Physical Laws Internaliza-31 tion, and Progressive Structural Integration. 32 Overall, this survey provides a consistent an-33 alytical vocabulary and an organized frame-34 work that explains how design choices affect 35 the capabilities and limitations of contempo-36 rary world models, and outlines promising 37 improvements for advancing Interactive Cog-38 nitive World Models. 39 verifiability, and robustness under distribution shift. 93 Building on this structured analysis, we further syn-94 thesize the bottlenecks revealed across the three dimen-95 sions and discuss promising research directions that are 96 strongly suggested by current limitations, including Ac-97 tive Intervention Loop, Physical Laws Internalization, 98 and Progressive Structural Integration. Overall, the 99 contribution of this survey is not to prescribe a single 100 implementation route, but to provide a consistent ana-101 lytical vocabulary and a bottleneck-driven organization 102 of the field that clarifies how different technical choices 103 shape the capabilities and limits of modern world mod-104 els, and outlines promising directions for advancing 105 toward Interactive Cognitive World Models. 106 2 Related Work & Motivation 107 The rapid progress of world models has prompted sev-108 eral recent surveys, each offering valuable summaries 109 from different viewpoints. Broad reviews [Zhu et al., 110 2024; Ding et al., 2025] cover general-purpose world 111 models and organize the literature by model families, 112 training pipelines, or downstream domains such as 113 video generation, driving, and agent learning. In paral-114 lel, more specialized surveys focus on particular desider-115 ata or modalities, including physical consistency in 116 video generation [Lin et al., 2025] and native 3D/4D 117 representations such as occupancy grids and LiDAR-118 based state spaces [Kong et al., 2025]. Together, these 119 works provide useful entry points and taxonomies for a 120 fast-growing area. Despite these contributions, a persis-121 tent challenge remains: existing surveys often rely on 122 domain-or architecture-centered groupings, making it 123 difficult to compare models across communities using 124 a consistent set of analytical variables, or to connect di-125 vergent failure modes to the underlying design choices 126 that produce them. 127 This survey addresses this gap by adopting the min-128 imal transition formalism in Eq. (1) as a unifying per-129 spective. Rather than introducing another domain-130 driven taxonomy, we organize the literature around 131 three irreducible design dimensions-state represen-132 tation (s t), action representation (a t), and transition 133 modeling (p θ)-and use this lens to analyze how differ-134 ent technical routes lead to distinct limitations. Build-135 ing on these bottleneck-driven comparisons, we further 136 synthesize a set of non-exhaustive research directions 137 that are strongly suggested by current evidence, aiming 138 to clarify what it would take for world models to sup-139 port stable representations, intentional interaction, and 140 reliable long-horizon dynamics in open-world settings. 141 3 State representation 142 The world state (s t) in the transition formalism (Eq. 1) 143