What Can Latent World Models Know? Physical Parameter Identifiability in Multimodal Predictive Representations
AuthorsKaizhen Tan, Xin Xu, Siru Tao, Hanzhe Hong, Yang Feng, Heqing Du
Resources
The study shows that latent world models learn only the physical properties that both the sensors reveal and the prediction objective actively pressures them to retain.
Key results
Latent linear-probe R² for contact stiffness when touch is forecast.
Latent linear-probe R² when touch is fused into the input but not predicted.
Best approximate R² reached by deterministic prediction objectives for drag.
Episodes used in the real-robot validation across two robots.
Maximum reduction from cross-modal prediction targets.
AUC achieved after improving from the 0.70 baseline with cross-modal targets.
What the paper found
Researchers at New York University, Carnegie Mellon University, and Columbia University investigate what latent world models actually retain about physics, using X-JEPA models built on the LeJEPA and LeWorldModel recipe with SIGReg. In the controlled PokeWorld environment, visually identical objects vary in mass, drag, and contact stiffness, while a certificate-gated protocol first verifies that each parameter is recoverable from raw multimodal observations. The central result is causal: inputs determine what a model can know, but prediction targets determine what it keeps. Contact stiffness reaches R² 0.50 when touch is forecast, versus −0.02 when touch is merely fused as an input; multi-horizon action-conditioned prediction also recovers otherwise discarded visible state. Drag exposes a frontier: although raw observations certify recoverability at R² 0.89, deterministic prediction objectives plateau near 0.13, while a supervised system-identification head on the same trunk reaches 0.45. The study also finds that lighter SIGReg regularization improves latent precision and that more data helps only parameters already selected by the objective. On the real-robot RH20T dataset, spanning 4,258 episodes across two robots, cross-modal targets reduce rollout error by 29 percent and improve contact anticipation AUC from 0.70 to 0.80. Overall, the work challenges the assumption that prediction automatically produces physical understanding: objective structure, sensor bandwidth, and target design come before scale.
Original abstract
A central premise of latent world models is that predicting the future forces a representation to internalize the physics of its environment. Which physical quantities does a trained latent actually contain, and what decides this? We answer with controlled interventions in POKEWORLD, an interactive environment whose visually identical objects hide mass, drag, and contact stiffness. A certificate-gated protocol first certifies each parameter as recoverable from raw observations, then measures whether it enters the latent, so a null result can be attributed to the objective rather than to the environment. The resulting identifiability map has two organizing mechanisms and one frontier. Inputs limit what can be known, while prediction targets decide what is retained. Stiffness enters the latent only when touch is forecast ($R^2=0.50$, compared with $-0.02$ when the same signal is merely fused into the input), and under single-step prediction a vision-only latent discards even perfectly visible object state. Drag marks the frontier. It carries a recoverability certificate of 0.89 yet plateaus near 0.13 under every deterministic prediction objective we test, while a supervised head on the same trunk reaches 0.45. Parameters whose readout is slow and ratio-type under the sensed coordinates fall outside what these objectives acquire. On RH20T, an input-target factorial across scaling curves reproduces both mechanisms across two robots and 4,258 episodes. Every arm missing information or prediction pressure stays flat over a fivefold data range, and only the full multimodal objective forecasts force beyond a persistence baseline, with held-out gains that grow with scale. Objective structure determines which physical parameters a latent acquires, and additional data improves only the parameters it already acquires.
Read the original paperMore in World Models
Browse all 41 papers →4Director: Controlling Video World Models with Rigid 3D Geometry
Wei Cao, Hao Zhang, Vikram Voleti, Yuqun Wu, Mallikarjun B R, Shimon Vainer, Mark Boss, Yaoyao Liu
4Director makes video world models controllable by moving explicit 3D meshes through time while preserving realistic, consistent appearances.
EMPIRIC: Experiment-Driven Learning of Residual World Models for Robot Planning
Yichao Liang, Amber Li, Dat Nguyen, Emily Bunnapradist, Michelangelo Naim, Sreela Kodali, Matteo Merler, Bowen Li, Kiran Gopinathan, Yiyun Liu, Nikhil Pimpalkhare, Joshua B. Tenenbaum, Adrian Weller, Zenna Tavares, Tom Silver, Kevin Ellis
EMPIRIC lets robots discover missing physics through targeted experiments and use the resulting interpretable world models to plan better.
RoboCoach: World Models as Active Coaches for Compositional Robot Skills
Jiajun Liu, Yifan Chen, Yichao Liu, Jiayi Zhang, Ruoqu Chen, Shaoxuan Xie, Guocai Yao, Mengdi Xu, Sen Cui, Changshui Zhang
RoboCoach uses imagined robot failures to decide what demonstrations to request next, making long-horizon manipulation skills improve more efficiently.