Beyond Gaussian Worlds: Latent Geometry Matters for JEPAs
Not on the map. Why?
Abstract (arXiv)
Recent Joint-Embedding Predictive Architectures (JEPAs) prevent representation collapse by constraining learned representations to follow a prescribed target distribution, such as an isotropic Gaussian or the uniform distribution on a hypersphere. Klindt et al. (2026) showed that, under their Euclidean assumptions, matching a Gaussian target can recover Gaussian latent variables up to a linear transformation, and that the Gaussian is the unique distribution with this guarantee. We extend their analysis to latent variables supported on embedded Riemannian manifolds and derive conditions on the latent geometry and positive-pair dynamics under which alignment and exact distribution matching guarantee linear recovery. In particular, when the latent variables are uniformly distributed on a sphere and the representations are matched to the same spherical distribution, every optimal representation recovers the latent state up to an orthogonal transformation. This shows that Gaussian uniqueness is not a universal property of distribution-matched JEPAs: non-Euclidean latent geometries can admit other linearly recoverable distributions. We further derive an approximate-recovery bound that is strictly tighter for the spherical world than for the Gaussian world. Experiments on Gaussian, spherical, and toroidal latent spaces show that geometrically compatible targets yield better linear recovery when optimization succeeds, whereas mismatched targets distort the latent structure. This advantage persists in high-dimensional Clifford-torus worlds.
Key facts. Cited by 1 paper in the map (data through 7 Oct 2026). Builds on 16 of its 29 references that are in the map. First posted on arXiv 18 Sep 2026.
Builds on
16 of 29 references.
References · 16
- 2018DeepMind Control Suitecited by 935
- 2019Variational Autoencoders and Nonlinear ICA: A Unifying Frameworkcited by 494
- 2018Nonlinear ICA Using Auxiliary Variables and Generalized Contrastive Learningcited by 278
- 2016Unsupervised Feature Extraction by Time-Contrastive Learning and Nonlinear ICAcited by 270
- 2016A Kernelized Stein Discrepancy for Goodness-of-fit Tests and Model Evaluationcited by 236
- 2025LeJEPA: Provable and Scalable Self-Supervised Learning Without the Heuristicscited by 227
- 2021Contrastive Learning Inverts the Data Generating Processcited by 220
- 2022Contrastive and Non-Contrastive Self-Supervised Learning Recover Global and Local Spectral Embedding Methodscited by 146
- 2022EdgeNeXt: Efficiently Amalgamated CNN-Transformer Architecture for Mobile Vision Applicationscited by 121
- 2020On Linear Identifiability of Learned Representationscited by 103
- 2018Explorations in Homeomorphic Variational Auto-Encodingcited by 65
- 2026When Does LeJEPA Learn a World Model?cited by 27
4 more
- 2017Exact heat kernel on a hypersphere and its applications in kernel SVMcited by 7
- 2025KerJEPA: Kernel Discrepancies for Euclidean Self-Supervised Learningcited by 6
- 2026SPHERE-JEPA: Spherical Prediction with Homogeneous Embeddingscited by 5
- 2026Expanding SPHERE-JEPA: A Family of Statistical Regularizers for the Hyperspherecited by 3
Built on by
Citing papers per year: 2026: 1.
1 paper.