mlsanityData to 14 Oct 2026

Algebraic Consistency Alone Does Not Certify Temporal Structure in Latent Action Models

arXiv 2609.23478 ↗First posted 20 Sep 2026cs.CV cs.ROcited by 0

Not on the map. Why?

Abstract (arXiv)

Latent action models infer a code for the transition between two frames of action-free video. Recent methods regularise this code to compose additively and reverse antisymmetrically, and report order-of-magnitude reductions in the resulting errors as a label-free certificate that the code has captured temporal structure. We show that this conclusion does not follow. Reconstruction drives the decoded transition toward a difference of state features, for which both identities hold for any pairing, a solution the metric cannot distinguish from one encoding nuisance state or a coordinate convention. Across five source domains, a trained but unconstrained counterpart already achieves 83-97% of the reduction relative to an untrained anchor. The residual fold is governed as much by the decoder family as by what is learned. A constrained model retrained after its temporal pairing is destroyed still reaches, in each domain, a lower error than the unconstrained model on real data. Downstream, preserving the temporal pairing yields no consistent advantage on LIBERO-GOAL or LIBERO-SPATIAL, and across the tested arms the code's mean linear action decodability falls as the algebraic error improves. We also test the most direct repair, a violation-contrastive objective that requires the algebra to fail on destroyed pairings: in the tested configurations it yields only a marginal separation within the reconstruction budget, on training and test triples alike. We recommend a validation protocol that these methods currently lack: a baseline-corrected metric, retraining on destroyed pairings, and a seed-budget analysis.

Key facts. No citing papers in the map yet (data through 14 Oct 2026). Builds on 37 of its 39 references that are in the map. First posted on arXiv 20 Sep 2026.

Builds on

37 of 39 references.

References · 37

  1. 2015Deep Residual Learning for Image Recognitioncited by 52,096
  2. 2023DINOv2: Learning Robust Visual Features without Supervisioncited by 7,974
  3. 2023RT-2: Vision-Language-Action Models Transfer Web Knowledge to Robotic Controlcited by 3,080
  4. 2024OpenVLA: An Open-Source Vision-Language-Action Modelcited by 2,887
  5. 2023Diffusion Policy: Visuomotor Policy Learning via Action Diffusioncited by 2,838
  6. 2023LIBERO: Benchmarking Knowledge Transfer for Lifelong Robot Learningcited by 1,410
  7. 2017The "something something" video database for learning and evaluating visual common sensecited by 1,103
  8. 2018Challenging Common Assumptions in the Unsupervised Learning of Disentangled Representationscited by 941
  9. 2025V-JEPA 2: Self-Supervised Video Models Enable Understanding, Prediction and Planningcited by 809
  10. 2017Deep Reinforcement Learning that Matterscited by 754
  11. 2024Genie: Generative Interactive Environmentscited by 747
  12. 2021What Matters in Learning from Offline Human Demonstrations for Robot Manipulationcited by 725
25 more
  1. 2023VideoMAE V2: Scaling Video Masked Autoencoders with Dual Maskingcited by 528
  2. 2020A Metric Learning Reality Checkcited by 321
  3. 2022Assembly101: A Large-Scale Multi-View Video Dataset for Understanding Procedural Activitiescited by 287
  4. 2023HoloAssist: an Egocentric Human Interaction Dataset for Interactive AI Assistants in the Real Worldcited by 166
  5. 2021Rendezvous: Attention Mechanisms for the Recognition of Surgical Action Triplets in Endoscopic Videoscited by 141
  6. 2023Learning to Act without Actionscited by 121
  7. 2023CaptainCook4D: A Dataset for Understanding Errors in Procedural Activitiescited by 51
  8. 2026Learning Latent Action World Models In The Wildcited by 47
  9. 2025Latent Action Learning Requires Supervision in the Presence of Distractorscited by 44
  10. 2025What Do Latent Action Models Actually Learn?cited by 32
  11. 2026CLAP: Contrastive Latent Action Pretraining for Learning Vision-Language-Action Models from Human Videoscited by 31
  12. 2026ABot-M0.5: Unified Mobility-and-Manipulation World Action Modelcited by 30
  13. 2026ConLA: Contrastive Latent Action Learning from Human Videos for Robotic Manipulationcited by 14
  14. 2026MVP-LAM: Learning Action-Centric Latent Action via Cross-Viewpoint Reconstructioncited by 14
  15. 2026IMPACT: A Dataset for Multi-Granularity Human Procedural Action Understanding in Industrial Assemblycited by 8
  16. 2026RotVLA: Rotational Latent Action for Vision-Language-Action Modelcited by 8
  17. 2026Learning Additively Compositional Latent Actions for Embodied AIcited by 7
  18. 2026From Video to Control: A Survey of Learning Manipulation Interfaces from Temporal Visual Datacited by 5
  19. 2026No Gaussian Required: Contrastive Inverse Dynamics for JEPA World Modelscited by 5
  20. 2026What Matters for Latent Actions in Robot Learningcited by 4
  21. 2026ALAM: Algebraically Consistent Latent Action Model for Vision-Language-Action Modelscited by 3
  22. 2026ATM: Action-Consistency Transfer Matrix for Diagnosing and Improving Latent World Modelscited by 3
  23. 2026Causally Debiased Latent Action Model for Embodied Action Conditioned World Modelscited by 3
  24. 2026Why Latent Actions Fail, and How to Prevent Itcited by 2
  25. 2026DLAM: Distributional Latent Actions with Temporal Constraintscited by 1

Built on by

Not cited yet.