# What Do Latent Predictive Vehicle Representations Retain? Measuring State, Geometry, and Local Response

arXiv: https://arxiv.org/abs/2609.32512 · HTML: https://mlsanity.com/paper/2609.32512/

## Key facts

- No citing papers in the map yet (data through 14 Oct 2026).
- Placed in Latent predictive world models, one of 11 directions in World models.
- Builds on 6 of its 34 references that are in the map.
- First posted on arXiv 26 Sep 2026.

## Placed in

- World models / [Latent predictive world models](https://mlsanity.com/wm/latent-predictive-world-models/)

## Builds on (most cited first, 6 of 6)

- [LeWorldModel: Stable End-to-End Joint-Embedding Predictive Architecture from Pixels](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2603.19312/) (2026)
- [LeJEPA: Provable and Scalable Self-Supervised Learning Without the Heuristics](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2511.08544/) (2025)
- [TD-JEPA: Latent-predictive Representations for Zero-Shot Reinforcement Learning](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2510.00739/) (2025)
- [Joint Embeddings Go Temporal](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2509.25449/) (2025)
- [What Can Latent World Models Know? Physical Parameter Identifiability in Multimodal Predictive Representations](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2607.27017/) (2026)
- [Vehicle single track modeling using physics guided neural differential equations](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2403.11648/) (2024)

## Abstract (arXiv)

Models of vehicle dynamics learned from logged states and commands complement physics-based models, and latent world models, which predict in a learned representation, are used to plan and train controllers in other domains. Vehicle controllers are usually specified in physical terms: costs, limits, and references depend on position, yaw angle, speed, and yaw rate, and the optimizer compares or differentiates predicted outcomes across nearby commands. A latent model placed in such a controller must therefore let these quantities be recovered and must change its predictions with commands as the vehicle does, and prediction error on its own latent targets measures neither. We contribute a measurement protocol for action-conditioned latent predictors with a physical readout that separately tests retention, physical-neighborhood organization, forecasting, and local response to command perturbations, using an untrained-encoder reference and three matched response paths that locate errors in the representation or the predictor. In a case study of a temporal joint-embedding predictive model trained on signals logged in IPG CarMaker, the representations retain the measured planar outputs, though an untrained encoder of the same architecture retains them slightly better; future-command input improves one-second forecasts with retention nearly unchanged; and responses to small command pulses diverge from the simulator already in latent coordinates, raising regret when choosing among nearby commands in all comparisons. Updating the predictor on responses corrects them locally at a cost in forecast accuracy. Measuring retention, forecasting, and local response separately is thus what qualifies a predictive latent as a candidate model for control, and the protocol provides the basis for its closed-loop evaluation.