Anisotropic Representations Improve Planning in JEPA World Models
On the map: World models → Latent predictive world models
Abstract (arXiv)
Latent world models learn action-conditioned dynamics in representation space and often score candidate actions by Euclidean distance to a goal representation. Joint training typically regularizes the representation to prevent collapse, but the resulting representation geometry also determines how terminal errors are weighted during planning. We show that accurate prediction and noncollapsed representations do not guarantee a task-aligned latent planning cost: isotropic Gaussian regularization can induce a geometry that ranks feasible outcomes differently from the task cost. To address this mismatch, we introduce AnisoWM with LambdaReg, which replaces the fixed isotropic Gaussian target with a learnable diagonal covariance under fixed-trace and anisotropy constraints. The prediction objective, predictor architecture, and Euclidean planner remain unchanged; the target is used only during training. Our analysis characterizes the prediction-driven allocation of target variance, its dependence on the training distribution, and the conditions under which the induced metric reduces planning regret. Across four visual control environments, AnisoWM improves planning success over LeWorldModel in all four. Its latent planning cost also shows better agreement with task outcomes. Project website: https://rkdrn79.github.io/AnisoWM-page/
Key facts. No citing papers in the map yet (data through 7 Oct 2026). Placed in Latent predictive world models, one of 11 directions in World models. Builds on 15 of its 29 references that are in the map. First posted on arXiv 29 Sep 2026.
Builds on
15 of 29 references.
Closest ancestors · 9
Same direction, newest first
- 2026LpWM: A Case for Sparse Representations in World Models24 Aug
- 2026Decision-Metric Alignment in Latent World Models: Diagnostics and Action-Conditioned Objectives for MPC Planning19 Aug
- 2026SCALE: State-Calibrated Latent Embeddings for JEPA Planning in the Right Geometry17 Aug
- 2026Temporally Centered SIGReg Improves LeWorldModel Representations for Robot Policy Learning29 Jul
- 2026Fast LeWorldModel24 Jun
- 2026When Does LeJEPA Learn a World Model?25 May
- 2026World Model Control by Trajectory Reachability Metrics21 May
- 2026Predictive but Not Plannable: RC-aux for Latent World Models8 May
- 2026LeWorldModel: Stable End-to-End Joint-Embedding Predictive Architecture from Pixels13 Mar
Other references · 6
- 2025V-JEPA 2: Self-Supervised Video Models Enable Understanding, Prediction and Planningcited by 738
- 2025LeJEPA: Provable and Scalable Self-Supervised Learning Without the Heuristicscited by 227
- 2026Rectified LpJEPA: Joint-Embedding Predictive Architectures with Sparse and Maximum-Entropy Representationscited by 8
- 2025KerJEPA: Kernel Discrepancies for Euclidean Self-Supervised Learningcited by 6
- 2026Radial-VCReg: More Informative Representation Learning Through Radial Gaussianizationcited by 4
- 2026Beyond Isotropy in JEPAs: Hamiltonian Geometry and Symplectic Predictioncited by 2
Built on by
Not cited yet.
Similar, not cited
Close in wording, no citation either way
- 2026Toward Physically Grounded JEPA World Models for Goal-Conditioned Robotic Planning
- 2026Temporal-Distance JEPA: Plan-Aware Representation Learning for Latent World Model Predictive Control
- 2026Spectral-Target Physical Latent Structuring for JEPA-Style World Models
- 2026H-JEPA: End-to-End Learning of Hierarchical World Models for Visual Planning
- 2026The Planning Limits of Latent World Models
- 2026Beyond a single latent space: a dual-latent world model for long-horizon planning
- 2026Does Latent Planning Survive Point Clouds? Action-Conditioned JEPA World Models for Geometric Observations
- 2026Latent Geometry Beyond Search: Amortizing Planning in World Models