What Makes a Latent Space Shared? Direct and Recoverable Compatibility in Motion VAEs
Not on the map. Why?
Abstract (arXiv)
A shared latent space is often assumed to make representations from different schemas directly interchangeable, yet sharing parameters, dimensionality, or a prior does not determine how corresponding instances are expressed in latent coordinates. We show that this assumption conflates recoverable correspondence, direct compatibility, and decoder reuse. In a controlled multi-schema motion VAE on HumanML3D, even identical inputs yield only 5.9--17.7% raw Recall@1 and 0.221--0.484 paired-token cosine, despite correspondence being almost perfectly recoverable after linear calibration. Cycle consistency strengthens recoverability but still leaves direct retrieval and token agreement near zero. In contrast, only 64 paired clips raise raw Recall@1 to 88.4--90.3% and token cosine to approximately 0.82, making most post-hoc alignment unnecessary, although crossed decoding remains substantially worse than native reconstruction. We further find that reducing measured marginal discrepancy does not imply schema invariance. These results show that a shared backbone or prior does not ensure directly compatible latent coordinates, while limited paired correspondence can substantially improve direct compatibility in the tested setting.
Key facts. No citing papers in the map yet (data through 14 Oct 2026). Builds on 25 of its 37 references that are in the map. First posted on arXiv 12 Oct 2026.
Builds on
25 of 37 references.
References · 25
- 2018Representation Learning with Contrastive Predictive Codingcited by 7,777
- 2015Domain-Adversarial Training of Neural Networkscited by 3,044
- 2014Unsupervised Domain Adaptation by Backpropagationcited by 1,917
- 2019Similarity of Neural Network Representations Revisitedcited by 1,755
- 2015Learning Transferable Features with Deep Adaptation Networkscited by 1,329
- 2019AMASS: Archive of Motion Capture as Surface Shapescited by 1,236
- 2022Human Motion Diffusion Modelcited by 1,080
- 2018Challenging Common Assumptions in the Unsupervised Learning of Disentangled Representationscited by 941
- 2017Unsupervised Image-to-Image Translation Networkscited by 603
- 2023T2M-GPT: Generating Human Motion from Textual Descriptions with Discrete Representationscited by 588
- 2019Variational Autoencoders and Nonlinear ICA: A Unifying Frameworkcited by 503
- 2023MoMask: Generative Masked Modeling of 3D Human Motionscited by 400
13 more
- 2018Insights on representational similarity in neural networks with canonical correlationcited by 324
- 2021Self-Supervised Learning with Data Augmentations Provably Isolates Content from Stylecited by 312
- 2022Relative representations enable zero-shot latent space communicationcited by 191
- 2020Skeleton-Aware Networks for Deep Motion Retargetingcited by 124
- 2020On Linear Identifiability of Learned Representationscited by 105
- 2018Neural Kinematic Networks for Unsupervised Motion Retargettingcited by 88
- 2018Variational Autoencoders Pursue PCA Directions (by Accident)cited by 85
- 2017CycleGAN, a Master of Steganographycited by 65
- 2023Identifiability Results for Multimodal Contrastive Learningcited by 61
- 2023Latent Space Translation via Semantic Alignmentcited by 52
- 2023Pose-aware Attention Network for Flexible Motion Retargeting by Body Partcited by 10
- 2026Multi-Way Representation Alignmentcited by 5
- 2026Bridging Functional and Representational Similarity via Usable Informationcited by 2
Built on by
Not cited yet.