mlsanityData to 14 Oct 2026

One-Step Prediction Fidelity Is a Poor Proxy for Planning Performance in JEPA World Models

arXiv 2610.19375 ↗First posted 14 Oct 2026cs.LGcited by 0

On the map: World models → Latent predictive world models also fits: Latent dynamics models and model-based RL

Abstract (arXiv)

Latent world models are routinely selected, checkpointed and ablated on one-step prediction loss, on the assumption that a model which predicts the next latent better is a better model. In model-based RL this assumption is known to be unreliable; we ask whether it also fails for latent world models, where the training target is the model's own embedding and the loss is not expressed in interpretable units. We introduce a frozen-decoder protocol reporting one-step error in physical units, decomposed into the part already present in the encoder's representation and the part the predictor adds. Applying it to a recent end-to-end JEPA world model across three continuous-control environments, we move the metric by fine-tuning and measure goal-conditioned planning on the same checkpoints, with three training seeds and paired planning seeds throughout. Within one environment, a per-epoch ladder shows the relationship saturating after a single epoch: the first epoch improves fidelity by 32% and planning by 4.4 pp, but across the fifteen checkpoints that follow -- a further 15% fidelity improvement, monotone in every training seed -- the correlation between one-step error and planning success is r = -0.010. This is not a task-ceiling artifact: stratifying by a model-independent measure of training-data support, planning in the lowest-support stratum starts at 80%, leaving ample headroom, and is nonetheless flat from epoch 1 onward. Across environments the exchange rate is equally unstable: a 93% fidelity reduction on TwoRoom yields -0.7 pp of planning, while a 40% reduction on PushT yields +4.9 pp [+1.1, +8.9]. All results replicate under a decoder-free measure, latent drift. We also show that a matched continued-training control absorbs the entire fidelity gain we had attributed to an auxiliary objective.

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 17 of its 25 references that are in the map. First posted on arXiv 14 Oct 2026.

Builds on

17 of 25 references.

Closest ancestors · 4

Same direction, newest first

  1. 2026LeWorldModel: Stable End-to-End Joint-Embedding Predictive Architecture from Pixels13 Mar
  2. 2023Self-Supervised Learning from Images with a Joint-Embedding Predictive Architecture19 Jan
  3. 2022Joint Embedding Predictive Architectures Focus on Slow Features20 Nov
  4. 2022Temporal Difference Learning for Model Predictive Control9 Mar

Other references · 13

  1. 2019Dream to Control: Learning Behaviors by Latent Imaginationcited by 1,653
  2. 2021VICReg: Variance-Invariance-Covariance Regularization for Self-Supervised Learningcited by 1,057
  3. 2023TD-MPC2: Scalable, Robust World Models for Continuous Controlcited by 512
  4. 2024Navigation World Modelscited by 272
  5. 2025LeJEPA: Provable and Scalable Self-Supervised Learning Without the Heuristicscited by 254
  6. 2024OGBench: Benchmarking Offline Goal-Conditioned RLcited by 238
  7. 2025Training Agents Inside of Scalable World Modelscited by 136
  8. 2020Objective Mismatch in Model-based Reinforcement Learningcited by 96
  9. 2020The Value Equivalence Principle for Model-Based Reinforcement Learningcited by 94
  10. 2025Learning from Reward-Free Offline Data: A Case for Planning with Latent Dynamics Modelscited by 89
  11. 2025Intuitive physics understanding emerges from self-supervised pretraining on natural videoscited by 70
  12. 2025IntPhys 2: Benchmarking Intuitive Physics Understanding In Complex Synthetic Environmentscited by 52
1 more
  1. 2025Dual Perspectives on Non-Contrastive Self-Supervised Learningcited by 4

Built on by

Not cited yet.

Similar, not cited

Close in wording, no citation either way

  1. 2026JEPA-TTT: Persistent Test-Time Training of Latent World Models for Planning under Dynamics Shifts
  2. 2026When Low Prediction Error Misleads Planning: Diagnosing Representation, Dynamics, and Decision Failures in Latent World Models
  3. 2026Toward Physically Grounded JEPA World Models for Goal-Conditioned Robotic Planning
  4. 2026Anisotropic Representations Improve Planning in JEPA World Models
  5. 2026Action-Consequence Alignment for Reliable Planning and Self-Improving in Latent World Models
  6. 2026The Planning Limits of Latent World Models
  7. 2026ATLAS: Aligned Transport of Latent Structure for Reliable World Model Planning
  8. 2026Beyond the Next Step: Variable-Length Latent World Models for Long-Horizon Planning