Sari la conținut

Română · beta. Traducerea a fost făcută automat și este încă în curs de revizuire. Citește pagina în engleză

perspectiva aiqbenchCercetare AI

analiza aiqbench

This paper challenges the prevailing assumption in latent action models that algebraic consistency metrics reliably certify captured temporal structure. The authors demonstrate that reconstruction errors can be minimized by nuisance state encodings rather than genuine temporal dynamics, rendering current label-free certificates insufficient for validating learned representations. Consequently, the study advocates for a more rigorous validation protocol involving baseline corrections and retraining on destroyed pairings to distinguish true temporal learning from metric artifacts.
Sursă care acoperăarXiv
Ce este aceastaLectura unui model asupra articolului și a acoperirii conexe, scrisă pentru aiqbench. Nu sunt cuvintele publicației.

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

arXiv3 min de cititArticolul și perspectiva sunt în engleză.

arXiv:2609.23478v1 Announce Type: cross Abstract: 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.

Abstract: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.

Computer Vision and Pattern Recognition (cs.CV); Robotics (cs.RO)

arXiv:2609.23478 [cs.CV]

(or arXiv:2609.23478v1 [cs.CV] for this version)

https://doi.org/10.48550/arXiv.2609.23478 Focus to learn more arXiv-issued DOI via DataCite (pending registration)

arXivLabs is a framework that allows collaborators to develop and share new arXiv features directly on our website.

Both individuals and organizations that work with arXivLabs have embraced and accepted our values of openness, community, excellence, and user data privacy. arXiv is committed to these values and only works with partners that adhere to them.

Have an idea for a project that will add value for arXiv's community? Learn more about arXivLabs.

Text integral sub licența deschisă a publicației · 337 cuvinte

Subiecte conexe