Does Latent Planning Survive Point Clouds? Action-Conditioned JEPA World Models for Geometric Observations

arXiv:2608.29434v1 Announce Type: cross Abstract: JEPA world models make latent-space planning a practical route to control, but they are built almost exclusively on images. Whether latent prediction survives geometric observations is unclear: point clouds are sparse, unordered, and self-occluded, and with 0.3-15% of scene points moving, the slow-feature optimum of latent prediction compounds with the geometric shortcut of 3D self-supervision. We lift three canonical JEPA designs to point clouds, frozen-encoder, distribution-prior, and action-sensitive, and re-sense the stable-worldmodel benchmark so that only the observation differs from the image baselines. All three plan without collapse: the distribution-prior model is statistically equivalent to its re-evaluated image counterpart on every benchmark, and the action-sensitive model attains the strongest result in our controlled comparison where the most geometry moves. Probing explains why: object positions are almost perfectly linearly decodable and attention falls on the few moving points. Planning withstands heavy dropout never seen in training, though range noise defeats the thinnest scene. Geometry finally makes a commanded 3D target a natural goal interface: we construct the goal latent from the target and the current latent, at no cost in success rate, without a goal observation.

Title:Does Latent Planning Survive Point Clouds? Action-Conditioned JEPA World Models for Geometric Observations

Abstract:JEPA world models make latent-space planning a practical route to control, but they are built almost exclusively on images. Whether latent prediction survives geometric observations is unclear: point clouds are sparse, unordered, and self-occluded, and with 0.3-15% of scene points moving, the slow-feature optimum of latent prediction compounds with the geometric shortcut of 3D self-supervision. We lift three canonical JEPA designs to point clouds, frozen-encoder, distribution-prior, and action-sensitive, and re-sense the stable-worldmodel benchmark so that only the observation differs from the image baselines. All three plan without collapse: the distribution-prior model is statistically equivalent to its re-evaluated image counterpart on every benchmark, and the action-sensitive model attains the strongest result in our controlled comparison where the most geometry moves. Probing explains why: object positions are almost perfectly linearly decodable and attention falls on the few moving points. Planning withstands heavy dropout never seen in training, though range noise defeats the thinnest scene. Geometry finally makes a commanded 3D target a natural goal interface: we construct the goal latent from the target and the current latent, at no cost in success rate, without a goal observation.

Machine Learning (cs.LG); Artificial Intelligence (cs.AI); Computer Vision and Pattern Recognition (cs.CV)

arXiv:2608.29434 [cs.LG]

(or arXiv:2608.29434v1 [cs.LG] for this version)

https://doi.org/10.48550/arXiv.2608.29434 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.

analiza aiqbench

Does Latent Planning Survive Point Clouds? Action-Conditioned JEPA World Models for Geometric Observations

Subiecte conexe