Figure 1: Information sufficiency does not imply decision-metric alignment. In each panel, the left schematic places candidate plans around the goal latent zg, while the right plot compares their real costs (horizontal) with their latent Euclidean costs (vertical). In (a), the two costs induce the same ordering. In (b), candidate 1 is truly low-cost but lies far from zg, whereas candidate 3 has higher real cost but lies close. Latent distance therefore reverses their preference even though candidate identity and rank remain decodable.
Table 1: Effect of removing SIGReg across three environments (3 evaluation seeds, mean ± std).
Success (%)
Plan-Real Sp
Task
LeWM
No-SIG
LeWM
No-SIG
PushT
49.3±12.2
2.0±2.0
+0.280
+0.031
TwoRoom
98.0±2.0
41.3±6.1
+0.549
+0.012
Reacher
82.0±2.0
10.7±8.1
+0.504
+0.001
Figure 2: Plan-Real Spearman measurement procedure. This operationalizes the candidate-order comparison in Figure 1. For each held-out pair k, the same N=64 action sequences are evaluated by the world model and the environment, yielding paired latent- and real-cost vectors. Spearman gives a pair-level rank correlation ρk; Plan–Real averages the defined correlations among n=30 sampled pairs. CEM-stage Spearman reuses the paired scoring procedure with candidates from the selected CEM population.
Table 2: Full-state Plan-Real Spearman on PushT (n=30).
Model
Plan-Real Sp
Positive pairs (out of 30)
LeWM
+0.280
24
No-SIGReg
+0.031
14
Inverse-only
+0.420
30
All-heads
+0.410
30
DA-LeWM
+0.412
29
Figure 3: Probe accuracy vs. online success on PushT (3 evaluation seeds). Probe scores are nearly identical across the four non-collapsed variants, while online success differs sharply.
Table 3: Full-state CEM-stage Spearman on PushT (n=15 held-out pairs, CEM budget ×30, top-30 elites).
Model
Random
Mid
Elite
LeWM
+0.403
+0.227
+0.036
No-SIGReg
+0.029
−0.017
−0.102
Inverse-only
+0.523
+0.261
−0.089
All-heads
+0.515
+0.249
−0.010
DA-LeWM
+0.536
+0.253
−0.011
Figure 4: Online success throughout ten training epochs (3 evaluation seeds per task, mean ± std). Shading shows one standard deviation. Annotations report DA-LeWM minus LeWM averaged over epochs (Avg. Δ) and at epoch 10 (Δ10).
Table 4: Cross-environment online success (matched training budget, 3 evaluation seeds for all variants.)
Model
PushT
Reacher
Cube
LeWM
49.3±12.2
82.0±2.0
62.7±4.2
No-SIGReg
2.0±2.0
10.7±8.1
52.7±1.9
Inverse-only
64.0±7.2
82.7±3.1
68.0±4.0
DA-LeWM
92.7±1.2
84.0±3.5
73.3±1.2
Figure 5: Global Spearman correlation between ‖Δz‖ and ‖a‖ on 38,400 held-out PushT transitions. Values are read directly from the saved diagnostic output. No synthetic points are shown.
Table 6: Information probes and online success on PushT (3 evaluation seeds). Across the four non-collapsed methods, probe scores change by less than 0.03 in R2 while online success spans 43 percentage points. No-SIGReg is shown as a degenerate sanity check.
Model
Success
State R2
Action R2
Goal R2
LeWM
49.3±12.2
0.90
0.86
0.78
No-SIGReg
2.0±2.0
−6.14
0.14
−0.67
Inverse-only
64.0±7.2
0.89
0.88
0.77
All-heads
71.3±4.2
0.89
0.88
0.78
DA-LeWM
92.7±1.2
0.90
0.89
0.80
Table 7: Elite-neighborhood local latent geometry on PushT (K=30 elites/pair, n=15 pairs). Mean ± std across pairs. CV is σ(ρ)/μ(ρ). Log spread is log(p95/p5).
Variant
ρ mean
ρ CV
Log spread
LeWM (no DS)
2.13±0.86
0.710±0.200
1.87±0.26
Inverse-only
2.90±1.08
0.714±0.172
2.03±0.36
All-heads
2.92±1.20
0.685±0.116
1.98±0.41
DA-LeWM (β=0.1)
2.90±1.04
0.767±0.118
2.12±0.20
Table 8: Paired comparisons of elite-neighborhood local geometry on PushT (n=15 pairs, same pair indices across variants). Positive numbers indicate the first variant has higher anisotropy. Parentheses report paired t. All all-heads contrasts are non-significant. Among the remaining contrasts, only DA-LeWM versus LeWM log spread is significant (p=0.026).
Contrast
ΔCV(t)
Δ log spread (t)
All-heads − Inverse-only
−0.029(−0.73)
−0.049(−0.87)
All-heads − DA-LeWM
−0.081(−1.85)
−0.135(−1.09)
All-heads − LeWM
−0.024(−0.47)
+0.119(+0.85)
DA-LeWM − Inverse-only
+0.053(+0.99)
+0.086(+0.87)
DA-LeWM − LeWM
+0.057(+0.93)
+0.255(+2.50)
Inverse-only − LeWM
+0.004(+0.06)
+0.169(+1.34)
Table 9: Corollary 1 soft-margin consistency check on PushT (N=64 random plans/pair, n=20 pairs, mean ± std across pairs). τa≥2p−1 holds for every pair.
JEPA-style latent world models can use Euclidean distance to a goal latent as the cost for model-predictive control (MPC). Strong decoding of task variables, however, does not guarantee that this particular cost ranks candidate action sequences by real task progress. We call the latter property decision-metric alignment. We introduce Plan-Real Spearman, which measures latent--real rank agreement on random plans, and CEM-stage Spearman, which measures the same agreement as cross-entropy-method (CEM) search concentrates its proposal. We analyze sufficient conditions under which latent distance preserves real-cost rankings, identifying encoder distortion, terminal rollout error, and candidate margins as the controlling quantities. Guided by the observed empirical alignment gap, DA-LeWM augments LeWM with inverse-dynamics and demonstration-conditioned goal-action heads. Across all our experiments, DA-LeWM accelerates convergence and achieves higher online success than LeWM, while probe scores remain similar. These results show that action-conditioned objectives improve the geometry used by Euclidean-cost, CEM-based latent MPC.
