Learning latent actions from action-free video has emerged as a powerful paradigm for scaling up controllable world model learning. Latent actions provide a natural interface for users to iteratively generate and manipulate videos. However, most existing approaches rely on monolithic inverse and forward dynamics models that learn a single latent action to control the entire scene, and therefore struggle in complex environments where multiple entities act simultaneously. This paper introduces Factored Latent Action Model (FLAM), a factored dynamics framework that decomposes the scene into independent factors, each inferring its own latent action and predicting its own next-step factor value. This factorized structure enables more accurate modeling of complex multi-entity dynamics and improves video generation quality in action-free video settings compared to monolithic models. Based on experiments on both simulation and real-world multi-entity datasets, we find that FLAM outperforms prior work in prediction accuracy and representation quality, and facilitates downstream policy learning, demonstrating the benefits of factorized latent action models.
Figures & tables
Figure 1: In multi-entity scenarios, (left) such as an intersection with three road users: (middle) a vanilla latent action model encodes the scene change with a single latent action of dimension d , which makes learning challenging as this latent action space needs to model all ∣A∣K joint action combinations. (right) In contrast, FLAM decomposes the state into K factors, each with its own latent action of dimension Kd . Additionally, we assume all latent actions share the same space (i.e., with the same prior / codebook), which reduces the learning problem to modeling the ∣A∣ actions per factor rather than their ∣A∣K joint combinations.
Figure 2: Latent action model.
Figure 3: Two training stages of FLAM. (a) A VQ-VAE is pretrained to extract features for latent action model learning. (b) FLAM infers latent actions and makes predictions for each factor independently, with all modules trained jointly to minimize the prediction error.
Dataset
Metric
FLAM (ours)
AdaWorld
Genie
World Model
PlaySlot
SlotFormer
Recon
Average
PSNR ( ↑ )
34.9
24.7
28.1
N/A
29.1
19.9
37.1
SSIM ( ↑ )
0.890
0.862
0.859
N/A
0.847
0.814
0.909
LPIPS ( ↓ )
0.051
0.096
0.091
N/A
0.120
0.223
0.035
FVD ( ↓ )
419.6
749.5
717.5
N/A
858.0
1597.7
215.1
MultiGrid
PSNR ( ↑ )
56.5
24.0
33.9
56.1
56.5
24.9
56.5
SSIM ( ↑ )
0.944
0.909
0.933
0.943
0.944
0.912
0.944
Table 1: Prediction performance of all methods on simulation and real-world datasets. Recon reports the reconstruction quality of the pretrained VQ-VAE, serving as a reference upper bound for prediction performance.
FLAM(ours)
PlaySlot
SlotFormer
Random
D ( ↑ )
0.91
0.81
0.85
0.32
C ( ↑ )
0.91
0.81
0.85
0.30
I ( ↑ )
0.93
0.86
0.90
0.10
Table 2: Factor-agent correspondence in the MultiGrid environments, evaluated by DCI (disentanglement, completeness, informativeness) metrics.
K
2
4
8
16
PSNR ( ↑ )
53.4
56.5
56.5
56.5
SSIM ( ↑ )
0.943
0.944
0.944
0.944
LPIPS ( ↓ )
4e-4
3e-4
3e-4
3e-4
FVD ( ↓ )
3.62
2.87
2.80
2.73
Table 3: Prediction performance of FLAM on the MultiGrid dataset with 4 agents and different number of factors K .
Dataset
FLAM
vanilla BC
random
Bigfish (1k)
1.8
1.0
0.9
Bigfish (10k)
8.8
3.6
Starpilot (1k)
1.8
1.9
1.1
Starpilot (10k)
9.1
6.4
Table 4: Behavior cloning policy performance, evaluated by mean episodic return.
Appendix figures & tables15 assets
Supplementary material from the paper’s appendix.
Appendix
Simulation
Real-world
Encoder architecture
IMPALA
MAGVIT-v2
Decoder architecture
IMPALA
MAGVIT-v2
Image size
128 (Multigrid), 224 (Procgen)
224
dz
128
128
Tokenizer quantizer
FSQ
FSQ
Tokenizer codebook size
1024
16384
Appendix
Table 5: Experiment hyperparameters. Simulation datasets are Multigrid and Procgen, while the real-world dataset is nuPlan.
Figure 4: Prediction performance variation along with increasing number of entities in the scene.
Figure 5: UMAP projection of the learned latent actions on the MultiGrid dataset. Each point corresponds to a latent action inferred by the IDM for one factor on a single transition from the observation-only dataset. Points are colored by the ground-truth actions taken by the corresponding agent at that transition (action labels are used only for visualization and are not used for training).
Figure 6: FLAM allows for changing / editing the motion of one entity without affecting the others. Here we show controllable video generation on MultiGrid through specifying latent actions for one of the movable agents, while other agents follow their original inferred latent actions.
Figure 7: Two example rollouts where two entities (green and red ones) share the same actions. FLAM consistently maps the two correlated agents to the same factor.
Figure 8: Ablation of FLAM on 4-agent MultiGrid dataset, with K∈{2,4,8,16} . When K is less than the number agents, FLAM assigns two agents to each factor to maximize latent action utilization. When K is equal to or greater than the number of agents, FLAM consistently assigns each entity to a distinct factor, even with excessive K , demonstrating FLAM’s robustness to over-specifying K .
Metric
FLAM (ours)
FLAM w/o Factorizer Temporal Attention
Global-Coupled FLAM
PSNR ( ↑ )
56.5
51.6
56.3
SSIM ( ↑ )
0.944
0.941
0.944
LPIPS ( ↓ )
3e-4
3e-3
4e-4
FVD ( ↓ )
2.9
36.6
3.72
Appendix
Table 6: Prediction performance of FLAM and its ablative variants on the MultiGrid dataset.
FLAM(ours)
FLAM w/o Factorizer Temporal Attention
Global-Coupled FLAM
Random
D ( ↑ )
0.91
0.33
0.79
0.32
C ( ↑ )
0.91
0.23
1.00
0.30
I ( ↑ )
0.93
0.20
0.58
0.10
Appendix
Table 7: Factor-agent correspondence of FLAM and its ablative variants on the MultiGrid dataset, evaluated by DCI (disentanglement, completeness, informativeness) metrics.
Figure 9: Architecture ablations of FLAM on the 4-agent MultiGrid dataset. Removing temporal attention from the factorizer leads to temporally inconsistent factor assignments and degraded long-horizon predictions (notably in the last few timestamps). In contrast, the Global-Coupled variant can produce accurate predictions but tends to assign multiple entities into the same factor, resulting in poorer disentanglement than the original FLAM implementation.
Metric
β=1e−5
β=1e−4
β=1e−3
β=1e−2
PSNR ( ↑ )
56.5
56.5
56.3
24.9
SSIM ( ↑ )
0.944
0.944
0.944
0.911
LPIPS ( ↓ )
3e-4
3e-4
4e-4
0.057
FVD ( ↓ )
2.84
3.40
3.78
479.9
Appendix
Table 8: Prediction performance of FLAM on the MultiGrid dataset with different KL regularization coefficient β values.
Figure 10: Prediction rollouts of all methods on the MultiGrid dataset, with inaccuracies highlighted by red boxes (except for SlotFormer, where the errors are visually apparent). When applicable, we also show the slot-patch binding masks from slot attention, displayed on top of the ground-truth observations. FLAM maintains consistent factor-entity bindings over time and generates accurate predictions. In contrast, AdaWorld and SlotFormer fail to generate accurate predictions from the start, and Genie makes mistakes at a few steps. Meanwhile, PlaySlot and SlotFormer rely on object-centric representations learned from reconstruction which incorrectly bind the red and purple entities to the same slot.
Figure 11: Prediction rollouts of all methods on the Bigfish dataset, with inaccuracies highlighted by red circles (except for SlotFormer, where the errors are visually apparent). When applicable, we also show the slot-patch binding masks from slot attention, displayed on top of the ground-truth observations. FLAM maintains consistent factor-entity bindings over time, e.g., the brown slot consistently attends to the green fish controlled by the player. In terms of prediction quality, FLAM and Genie only make errors on the occluded fish. AdaWorld to track the speeds of the circled yellow and red fish, which move more slowly than in the ground truth. The World Model baseline also struggles to capture the motion of non-controllable fish, since only the player’s action is available. PlaySlot and SlotFormer rely on reconstruction-based object-centric representations that do not yield consistent slot assignments. As a result, PlaySlot fails to preserve consistent shapes and colors for multiple fish.
Figure 12: Prediction rollouts of all methods on the Leaper dataset, with inaccuracies highlighted by red boxes (except for PlaySlot and SlotFormer, where the errors are visually apparent). When applicable, we also show the slot-patch binding masks from slot attention, displayed on top of the ground-truth observations. FLAM generates accurate predictions, in particular capturing how the frog jumps between logs. Genie and World Model achieve the second best prediction quality, but fails to model the frog’s jumps in some timestamps. In contrast, AdaWorld and PlaySlot generate inaccurate predictions from the start, either removing the frog and cars from the scene or hallucinating non-existent.
Figure 13: Prediction rollouts of all methods on the Starpilot dataset, with inaccuracies highlighted by red circles (except for PlaySlot and SlotFormer, where the errors are visually apparent). When applicable, we also show the slot-patch binding masks from slot attention, displayed on top of the ground-truth observations. FLAM maintains a consistent binding for the player in the bottom-left corner (shown in cyan) and generates accurate predictions, except for the enemy bullet heading toward the player. Other entities (e.g., bullets, enemies, and meteors) move at constant speed, so even with less consistent bindings, FLAM can still achieve reasonable predictions. In contrast, AdaWorld, Genie, and the World Model baseline generate inaccurate predictions from the start, frequently shifting enemy appearances and missing the enemy bullet toward the player.
Figure 14: Prediction rollouts of all methods on the nuPlan dataset, with inaccuracies highlighted by red boxes (except for SlotFormer, where the errors are visually apparent). Models are conditioned on a fixed history window of size w=5 . When applicable, we also show the slot-patch binding masks from slot attention, displayed on top of the ground-truth observations. Compared to the baselines, FLAM generates relatively accurate predictions for the grey car moving from the center to the right. In contrast, AdaWorld and Genie fail to maintain a consistent appearance for this moving car. Meanwhile, PlaySlot and SlotFormer fail to model the dynamics and largely ignore the cars in the scene.
Latent Action Models (LAMs) enable the learning of world models from unlabeled video by inferring abstract actions between consecutive frames. However, LAMs face a fundamental trade-off between action abstraction and generation fidelity. Existing methods typically circumvent this issue by using two-stage training with pre-trained world models or by limiting predictions to optical flow. In this paper, we introduce DiLA, a novel Disentangled Latent Action world model that aims to resolve this trade-off via content-structure disentanglement. Our key insight is that disentanglement and latent action learning are co-evolving: the predictive bottleneck inherent in latent action learning serves as a driving force for disentanglement, compelling the model to distill spatial layouts into the structure pathway while offloading visual details to a separate content pathway for generation. This synergy yields a continuous, semantically structured latent action space without compromising generative quality. DiLA achieves superior results in video generation quality, action transfer, visual planning, and manifold interpretability. These findings establish DiLA as a unified framework that simultaneously achieves high-level action abstraction and high-fidelity generation, advancing the frontier of self-supervised world model learning.
Tianqiu Zhang, Muyang Lyu, Yufan Zhang +2
Peking-Tsinghua Center for Life Sciences, Academy for Advanced Interdisciplinary Studies, IDG/McGovern Institute for Brain Research, Peking University. · Center of Quantitative Biology, Peking University. · School of Psychological and Cognitive Sciences, Key Laboratory of Machine Perception (Ministry of Education), Peking University.
Latent action models (LAMs) learn action representations from unlabeled videos by inferring latent actions from visual transitions and reconstructing future states. However, we identify a fundamental reconstruction-action mismatch: lower reconstruction error does not necessarily yield better latent dynamics or downstream performance. We attribute this mismatch to two underconstrained aspects of reconstruction-based latent dynamics modeling: (i) the inverse dynamics model (IDM) is not explicitly encouraged to distinguish action-related transitions from nuisance appearance, and (ii) the forward dynamics model (FDM) can underutilize the inferred latent action by exploiting predictive shortcuts from the current state. To address both limitations, we propose ACT-LAM, a lightweight action-centric framework that strengthens both action extraction and action utilization. Specifically, its Action Query IDM (AQ-IDM) employs learnable action queries and gated aggregation to selectively extract rich action-related transition cues without strong information bottlenecks. And its Action Token FDM (AT-FDM) projects latent actions into action tokens that progressively interact with evolving state representations, enabling continuous state-aware action conditioning. ACT-LAM further streamlines feature processing to concentrate model capacity on latent dynamics modeling. Extensive experiments on several robotic datasets and the VP2 benchmark demonstrate stronger latent action consistency, forward dynamics, and downstream visual planning performance with fewer trainable parameters and lower computational overhead. In particular, ACT-LAM surpasses the previous state of the art by \textbf{7.6%} on the aggregated VP2 success rate. Codes at url.
Dingjie Fu, Dianxing Shi, Yangyang Xu +1
Harbin Institute of Technology (Shenzhen) · Beihang University
Recent advances in video diffusion have enabled the development of "world models" capable of simulating interactive environments. However, these models are largely restricted to single-agent settings, failing to control multiple agents simultaneously in a scene. In this work, we tackle a fundamental issue of action binding in existing video diffusion models, which struggle to associate specific actions with their corresponding subjects. For this purpose, we propose ActionParty, an action controllable multi-subject world model for generative video games. It introduces subject state tokens, i.e. latent variables that persistently capture the state of each subject in the scene. By jointly modeling state tokens and video latents with a spatial biasing mechanism, we disentangle global video frame rendering from individual action-controlled subject updates. We evaluate ActionParty on the Melting Pot benchmark, demonstrating the first video world model capable of controlling up to seven players simultaneously across 46 diverse environments. Our results show significant improvements in action-following accuracy and identity consistency, while enabling robust autoregressive tracking of subjects through complex interactions.
Alexander Pondaven, Ziyi Wu, Igor Gilitschenski +4
Snap Research · University of Oxford · University of Toronto +1