Emergent Compositional Communication for Latent World Properties
Organizations: Independent Researcher, Amsterdam, Netherlands
Abstract
Can multi-agent communication pressure extract discrete, compositional representations of invisible physical properties from frozen video features? We show that agents communicating through a Gumbel-Softmax bottleneck with iterated learning develop positionally disentangled protocols for latent properties (elasticity, friction, mass ratio) without property labels or supervision on message structure. With 4 agents, 100% of 80 seeds converge to near-perfect compositionality (PosDis=0.999, holdout 98.3%). Controls confirm multi-agent structure -- not bandwidth or temporal coverage -- drives this effect. Causal intervention shows surgical property disruption (~15% drop on targeted property, <3% on others). A controlled backbone comparison reveals that the perceptual prior determines what is communicable: DINOv2 dominates on spatially-visible ramp physics (98.3% vs 95.1%), while V-JEPA 2 dominates on dynamics-only collision physics (87.4% vs 77.7%, d=2.74). Scale-matched (d=3.37) and frame-matched (d=6.53) controls attribute this gap entirely to video-native pretraining. The frozen protocol supports action-conditioned planning (91.5%) with counterfactual velocity reasoning (r=0.780). Validation on Physics 101 real camera footage confirms 85.6% mass-comparison accuracy on unseen objects, temporal dynamics contributing +11.2% beyond static appearance, agent-scaling compositionality replicating at 90% for 4 agents, and causal intervention extending to real video (d=1.87, p=0.022).
Figures & tables
| Group | Holdout (both) | PosDis | Comp. seeds | |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| compositional (PosDis ) | 43 | 79.3% 5.2% | 0.617 0.15 | 43/80 (54%) |
| holistic (PosDis ) | 37 | 75.9% 6.1% | 0.244 0.09 | — |
| control | 20 | 71.2% 3.5% | 0.000 | 0/20 (0%) |
| Configuration | Epochs | Train | Holdout | PosDis | Comp. % |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| LazImpa (no IL, lazy+impatient) | 400 | — | 70.3% | 0.165 | 0% |
| No iterated learning | 400 | 93.6% | 77.7% | 0.311 | 20% |
| IL + population (simultaneous) | 200 | — | 74.5% | 0.295 | 40% |
| IL + pop. + extended (2 agents) | 400 | — | 79.3% | 0.444 | 54% |
| IL + pop. + extended (4 agents) | 400 | — | 98.3% | 0.999 | 100% |
| Encoder ablation (2 agents, IL + pop., 400 epochs): | |||||
| Condition | Holdout | Std |
|---|---|---|
| Frozen compositional sender | 93.8% | 0.7% |
| Freshly-trained | 92.2% | 2.4% |
| Freshly-trained holistic | 87.5% | 9.5% |
| Zeroed Position | Accuracy Drop | Relevance |
|---|---|---|
| A position 0 (elasticity of A) | 14.7% 1.6% | Relevant |
| A position 1 (friction of A) | 0.4% 1.9% | Irrelevant |
| B position 0 (elasticity of B) | 2.9% 1.7% | Irrelevant |
| B position 1 (friction of B) | 15.2% 0.8% | Relevant |
| Domain | Both Acc. | Oracle | Spec. Ratio | Info Structure |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Spring-mass (2-prop) | 93.8% 1.2% | 95.7% | 0.946 | Temporal, clean separation |
| Ramp physics (2-prop) | 88.4% 1.6% | 90% | 0.688 | Temporal, partial separation |
| Abstract scenes (2-prop) | 50.4% 4.4% | 94.7% | 0.582 | Spatial, uniform |
| Visual attributes (2-prop) | 75.9% 1.0% | 75.7% | 0.500 | Static, uniform |
| Task | Test Accuracy | Chance | Outcome |
|---|---|---|---|
| Categorical identity | 27.5% | 20% | Memorizes class codes |
| Continuous 2-prop | 75.9% | 50% | Compositional encoding |
| Continuous 6-prop | 40.5% | 1.6% | Compositional encoding |
| NN baseline (no communication) | 50.2% | 20% | DINOv2 clusters by class |
| Condition | Agents | Message | Holdout | PosDis | Comp. % |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| sequential | 2 | 76.7% 6.5% | 0.486 | 54% | |
| matched bandwidth | 2 | 87.1% 4.4% | 0.345 | 35% | |
| sequential | 3 | 98.1% 0.9% | 0.998 | 100% | |
| sequential | 4 | 98.3% 1.6% | 0.999 | 100% | |
| random frames | 4 | 97.3% 2.1% | 0.998 | 100% |
| Setting | Compositional | Holistic | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Vision, 2 properties | 75.9% | 74.9% | +1.0pp |
| Vision, 6 properties | 40.5% | 35.5% | +5.0pp |
| Ramp physics, 2 properties | 76.7% | 71.2% | +5.5pp |
| Dataset | Backbone | Agents | Oracle | Holdout | PosDis | Comp. % |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Ramp | DINOv2 (ViT-S) | 2 | 90% | 76.7% 6.5% | 0.486 | 43/80 † |
| V-JEPA 2 (ViT-L) | 2 | 86.5% | 74.8% 6.8% | 0.402 | 10/20 | |
| DINOv2 (ViT-S) | 4 | — | 98.3% 1.6% | 0.999 | 80/80 | |
| V-JEPA 2 (ViT-L) | 4 | — | 95.1% 3.3% | 0.999 | 20/20 | |
| Collision | DINOv2 (ViT-S) | 2 | 78.7% | 73.4% 3.3% | 0.439 | 9/20 |
| V-JEPA 2 (ViT-L) | 2 | 88.0% | 75.0% 3.0% | 0.456 | 10/20 |
| Condition | Input dim | Holdout accuracy |
|---|---|---|
| V-JEPA 2 messages | 40 | 88.7% 0.5% |
| DINOv2 messages | 40 | 78.5% 1.3% |
| V-JEPA 2 raw features | 1024 | 94.6% 0.7% |
| Scenario | V-JEPA 2 | DINOv2 (static) | Volume only | Gap |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Spring | 0.905 | 0.819 | 0.761 | +0.086 |
| Fall | 0.657 | 0.718 | 0.531 | 0.061 |
| Ramp | 0.727 | 0.817 | 0.733 | 0.090 |
| Agents | Both-property acc. | PosDis | Comp. rate |
|---|---|---|---|
| 1 | 50.8% | 0.294 | 2/10 (20%) |
| 2 | 55.0% | 0.325 | 3/10 (30%) |
| 4 | 52.8% | 0.483 | 9/10 (90%) |
Appendix figures & tables3 assets
Supplementary material from the paper’s appendix.
Appendix
| Hyperparameter | Value |
|---|---|
| DINOv2 model | ViT-S/14 (frozen) |
| V-JEPA 2 model | ViT-L/16 (frozen) |
| Frames per scene (ramp) | 8 (evenly spaced from 24) |
| Frames per scene (collision) | 24 (evenly spaced from 48) |
| Hidden dimension | 128 |
| Temporal encoder (DINOv2) | Conv1D( ) + AdaptiveAvgPool |
| Elasticity | Friction | Damping | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Position 0 | 0.336 | 0.276 | 0.531 |
| Position 1 | 0.289 | 0.283 | 0.574 |
| Position 2 | 0.260 | 0.276 | 0.655 |
| Domain | Both Acc. | Mean Spec. | Key Pattern |
|---|---|---|---|
| Spring-mass (2-prop) | 93.8% | 0.946 | Agent 0 damping ( ) |
| Ramp physics (2-prop) | 88.4% | 0.688 | Agent 0 dead; 1 f; 2,3 e |
| Abstract scenes (2-prop) | 50.4% | 0.582 | Weak, distributed |
| Vision (2-prop) | 75.9% | 0.500 | Moderate |
| Vision (6-prop) | 40.5% | 0.196 | Fully distributed |
Emergent Communication
Emergent communication studies how agents develop shared signals or languages through interaction to coordinate, convey information, and build conventions.
See all 30 papers