Latent action learning infers pseudo-action labels from visual transitions, providing an approach to leverage internet-scale video for embodied AI. However, most methods learn latent actions without structural priors that encode the additive, compositional structure of physical motion. As a result, latents often entangle irrelevant scene details or information about future observations with true state changes and miscalibrate motion magnitude. We introduce Additively Compositional Latent Action Model (AC-LAM), which enforces scene-wise additive composition structure over short horizons on the latent action space. These AC constraints encourage simple algebraic structure in the latent action space~(identity, inverse, cycle consistency) and suppress information that does not compose additively. Empirically, AC-LAM learns more structured, motion-specific, and displacement-calibrated latent actions and provides stronger supervision for downstream policy learning, outperforming state-of-the-art LAMs across simulated and real-world tabletop tasks.
Figures & tables
Figure 1: Evolution of the normalized latent action norm ∥LAM(o0,ot)∥ over time intervals t . The figure shows that, compared with baselines, our AC constraints (AC-LAM) induce displacement-calibrated latent actions, effectively capturing the magnitude of the transition from o0 to ot .
Figure 2: Additively Compositional Latent Action Model (AC-LAM). For triples (oi,oj,ok) from the same scene, scene-wise additivity encourages zik≈zij+zjk , which regularizes the latent action space on top of a standard IDM–FDM architecture. The red line denotes the (i,j) mapping with IDM encoder zij=f(oi,oj) and FDM decoder o^j=Fzij(oi) . The blue and green lines depict the corresponding mappings for (j,k) and (i,k) , respectively.
Dataset
Method
LNorm-AC↓
r(∥z∥,∥Δs∥)↑
LNorm-Identity↓
Δinv↓
Fractal
AC-LAM
0.086
0.489
0.151
0.156
Villa-X LAM
0.374
0.289
0.358
0.874
UniVLA LAM
0.960
0.325
0.478
1.536
LAPA LAM
0.845
0.024
0.862
1.773
Bridge
AC-LAM
0.135
0.408
0.020
0.267
Villa-X LAM
0.386
0.225
0.326
0.875
Table 1: Comparison of structured latent metrics on Fractal, Bridge and LIBERO for AC-LAM vs baselines. Lower LNorm-AC / LNorm-Identity / Δinv indicate stronger additive/identity/inverse consistency; higher r(∥z∥,∥Δs∥) indicate better displacement calibration. AC-LAM generally improves latent structure across datasets.
LAM
AC-LAM
Villa-X
UniVLA
LAPA
Accenvmlp↓
50.2%
63.0%
80.2%
52.0%
Table 2: Evaluation results on probe accuracy ( Accenvmlp ) on four environments (fractral, bridge, kuka, droid) with different LAMs. Lower probe accuracy indicates less environment leakage.
Figure 3: Trajectory of the latent action norm ∣∣f(o0,ot)∣∣ in real-world tabletop manipulation, with latent actions generated by LAPA LAM, UniVLA LAM, Villa-X LAM and AC-LAM. AC‑LAM yields the most displacement‑calibrated latents, aligning with motion magnitude.
Method
ID
Train
Val
S
S/A
R
S
S/A
R
S
S/A
R
w/o LAM
22
35
0.63
26
44
0.59
19
38
0.50
LAPA LAM
19
33
0.58
7
26
0.27
9
34
0.26
UniVLA LAM
38
55
0.69
29
58
0.5
28
57
0.49
Villa-X LAM
42
53
0.79
25
52
0.48
31
58
0.53
AC-LAM
55
61
0.90
42
56
0.75
41
60
0.68
Table 3: Policy results on Emoji Table-Top (GrinningFace) across ID, Train, and Val splits. We report Success (S) (placement on the correct target), Any-Success (S/A) (placement on any target), and the Recognition Ratio (R=S/(S/A)), which approximates the model’s target recognition accuracy.
Method
ID
OOD-D
OOD-B
w/o LAM
33.3
26.7
6.7
LAPA LAM
13.3
6.7
0
UniVLA LAM
33.3
26.7
26.7
Villa-X LAM
40
20
26.7
AC-LAM
60
53.3
33.3
Table 4: Evaluation results on Real-World Tabletop Manipulation for policy learning with different LAMs.
Design
LNorm-AC↓
r(∥z∥,∥Δs∥)↑
Stability
Default
0.102
0.256
stable
pre-VQ
0.456
0.476
stable
IDM(no sg)
-
-
collapse
sg on zik
0.141
0.098
stable
sg on zij+zjk
-
-
explode
Table 5: Ablation on different design choices for AC-LAM, evaluated on Bridge.
Appendix figures & tables4 assets
Supplementary material from the paper’s appendix.
Appendix
Dataset
Mix Ratio (%)
RT-1 Robot Action ( Brohan et al., 2022 )
9.70
AgiBot World Beta ( Bu et al., 2025a )
20.0
Kuka ( Kalashnikov et al., 2018 )
1.97
Bridge ( Walke et al., 2023 ; Ebert et al., 2021 )
5.47
Taco Play ( Rosete-Beas et al., 2022 ; Mees et al., 2023 )
0.76
Jaco Play ( Dass et al., 2023 )
0.12
Appendix
Table 6: Our training data mixture used in LAM training.
Figure 4: Two experimental environments: (a) Emoji Table-Top (GrinningFace) simulation for controlled studies of vision–semantic generalization. A robotic arm picks a cube and places it on the instructed emoji. The viewpoint is aligned with Bridge‑v2 to leverage this large-scale dataset for knowledge transfer. The initial positions of the cube, the emojis, and the robotic arm are randomized to test robustness. (b) Real‑World Tabletop Manipulation featuring diverse pick tasks across varied objects and backgrounds; evaluations cover in‑distribution scenes, OOD distractors, and OOD backgrounds to assess robustness.
Figure 5: Motion Transfer Demo
Figure 6: More trajectories of the latent action norm ∥LAM(o0,ot)∥ in Emoji Table-Top simulation and real-world tabletop manipulation, with latent actions generated by LAPA LAM, UniVLA LAM, villa-X LAM and AC-LAM. AC‑LAM yields the most displacement‑calibrated latents, aligning with motion magnitude.
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
Latent action models (LAMs) aim to learn action-like representations from unlabeled videos by compressing frame-to-frame changes. The frames of in-the-wild videos, however, contain not only the agent's own state but exogenous state such as background clutter. Since the exogenous state introduces changes unrelated to actions, it hinders reliable latent action learning. This paper investigates this problem analytically by extending a linear LAM framework to explicitly model exogenous state. Our analysis reveals two insights: (1) minimizing the standard reconstruction objective produces latent actions that encode exogenous information from future observation; and (2) learning in a representation space that focuses on endogenous components is a key to mitigating the interference of noise. We further show that previously proposed auxiliary objectives, such as action-supervision, provably encourage latent actions to be consistent across exogenous states. These findings are validated through experiments on both linear and nonlinear LAMs, providing a unified theoretical analysis of how exogenous state hinders latent action learning and why common remedies work.
Latent Action Models (LAMs) can capture manipulation priors from action-free videos, but discrete latents usually impose a granularity bottleneck, limiting their ability to represent fine-grained action. Recent continuous alternatives mitigate this, but they are typically used as proxies for world modeling and require a further planning step to produce executable actions. We thus introduce UniLAP, a unified continuous latent-action policy that models the latent space via flow matching and bypasses reliance on future frames during inference. By distilling a LAM teacher with a flow-adaptive objective, UniLAP inherits the teacher's action representation while retaining the multimodal distribution of feasible behaviors. To decouple latent representations from task-irrelevant appearance, we extract a label-free motion target to isolate relevant kinematic cues from spurious visual dynamics. With the established embodiment-agnostic latent manifold, UniLAP can be easily adapted to novel platforms. Pretrained on multi-source videos at a compact 1.1B parameter scale, UniLAP outperforms state-of-the-art latent-action and Vision-Language-Action (VLA) baselines across hand pose forecasting, single-arm and humanoid manipulation, and real-world deployment.
Lei Yao, Qiao Feng, Mutian Tong +3
University of Pennsylvania · The Hong Kong Polytechnic University