When Do Conservation Laws Survive Learned Representations? Certified Horizons for Latent World Models

Scale buys interpolation; structure buys certifiable transfer. A world model's average error does not say whether a particular rollout can be trusted, or for how long. For equivariant latent world models we give a predictability certificate: a computable region spanning configuration, horizon, and resolution. Under exact equivariance, rollout error is invariant over the monoid generated by k primitive symmetries and is certified from the k generators (Theorem A); universal orbit-flatness over equivariant targets characterizes equivariance at the function level (Lemma 2), so an unconstrained architecture cannot certify the property by construction. Approximate orbit-transfer defects propagate by the finite-time Lyapunov spectrum (Theorem B): expanding channels give a logarithmic horizon $T_j(ε)\sim\log(1/ε)/λ_j$, neutral channels accumulate recurrent defect linearly, and contracting channels accumulate a bounded nonzero floor. Exact conserved charge values are certified to all horizons only at zero defect; with one-step defect $η$, charge-value error grows at most as $Tη$. Empirically, on a 40-dimensional learned model a $\mathbb{Z}_N$-equivariant network recovers the full Lyapunov spectrum ($R^2=0.98$-$0.99$) where dense and recurrent baselines fail. A cone/adapted-metric certificate reads an a-priori horizon off the model's own Jacobian, tight on uniformly hyperbolic dynamics and self-abstaining elsewhere; the resulting horizon improves a budgeted re-observation decision. For public non-equivariant world models the tangent spectrum gives a training-free candidate horizon, paired with a held-out divergence cross-check that abstains or corrects when the learned loop over-promises.

Learned world models are useful only over horizons on which their rollout error remains controlled. We study trust-horizon certification for latent world models with known group symmetries. Given a one-step latent residual and a finite-time expansion estimate, we form a raw horizon curve and calibrate it with a split-conformal multiplicative factor. On the reproducible audit set, the conformal factor is $γ_α=1.0$: the raw certificate is already conservative under the audit protocol. Across 50 stable audits, we observe zero anti-conservative violations, corresponding to an exact-binomial 95% upper bound of 5.8% on the violation rate. Our main structural result is that exact equivariance transports a calibrated trust-horizon curve over the group orbit: when the environment dynamics, encoder, predictor, action transform, and latent metric satisfy the stated equivariance/invariance conditions, rollout errors and trust horizons are orbit-constant. Empirically, the implemented models exhibit small orbit-transport residuals, with median 1.1% and maximum 4.1% over 14 orbit audits. The certificate is also non-vacuous (median certified-to-measured horizon ratio 0.67). A certificate-level calibration-cost study shows two complementary regimes. On a symmetric 2D substrate, equivariant, plain, and augmented models are all orbit-valid from a single calibration sector -- no separation, because the substrate already makes non-equivariant baselines approximately orbit-robust. A 3D yaw audit shows the other regime: the equivariant model obtains a one-sector safe and non-vacuous orbit-valid certificate, while healthy non-equivariant baselines pay violation, slack, sharpness, or additional-sector cost. The certificate is a conservative, distributional audit rather than a global reachability guarantee, and certificate-guided subgoal spacing is not confirmed in the current 3D CEM-MPC behavior layer.

When a neural network predicts a physical system accurately, has it learned the governing law as formal, structured knowledge, and if so, does the network's internal computation actually use that representation throughout the law's domain of validity? We identify four interpretability gaps that limit answering these questions for {\em physics laws over continuous variables}: the absence of a coverage-aware causal-consistency measure over continuous counterfactuals; of a domain-of-validity test for the identified circuit; of a verification of the law's invariants and forbidden behaviors; and of a quantification of how a derived physical quantity flows through the circuit. We develop a foundational framework, LAWFUL, that closes the first two and lays groundwork for the remaining two, and illustrate it on the Mocap2Radar transformer, validating whether it learns and internally uses the Doppler frequency law $f(t) = \frac{2 v(t)}λ$ from motion-capture and radar data in which neither $f(t)$ nor $v(t)$ appears.