cs.LGJul 7, 2026

The Rank-One Corner: How Much Value Equivalence Does a Task Need from a World Model?

Authors: Donna Vakalis

Organizations: Mila – Quebec AI Institute Université de Montréal Montréal, Québec

Abstract

A learned world model is usually judged by how faithfully it reconstructs its observations or predicts reward, as though quality were something the model simply has or lacks. But what a task actually needs from a model is narrower: the few predictive coordinates its queries depend on, which we call the closure. We show that how much of that closure a latent comes to represent is set not by the model's capacity or its observations but by the dimensionality of the objective it is trained against, and we measure this directly on a DreamerV3 stack in a controlled environment with known ground-truth closure. An aligned scalar value signal -- the objective at the heart of value equivalence -- installs only a one-dimensional projection of a closure that needs several dimensions: read through a single linear probe, the recoverable structure rises from R^2=0.10 to 0.76 as the scalar is replaced by the full objective. Sweeping the objective's dimensionality from one to four installs exactly that many predictive directions through an auxiliary head, and the same staircase appears -- at attenuated magnitude but the same rank -- through the model's own value head, so the dissociation is dimensional rather than an artifact of head form. Capacity-matched comparisons and in-situ pressure checks rule out the obvious alternatives. The law governs a regime, and we measure its boundary: on a companion closed-loop task whose structure is observable frame by frame, reconstruction installs that structure and the scalar objective suffices -- the objective decides what a latent represents exactly where cheaper training signals cannot already recover it. Value equivalence is thus not all-or-nothing but dimensional: the familiar single-reward objective is its rank-one corner, and a model installs as much of a task's structure as the objective it is asked to predict.

Explore similar work

CardsList
Aug 30, 2026cs.LG

The Intervention Gap in Latent World Models

Planning-time intervention fidelity is a distinct, measurable property of a learned world model: whether the model's own open-loop transitions move task variables the way matched environment interventions do. In the settings we test, it is neither revealed by reward fit nor ensured by task-anchored training. Across released TD-MPC2 checkpoint sizes, episode return falls as an operator-error diagnostic on task observables grows, while reward-prediction error stays small and nearly flat, and a self-supervised world model trained without task signal preserves the same operator substantially better than a task-anchored model on the shared task. A capture-gated matched-intervention audit then localizes what fails. On Cheetah, three LeWorldModel checkpoints capture the current task query and support decodable real intervention effects; however, their imagined five-step effects are worse than predicting no effect and worse than an environment-endpoint oracle. The failure is task-direction rotation with excess gain, not feature collapse. This severe pattern is conditional: five PreJEPA seeds retain an oracle-relative deficit without it, Finger Spin experiments extend the deficit beyond locomotion with heterogeneous severity across seeds, and shared-bank effect geometry is both candidate- and support-dependent. We also test practice-side questions. In DreamerV3 the posterior distribution, not its sample, carries the current query; ensemble disagreement ranks error only near training support; and a frozen support-aware score degrades held-out error ranking in both tested transfer directions while native disagreement remains informative in both. We conclude that intervention fidelity must be audited directly, capture-first, on the model's native interface.
Donna Vakalis
Latent World ModelsCausal InterventionPointwise Forecasting Losses
AskPDF
Jul 5, 2026cs.LG

Operator-on-F complements value-equivalence: a planning-time diagnostic for latent world models

World-model evaluation for model-based reinforcement learning typically asks whether the learned model predicts reward and value well, which can leave planning-relevant errors in the model's latent rollouts unmeasured. We introduce a complementary diagnostic, operator-on-F, that compares a model's k-step latent pushforward to the environment's on an observable subset F, using the model's own predictor. On a TD-MPC2 size sweep over cheetah-run, reward-prediction error stays within [0.028, 0.091] for every model size - only about 3x variation - so an unnormalized reward-fit check has narrow resolution to distinguish them; the (unnormalized) Bellman residual and reward error themselves have weak relationships with return (Spearman -0.10 and -0.30). Operator error spans 0.28 to 2.62 over the same sizes. At 317M the operator error is 2.62 - an order of magnitude above the 0.28-0.36 cluster - and the planning return collapses to 0.9, while reward-prediction error (0.091) is the highest of the five but stays within the same small [0.028, 0.091] range as the rest of the sweep. The rank correlation between operator error and return loss is -0.90 (anchor-bootstrap 95% CI [-0.90, -0.70] at n=5 sizes; leave-one-out removal of any single size leaves it at -0.80 or stronger). The operator also returns informative, architecture-discriminating estimates in a cross-architecture comparison between TD-MPC2 and a pure-SSL latent world model. The operator diagnostic complements value-equivalence rather than replacing it.
Donna Vakalis
Pointwise Forecasting LossesLatent World ModelsRp-Opsd
AskPDF
May 3, 2026cs.AI

Latent State Design for World Models under Sufficiency Constraints

A world model matters to an agent only through the state it constructs. That state must preserve some information, discard other information, and support some future function: prediction, control, planning, memory, grounding, or counterfactual reasoning. This paper treats world-model research as latent state design under sufficiency constraints. We propose a functional taxonomy that groups methods by what their latent state is for, rather than by architecture or application domain: predictive embedding, recurrent belief state, object/causal structure, latent action interface, grounded planning interface, and memory substrate. These roles expose distinctions that architecture-based groupings hide, including the gap between predictive sufficiency and control sufficiency, and the gap between passive video prediction and counterfactual action modeling. The taxonomy supports an evaluation framework that judges a model by the sufficiency constraint its latent state was built to satisfy. We compare methods along seven axes: representation, prediction, planning, controllability, causal/counterfactual support, memory, and uncertainty. We use the resulting matrix as a diagnostic for what a latent state preserves, discards, and enables. The conclusion that follows is that an actionable world model is the one whose state construction matches the task, not the one that preserves the most information.
Keon Woo Kim
World ModelsLatent StatesBelief-Space PlanningSufficient Conditions
AskPDF