By predicting future states, latent world models provide rich self-supervision for end-to-end driving, but often inherit dense features from pretrained visual encoders as their world-state interface. This creates a mismatch: visual pretraining produces information-rich, spatially dense features, but their adaptation for motion-conditioned world modeling and planning is deferred to downstream training. The dense grid also makes future prediction more computationally expensive as visual resolution increases. We therefore argue that video pretraining should directly learn state representations suited to downstream world modeling and planning, rather than relying on downstream training to adapt inherited visual features. We propose MORE, a V-JEPA framework that learns Motion-Oriented REgisters during video pretraining as a shared state interface for driving world models and planning. MORE injects temporally aligned ego motion into a small set of registers and uses them as the sole context for masked patch prediction, channeling dense patch-level supervision through a compact state bottleneck. A complementary blockwise register-masking objective further shapes predictive structure in the register space. During downstream training, the same register space defines the future states predicted by the world model and provides shared scene memory for trajectory generation and scoring. On NAVSIM-v2, MORE outperforms the state of the art by 1.6 in EPDMS, while achieving superior efficiency with only 1/10 the inference latency of DriveLaW. These results support learning the state interface for world modeling and planning directly during video pretraining.
Figures & tables
Figure 1: State-interface mismatch and inference efficiency. (a) Comparison of dense state interfaces and MORE’s compact motion-oriented register interface for world modeling and planning. (b) EPDMS versus inference latency.
Figure 2: Overview of MORE . During pre-training, motion-oriented registers are learned through register-mediated masked patch prediction and blockwise register masking. During joint training, the same register space is used for world modeling and as shared scene memory for trajectory generation and scoring.
Method
Venue
NC ↑
DAC ↑
DDC ↑
TLC ↑
EP ↑
TTC ↑
LK ↑
HC ↑
EC ↑
EPDMS ∗↑
EPDMS ↑
End-to-End-based Methods
TransFuser ( Chitta et al., 2023 )
TPAMI’22
96.9
89.9
97.8
99.7
87.1
95.4
92.7
98.3
87.2
76.7
–
ARTEMIS ( Feng et al., 2026 )
RAL’25
98.3
95.1
98.6
99.8
87.6
97.4
96.5
98.3
89.1
83.1
–
Hydra-MDP++ ( Li et al., 2025a )
arXiv’25
98.8
97.8
99.1
100.0
84.0
95.3
70.1
–
96.8
84.1
–
DiffusionDrive ( Liao et al., 2025 )
CVPR’25
98.2
95.9
99.4
99.8
87.5
97.3
96.8
98.3
87.7
–
84.5
Drive-JEPA ( Wang et al., 2026b )
arXiv’26
98.4
98.6
99.1
99.8
88.4
97.8
97.6
97.9
84.8
87.8
–
Table 1: Comparison on the NAVSIM-v2 benchmark. EPDMS ∗ uses the original NAVSIM-v2 evaluator, while EPDMS uses the official implementation with corrected human-behavior filtering.
Method
RC ↑
HD-Score ↑
E
M
H
X
Avg.
E
M
H
X
Avg.
UniAD ( Hu et al., 2023 )
58.6
41.2
40.4
26.0
40.6
48.7
29.5
27.3
14.3
28.9
VAD ( Jiang et al., 2023 )
38.7
27.0
25.5
23.0
27.9
24.3
9.9
10.4
8.2
12.3
LTF ( Chitta et al., 2023 )
68.4
40.7
36.9
25.5
41.4
52.8
24.6
19.8
8.1
24.8
GTRS-Dense ( Li et al., 2025d )
64.2
50.0
20.7
22.3
38.0
55.5
39.0
11.7
14.3
28.6
DrivoR ( Kirby et al., 2026 )
85.9
36.6
34.1
30.4
43.7
77.2
19.3
16.8
13.9
28.1
Table 2: Photorealistic closed-loop evaluation on HUGSIM. All results use the corrected evaluator with fixes to trajectory-derived heading computation and related issues.
Method
Venue
Sensors
NC ↑
DAC ↑
TTC ↑
C ↑
EP ↑
PDMS ↑
End-to-End-based Methods
UniAD † ( Hu et al., 2023 )
CVPR’23
6C
97.8
91.9
92.9
100.0
78.8
83.4
Transfuser ( Chitta et al., 2023 )
TPAMI’22
3C&L
97.7
92.8
92.8
100.0
79.2
84.0
Hydra-MDP++ ( Li et al., 2025a )
arXiv’25
3C
98.6
98.6
95.1
100.0
85.7
91.0
DiffusionDrive † ( Liao et al., 2025 )
CVPR’25
3C&L
98.2
96.2
94.7
100.0
82.2
88.1
Drive-JEPA ( Wang et al., 2026b )
arXiv’26
1C
98.7
96.2
95.5
100
82.9
89.0
Table 3: Comparison on the NAVSIM-v1 benchmark. C and L denote camera and LiDAR input, respectively. † : The results are dependent on perception-based annotation.
Case
Configuration
Representation Pre-training
Joint Training
Performance
+Reg.
Motion
Patch Ctx.
Reg. Mask
State
Plan. Mem.
EPDMS
PDMS
#1
V-JEPA Baseline
✗
✗
Patch
✗
Patch
Obs.+Pred.
84.9
85.9
#2
V-JEPA + Patch Motion
✗
Patch
Patch
✗
Patch
Obs.+Pred.
89.4
89.2
#3
Joint-Initialized Reg.
✗
✗
Patch
✗
Reg. ∗
Obs.+Pred.
85.7
86.0
#4
Reg. Interaction Only
✓
✗
Patch
✗
Reg.
Obs.+Pred.
85.6
86.3
#5
Register-Mediated Pred.
✓
✗
Reg.
✗
Reg.
Obs.+Pred.
88.5
89.3
Table 4: Ablation Study on NAVSIM navtest . All variants use only the front-camera input.
Register Num.
4
8
16
32
EPDMS ↑
91.4
91.8
91.6
91.5
Table 5: Register-count ablation.
Figure 3: Qualitative trajectory comparison. Trajectories: GT, MORE (Ours), DrivoR.
Appendix figures & tables4 assets
Supplementary material from the paper’s appendix.
Appendix
Method
Img. Size
Obs. Frames
Cams
Params. ↓
Peak Mem. ↓
Latency ↓
EPDMS ↑
Epona
512×1024
10
1
2,915.4 M
14.70 GB
900.0 ms
85.1
World4Drive
384×640
4
6
70.2 M
1.98 GB
414.5 ms
84.8
DriveVLA-W0 †
Pre-tokenized
–
–
9,073.3 M
17.23 GB
1,633.5 ms
86.1
DriveLaW
768×1344
4
1
3,301.6 M
6.89 GB
1,167.0 ms
88.6
CoWorld-VLA
512×1024
1
1
5,372.9 M
10.36 GB
378.4 ms
90.0
Drive-JEPA
256×512
2
1
311.2 M
1.83 GB
73.3 ms
87.8
Appendix
Table 6: Efficiency. We compare model parameters, peak GPU memory, and inference latency with respect to NAVSIM-v2 EPDMS.
Figure 4: Additional qualitative comparison. Trajectories: GT, MORE (Ours), DrivoR.
Figure 5: Pairwise similarity of pretrained registers. Register similarities within and across temporal chunks are shown for (a) configuration #4 in Tab. 4 , which enables register–patch interaction while retaining patch-based prediction, and (b) MORE. Their mean similarities are 0.793 and 0.653, respectively.
Figure 6: Representative failure cases. Trajectories: GT, MORE (Ours).
Driving policies require capabilities of scene understanding and future evolution prediction. To achieve this goal, current end-to-end models typically construct complex perception-planning pipelines or introduce world models that explicitly predict future states, resulting in a complex system architecture. Inspired by the transferability of general-purpose visual representations, we argue that combining sufficiently strong visual representations with representation world modeling can support effective planning without relying on complex inference-time auxiliary modules. Based on this insight, we present ReDrive, an end-to-end driving framework that strengthens planning-oriented visual features via future representation prediction. To achieve this, ReDrive adopts a three-stage training pipeline consisting of driving video pretraining, joint world-modeling and planning training, and planner adaptation. This yields a strong planning-oriented representation and a high-performance planner, while requiring neither auxiliary perception modules nor future prediction at inference time. Experiments on NAVSIM demonstrate strong performance, achieving 91.0 PDMS on NAVSIM v1 and 90.8 EPDMS on NAVSIM v2. These results show that shaping representations with world modeling is sufficient to enable high-performance end-to-end planning while retaining a simple encoder-planner inference pipeline.
Yueting Zhu, Shaoyu Chen, Yuehao Song +4
Huazhong University of Science & Technology · Horizon Robotics
Video Joint Embedding Predictive Architecture (V-JEPA) learns powerful spatiotemporal representations from video through self-supervised latent feature prediction. However, V-JEPA is built around random-mask completion and deterministic regression, making it fundamentally ill-suited for autonomous driving planning that demands future-directed prediction tightly coupled with action. To address this, we rethink the V-JEPA paradigm and present WA-JEPA, a V-JEPA-native world-action model designed for autonomous driving planning. Instead of random spatiotemporal masking, WA-JEPA employs hybrid future-masked pre-training, where the model infers future latents from observed context. Departing from deterministic regression, we recast future prediction as conditional flow matching over latent futures, which substantially improves the model's ability to generate plausible future latents for downstream planning. Finally, a joint future-action predictor is proposed to denoise future scene tokens and ego trajectories together in a unified spatiotemporal latent space, allowing action supervision to directly shape planning-relevant world representations. Pre-trained on nuPlan videos and fine-tuned on NAVSIM, WA-JEPA reaches 91.7 EPDMS on NAVSIM-v2, surpassing the strongest end-to-end and world-action baselines by 1.6 and 1.3 EPDMS, and, without HUGSIM-specific fine-tuning, attains the best HD-Score of 0.4462 on the closed-loop HUGSIM benchmark under the same evaluation protocol. These results validate V-JEPA-native world-action modeling as a powerful and scalable paradigm for autonomous driving planning. Code is available at https://github.com/AFARI-Research/WA-JEPA.
Xinlin Wang, Yujiao Xiang, Yuheng Zhou +11
Afari Intelligent Drive · University of Electronic Science and Technology of China · Southeast University +2
Joint-Embedding Predictive Architectures (JEPAs) have emerged as a principled framework for self-supervised learning of world models in compact latent spaces, yet existing methods are fragmented: some predict masked parts of a single image in latent space (I-JEPA), others learn to predict global photometric transformations (Image World Models), while video-scale JEPAs predict future temporal states and are post-trained for action-conditioned planning (V-JEPA~2, DINO-World, DINO-WM). These objectives are treated as distinct recipes with separate encoders, predictors, and anti-collapse regularizers, hindering a single model from unifying image-level and video-level world modeling. We present UniJEPA, a unified JEPA that jointly learns photometric prediction (image-level transformations) and temporal prediction (video-level next-state dynamics) in one shared latent space. A single end-to-end objective, composed of a next-embedding prediction loss and a Gaussian regularizer, yields a provably anti-collapse encoder-predictor pair trainable from raw pixels without EMA, stop-gradient, or pre-trained encoders. We show that the same latent space supports controllable abstraction: photometric prediction learns invariant structure while temporal prediction learns equivariant dynamics. After action-conditioned post-training on offline trajectories, UniJEPA enables zero-shot planning by treating goal features as prediction targets. On image, video, and control benchmarks, UniJEPA matches or surpasses task-specific JEPAs while requiring a single loss hyperparameter, and plans up to tens of times faster than generative world models at comparable accuracy.
An Lanji, Dawei Liu, Jin Li +3
University of Electronic Science and Technology of China, Chengdu, China.