Beyond Action Prediction: Learning Search-Free Planning in Latent Space
Authors: Guanchen Du, Jinhao Du, Yanpeng Sun, Shan Zhang, Na Zhao, Zechao Li
Organizations: Nanjing University of Science and Technology · University of Oxford · Singapore University of Technology and Design · Adelaide University
Latent world models learn action-conditioned state transitions in a compact representation space, providing a predictive model for visual planning and control. However, planning with these models typically requires costly test-time optimization over action sequences. We propose to replace this online search with a goal-conditioned inverse model that directly predicts actions from current and goal observations. A key challenge is that action prediction alone neither ensures that goal representations encode action-relevant information nor that predicted actions are consistent with the learned latent prediction model. We introduce Hindsight Inverse JEPA Planning (HIJP), a search-free framework that addresses both aspects during training. HIJP relabels future observations along offline trajectories as goals, providing action supervision across multiple temporal horizons. By retaining gradients through the goal representations, this supervision directly shapes the visual representation. HIJP further feeds predicted actions into the latent predictor model and aligns the resulting next-state representations with encoded successor observations, enforcing action-transition consistency. At inference time, the inverse dynamics model and latent predictor models are applied alternately to generate multi-step action sequences without online search. Across four visual control tasks, HIJP achieves 86.8% overall success and a 1.9-16.5x planning speedup over search-based planning.
Figures & tables
Figure 1: Overview of the HIJP training framework. (A) The latent world model predicts the next latent state from the current state and action. (B) The hindsight-conditioned inverse dynamics model infers the action from current and future latent states. (C) The inferred action is reused to enforce action–transition consistency. All modules are jointly optimized using the prediction, regularization, inverse-dynamics, and action transition consistency losses.
Reference
Baselines
Ours
Task
Tier
Random
GCBC
PLDM
DINO-WM
LeWM
SMWM
Δ -JEPA
INTACT
HIJP
TwoRoom
Easy
66%
100%
100%
100%
96%
96%
76%
100%
100%
Default
24%
100%
88%
100%
88%
96%
38%
100%
100%
Hard
8%
100%
90%
98%
62%
86%
48%
96%
100%
Extreme
2%
100%
96%
74%
50%
72%
24%
90%
98%
Avg.
25.0%
100.0%
93.5%
93.0%
74.0%
87.5%
46.5%
96.5%
99.5%
Table 1: Success rates (%) across four tasks and four difficulty tiers. Avg. denotes the arithmetic mean across the four difficulty tiers; Overall Avg. averages all 16 task–tier combinations with equal weight. The best and second-best results in each row are shown in bold and underlined text .
Task
Method
Difficulty tier
Avg.
Easy
Default
Hard
Extreme
TwoRoom
LeWM
69.8
124.9
254.7
253.9
175.9
HIJP
13.5
20.8
36.2
37.4
27.0
Speedup
5.2×
6.0×
7.0×
6.8×
6.2×
Reacher
LeWM
153.6
296.0
566.6
581.9
399.5
HIJP
32.6
45.4
65.3
69.0
53.1
Table 2: Total wall-clock planning time (seconds) for LeWM and HIJP. Speedup denotes LeWM’s planning time divided by HIJP’s. Avg. reports the arithmetic mean across difficulty tiers, including the per-tier speedup ratios. Lower planning times are shown in bold .
Full model
Training objectives
Goal supervision
Action Consistency
Planner
Task
Tier
HIJP
w/o Linv
w/o Lsigreg
Endpoint goal
sg[zg]
w/o Lcyc
Frozen gϕ
CEM
Reacher
Easy
48%
36%
2%
36%
40%
34%
40%
40%
Default
92%
72%
0%
66%
88%
78%
84%
70%
Hard
92%
90%
0%
72%
88%
84%
80%
98%
Extreme
94%
86%
0%
82%
92%
94%
84%
94%
Avg.
81.5%
71.0%
0.5%
64.0%
77.0%
72.5%
72.0%
75.5%
Table 3: Success rates for HIJP and its ablation variants. Avg. reports the arithmetic mean across the four difficulty tiers for each task, and Overall Avg. averages all 12 task–tier combinations. The best and second-best results in each row are shown in bold and underlined text .
Figure 2: Normalized latent distance to the goal for HIJP, its CEM ablation, and LeWM across four tasks on the extreme tier. Lines show means, and shaded regions indicate pointwise 95% confidence intervals. HIJP and its CEM ablation share the same latent space, while LeWM uses its own encoder.
HIJP
CEM (ablation)
LeWM
Environment
Jerk ↓
Jerk ↓
Ratio ↑
Jerk ↓
Ratio ↑
PushT
0.048
0.697
14.7 ×
0.724
15.2 ×
TwoRoom
0.146
2.503
17.1 ×
2.558
17.5 ×
Reacher
0.046
1.222
26.4 ×
1.134
24.5 ×
OGCube
0.099
2.065
20.9 ×
2.304
23.3 ×
Table 4: Action jerk on the extreme tier. Ratio denotes each comparator’s jerk divided by HIJP’s. The lowest jerk in each environment is shown in bold .
Appendix figures & tables17 assets
Supplementary material from the paper’s appendix.
Appendix
Figure 3: Task overview. Each row shows one representative trajectory per benchmark, sampled uniformly in time from its start (leftmost) to its end (rightmost).
Dataset
Simulator
Action dim A
#Episodes
Traj. length (min/mean/max)
#Frames
Tworoom
2 D navigation
2
10,000
31/92/101
920,809
Reacher
DMControl Reacher
2
10,000
201/201/201
2,010,000
PushT
PushT
2
18,685
49/125/246
2,336,736
OGCube
OGBench Cube
5
10,000
201/201/201
2,010,000
Appendix
Table 5: Statistics of the four datasets (full versions, as used in all experiments). Frames denotes the total number of transitions; Traj. length reports the minimum, mean, and maximum episode lengths.
Figure 4: Per-dimension marginal action distributions for each dataset. The dashed line marks the density of a uniform distribution over [−1,1] .
Task
Success condition
Tworoom
Agent-to-goal position distance <16 in environment coordinates.
Reacher
Absolute error of every joint angle <0.05 radians relative to the target configuration.
PushT
Euclidean error over agent and block positions <20 , and wrapped block orientation error <π/9 .
OGCube
Target cube-to-goal position distance ≤0.04m .
Appendix
Table 6: Environment-defined success criteria.
Tier
Goal offset K
Step budget B
easy
10
25
default
25
50
hard
50
100
extreme
75
100
Appendix
Table 7: Difficulty tiers used in evaluation. Each tier is fully specified by the goal offset K (how many steps ahead of the start the goal is placed) and the step budget B (the maximum number of environment steps allowed).
Figure 5: Visualization of the four difficulty tiers. For each task (row), we fix a start observation (leftmost column) and show the goal observation placed K steps ahead of it, one per tier. A larger offset K moves the goal farther along the trajectory and demands a longer planning horizon.
Hyperparameter
Value
Planning horizon H
5 model steps
Action-chunk length k
5 environment steps
Execution stride R
5 model steps
Environment steps per replan Rk
25
Candidate sequences N
300
Optimization iterations I
30
Appendix
Table 8: CEM configuration shared across all CEM-based comparisons.
Table 10: Task-specific training hyperparameters for HIJP.
Hyperparameter
Value
Planning horizon H
5 model steps
Action-chunk length k
5 raw steps
Raw planning horizon Hk
25 environment steps
Execution stride R
5 model steps
Predictor context m
3 latent–action pairs
Appendix
Table 11: Planning settings shared across all four tasks.
z^j+1←gϕ(tailm(Z),ψω(tailm(A)))
Appendix
Algorithm 2 Amortized latent planning
λinv ( λcyc=0.1 )
λcyc ( λinv=1.0 )
Task
Tier
0
0.1
1.0
2.0
0
0.01
0.1
0.2
Reacher
Easy
36%
42%
48%
44%
34%
52%
48%
44%
Default
72%
88%
92%
78%
78%
86%
92%
64%
Hard
90%
86%
92%
90%
84%
90%
92%
78%
Extreme
86%
98%
94%
90%
94%
90%
94%
92%
Avg.
71.0%
78.5%
81.5%
75.5%
72.5%
79.5%
81.5%
69.5%
Appendix
Table 12: Success rates (%) for the loss-weight ablations. Avg. reports the arithmetic mean across the four difficulty tiers, and Overall Avg. averages all 12 task–tier combinations. Bold column headers indicate the default weights. In the Overall Avg. row, the best and second-best results within each weight group are shown in bold and underlined text .
HIJP
CEM (ablation)
LeWM
Environment
Tier
Jerk ↓
Jerk ↓
Ratio ↑
Jerk ↓
Ratio ↑
PushT
easy
0.038
0.439
11.5 ×
0.451
11.8 ×
default
0.040
0.450
11.2 ×
0.407
10.1 ×
hard
0.048
0.611
12.8 ×
0.595
12.4 ×
extreme
0.048
0.697
14.7 ×
0.724
15.2 ×
Avg.
0.043
0.549
12.6 ×
0.544
12.4 ×
Appendix
Table 13: Action jerk across four environments and four difficulty tiers. Avg. reports the arithmetic mean across tiers, with average ratios computed from the per-tier ratios. The lowest jerk in each row is shown in bold .
Figure 6: Representative trajectories produced by HIJP in the Push-T environment.
Figure 7: Representative trajectories produced by HIJP in the Reacher environment.
Figure 8: Representative trajectories produced by HIJP in the TwoRoom environment.
Figure 9: Representative trajectories produced by HIJP in the OGCube environment.
Long-horizon planning with latent world models requires reasoning across timescales and levels of abstraction. Existing task-agnostic JEPA world models predict and plan at a single timescale or with multiple horizons in one shared latent space. We introduce H-JEPA, an end-to-end recipe for training a hierarchy of action-conditioned JEPAs in which each level predicts farther ahead in its own learned latent space. Planning proceeds top-down: the top level optimizes progress toward the goal, and each level's predictions become subgoals for the planner below it. When factors in the data evolve at separated timescales, higher levels discard fast, unpredictable detail and retain slower task-relevant state. Across four simulated navigation and manipulation environments, hierarchical planning improves over a flat JEPA; on Visual AntMaze, a three-level hierarchy raises success from 18% to 73% using less planner compute. Ablations attribute these gains to both temporal decomposition and higher-level goal representations. With inverse-dynamics supervision, the approach extends to diverse real-robot videos from DROID, where hierarchy improves offline planning fidelity at lower planner compute.
Wancong Zhang, Basile Terver, Michael Rabbat +2
NYU · Advanced Machine Intelligence · INRIA Paris +1
Joint Embedding Predictive Architectures (JEPAs) have shown promising world modeling capabilities, enabling planning in latent space by optimizing action trajectories using methods like the Cross-Entropy Method (CEM). These methods are, however, too computationally expensive and ineffective for long-horizon planning. Furthermore, these methods typically require an explicit image of the goal state, which is not always possible in real-world tasks. In this work, we tackle these limitations by proposing Forward-Forward-JEPA (FF-JEPA), a hierarchical approach leveraging two forward dynamics models. Alongside a standard action-conditioned forward model, we introduce an action-free latent planner that predicts the next subgoal given the current state. This approach removes the need for goal images and enables long-horizon planning by decomposing complex trajectories into a sequence of tractable, short-term optimization problems. Preliminary results on PushT demonstrate that FF-JEPA successfully overcomes flat world models' long-horizon collapse, highlighting this approach as a promising direction for goal-free planning.
Joint-Embedding Predictive Architectures (JEPAs), including recent LeWorldModel (LeWM), have become a promising foundation for reconstruction-free visual world models. For visual planning, however, LeWM evaluates candidate action sequences by repeatedly applying a local one-step latent transition model. This autoregressive rollout makes planning computationally expensive and exposes the predicted trajectory to accumulated latent errors as the horizon grows. We propose Fast LeWorldModel (Fast-LeWM), a fast latent world model that replaces repeated local rollout with action-prefix prediction. Given the current latent and a candidate action sequence, Fast-LeWM encodes its prefixes and predicts the future latents reached after executing those prefixes in parallel. By making action prefixes the basic prediction unit, Fast-LeWM directly models action effects accumulated to different extents over multiple horizons. This prefix-level supervision forces the model to learn how states continuously evolve under different action prefixes, rather than only fitting one-step state transitions. During planning, the predictor can use the prefix token from the encoded action sequence to evaluate the corresponding future latent without explicitly rolling through each intermediate imagined state. Across multiple tasks, Fast-LeWM improves average success over LeWM while substantially reducing planning time, achieving lower open-loop latent loss whose growth becomes significantly slower as the rollout horizon increases.