Understanding and controlling how systems evolve is central to science and engineering, where many problems require reasoning about complete trajectories. Existing approaches typically learn local dynamics or generate trajectories, but objectives constructed from individual transitions can miss dependencies across time, while generative models do not necessarily provide a tractable objective for evaluating and optimizing arbitrary paths. We study action learning, the problem of recovering a stochastic action from trajectory observations, yielding a common objective for reasoning about dynamical systems. We introduce LEAP (Learned Energy on Action Paths), which anchors the unknown action to a tractable reference process and learns the remaining correction by comparing observed trajectories with reference trajectories. This construction yields a differentiable objective on path space that can capture both local dynamical structure and nonadditive dependencies across time. Once learned, the same action can be flexibly reused for path ranking and inference, mechanism steering, constrained optimization and sampling. Across stochastic physical systems, many-body orbital dynamics and molecular simulations, LEAP recovers underlying dynamics, captures dependencies across time and enables transfer across inference objectives and physical conditions. We show that action learning is a promising framework for turning trajectory observations into reusable objectives for scientific inference and control.
Figures & tables
Figure 1: Local dynamics learning versus action learning. Local models learn short-range transition laws that induce a path likelihood, whereas LEAP learns an action from complete trajectories while retaining structured local dynamics when appropriate.
Figure 2: LEAP. Given data trajectories and a tractable reference process, LEAP learns a centered path-space correction and combines it with the reference action to obtain Sθ(Φ;c) .
Figure 3: Downstream trajectory inference with the learned action. Once Sθ(Φ;c) is learned, the same action supports representative path inference, mechanism steering (tilting), constrained inference and sampling.
Figure 4Figure 5
Figure 6: Reuse of a fixed molecular action. All panels use the same 600 K LEAP action. (a) Completion from endpoints and three interior observations. (b) Increasing the basin preference raises M from 0.23 to 0.81 for the shown path. (c) Adding ∣ϕ∣≤150∘ changes the route while preserving the terminal condition. Diamonds and squares are endpoints, dots are saved frames and the background is empirical free energy.
Appendix figures & tables13 assets
Supplementary material from the paper’s appendix.
Appendix
F(Φ;c)=Sθ(Φ;c)−∑jγjMj(Φ)+∑ℓλℓCℓ(Φ)
Appendix
Algorithm 2 Path optimization with a learned LEAP action
Double well
Orbital
Alanine
Training paths
5,000
1,016
130 / 463
Reference paths K
8
4
8
Training budget
500 epochs
100 epochs
1,200 updates
Batch size
64
8
32
Learning rate
10−3
3×10−4
3×10−4
Training seeds
3
3
3
Appendix
Table 4: Training settings for the principal experiments. Molecular counts correspond to the 500 K and 600 K training sets. Orbital model inputs are described in § E.2 .
Method
Definition
Kramers-Moyal
Binned mean local increment
Cubic velocity regression
Cubic least-squares fit to local increments
Zero field
b(x)=0
Geometric path
Fixed waiting and linear crossing path
Analytic drift
Exact drift and action
LEAP
Complete path comparison objective
Appendix
Table 5: Double well methods and controls.
Drift MSE ↓
True path cost ↓
Method
T=4
T=16
Kramers-Moyal
0.8132±0.0030
—
—
Cubic velocity reg.
0.7752±0.0043
0.3189±0.0008
0.6126±0.0079
Zero field
0.0759
0.2637
0.4454
Geometric path
—
0.2637
0.2637
Analytic drift
0
0.2532
0.2500
Appendix
Table 6: Physical recovery and path inference. Drift error and path cost under new endpoints and horizons.
Setting
LEAP
Transition NCE
Gaussian MLE
Reference diffusion
Dref=0.06
0.31±0.13
0.24±0.13
0.347±0.014
Dref=0.12
0.58±0.16
0.64±0.12
0.644±0.084
Dref=0.20
0.66±0.14
0.71±0.11
0.729±0.084
Dref=0.32
0.795±0.089
0.77±0.10
0.855±0.062
Dref=0.48
0.939±0.040
0.837±0.080
0.931±0.034
Appendix
Table 7: Reference choice. Correction NRMSE ↓ . The diffusion sweep uses bref=0 ; the drift sweep uses Dref=0.20 . Contrastive models use K=4 .
Setting
LEAP
Transition NCE
Gaussian MLE
Δt=0.02 , N=48
0.828±0.096
0.769±0.081
0.730±0.033
Δt=0.04 , N=24
0.66±0.14
0.71±0.11
0.729±0.084
Δt=0.08 , N=12
0.67±0.15
0.671±0.070
0.66±0.13
Appendix
Table 8: Temporal resolution. Correction NRMSE ↓ , mean ± sample SD at fixed T=0.96 .
Model
Input
NRMSEΔG↓
LEAP-Local
One transition
1.0013±0.0015
Transition NCE
One transition
1.0008±0.0013
LEAP-Global
Complete path + accumulated features
0.228±0.011
LEAP-Hybrid
Local + complete path
0.232±0.014
Gaussian MLE
State + time
11.92±0.66
History Gaussian MLE
Causal history
10.162±0.093
Appendix
Table 9: Orbital controls. Correction NRMSE ↓ on the 31 -body benchmark; a constant prediction gives 1 . Bold is the lowest mean within each control block.
Setting
Training
NRMSEΔG↓
K=4
validation stop
0.2208±0.0056
K=4
275 epochs
0.2207±0.019
K=16
validation stop
0.147±0.017
K=32
validation stop
0.138±0.032
Training data
Training paths
LEAP-Global
Binary NRE
Appendix
Table 10: Comparison and data budgets. Correction NRMSE ↓ . Increasing K changes the number of reference paths per observed trajectory; the lower panel increases the number of training paths. Separate runs from Table 9 .
Transitions
Path coords.
LEAP-Local
LEAP-Global
31 bodies
32
6,138
0.9994±1.2×10−3
0.2584±0.0097
64
12,090
0.9985±7×10−4
0.127±0.015
128
23,994
1.0052±0.0066
0.113±0.027
256
47,802
0.9965±7×10−4
0.117±0.055
42 bodies
Appendix
Table 11: Scaling with system size and path length. Correction NRMSE ↓ . Each configuration uses its exact mixture correction and K=4 . Separate runs from Table 9 .
Objective difference
Error ↓
AUROC ↑
Spearman ↑
Denoising
1.0000±2.3×10−6
0.4999±2×10−4
—
Variational
0.9883±1×10−4
0.4999±2×10−4
0.0066±0.0055
Appendix
Table 12: Trajectory diffusion baseline. GeoTDM objective differences on the orbital benchmark with 31 bodies. The denoising objective is evaluated using correction NRMSE, while the variational objective is evaluated using affine relative error.
Method
Sparse completion
Endpoints only
Reference action
0.1031±0.0016
0.8183±0.0042
Untrained action
0.0947±0.0000
0.7953±0.0027
Velocity regression
0.0900±0.0003
0.6609±0.0032
Binary NRE
0.0897±0.0002
0.6682±0.0118
Conditional DDPM
0.119±0.012
0.409±0.034
Conditional flow matching
0.125±0.011
0.350±0.012
Appendix
Table 13: Molecular completion at 600 K. Circular MSE ↓ on unobserved frames for the same observation patterns and durations.
Train
Test
LEAP
Binary NRE
Velocity
Untrained
500
500
0.9403±0.0099
0.9337±0.0030
0.9427±0.0033
0.8385±0.0050
600
500
0.9579±0.0057
0.9489±0.0051
0.9437±0.0022
0.8385±0.0050
500
600
0.9719±0.0068
0.9386±0.0026
0.9533±0.0025
0.8847±0.0028
600
600
0.9754±0.0012
0.9692±0.0007
0.9559±0.0029
0.8847±0.0028
Appendix
Table 14: Temperature transfer. Within-context AUROC ↑ . Bold marks LEAP evaluated at a temperature different from its training temperature.
λ=0
λ=5
λ=20
λ=50
Preference M↑
0.0658±0.0059
0.1095±0.0088
0.2517±0.0045
0.3641±0.0116
Transition cost ↓
0.9389±0.0545
0.9159±0.0228
0.9809±0.0231
1.3774±0.0252
Appendix
Table 15: Preference reuse with a fixed LEAP action. Increasing λ raises the basin preference while changing the unguided projected transition cost in nats per active step.
Learning control from action-free recordings is challenging because intervention effects are unobserved and policies may exploit errors in reconstructed dynamics. We present a hierarchical model-based reinforcement learning framework that uses shared structure across related systems to learn system-specific control policies from action-free recordings. A hierarchical dynamical system reconstruction model captures shared dynamics and individual variation through low-dimensional embeddings. These embeddings are then reused to parameterize shared policy and value networks, linking differences in reconstructed dynamics to differences in control. Policies are trained entirely via simulation under an explicit intervention model with additive latent perturbations. Piecewise-linear recurrent neural networks enable mechanistic analyses of the controlled dynamics, while decoder-based constraints make the immediate effects of interventions interpretable in observation space and permit interventions on one modality while protecting another from direct manipulation. On Lorenz-63 and double-pendulum systems, hierarchical policies improve transfer over independently trained policies. On Lorenz-63, they also achieve a higher mean reward than repeated planning with the same reconstructed models, perform comparably to methods trained with controlled interactions, and generalize to systems absent from policy training after embedding inference alone. Applications to neural-behavioral recordings demonstrate suppression of predicted movement under constrained neural perturbations. Together, these findings show how shared dynamical representations support transferable control and mechanistic hypothesis generation from action-free recordings.
Niklas Emonds, Georgia Koppe
Hector Institute for AI in Psychiatry (HITKIP) & Department of Psychiatry and Psychotherapy, Central Institute of Mental Health (CIMH), Medical Faculty Mannheim, Heidelberg University · Interdisciplinary Center for Scientific Computing (IWR), Faculty of Mathematics and Computer Science, Heidelberg University · Hertie Institute for AI in Brain Health, University of Tübingen, Germany
Action-chunking policies predict future controls but execute only a prefix before replanning. How should a fixed action-token budget be organized to support execution? We propose LeapBot-JAC, which allocates sparse future-control references and dense execution targets within one shared action expert. Both chains are supervised by demonstrated controls and jointly denoised at aligned physical-time positions. Directed attention allows execution tokens to read reference tokens subject to the host's visibility constraints. JAC adds neither action tokens nor parameters and retains the host's world-modeling process; both chains participate in inference, while only the execution chain drives the robot. On LIBERO, JAC reaches 98.3% success with FastWAM and LeapBot-WA, up from 97.0% and 97.3%. On zero-shot LIBERO-Plus, their success rates improve from 53.5% to 70.4% and from 73.1% to 77.3%, respectively. RoboTwin and two real-world tasks provide additional deployment evaluations. Single-training-seed comparisons and FastWAM ablations support action-role organization as a practical design choice under a fixed action-token budget.
Chenhao Zhu, Baibing Liu, Pei Liu +5
Leapmotor · The Hong Kong University of Science and Technology (Guangzhou) · The Hong Kong University of Science and Technology
Many scientific and machine learning systems, from molecular dynamics to diffusion models and beyond, are governed by stochastic dynamics with low-dimensional structure, evolving on slow timescales. However, target trajectories, used to identify and interpret such dynamics, are often inaccessible: only biased or static samples that explore the underlying manifold are available. We introduce Langevin-Informed Transfer Learning (LITL), a framework for recovering target Langevin dynamics from biased source samples using only black-box feedback. LITL learns the leading spectral structure of the target infinitesimal generator and the projected drift through Dirichlet representation learning, enabling kinetic reconstruction in spectral form and slow-manifold gradient field estimation. We further introduce a spherical variant well suited to steering normalized latent representations commonly used in learning systems toward desired objectives. We establish finite-sample guarantees for eigenvalue, eigenfunction, and projected drift estimation in Sobolev norms, thereby ensuring generalization of these quantities and their first-order derivatives. Empirically, LITL recovers physical transition timescales from biased molecular simulations, builds kinetic structure from static samples of generative models, reconstructs spherical symmetries of physical systems, and enables post-hoc latent steering of trained neural networks under black-box feedback. Together, these results position spectral operator learning as a practical framework for recovering stochastic dynamics under distribution shift and unlock applications across machine learning and the physical sciences.
Vladimir R. Kostic, Karim Lounici, Hélène Halconruy +3
CSML, Istituto Italiano di Tecnologia · University of Novi Sad · CMAP-Ecole Polytechnique +5