Paper page - LeWorldModel: Stable End-to-End Joint-Embedding Predictive Architecture from Pixels

Source: https://huggingface.co/papers/2603.19312 Here are the main results fromLeWorldModel (LeWM), organized by key contribution:

https://huggingface.co/papers/2603.19312#1-stable-end-to-end-training-with-minimal-hyperparameters1. Stable End-to-End Training with Minimal Hyperparameters

The Innovation:LeWM is the first JEPA (Joint-Embedding Predictive Architecture) world model that trains stably end-to-end from raw pixels using onlytwo loss terms:

• A next-embedding prediction loss (MSE)
• SIGReg: A regularizer enforcing Gaussian-distributed latent embeddings via random projections and the Epps-Pulley normality test

**Why this matters:**Prior work requires complex multi-term losses (PLDM uses 7 terms), exponential moving averages, stop-gradient tricks, or frozen pre-trained encoders to prevent representation collapse. LeWM eliminates these heuristics while providing provable anti-collapse guarantees.

Figure 1: LeWM trains encoder and predictor jointly. SIGReg projects latent embeddings onto random directions and applies normality tests to prevent collapse without stop-gradients or EMAs.

Key comparison (Figure 2):

MethodEnd-to-EndTask-AgnosticPixel-BasedCollapse GuaranteeHyperparametersPLDM✓✓✓✗6 (unstable)DINO-WM✗ (frozen encoder)✓✓✓FewLeWM✓✓✓✓1 (λ)

https://huggingface.co/papers/2603.19312#2-planning-performance-and-efficiency2. Planning Performance and Efficiency

LeWM achieves48× faster planningthan foundation-model-based approaches while maintaining competitive performance:

Figure 3: Left: Planning time comparison. LeWM uses ~200× fewer tokens than DINO-WM, achieving speeds comparable to PLDM while being ~50× faster than DINO-WM. Center/Right: Under fixed compute budgets, LeWM outperforms DINO-WM on Push-T and OGBench-Cube.

Quantitative Results (Figure 6):

• Push-T: 18% higher success rate than PLDM (the only other end-to-end method); outperforms DINO-WM even when DINO-WM uses additional proprioceptive inputs
• Reacher: Competitive or better than all baselines
• OGBench-Cube: Slightly below DINO-WM (likely due to 3D visual complexity), but far above PLDM
• Two-Room: Underperforms baselines (noted limitation: SIGReg’s Gaussian prior may be too strong for low-dimensional simple environments)

Figure 6: Success rates across environments. LeWM consistently outperforms PLDM and matches or exceeds DINO-WM on most tasks, except the simple Two-Room navigation task.

Computational Efficiency:

• 15M parameters(tiny ViT encoder + predictor)
• Trains onsingle GPU in hours(vs large foundation models)
• Planning completes inunder one second

https://huggingface.co/papers/2603.19312#3-physical-understanding-in-latent-space3. Physical Understanding in Latent Space

LeWM’s latent space captures meaningful physical structure without explicit supervision:

Probing Results (Table 1, Figure 7): Linear and non-linear probes trained on frozen LeWM embeddings accurately predict physical quantities (agent position, block position/velocity, end-effector pose). LeWM consistently outperforms PLDM and approaches DINOv2 (trained on 124M images) on most metrics.

Figure 7: Open-loop latent predictions decoded back to pixels. The model accurately predicts future states (agent/block motion), confirming the latent space preserves physical dynamics.

Figure 9: t-SNE visualization of Push-T embeddings. The latent space preserves spatial neighborhood structure—nearby points in the 2D workspace remain nearby in latent space.

Violation-of-Expectation (Figure 10): LeWM reliably detects physically implausible events (object teleportation) but ignores visual perturbations (color changes), demonstrating genuine physical understanding rather than superficial visual matching.

Figure 10: Surprise signals spike significantly when objects teleport (physical violations), but not when object colors change (visual perturbations), across all three environments (TwoRoom, PushT, OGBench Cube).

https://huggingface.co/papers/2603.19312#4-training-stability-and-ablations4. Training Stability and Ablations

Training Dynamics: Unlike PLDM’s noisy, non-monotonic seven-term objective, LeWM exhibits smooth, stable convergence (Appendix I). The SIGReg term drops sharply early in training then plateaus, indicating the latent distribution quickly matches the target Gaussian.

Robustness (Appendix G):

• Single hyperparameter: Only λ (SIGReg weight) requires tuning; performance remains high across λ ∈ [0.01, 0.2]
• Architecture agnostic: Works with both ViT and ResNet-18 encoders
• Low variance: Success rate variance across seeds is lower than PLDM
• Temporal straightening emerges naturally: Latent trajectories become increasingly straight over training (higher cosine similarity between consecutive velocity vectors than PLDM, despite having no explicit temporal smoothness loss)

https://huggingface.co/papers/2603.19312#summarySummary

LeWM demonstrates that stable, end-to-end world modeling from pixels is possible with a principled two-term objective. It eliminates the engineering complexity of previous JEPA methods (reducing tunable loss hyperparameters from six to one), achieves 48× faster planning than foundation-model approaches, and learns latent spaces that encode genuine physical structure validated by both probing and violation-of-expectation tests.