Source-linked AI summary

Shaping Persistent Representations from Independent Interactions

Ji Dai, Quan Fang, Junyu Gao, Rongfeng Guo, Haoyan Rong, YipingHuang, Yongxi Li

arXiv:2609.34604v1cs.LG

TL;DR

Predictive training can reduce error without organizing persistent information into reusable context, and numerical property labels may be unavailable. SPRII uses relations between interactions to shape that context while retaining native objectives. Across the reported comparisons, it reduces prediction error, while controlled studies show that representation organization and task benefit depend on relations and prediction choices.

  • Problem

    Context-conditioned models can predict accurately without organizing system information for reuse, and numerical property labels are often unavailable for directly supervising that organization.

    Source: §1 · pp. 1–2
  • Method

    SPRII uses relations between interactions to supervise persistent context through composable Align and Cross components while retaining the learner’s native objective.

    Source: §1 · pp. 2–3
  • Results

    Error falls by 14.6% on average (range: 9.9–22.3%) across five primary SpringWorld and CoPhy setting–learner comparisons, and controlled studies find that relation reliability and prediction choices shape organization and task benefit.

    Source: §1 · pp. 2–3
  • Takeaways & Limitations

    Formation, predictive use, and task value are distinct stages, so accessible context or changed predictions alone do not establish lower task error.

    Source: §1 · p. 2

Abstract

from arXiv · show

World models learn environment dynamics from interaction experience. These dynamics depend on the current state and actions, as well as on properties that persist across interactions. Yet standard predictive training can reduce error using local evidence alone, without organizing persistent information into reusable context. We introduce SPRII, a training principle that uses relations between interactions as weak supervision for persistent context while retaining the learner's native objective. For example, different trajectories of the same system share persistent properties even when their states and actions differ. SPRII uses such relations to guide context learning without numerical property labels. Two composable components encourage contexts from related interactions to agree (Align) and use one interaction's context to predict another's future (Cross). Our analysis distinguishes three linked questions: what persistent information is accessible in the learned context (Formation), how that context influences a fixed predictor (Use), and whether it reduces task error (Value). Success at one stage does not guarantee success at the next. Controlled experiments show that more reliable relations improve representation organization, but adding a shared-property constraint can reduce access to a property that remains shared. Context substitutions change predictions at fixed model weights, while the benefit from history depends on prediction horizon and readout. Evaluations span thirteen settings, including controlled physical systems, public dynamics tasks, robotic and tactile data, and partner interaction, across multiple learner families. Relative to the corresponding baselines, SPRII yields average gains of over 10% in downstream task performance and over 15% in persistent-property readout. The project page is available at https://persistent-learning-review.netlify.app/interactive.html.

1 INTRODUCTION

Predictive accuracy need not organize persistent system information into reusable context, and numerical property labels may be unavailable. SPRII uses relations between interactions to shape persistent context, while the paper tests its formation, predictive use, and task value separately.

1 INTRODUCTION

  • Context-conditioned models can predict accurately without organizing system information for reuse, while numerical property labels are often unavailable for direct supervision.Related histories can provide weak supervision when their shared properties are known without knowing numerical parameters.Source: §1 · pp. 1–2
  • SPRII uses relations between interactions to supervise persistent context through composable Align and Cross components, retaining the learner’s native objective without numerical property labels.Align encourages related contexts to agree while maintaining variation; Cross uses one interaction’s context to predict another’s future.Source: §1 · pp. 2–3
  • The paper distinguishes Formation (accessible information), Use (influence on a fixed predictor), and Value (task-error reduction), since success at one stage does not guarantee the next.The framework uses geometry and probes, donor substitutions, and task comparisons to examine these links.Source: §1 · pp. 2–3, Figure 1 · p. 2
  • More reliable relations strengthen cross-interaction organization, but changing which properties are shared can reduce access to a property that remains shared.Context substitutions also steer a fixed reader’s predictions along the substituted physical properties; in SpringWorld, history gains increase with horizon and readout changes alter frozen-context benefit.Source: §1 · pp. 2–3
  • Error falls by 14.6% on average (range: 9.9–22.3%) across five primary SpringWorld and CoPhy setting–learner comparisons; D-Clean 32-step error is 33.7% lower than CaDM.Evaluations span thirteen settings, including robotic and tactile data and partner interaction.Source: §1 · p. 3

2 A RELATION-SUPERVISED TRAINING PRINCIPLE

SPRII trains on related interactions by separating history-derived persistent context from recipient-specific current information. Align and Cross augment existing learner objectives, and the principle is applied across multiple learner families.

2.1 INTERACTIONS, RELATIONS AND PERSISTENT PROPERTIES

  • A recipient interaction is paired with a related donor, with relation membership defining shared persistent information and the sampling rule selecting legal donors.Sharing an additional factor can change both the shared information and selected pairs.Source: §2.1 · p. 3

2.2 A PERSISTENT–CURRENT INTERFACE

  • A shared history encoder produces persistent context, while a current-input encoder produces recipient-specific features that the predictor combines with context and permitted task conditioning.The current-input features can be image embeddings rather than the physical state; context may come from the recipient or a related donor.Source: §2.2 · p. 3

2.3 ALIGN AND CROSS

  • Align regularizes related contexts toward agreement while preserving variation, and Cross predicts the recipient’s future using related donor context with recipient inputs held shared.Both components augment the native objective, which retains the learner’s prediction loss and regularizers.Source: §2.3 · p. 4

2.4 APPLYING THE PRINCIPLE TO EXISTING LEARNERS

  • SPRII is applied to JEPA, CPC, RSSM, supervised dynamics, and action learners while retaining their native contrastive, variational, or task objectives.At inference, settings identify donors by system, task, or partner; SpringWorld tests use a task reader fitted to frozen encoder features.Source: §2.4 · pp. 4–5

3 EXPERIMENTS

The experiments evaluate SPRII across physical-dynamics tasks and learner families, first comparing predictive performance and then examining controlled settings. Predictive error falls across the reported benchmarks, with additional evidence from a common-reader D-Clean comparison.

3 EXPERIMENTS

  • The evaluation spans SpringWorld and PokeWorld physical systems plus public benchmarks and robotic, tactile, multi-agent, and control tasks.SpringWorld tests held-out prediction, Use, and Value; PokeWorld varies which factors paired interactions share.Source: §3 · p. 5
  • Comparisons use frozen-source readers and controls including the native history-conditioned learner, a split history interface without relation objectives, and random pairing with the same relation objective.Readers share targets and permitted inputs within each comparison; native embedding losses remain separate.Source: §3 · p. 5

3.1 PREDICTIVE PERFORMANCE

  • All nine SpringWorld source–reader pairs favor SPRII over Native and TDS on 256 sealed systems, while CoPhy gains span three Collision learners and Balls RSSM.CoPhy budgets are matched within each learner.Source: §3.1 · p. 5, Table 1 · p. 5
  • SPRII gives the lowest mean D-Clean error at all four horizons, including 33.7% lower error than CaDM at 32 steps, and lowers Burgers error versus released NOD in all three distributions.SPRII also lowers mean zero-step error when applied to an amortized CoDA variant; continued NOD has up to 1.1% lower OOD error after matched additional updates.Source: §3.1 · p. 5, Table 2 · p. 6

B. D-Clean: common-reader raw-state MSE (×10−4)

Controlled studies trace how relations shape persistent-context formation, how donor context affects fixed predictions, and when context improves task performance. The effects depend on relation reliability, shared properties, prediction horizon, and readout.

3.2 FORMATION: RELATIONS SHAPE STRENGTH AND ACCESSIBLE CONTENT

  • Raising the correct-pair fraction from 0 to 1 increases the context-distance ratio from 0.260 to 4.39 and partial drag geometry from 0.031 to 0.796 on 400 confirmation systems.Observation budgets, donor/query marginals, and model settings are fixed.Source: §3.2 · p. 6, Figure 3 · p. 6
  • Changing G1 = m to G2 = (m, γ) keeps mass shared but lowers its linear probe R2 from 0.527 to 0.071, while drag rises from 0.308 to 0.925.Nonlinear probes and all three source replicas reproduce both directions; the analysis relates this redirection to balancing predictive relevance against paired-history disagreement.Source: §3.2 · p. 7
  • Align supplies most of the SpringWorld context organization and task gain, while adding Cross lowers error in all three sources.Structure separation ratio/error are 0.240/0.172; Align reaches 2.05/0.123, Cross 0.252/0.168, and both 2.36/0.110.Source: §3.2 · p. 7

3.3 USE: PERSISTENT CONTEXT ENTERS FIXED PREDICTIVE COMPUTATION

  • At fixed reader weights, matching donor and target physics lowers mean 16-step error for mass, drag, and stiffness in every SpringWorld source.The recipient state and future actions are held fixed while donor factors and corresponding simulator target factors vary; the Align effect on matching advantage is positive for all three factors.Source: §3.3 · pp. 7–8, Figure 4 · p. 7

3.4 VALUE: PREDICTION CONDITIONS AND THE READER SHAPE BENEFIT

  • Persistent-over-Null gain rises with horizon in SpringWorld, from 2.0% to 35.7% for Cold queries and from 1.2% to 29.7% for Moving queries.Both query types provide zero observed transitions; the same 178 systems and fitted grid are used across horizons.Source: §3.4 · p. 8, Figure 5 · p. 8
  • The preferred context readout depends on task: direct context lowers D-Clean h32 error by 22.8% versus Decode, while SpringWorld direct context has 2.1% higher error.The D-Clean decoder has independently validated R2 > 0.996; in SpringWorld, M2 lowers mean MSE from 0.619 to 0.570 versus M1, a 7.9% reduction.Source: §3.4 · p. 8, Figure 5 · p. 8
  • Mismatched context raises error in all nine source/reader pairs, while realized value varies by reader and prediction problem.M1 has lower error in all five evaluated PokeWorld G1/G2 runs; context yields higher pendulum-control returns than CaDM in four of five conditions.Source: §3.4 · pp. 8–9

3.5 GENERALITY

  • Relations support property- and identity-specific readouts across recorded manipulation, tactile grasps, and cooperative partner interaction.Task-matched RH20T context improves forecasts over specified mismatched-donor controls; hardness- and shape-based relations favor corresponding property readout, and same-partner alignment strengthens partner-behavior readout.Source: §3.5 · p. 9

4 RELATED WORK

Prior work studies context-conditioned prediction, relational dynamics, and how shared information shapes representations. SPRII treats relation reliability and shared properties as training choices and traces their effects through context accessibility, fixed-predictor use, and task value.

4 RELATED WORK

  • Context-conditioned dynamics models infer environment factors from transitions, while NOD conditions prediction on same-system trajectories.The passage cites Lee et al. (2020), Röder et al. (2025), Shaj et al. (2022), and Chen et al. (2026).Source: §4 · p. 9
  • Prior methods use contrastive environment codes, interventional prediction, or representation objectives to study context and shared information.The passage discusses GG-ODE, RIA, FCRL, view-design studies, and VICReg, retaining their cited author-year references in the paper.Source: §4 · p. 9
  • SPRII makes relation reliability and shared properties explicit training choices, then measures context geometry and probes, donor substitutions through fixed predictors, and task comparisons under different readouts.This separates information made accessible by a relation from its use and realized benefit.Source: §4 · p. 9

5 CONCLUSION

SPRII uses relations between interactions to organize reusable persistent context, and the conclusion emphasizes that representation organization, predictor use, and task value are distinct. Its discussion connects these findings to practical choices about which histories to relate, how to provide them to a model, and how to evaluate their use.

5 CONCLUSION

  • Reliable relations improve representation organization, but requiring additional shared properties can reduce access to information that remains shared.Context substitutions affect predictions at fixed model weights, while the predictive benefit of history depends on horizon and readout.Source: §5 · p. 9

A.1 TASK AND PROPERTY GAINS AT A GLANCE

  • Task improvement and property-readout improvement are paired outcomes, but gains in one need not grow with gains in the other.The examples span trajectory prediction, field forecasting, control, and cooperation with recurring partners.Source: §A.1 · p. 14, Figure 6 · p. 14

A.2 DISCUSSION: PUTTING THE PRINCIPLE TO WORK

  • Applications can connect encounters through identities or conditions expected to persist, without requiring numerical labels for the underlying properties.A useful starting point is to identify what recurs, how long it remains stable, and which earlier observations will be available at prediction time.Source: §A.2 · p. 14
  • A model can keep its task objective while using a history representation to carry information across encounters; deployment should specify where that history comes from and when it is available.The discussion describes object, physical-regime, and partner histories as possible contexts, while noting that their value requires evaluation in each setting.Source: §A.2 · pp. 14–15

A.3 FINDINGS AND BROADER IMPLICATIONS

  • The findings are linked to broader design implications through a table whose evidence column points to the supporting experiments.The paper frames its findings as a chain from what is learned, through how it enters a prediction, to when it helps.Source: Table 3 · p. 15, §A.3 · p. 15

A.4 EVALUATION SETTINGS

The evaluation and implementation sections describe the settings and comparisons, then specify how SPRII’s relation objectives fit alongside each learner’s native objective. They give a controlled JEPA implementation and explain how the persistent–current interface and relation operations vary across learner families.

A.4 EVALUATION SETTINGS

  • The evaluation settings identify each learner, enabled operations, principal controls, and component comparisons among Structure, Align, Cross, and their combination.Table 4 summarizes the settings and principal tests; its images illustrate settings rather than model predictions.Source: §A.4 · p. 16, Table 4 · p. 16

B METHOD AND EXPERIMENTAL IMPLEMENTATION

  • The implementation section builds instances using common relation objectives and training updates, then specifies environments, data splits, probes, readers, interventions, and aggregation.Application-specific implementation choices are detailed in Appendix B.3.Source: B METHOD AND EXPERIMENTAL IMPLEMENTATION · p. 19

B.1 RELATIONS, OBJECTIVES AND TRAINING UPDATE

  • The relation R_G defines what histories share, while Q_G(A | B) selects a legal donor; the update retains the native loss and adds enabled Align and Cross objectives.The recipient is sampled from P, related donor histories are sampled from Q_G, and disabled relation terms are zero.Source: §B.1 · pp. 19–20

B.2 SHARED CONTROLLED-JEPA IMPLEMENTATION

  • In controlled JEPA, a shared observation encoder feeds separate current and persistent branches, and Cross substitutes the donor context while keeping the recipient target and predictor fixed.The controlled D-Clean and PokeWorld histories contain 24 observations and predict encoded targets at horizons 1, 4, and 16.Source: §B.2 · p. 20, Figure 8 · p. 21

B.3 CROSS-LEARNER INSTANTIATION

  • Across learner families, a history encoder or existing context state supplies the persistent route while recipient-specific inputs remain available to the native predictor.The controlled family tests Align and Cross separately and jointly; Overcooked adds Align because its native action objective already consumes previous episodes.Source: §B.3 · p. 21

B.4 DATA, SPLITS AND ADMISSIBLE INPUTS

This section specifies task-specific data, splits, admissible inputs, and evaluation protocols across controlled, public, robotic, tactile, and partner-interaction settings. It describes how frozen representations, substituted contexts, and task errors are evaluated, with populations and uncertainty treated distinctly.

B.4 DATA, SPLITS AND ADMISSIBLE INPUTS

  • SpringWorld and D-Clean isolate persistent physical factors using independent interactions, with history providing evidence about drag and cold-start prediction testing what context adds.SpringWorld uses visual observations and frame differences with a cold-start query; D-Clean has disjoint system splits and separates factor accessibility from prediction.Source: SpringWorld · p. 21, D-Clean · p. 22
  • Across tasks, relation protocols specify which properties donors share, while inputs and evaluation splits remain task-specific.Examples include factor-sharing relations in PokeWorld, task identity for RH20T, and partner identity metadata in OvercookedV2; FHN uses regenerated simulations because the original initial-condition bank was missing.Source: RH20T · p. 25, OvercookedV2 · p. 25, NOD-FHN: two-dimensional… · p. 26

B.5 PROBES, FRESH READERS AND FIXED CONSUMING ROUTES

  • Probes assess factor accessibility from specified inputs, whereas cross-history geometry assesses organization; source, support, and reader-memory representations are probed separately.The input may be code centroids, donor windows, complete source state U, independent-support code S, or learned reader memory M.Source: §B.5 · p. 27
  • Fresh-reader errors measure realized task value, while substituting context through an unchanged reader measures use under that intervention.Null, Persistent, Decode, and Oracle fit separate readers; Oracle supplies true parameters to a learned reader, not an optimal-risk bound. A separately trained Shuffled/Wrong arm is distinct from fixed-input substitution.Source: §B.5 · p. 27

B.6 MEASUREMENT, AGGREGATION AND SELECTION

  • Measurement protocols distinguish native embedding losses from downstream physical-space targets and define evaluation populations, factor-geometry statistics, and source-level aggregation.For example, SpringWorld reports standardized state-increment targets, D-Clean reports raw-state MSE on distinct populations, and RH20T uses normalized force/torque MSE and TCP error in cm.Source: §B.6 · p. 28
  • Evaluation preserves task-specific populations and selection recipes, distinguishing recipient-bootstrap intervals from fitted-source variation.Relative effects use ratios of mean errors rather than averages of case-wise percentages, and intervals pair conditions within the relevant unit before averaging fitted seeds and resampling that unit.Source: §B.6 · pp. 28, 30

C PREDICTIVE PERFORMANCE AND CLOSEST COMPARISONS

  • 14.6% is the equal-weight mean error reduction across five primary comparisons, not across all thirteen settings.The five reductions are SpringWorld versus Native JEPA (22.3%); Collision CPC, RSSM, and JEPA versus Structure (15.4%, 11.4%, and 14.2%); and Balls RSSM versus Structure (9.9%).Source: C PREDICTIVE PERFORMANCE AND CLOSEST… · p. 30

C.1 COLD-START PREDICTION ON SEALED SYSTEMS: SPRINGWORLD

  • Align + Cross reduces cold-start error versus Native and TDS in sealed SpringWorld, with all nine paired cells favoring SPRII.The primary test uses 256 continuous systems, an independent 96-frame same-system donor, six cold-start queries per system at h = 16, and frozen final-step sources and readers.Source: §C.1 · p. 30, Table 9 · p. 31

C.2 HELD-OUT PREDICTION: COLLISION AND BALLS

  • 15.4%, 11.4%, and 14.2% are the Collision error reductions versus Structure for CPC, RSSM, and JEPA, respectively.SPRII improves on Native, Structure, and Random in every fitted seed; results cover 1,994 eligible normal-test episodes.Source: Table 10 · p. 31, §C.2 · p. 31
  • 10.7%, 9.9%, and 13.1% are Cross’s lower mean errors versus Native, Structure, and Random, respectively, on held-out Balls4 RSSM prediction.The reductions have the same direction in all three seeds and concern four-ball trajectory prediction, not extrapolation to other ball counts.Source: §C.2 · p. 31, Table 11 · p. 32

C.3 MATCHED COMPARISONS WITH ADAPTED CONSTRUCTIONS

Adapted constructions compare SPRII with matched-reader or task-specific baselines, and report lower prediction error in SpringWorld and D-Clean. The comparisons also show that predictive error and access to persistent information are distinct: some baselines retain strong physical-property accessibility despite higher task error.

SpringWorld trajectory-decoupled prediction

  • 29.73% and 34.40% are the pooled matched-error reductions against full and compact visual TDS, respectively.All three source means show the same direction; the comparison uses a common original physical reader on 100 development systems.Source: §C.3 · p. 32

Fixed-recipe temporal FCRL-style comparison

  • SPRII reduces matched error by 58.44% [52.90,63.74]% against the fixed temporal FCRL-style adaptation.Training-only physical probes remain near zero for the adaptation’s contrastive codes on a separate 178-system mixture.Source: §C.3 · p. 33

D-Clean state-space TDS

  • At h32, SPRII’s common-reader raw-state Matched MSE is 0.00015072 versus 0.00134349 for state-space TDS, 88.78% lower.Both sources retain strong drag accessibility: R2 is 0.9965–0.9967 for SPRII and 0.9712–0.9767 for TDS, so TDS’s higher task error does not indicate absent physical information.Source: §C.3 · p. 33

D-Clean common-reader dynamics baselines

  • Against CaDM, SPRII reduces h16 and h32 error by 32.16% and 33.70%; its h32 reduction against FCRL is 88.70%.All reductions hold across the three sources.Source: §C.3 · p. 33

D-Clean factor accessibility and fixed-reader use

  • CaDM and SPRII both use supplied history under the fixed reader: their h32 wrong-minus-matched MSEs are 0.05329 and 0.05305, respectively.Their training-fitted damping-probe R2 log γ values are 0.9739 for CaDM and 0.9962 for SPRII.Source: §C.3 · p. 33

D-Clean common-reader dynamics baselines

  • SPRII lowers h32 mean error by 96.7% relative to the 160,000-update DALI source, with the same direction across all three sources.DALI retains damping accessibility (R2 = 0.785) and fixed-reader history use; its source budget is longer than SPRII’s.Source: §C.3 · p. 33

C.4 PREDICTION AND CONTINUATION ON A RELEASED OPERATOR: BURGERS

Across Burgers and frozen-CoDA evaluations, relation-trained SPRII lowers prediction error against several native or history-conditioned controls, while organization, donor use, and adaptation-budget comparisons qualify what those gains establish. The SpringWorld case study finds that Align accounts for most of the observed organization and task improvement, with Cross sometimes lowering error further.

C.4 PREDICTION AND CONTINUATION ON A RELEASED OPERATOR: BURGERS

  • SPRII reduces Burgers native prediction error by 1.075%, 6.554% and 2.921% across ID, viscous-OOD and inviscid-OOD distributions.The reported MSE is the released evaluator’s unweighted mean of batch MSE over the full trajectory.Source: §C.4 · p. 34, Table 14 · p. 35
  • Against continued NOD, SPRII lowers ID error by 4.06% but has 1.06% and 0.20% higher viscous- and inviscid-OOD errors.Against Random continuation, it lowers ID and viscous-OOD errors while inviscid error is nearly tied.Source: §C.4 · p. 34
  • Burgers organization and viscosity accessibility do not guarantee donor use: primary-checkpoint wrong-donor effects are near zero at H = 50, while an additional-update assay finds positive penalties.The latter assay uses a distinct 11-system relative-L2 protocol; continued NOD has stronger geometry and viscosity accessibility there.Source: §C.4 · p. 35, Table 15 · p. 35

C.5 RELATION SUPERVISION ON A FROZEN CODA HOST

  • Matched Cross lowers mean error than Plain by 6.70%, 5.17% and 6.50%, and than Duplicate Self by 4.98%, 6.74% and 7.39%, across the three distributions.Each comparison favors Matched Cross in all three seeds, but all nine paired t intervals include zero.Source: §C.5 · p. 36, Table 19 · p. 37
  • At code-50, Matched Cross beats Duplicate Self in all three distributions but beats Plain only on viscous OOD; Random Cross has slightly lower means throughout.All nine paired intervals include zero, and every arm’s mean query error is higher at code-50 than code-0.Source: §C.5 · p. 36, Table 20 · p. 37

D.1 HISTORY-CONDITIONED BASELINES

  • Adding a separate history channel alone does not reproduce the joint recipe’s benefit: development component means are 0.170 for Native, 0.172 for Structure and 0.110 for Align + Cross.The primary comparison against Native and trajectory-decoupled prediction uses separate sealed systems.Source: §D.1 · p. 38

D.2 CONTRIBUTIONS OF ALIGN AND CROSS

  • Align + Cross lowers SpringWorld development error to 0.110, versus 0.123 for Align and 0.168 for Cross, and raises the source-wise between/within ratio to 2.360.The component study attributes most of the observed organization and task improvement to Align.Source: §D.2 · p. 38

D.3 COMPUTATIONAL COST

  • The SpringWorld instance uses 10,000 source updates and 10,000 frozen-context-reader updates, with Align and Cross added within source updates and no continuation stage.Its tables separate optimizer budgets, parameter counts, running time, reader budgets and configuration selection.Source: §D.3 · p. 39, §D.4 · p. 39, Table 23 · p. 39

D.5 SENSITIVITY TO RELATION WEIGHTS

The results show that relation reliability and pairing structure affect which persistent factors become organized or accessible, while better probes do not uniformly imply better prediction. Findings range from weight-sensitive SpringWorld outcomes and partially successful history-inferred relations to relation-selective tactile organization.

D.5 SENSITIVITY TO RELATION WEIGHTS

  • Changing Align to 0.25 or 4, or Cross to 0.4, increases mean cold-start error by 9.38%, 46.23% and 15.83%; reducing Cross to 0.025 lowers it by 4.69%.Probe scores and prediction error do not move in lockstep: λp = 4 raises mean drag and stiffness R2 while increasing prediction error.Source: §D.5 · p. 39, Table 25 · p. 40

D.6 GRADIENT RELATIONSHIPS

  • Mean Align–Cross gradient cosines range from 0.0214 to 0.0379, but 34.3–40.7% of observations are negative.The small positive mean therefore does not imply uniformly aligned objectives or establish task-level synergy.Source: §D.6 · p. 40, Table 26 · p. 40, Table 27 · p. 40

D.7 RELATION RELIABILITY: POKEWORLD COMPARISON

  • PokeWorld varies the correct-pair mixture weight α, while Proposition 2 isolates the corresponding alignment pressure.The α comparison is referenced in Appendix E.1 and Figure 3.Source: §D.7 · p. 40

E FORMATION: RELATION DESIGN AND REPRESENTATION ORGANIZATION

  • More reliable relations strengthen persistent organization, while changing the pairing rule redirects frozen-code accessibility.The paper treats representation organization and property accessibility as Formation questions.Source: §E.1 · p. 41, E FORMATION: RELATION DESIGN AND… · p. 41

E.1 RELATION RELIABILITY, SHARED FACTORS, AND OBJECTIVES: POKEWORLD

  • Changing from G1 to G2 shifts frozen-code accessibility from mass toward drag across source replicas, but the comparison also changes candidate composition and preselection.The G1/G2 contrast therefore does not isolate shared-factor semantics from donor composition and exposure frequencies.Source: §E.1 · pp. 41, 44, Table 29 · p. 42

E.2 OBJECTIVE COMPONENTS AND REFERENCE LEARNERS: SPRINGWORLD

  • In SpringWorld, adding Cross to Align lowers error in all three sources by 23.04%, 8.27% and 0.10%; Align + Cross also exceeds Structure in source separation.The pooled Cross addition to Align is 10.37%, while adding Align to Cross is 34.10%.Source: §E.2 · p. 44, Table 35 · p. 45

E.3 RELATION-SELECTIVE TACTILE ORGANIZATION: BAXTER

  • On held-out grasps from six known tactile configurations, hardness accuracy is 1.000 under RH versus 0.333 under RS, while shape balanced accuracy is 1.000 under RS versus 0.500 under RH.The input already supports both classifications; the relation pairing selects which property is accessible.Source: §E.3 · p. 46, Figure 14 · p. 46

E.5 RELATIONS INFERRED FROM LEARNED HISTORIES

  • The fixed history-inferred graph raises mean stiffness R2 from −0.0235 to 0.0314, but True has higher probe R2 for every factor and source.The history-based rule changes selected accessible factors but does not recover the effect of supplied physical relations.Source: §E.5 · pp. 48–49

E.4 STRUCTURED RELATION ERRORS

Structured relation errors reorganize factor geometry in factor-specific ways, while fixed-reader interventions test whether changing donor context redirects predictions. In PokeWorld, shared-factor relations redirect responses toward the corresponding mass or drag counterfactual direction.

E.4 STRUCTURED RELATION ERRORS

  • Drag-only mismatch changes drag geometry from 0.4665 to 0.1162 and mass geometry from 0.0796 to 0.2978; mass-only mismatch changes mass geometry to 0.0180 and drag geometry to 0.7013.All four directions hold across the three source seeds, but mass-only mismatch does not lower mass probe R2: 0.1766 versus 0.1630 for correct pairing.Source: §E.4 · p. 47, Table 37 · p. 47, Figure 15 · p. 47

F USE: FIXED-ROUTE CONTEXT INTERVENTIONS

  • The Use analyses pair accessibility probes with fixed-route context substitutions; SpringWorld uses physical donor landscapes, while PokeWorld tests factor-specific direction.RH20T and Balls examine recorded task context and reader memory; Swimmer tests recipient-specific updates through frozen predictor weights.Source: F USE: FIXED-ROUTE CONTEXT INTERVENTIONS · p. 49

F.1 PHYSICAL DONOR LANDSCAPES: SPRINGWORLD

  • Align + Cross has positive donor-matching valley depth for all three factors in every source; the balanced factorial Align effects are 0.16526, 0.02480 and 0.02365 for mass, drag and stiffness.The corresponding Cross main-effect intervals span zero for all three factors.Source: §F.1 · p. 50, Figure 16 · p. 50, Table 43 · p. 51

F.2 FACTOR-SPECIFIC RESPONSES AND DIRECTION: POKEWORLD

  • PokeWorld relation contrasts are 0.041969 for mass and 0.172192 for drag, with paired physical-system intervals above zero for both.The contrasts indicate relation-specific functional redirection on this development bank; the state-decoder assay reports the same directions at a smaller scale.Source: §F.2 · p. 51, Figure 17 · p. 52

F.3 TASK-SPECIFIC DONOR USE IN RECORDED INTERACTIONS: RH20T

Across recorded robotic interactions and controlled physical settings, donor context can influence fixed readers and improve prediction, but its value depends on the task, horizon, and readout. Results also show that accessible context information and downstream benefit are distinct outcomes.

F.3 TASK-SPECIFIC DONOR USE IN RECORDED INTERACTIONS: RH20T

  • Cross lowers all five endpoint means relative to Structure in matched-donor forecasting across 25 held-out RH20T tasks.The models jointly predict force/torque and TCP from synchronized visual, state, and action histories.Source: §F.3 · p. 52, Figure 18 · p. 53, Table 44 · p. 54
  • Align + Cross has greater force/torque donor specificity than Monolithic, while Monolithic has lower matched error.The comparison uses a separate 24-task bank; positive risk differences favor Monolithic.Source: §F.3 · p. 55, Table 45 · p. 55
  • Align + Cross shows positive donor penalties for force/torque and TCP; its TCP donor effect decreases with donor count, while Cross’s TCP penalty is unresolved.The separate validation bank also tests action use; ablation establishes action use, and Random retains a small positive force/torque effect.Source: §F.3 · p. 55, Table 46 · p. 55

F.4 PHYSICAL INFORMATION IN READER MEMORY: BALLS

  • RSSM reader memory selectively exposes restitution: in one Cross replica, wrong restitution raises MSE from 1.1823 to 1.7033, while mass and friction changes are small.The restitution effect is also found in JEPA and CoPhyNet substitutions; the measured reader memory is distinct from source state and independent-support code.Source: §F.4 · p. 56, Figure 19 · p. 56

F.5 RECIPIENT-SPECIFIC UPDATES THROUGH FROZEN WEIGHTS: SWIMMER

  • Recipient-specific persistent updates reduce error for all three frozen Swimmer predictors on 512 prospective systems disjoint from training and selection.The comparison measures the value of recipient-specific updates through fixed predictor weights.Source: §F.5 · pp. 57–58, Table 49 · p. 57

G.1 PREDICTION HORIZON AND RECIPIENT EVIDENCE: SPRINGWORLD

  • History benefit grows with horizon for cold and moving SpringWorld queries; separately, adding recipient-prefix evidence barely changes the temporal-reader endpoint.The recipient-prefix protocol reports small h16 endpoint changes, with intervals generally including zero.Source: §G.1 · p. 58, Table 50 · p. 58

G.2 DIRECT CONTEXT VERSUS PHYSICAL BOTTLENECKS

  • At h32, D-Clean Persistent MSE is 0.000590019 versus Decode’s 0.000763955, while SpringWorld favors Decode over Persistent on cold-start.In D-Clean, the paired Decode-minus-Persistent gap is 0.000173937 [0.000068237,0.000307406]; the SpringWorld comparison reports Decode-minus-Persistent of −0.0023623 [−0.0045732,−0.0004762].Source: §G.2 · pp. 58–59, Figure 20 · p. 59, Table 51 · p. 59

G.3 AGGREGATE AND COMPONENT-LEVEL BENEFIT: POKEWORLD

  • PokeWorld’s targeted-utility slope against simulator sensitivity spans zero, while G1 retains higher mass readout and G2 higher drag readout.The probes use 5,913 actual donor windows.Source: §G.3 · p. 60, Table 54 · p. 61

G.4 REALIZING VALUE THROUGH FROZEN-SOURCE READOUTS

Frozen-source readouts show that correctly associated context can improve reader performance, but recovery varies by source family and route. A development-selected pendulum recipe and evaluations across other domains further illustrate the scope and variability of these results.

G.4 REALIZING VALUE THROUGH FROZEN-SOURCE READOUTS

  • Reader recovery differs by source: all nine Align + Cross pairs favor M2, whereas all five Poke pairs favor M1; the object-only Poke comparison adds no robust recovery.The object-only comparison’s R8 interval spans zero, while G2 has higher M2 mean error.Source: §G.4 · pp. 61, 62, 64, Figure 22 · p. 62, Table 55 · p. 62
  • Matched M2 beats separately fitted mismatched M2 in all nine source–reader pairs, by 8.7% on the full mixture and 33.7% at cold-start h16.The comparisons use the same M2 architecture and development-selected fits.Source: §G.4 · p. 61, Table 56 · p. 62, Figure 23 · p. 63
  • Stronger relation reliability does not produce a positive mean M2 gain at the 5,000-update h16 endpoint under this PokeWorld reader protocol.All three wrong-minus-matched intervals include zero at 5,000 updates.Source: §G.4 · pp. 62–63, Table 57 · p. 63
  • With frozen SpringWorld weights, own-system context lowers Align + Cross error as scale rises, while cross-system donors raise it; Structure’s own-context effects are smaller and nonmonotone.Changing the consuming route can recover additional frozen-context value, but the PokeWorld comparisons show this is not automatic.Source: §G.4 · pp. 61, 63, Figure 22 · p. 62, Table 58 · p. 64

G.5 CLOSED-LOOP CONTROL WITH A DEVELOPMENT-SELECTED RECIPE: PENDULUM

  • The development-selected R7 pendulum recipe has higher mean return than CaDM in four of five groups, but lower return in OOD c2.Return direction is not shared by all seeds in every group, and R7 did not improve every group over the earlier complete relation recipe.Source: Table 60 · p. 64, §G.5 · p. 65

H GENERALITY ACROSS LEARNERS, PARTNERS, AND FIELDS

  • Generality analyses span CoPhy learner and scene variation, Overcooked behavioral readouts and cooperation outcomes, and FHN history-count effects on field prediction.The corresponding Formation, Use, and Value analyses appear in Appendices E, F, and G.Source: H GENERALITY ACROSS LEARNERS,… · p. 65

H.1 LEARNER AND SCENE TRANSFER: COPHY

This section examines how relation-based effects vary with pairing, learner and readout, and history budget, distinguishing evidence for persistent-factor formation from a predictor’s use of supplied context. It also separates context formation, predictor reliance, and realized task value, and describes fixed-predictor risk changes in terms of prediction sensitivity and its interaction with the original residual.

H.1 LEARNER AND SCENE TRANSFER: COPHY

  • In CoPhy, CPC Balls had restitution R2 U 0.7672 versus Native 0.5959, yet MSE was 1.5042 versus 1.4399, and source-100 reader rankings varied by scene.The 45-cell learner–scene–recipe matrix spans JEPA, CPC, RSSM, and CoPhyNet; additional sources preserved some adverse comparisons, and Collision mass access was lower for SPRII than Native in JEPA and CoPhyNet.Source: §H.1 · pp. 65–66, Figure 24 · p. 65
  • 8.95%/13.68%/9.13% lower Matched error than Native/Random/Structure, respectively, was reported for RSSM in the three-source Balls extension; CoPhyNet gains were 3.91%/3.19% over Native/Random.All five recipient-bootstrap family-adjusted intervals were positive, conditional on fitted models and excluding selection uncertainty.Source: §H.1 · p. 66, Table 63 · p. 68

H.2 RECURRING-PARTNER BEHAVIOR AND COOPERATION: OVERCOOKED

  • At full history, Align lowered behavioral-probe MSE versus H+VC (−0.02120 ± 0.00610) and raised familiar-partner returns in all three seeds, while held-out returns were mixed.Align’s probe MSE remained above the constant-mean reference; familiar-return differences were +4.400, +0.667, and +0.600, versus held-out differences of +9.333, +0.667, and −13.333.Source: Table 67 · p. 69, §H.2 · p. 69

H.3 HISTORY-COUNT SCALING IN REACTION-DIFFUSION FIELDS: FHN

  • From K = 1 to K = 4, SPRII H50 error fell 16.9%/18.0%/10.9% on ID/OOD-Intra/OOD-Extra, versus 8.4%/9.2%/7.1% for NOD.SPRII’s error remained higher than NOD at matched K; its gaps shrank from 14.24%/12.44%/5.73% at K = 1 to 3.55%/1.61%/1.47% at K = 4. Training budgets differed, so these comparisons do not isolate alignment at equal compute.Source: §H.3 · pp. 69–70, Figure 25 · p. 70
  • At ID K = 4, H = 50, SPRII relative L2 error was 0.02013 versus 0.02152 for extra-50k NOD, but the paired-system interval included zero; the other eight cells favored NOD.FHN factor accessibility varied by factor, split, and source; the K = 1 probe evaluation covered nine training, four OOD-Intra, and twelve OOD-Extra systems.Source: §H.3 · pp. 70–71, Table 69 · p. 70

I.1 SETUP AND LIFECYCLE

  • The lifecycle treats accessible context information, a specified predictor’s reliance on context, and task value as distinct questions that can yield different outcomes.Geometry and probes assess information, fixed-predictor substitutions assess reliance, and task readers assess realized value; donor sensitivity alone does not show that reliance reduces risk.Source: §I.1 · p. 71, I THEORETICAL CONNECTIONS · p. 71

I.2 FORMATION: PAIRING, RELIABILITY AND PREDICTIVE SELECTION

  • Under ideal pairing, alignment penalizes within-group differences while leaving group-mean variation eligible for retention; random pairing can contract persistent variation.Pairing reliability determines which variation escapes the penalty, and the actual sampler matters: forced mismatches or dependent histories can change the pair covariance and penalty coefficient.Source: §I.2 · pp. 71–72
  • In the constrained predictive reference, the selected representation spans top-d eigendirections of K^T K − βD_G, so broadening a relation can change the preferred direction while mass remains shared.The fixed-representation refinement identity makes additional variation eligible, but predictive selection may choose a different, non-nested subspace; the example switches the preferred direction from mass to drag.Source: §I.2 · pp. 73–74, Figure 26 · p. 74
  • Formation analysis first checks whether histories contain evidence for a factor, since a factor independent of a fixed encoder’s input remains independent of its code.Table 28’s actual-input estimators check for factor evidence before assessing which factors the representation emphasizes.Source: §I.2 · p. 74

I.3 USE: FIXED-PREDICTOR RELIANCE

  • Under a conditional-mean predictor with no added target information from the replacement, specificity equals the mean-squared prediction change; generally, risk change also includes an interaction with the original residual.The fixed-weight intervention holds predictor and recipient inputs fixed while changing supplied context, without refitting readers for each donor condition.Source: §I.3 · p. 74
  • Positive specificity indicates lower risk with a matched donor, while near-zero specificity can mask different predictions through cancellation; zero-context and wrong-donor replacements test channel dependence and content specificity, respectively.Absolute-risk comparisons and fresh-reader evaluations quantify task benefit.Source: §I.3 · p. 74

I.4 VALUE: CONDITIONAL RISK AND READER REALIZATION

This section treats value as the task-relevant benefit of donor context beyond recipient inputs, separating what optimal readers can obtain from what fitted readers realize. The conclusions depend on the loss and evaluation setting.

I.4 VALUE: CONDITIONAL RISK AND READER REALIZATION

  • For categorical log loss, optimal conditional value equals I(Y;D|X), the expected KL divergence between recipient-only and recipient-plus-donor predictions.The comparison uses the optimal conditional distributions under the same recipient inputs.Source: §I.4 · p. 75
  • Accessible context information need not have task value: if D=F1 and Y=F2 are independent, conditional value is zero, and redundancy with X can also remove incremental value.For squared loss, zero value means the conditional mean is unchanged; for categorical log loss, it means the conditional distribution is unchanged.Source: §I.4 · p. 76
  • Equation (24) separates attainable conditional value from how well the particular readers realize it.The PokeWorld frozen-source study estimates realized risk for its fitted readers.Source: §I.4 · p. 76
  • In the Gaussian model, greater recipient uncertainty makes the same history more valuable; averaging R independent history measurements replaces σ2 d with σ2 d/R.A longer horizon helps only insofar as it changes target dependence on persistent information or available evidence.Source: §I.4 · p. 76
  • For fixed encoders, targets, and pairing law, Cross learns the recipient target’s conditional mean under squared loss or conditional distribution under categorical log loss.The donor must add target-relevant information beyond X; the complete SPRII objective fits components jointly through a shared predictor.Source: §I.4 · p. 76
  • Training and evaluation risks are distinct, and action log loss differs from rollout return because return depends on policy-induced states and environment response.The identities hold within their specified law and fixed representation.Source: §I.4 · p. 76
  • A positive M1/M2 adapter gain indicates additional realization under the compared routes, while unrestricted attainable value remains a separate quantity.The gain is ∆realize = Err(M1) − Err(M2), with positive values favoring M2.Source: §I.4 · p. 76

J CLOSEST METHODOLOGICAL CONNECTIONS

The closest precedents address related experience, predictive context, adaptation, or reliance. The paper distinguishes its contribution through controlled relation content and separate analyses of context formation, use, and value.

J CLOSEST METHODOLOGICAL CONNECTIONS

  • FCRL learns from same-function observation sets, while NOD conditions an operator on a separate same-system trajectory, directly preceding the Cross-type construction (Chen et al., 2026).RIA instead predicts whether inferred contexts share an environment and regularizes their similarity.Source: J CLOSEST METHODOLOGICAL CONNECTIONS · p. 76
  • SPRII varies controlled relation reliability and partial-factor content, while Align and Cross isolate operations within native predictive objectives.Its probes distinguish context accessibility, fitted-reader task value, and reliance under context substitution through fixed weights.Source: J CLOSEST METHODOLOGICAL CONNECTIONS · p. 77
  • CaDM and DALI learn dynamics context for adaptation; completed Burgers references for CoDA and GEPS use 50 support-code optimization steps per query, unlike amortized code inference.The D-Clean comparison uses a common frozen-code reader and reports source-training budgets rather than ranking original control agents.Source: J CLOSEST METHODOLOGICAL CONNECTIONS · p. 77
Loading 2609.34604v1…