Prediction errors from video world models are often treated as physical surprise, but they can also reflect appearance, static content, motion, or ordinary prediction difficulty. We present an evaluat
The study evaluates frozen video representations to show that prediction errors reflect appearance and motion rather than reliably measuring physical surprise.
Prediction errors from video world models are often treated as physical surprise, but they can also reflect appearance, static content, motion, or ordinary prediction difficulty. We present an evaluation framework that separates what frozen representations contain, how they organize appearance and physical differences, and what changes a model's own prediction error. On IntPhys2, a benchmark of physically possible and impossible events, we compare representations from latent prediction, masked pixel reconstruction, and simple visual statistics. Appearance remains easy to decode, while V-JEPA2 exposes modest information about whether events are possible or impossible. Looking at the latent…
Summary and abstract excerpt via Hugging Face Papers ↗ · arXiv.
When Does Latent Prediction Error Support Physical Surprise Claims in Video World Models? was first seen on Hugging Face · Daily papers on Nov 3, 2026. Since then it has appeared in 10 checks on 2 different days. Its best position was #8 of 30, reached on Nov 4, 05:28 UTC. It dropped off the list after Nov 4, 07:28 UTC.
Position on Hugging Face · Daily papers at every check (lower is better).
Best rank per day (UTC).
Platform metric as reported by Hugging Face.
Archived daily, weekly and monthly lists that include this entry.
Not at the moment. It was last on the list on Nov 4, 07:28 UTC, after 2 days of trending.
#8 on Hugging Face · Daily papers, on Nov 4, 05:28 UTC. Trendoday checks this list every 120 minutes.
It was first seen on Nov 3, 2026 and has been on the list on 2 days (10 checks) since.