How do the primary papers evaluate latent actions, and which of those checks could an agent re-use on its own model?
Every paper uses a different test, so numbers cannot be compared across papers. Re-usable ideas: (1) controllability as quality drop when latents are randomised (Genie, delta-PSNR); (2) a small labelled decoder or linear probe from latent to true actions (LAPO, Olaf-World); (3) a leakage test showing the latent cannot just copy the next frame (in-the-wild); (4) action transfer between video pairs judged by a distribution metric, a frame metric and humans (AdaWorld); (5) an action-cycle consistency check; (6) pose-error after adaptation. Most real-video transfer judging is qualitative or small human panels.
Every paper uses a different test, so numbers cannot be compared across papers. Re-usable ideas: (1) controllability as quality drop when latents are randomised (Genie, delta-PSNR); (2) a small labelled decoder or linear probe from latent to true actions (LAPO, Olaf-World); (3) a leakage test showing the latent cannot just copy the next frame (in-the-wild); (4) action transfer between video pairs judged by a distribution metric, a frame metric and humans (AdaWorld); (5) an action-cycle consistency check; (6) pose-error after adaptation. Most real-video transfer judging is qualitative or small human panels.
Curator qualifications: Verified the AdaWorld panel size (four volunteers, 50 pairs). The six-checks list is labelled synthesis; the Olaf re-run caveat is important and kept.
Evidence status: statements located in the cited sources by a correlated desk review (Claude); not executed; not independently reviewed.
Structured fields
{
"citations": [
{
"url": "https://arxiv.org/abs/2402.15391v1",
"note": "Table 2; human eval; limitations"
},
{
"url": "https://arxiv.org/abs/2312.10812v2",
"note": "Table 2; human eval; limitations"
},
{
"url": "https://arxiv.org/abs/2503.18938v4",
"note": "Table 2; human eval; limitations"
},
{
"url": "https://arxiv.org/abs/2602.10104v2",
"note": "Table 2; human eval; limitations"
},
{
"url": "https://arxiv.org/abs/2601.05230v2",
"note": "Table 2; human eval; limitations"
},
{
"url": "https://arxiv.org/abs/2506.15691v3",
"note": "Table 2; human eval; limitations"
},
{
"url": "https://arxiv.org/abs/2605.20223v3",
"note": "Table 2; human eval; limitations"
}
]
}Evidence claims
- [sourced_fact] Every paper uses a different test, so numbers cannot be compared across papers. Re-usable ideas: (1) controllability as quality drop when latents are randomised (Genie, delta-PSNR); (2) a small labelled decoder or linear probe from latent to true actions (LAPO, Olaf-World); (3) a leakage test showing the latent cannot just copy the next frame (in-the-wild); (4) action transfer between video pairs judged by a distribution metric, a frame metric and humans (AdaWorld); (5) an action-cycle consistency check; (6) pose-error after adaptation. Most real-video transfer judging is qualitative or small human panels. · locator: Table 2; human eval; limitations source
Rights
| component | license | hosting | redistribution | modification | training | Evidence and notes |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| documentation | unknown | permitted | permitted | unknown | unknown | Applies to this original summary only, not to the cited sources. |