AI News HubLIVE
Original source2 min read

Toward Goal-Agnostic Joint-Embedding Predictive Control of Partial Differential Equations

A goal-agnostic control framework for PDEs using a joint-embedding predictive architecture (JEPA) is presented. A small 2D ViT encoder and action-conditioned latent dynamics are trained offline without reward or goal, frozen, and reused by an MPPI controller. Applying the control objective to a physical observable (kinetic energy) outperforms minimizing Euclidean distance in latent space. On the 2D Navier-Stokes benchmark, KE-probe planning improves reward from -12.08 to -10.90 and reduces late-field RMSE by 53% on withheld targets. The frozen model also supports stabilization with 2.7% mean relative error.

SourcearXiv Machine LearningAuthor: Jonathan Gallagher, Roberto Guglielmi

-->

[Submitted on 21 Jul 2026]

Title:Toward Goal-Agnostic Joint-Embedding Predictive Control of Partial Differential Equations

View a PDF of the paper titled Toward Goal-Agnostic Joint-Embedding Predictive Control of Partial Differential Equations, by Jonathan Gallagher and 1 other authors

View PDF HTML (experimental)

Abstract:We present a goal-agnostic control framework for partial differential equations (PDEs) built around a joint-embedding predictive architecture (JEPA). The small 2D ViT encoder and action-conditioned latent dynamics are trained offline without a reward or downstream goal, frozen, and reused by a model-predictive path integral (MPPI) controller. We find that when available, the control objective is better applied to an explicit physical observable (provided injectivity) than to minimizing raw Euclidean distance ($L^2$) in the learned latent space. For a learned linear kinetic-energy (KE) probe on frozen latent rollouts we can reproduce held-out trajectories with $R^2=0.989$, while requiring no change to the underlying world model. On the PDE Control Gym 2D Navier--Stokes benchmark, using KE-probe planning improves the matched 50-episode native reward from $-12.08\pm0.86$ for latent-$L^2$ planning to $-10.90\pm0.91$ (95\% CI), while lowering last-quarter velocity-field RMSE from $0.0765$ to $0.0692$. Across three intentionally withheld, dissimilar, aperiodic targets, KE planning lowers late field RMSE by $53\%$ relative to latent-$L^2$ planning ($0.0220$ versus $0.0469$), winning all 30 paired episodes. The same frozen model also supports controls targeting stabilization around a steady configuration via direct regulation of KE achieving $2.7\%$ mean relative error. While the latent probe is brittle to measurement noise and missing pixels, we believe the results support the claim that latent dynamics can remain both dynamic and goal-agnostic while calibrated observables (granted they guarantee unique continuation) may be a better objective for state control

Comments: Associated code will be open sourced alongside the V2 submission

Subjects:

Machine Learning (cs.LG); Systems and Control (eess.SY)

Cite as: arXiv:2607.21644 [cs.LG]

(or arXiv:2607.21644v1 [cs.LG] for this version)

https://doi.org/10.48550/arXiv.2607.21644

arXiv-issued DOI via DataCite (pending registration)

Submission history

From: Jonathan Gallagher [view email] [v1] Tue, 21 Jul 2026 20:49:07 UTC (2,679 KB)

Full-text links:

Access Paper:

View a PDF of the paper titled Toward Goal-Agnostic Joint-Embedding Predictive Control of Partial Differential Equations, by Jonathan Gallagher and 1 other authors

View PDF

HTML (experimental)

TeX Source

view license

Current browse context:

cs.LG

new | recent | 2026-07

Change to browse by:

cs cs.SY eess eess.SY

References & Citations

NASA ADS

Google Scholar

Semantic Scholar

Loading...

Data provided by:

Bibliographic Tools

Bibliographic and Citation Tools

Bibliographic Explorer Toggle

Bibliographic Explorer (What is the Explorer?)

Connected Papers Toggle

Connected Papers (What is Connected Papers?)

Litmaps Toggle

Litmaps (What is Litmaps?)

scite.ai Toggle

scite Smart Citations (What are Smart Citations?)

Code, Data, Media

Code, Data and Media Associated with this Article

alphaXiv Toggle

alphaXiv (What is alphaXiv?)

Links to Code Toggle

CatalyzeX Code Finder for Papers (What is CatalyzeX?)

DagsHub Toggle

DagsHub (What is DagsHub?)

GotitPub Toggle

Gotit.pub (What is GotitPub?)

Huggingface Toggle

Hugging Face (What is Huggingface?)

ScienceCast Toggle

ScienceCast (What is ScienceCast?)

Demos

Demos

Replicate Toggle

Replicate (What is Replicate?)

Spaces Toggle

Hugging Face Spaces (What is Spaces?)

Spaces Toggle

TXYZ.AI (What is TXYZ.AI?)

Related Papers

Recommenders and Search Tools

Link to Influence Flower

Influence Flower (What are Influence Flowers?)

Core recommender toggle

CORE Recommender (What is CORE?)

IArxiv recommender toggle

IArxiv Recommender (What is IArxiv?)

Author

Venue

Institution

Topic

About arXivLabs

arXivLabs: experimental projects with community collaborators

arXivLabs is a framework that allows collaborators to develop and share new arXiv features directly on our website.

Both individuals and organizations that work with arXivLabs have embraced and accepted our values of openness, community, excellence, and user data privacy. arXiv is committed to these values and only works with partners that adhere to them.

Have an idea for a project that will add value for arXiv's community? Learn more about arXivLabs.

Which authors of this paper are endorsers? | Disable MathJax (What is MathJax?)