Paper of the day
3 Nov 2026
Randall Balestriero, Yann LeCun · 29 Oct 2026
Whether models trained on different modalities converge to the same representation of the world is central to AI. The Platonic Representation Hypothesis (PRH) conjectures that they do as they scale, but without a proof it offers neither a guarantee nor a recipe. We turn the hypothesis into a theorem. First, we prove a Platonic Representation Theorem: Joint-Embedding Predictive Architectures (JEPAs) trained separately on any number of modalities learn the same representation up to one rotation whenever their positive pairs are two observations of one scene–good views–and their misalignment is bounded otherwise. Second, we show that next-token prediction is a JEPA with bad views, parts of a single document, which explains why language models align with vision only through scale. Third, we validate the theory from 145k captions to the texts of 940M web images, and uncover a scaling law of alignment that predicts unseen runs within seed noise. Good views need 42 times fewer training samples than next-token prediction on the same corpus to reach the same alignment, and a 109M-parameter text JEPA aligns with DINOv2 and CLIP's image encoders better than every language model we evaluated, up to 72B parameters, and than CLIP's text encoder: next-token prediction is a remarkably inefficient route to platonic representations. As a showcase, one rotation turns separately trained encoders into an image captioner (CIDEr .838 on COCO). Even that rotation needs no pair: on the latest pair-free benchmark, our text JEPA beats every zero-shot accuracy reported with language models up to 8B parameters, e.g., 64% against at most 56% top-5 on ImageNet-100. Positive views, and not scale alone, are thus the lever to build platonic representations.
data updated 3 Nov 2026, 13:33 UTC
Randall Balestriero, Yann LeCun · 29 Oct 2026 · 0 comments
▲ 72 upvotes on HF Daily Papers · 4 comments · 167 points · 84 comments on Hacker News · official code · 128★ · Laptop / Colab - smallest model mentioned ~109M params · no community reproductions found yet
Donghyeon Cho, Joowon Kim, Seungho Shin et al. · 27 Oct 2026 · 0 comments
▲ 113 upvotes on HF Daily Papers · 3 comments · official code · 17★ · Single GPU - training-free / inference-time method · no community reproductions found yet
Jayden Teoh · 28 Oct 2026 · 0 comments
▲ 21 upvotes on HF Daily Papers · 3 comments · official code · 77★ · Laptop / Colab - smallest model mentioned ~167M params · 1 community implementation to compare against
Tianming Liang, Junyi Pan, Yuxi Li et al. · 22 Oct 2026 · 0 comments
▲ 44 upvotes on HF Daily Papers · 4 comments · official code · 538★ · Single GPU - small-scale or toy setting · no community reproductions found yet
Zhiyu Li, Zeyu Zhang, Linyun Liu et al. · 19 Oct 2026 · 0 comments
▲ 137 upvotes on HF Daily Papers · 3 comments · official code · 510★ · no community reproductions found yet
Bowen Ding, Mingda Wan, Yuhan Chen et al. · 13 Oct 2026 · 0 comments
▲ 16 upvotes on HF Daily Papers · 2 comments · official code · 17★ · Laptop / Colab - smallest model mentioned ~1.5B params · no community reproductions found yet
Shuo Shen, Guangran Cheng, Chengqi Lyu et al. · 26 Oct 2026 · 0 comments
▲ 17 upvotes on HF Daily Papers · 2 comments · official code · 5.2k★ · Single GPU - smallest model mentioned ~1.5B params · 1 community implementation to compare against
Wenbo Hu, Ken Li, Jiazhe Wei et al. · 22 Oct 2026 · 0 comments
▲ 25 upvotes on HF Daily Papers · 2 comments · official code · 353★ · Single GPU - training-free / inference-time method · no community reproductions found yet
Tianyu Fu, Ruoxi Wang, Zihan Min et al. · 20 Oct 2026 · 0 comments
▲ 103 upvotes on HF Daily Papers · 1 comments · official code · 170★ · 1 community implementation to compare against
Yu Zhou, Cheng-Fu Yang, Rui Sun et al. · 19 Oct 2026 · 0 comments
▲ 100 upvotes on HF Daily Papers · 1 comments · official code · 357★ · Multi-GPU - smallest model mentioned ~8B params · 1 community implementation to compare against
Reproduce score = 60% discussion (HF upvotes, HN points & comments, GitHub stars, citations) + 25% compute feasibility + 15% paper type. Surveys and position papers are left out. Upvotes and comments here add a small boost (at most +0.1) that updates live.