Pith. sign in

REVIEW 4 major objections 5 minor 66 references

RoBridge: A Hierarchical Architecture Bridging Cognition and Execution for General Robotic Manipulation

T0 review · 4 major / 5 minor · reviewed 2026-08-16 · deepseek-v4-flash

Challenge this review Re-run · record.json Download PDF Read on arXiv ↗ Review JSON

Pith's one-line read RoBridge claims that separating VLM planning from RL execution through an invariant operable representation yields 75% success on new tasks and 83% in sim-to-real transfer.

desk verdict Solid architecture and simulation results, but the real-world 83% headline is self-assessed by GPT-4o and needs independent verification before it is cited. read the letter →

arxiv 2505.01709 v3 pith:VKOALNOL submitted 2025-05-03 cs.RO cs.AIcs.CV

Kaidong Zhang , Rongtao Xu , Pengzhen Ren , Junfan Lin , Hefeng Wu , Liang Lin , Xiaodan Liang This is my paper · ORCID
classification cs.ROcs.AIcs.CV
keywords roboticmanipulationhierarchicalarchitecturevision-languagemodelinvariantoperablerepresentationreinforcementlearningimitationsim-to-realtransferclosed-loopcontrol
verification ladder T0 review T1 audit T2 compute T3 formal

The pith

A machine-rendered reading of the paper's core claim, the machinery that carries it, and where it could break.

The reading

The paper sets out to resolve two failures of current robot manipulation systems: procedural skills (how to move) are learned by imitation and break under visual changes, while declarative skills (what to do) are held by vision-language models that lack physical experience. RoBridge's answer is to stop making either side do the other's job. A high-level cognitive planner decomposes an instruction into primitive actions and, for each action, emits an invariant operable representation (IOR) built from masks, masked depth, and constraints; a guided embodied agent trained with reinforcement learning, imitation learning, and DAgger turns that representation into motions. The claimed payoff is that the same architecture reaches an 82.12% mean success rate on MetaWorld under background, lighting, color, and camera changes, an 83.3% mean on four real-world tasks, and 75% on five tasks never seen in training, fine-tuning on only five real-world demonstrations per task. If these numbers hold, RoBridge would offer a route to general manipulation without collecting task-specific datasets at scale.

What carries the argument

The invariant operable representation (IOR) is the load-bearing object: for each primitive action $A_i$ it is the tuple $R_i = \{T_i, M_i, D_i, C_i\}$, where $T_i$ is the action type, $M_i$ holds the third-view masks of gripper, manipulated object, and destination, $D_i$ holds the first-view masked depth of the same entities, and $C_i$ holds the end-effector pose and directional constraint. Because the representation strips away texture, color, lighting, and specific camera geometry, the GEA policy trained with domain randomization on masked inputs becomes insensitive to visual shifts and transfers from simulation to the real world with only five real demonstrations per task. The IOR is also what lets the VLM remain declarative: it reasons about objects and constraints, not joint angles, while the RL-trained agent supplies the procedural skill.

What would settle it

Re-run the four real-world tasks with the same five-demonstration fine-tuning but score success from independent human labels or instrumented ground truth (object pose, gripper state, contact) instead of the VLM's image-and-gripper verdict; if the independently scored mean falls materially below 83.3%, the reported generalization is not yet established. Log every mask-tracking failure per trial to check the paper's stated dominant failure mode: mask loss from occlusion or overlap.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

RoBridge's central claim is that cognition and execution can be cleanly separated in robotic manipulation, provided the two sides speak through a fixed, appearance-invariant interface. For each primitive action (reach, grasp, place, press, push, pull, open, close, turn), the planner produces an IOR consisting of the action type, third-view masks of the gripper, the manipulated object, and the destination, first-view masked depth of the same entities, and constraints such as end-effector pose and movement direction. The guided embodied agent never sees raw pixels or the instruction; it sees only this representation, which is refreshed by Track-Anything at high frequency and by the planner at low frequency. On the paper's experiments, this architecture outperforms end-to-end policies, keypoint planners, and skill-composition baselines in both simulation and real-world tests, including a long-horizon block-insertion task.

Load-bearing premise

The real-world success rates stand or fall with the assumption that the VLM judge correctly scores task completion from a single annotated RGB image plus gripper state, and that Track-Anything's high-frequency masks survive occlusion and overlap.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • New tasks can be attempted without task-specific data collection, because the planner can compose known primitive actions into a new IOR sequence and the same GEA executes it.
  • Sim-to-real transfer becomes cheap: five real-world demonstrations per task suffice for fine-tuning, since the IOR already suppresses most visual domain shift.
  • The two sides can improve independently: swapping in a stronger VLM or stronger foundation-model APIs should improve planning and IOR quality without retraining the low-level agent, and vice versa.
  • Closed-loop control gives the system a recovery mechanism: when an execution fails, the low-frequency planner re-evaluates and regenerates the IOR, which the paper demonstrates on a two-attempt grasp in its failure analysis.
  • Because the representation is task-agnostic, the same GEA can serve many primitive actions; the paper trains experts per task but distills them into one guided agent.

Reading between the lines

Editorial extensions of the paper, not claims the author makes directly.

  • A test the paper does not run: scoring the real-world trials with independent human or instrumented labels rather than the VLM judge's RGB-and-gripper verdicts would show whether the 83.3% reflects true task completion or the judge's optimism; the architecture could still be right even if the number moves.
  • The failure analysis points to mask loss from occlusion and overlap as the dominant error source, which predicts a concrete stress test: inserting occluders or forcing object overlap should degrade performance in proportion to mask-tracking failures, making improved trackers a likely high-leverage upgrade.
  • Because the IOR is defined in terms of masks and depth rather than a specific robot's kinematics, the same planner output could plausibly be reused across different arms and grippers by retraining only the GEA; the paper does not test cross-embodiment transfer.
  • The paper explicitly limits itself to simple rigid shapes, so the natural next test is whether the IOR survives soft, deformable, or tiny objects, where masks and masked depth become unstable.
Share X Bluesky LinkedIn Reddit HN

Signed reviews

No signed human review yet.

Editorial analysis

A structured set of objections, weighed in public.

Desk editor's note, referee report, and a circularity audit.

Referee Report

4 major / 5 minor

Summary. The paper proposes RoBridge, a hierarchical architecture for general robotic manipulation consisting of a VLM-based high-level cognitive planner (HCP), an invariant operable representation (IOR) built from masks and masked depth, and a guided embodied agent (GEA) trained via RL, imitation, and adaptive DAgger. The central claims are a 75% success rate on five new tasks and an 83% average success rate in sim-to-real generalization using only five real-world data samples per task, with comparisons against end-to-end policies (RDT, pi0) and keypoint/constraint planners (ReKep, ManipGen) on Metaworld, Robosuite, and real-world experiments.

Significance. If the reported results are sound, RoBridge would be a valuable contribution: it offers a clean decomposition of high-level VLM-based planning from low-level control, and the IOR representation is a plausible mechanism for improving invariance. The paper's simulation ablations (Table 5) provide useful evidence that the masked-depth IOR, DAgger training, and domain randomization each matter. However, the significance of the headline real-world numbers is currently limited by the evaluation protocol, which relies on the same VLM that does the planning to also judge success, and by missing statistical details. The architectural idea is promising, but the claimed superiority over baselines is not yet verified.

major comments (4)
  1. [§3.1, Fig. 2, Tables 2–3] The real-world success rates reported in Tables 2 and 3 are generated by GPT-4o itself: the closed-loop protocol in Section 3.1 has GPT-4o issue Success/Wrong/Normal judgments for each primitive action, and these judgments are used both to advance/terminate the control loop and as the final success metric. Since the same VLM is also the high-level planner, the headline 83.3% average success rate and 3.0 average length are self-assessments, not independently verified physical outcomes. The paper does not describe any human verification or a separate success-detection module. Given that the paper's own failure analysis (Appendix C.3) attributes most failures to mask loss from occlusion or overlap, the image evidence used by the judge is known to be corrupted in many trials. This measurement circularity must be addressed before the numerical claims can be accepted; at minimum, a human-verified subset of trials (or a camera poses / force-torque based objective criterion) should be reported.
  2. [§4.2, Appendix B.2] The baselines are not compared under equal training budgets. RoBridge receives 1M simulation steps per task for the RL expert and further DAgger training to produce the GEA, while ManipGen, ReKep, and RAM are not given comparable per-task simulation data or fine-tuning. The claim in the abstract that RoBridge achieves 83% 'using only five real-world data samples per task' is misleading because the GEA has been trained on privileged simulation demonstrations of the very skills (grasping, pressing, drawing) used in the test tasks. The paper should report the total compute and data budget for each method, or otherwise ensure that differences in success rates are not explained by unequal training effort.
  3. [Tables 2, 3, 4] No trial counts, confidence intervals, or statistical tests are reported for any real-world result or for the zero-shot tasks in Table 4. For example, RoBridge's 70% vs ReKep's 40% on unseen Sweep could be within sampling noise if only a handful of trials were run per condition; Table 8 shows that simulation tasks are evaluated with only 10 trials each. The paper should report the number of trials per cell and ideally bootstrap confidence intervals or a significance test, particularly for the comparisons that underpin the headline '83%' and '75%' claims.
  4. [§4.4, Table 4] The claim that the five zero-shot tasks are 'unrelated to those used during training' is not substantiated. The task names in Table 4 (Bin Picking, Pick out, Handle press, Plate Slide, Sweep Into) correspond exactly to MetaWorld tasks that appear in Table 8 (bin-picking, pick-out-of-hole, handle-press, plate-slide, sweep-into). The paper does not specify the exact held-out task list, the overlap in objects/rewards/action primitives with the 35 training tasks, or the criteria used to ensure 'no correlation.' Without this information, the 75% zero-shot success rate may reflect compositional reuse of trained skills rather than generalization to truly unseen task specifications.
minor comments (5)
  1. [Throughout] The Greek letter pi renders as '?0' in several places, including Figure 1, Section 3.1, and the prompt examples (e.g., '?0' instead of 'π0'), which makes the manuscript hard to read. Please fix the symbol encoding issue.
  2. [Algorithm 1] The piecewise function f that maps rewards to sampling weights is never defined. Since this function is central to the adaptive DAgger mechanism, please provide its exact form (or a reference) for reproducibility.
  3. [Table 3] The header 'Avg. Len.' is ambiguous. The columns 1–4 appear to be stage-completion rates, but the 'average length' is not defined or derived from the table. Please clarify the metric and its computation.
  4. [§3.1, Eq. (1)] The IOR definition is informal: the constraints Ci (end-effector pose, direction of movement) are not formally specified, and the prompt template in Figure 2 uses fields (Action, Gripper, Object, Target, Constraint) without a clear mapping to Eq. (1). A worked example of a complete IOR for one primitive action would improve reproducibility.
  5. [§4.2, Appendix B.2] The statement 'five real-world data samples per task' is ambiguous for the long-horizon multi-stage task: is one demonstration the whole four-stage sequence, or are five demonstrations collected per stage? This matters for the data-efficiency claim.

Circularity Check

1 steps flagged · score 5.0 of 10

Real-world success is self-assessed: GPT-4o is both RoBridge's high-level planner and the closed-loop judge that produces the Table 2/3 success rates, so the 83.3% headline reports the model's own verdict rather than an independent physical outcome.

  1. self definitional [Section 3.1 'Closed-Loop Control'; real-world results in Tables 2 and 3]
    "We use GPT-4o combined with the gripper status to determine whether the task is successful, like [59]. ... Based on this input, GPT-4o generates a judgment regarding the success or failure of the current action. If the judgment indicates success, the system proceeds to the next action in the sequence or terminates the task, depending on whether all required actions have been completed."

    The reported real-world success rates (Table 2: 83.3% mean; Table 3: average length 3.0) are generated by GPT-4o, the same VLM that serves as RoBridge's High-level Cognitive Planner and is therefore part of the system under test. Section 3.1 makes GPT-4o the arbiter of success/wrong/normal from an RGB image plus gripper state, and the loop advances or terminates based on that judgment. No independent measurement of the stated physical criteria (e.g., button fully depressed, drawer extended at least 10 cm) is reported for the real-world tables. Consequently the headline 'success rate' is defined as GPT-4o's belief about task state, and the policy can be steered toward states GPT-4o accepts rather than states that actually satisfy the task specification.

full rationale

The architectural derivation itself is not circular: IOR generation is a composition of off-the-shelf foundation models, and GEA is trained with RL experts, DAgger, and domain randomization against environment rewards, with Metaworld/Robosuite results scored by external simulators. The single substantive circularity is in the real-world evaluation protocol: the same GPT-4o that is part of RoBridge's HCP also issues the Success/Wrong/Normal judgments that are reported directly as the real-world success rates. Appendix C.3 further states that most failures come from mask loss due to occlusion or overlap, which corrupts the image evidence fed to that same judge. The Metaworld and zero-shot new-task results remain independent, so the paper is not wholly circular; however, the headline sim-to-real generalization claim of 83% currently reduces to GPT-4o's self-assessment rather than externally verified task completion. Score 5 reflects this partial but load-bearing evaluation circularity.

Assumptions & free parameters 4 free parameters · 5 assumptions · 1 invented entities

The headline results are not derived from equations; they are empirical evaluations. The ledger lists the hand-built components and assumptions the evaluation depends on: per-task experts, unpublished DAgger weighting, qualitative domain randomization, and VLM-based success judgment.

free parameters (4)
  • Per-task expert RL policies pi_e = 90.8% success on training scenarios; each expert trained about 1M steps (Appendix B.2)
    Each MT50 task and each real-world task gets a dedicated DRQ-v2 expert; GEA is trained on expert-generated rollouts, so task performance is inherited from hand-picked per-task training. The number of tasks and step budgets are design choices, not derived from first principles.
  • Real-data fine-tuning budget = 2k steps per task, 1 GPU hour
    The sim-to-real claim uses five real samples and this fine-tuning budget; no sweep is reported, so it is a hand-chosen operating point.
  • Adaptive DAgger weight function f = undefined in paper
    Algorithm 1 defines f only as a piecewise function from reward to value; its exact form is never given, making this a hidden design choice in GEA training.
  • Domain randomization ranges = not specified numerically
    Depth warping, Gaussian shifts and blur, random masking, offsets, and cropping are described qualitatively (Section 3.2); exact ranges are omitted, so robustness results are tied to unpublished settings.
assumptions (5)
  • domain assumption GPT-4o reliably decomposes instructions into primitive actions and correctly judges success/failure from RGB plus gripper state.
    Invoked in Section 3.1 HCP and Closed-Loop Control; if this fails, plans or status checks are wrong and reported success rates are unreliable.
  • domain assumption GroundingDINO, SAM, and Track-Anything provide accurate, temporally consistent masks for gripper, object, and destination.
    Masks are the core of IOR (Section 3.1); Appendix C.3 says mask loss is the dominant failure mode.
  • domain assumption Masked depth plus masks plus action/constraint is a sufficient input to learn contact-rich manipulation policies.
    GEA policy inputs are IOR only (Section 3.2); ablations show components matter, but no experiment proves sufficiency for contact-rich tasks.
  • domain assumption Simulation-trained experts with domain randomization transfer to the real robot after 2k fine-tuning steps.
    Underpins the 83% sim-to-real claim (Section 4.1, Appendix B.2).
  • standard math DAgger with expert corrections improves the policy under distribution shift.
    DAgger is a published algorithm with known guarantees (reference [44]); the paper uses an adaptive offline variant.
invented entities (1)
  • Invariant Operable Representation (IOR)
    purpose: Symbolic bridge: 3rd-view masks, 1st-view masked depth, action type, and movement constraints passed from the GPT-4o planner to the RL agent.
    IOR is a new representational construct introduced by this paper. Its utility is evidenced only by the system's reported performance; no external benchmark or independent measurement establishes its invariance.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of RoBridge: A Hierarchical Architecture Bridging Cognition and Execution for General Robotic Manipulation." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/VKOALNOL

@misc{pith2026250501709,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: RoBridge: A Hierarchical Architecture Bridging Cognition and Execution for General Robotic Manipulation},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/VKOALNOL}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2505.01709}
}
read the original abstract

Operating robots in open-ended scenarios with diverse tasks is a crucial research and application direction in robotics. While recent progress in natural language processing and large multimodal models has enhanced robots' ability to understand complex instructions, robot manipulation still faces the procedural skill dilemma and the declarative skill dilemma in open environments. Existing methods often compromise cognitive and executive capabilities. To address these challenges, in this paper, we propose RoBridge, a hierarchical intelligent architecture for general robotic manipulation. It consists of a high-level cognitive planner (HCP) based on a large-scale pre-trained vision-language model (VLM), an invariant operable representation (IOR) serving as a symbolic bridge, and a generalist embodied agent (GEA). RoBridge maintains the declarative skill of VLM and unleashes the procedural skill of reinforcement learning, effectively bridging the gap between cognition and execution. RoBridge demonstrates significant performance improvements over existing baselines, achieving a 75% success rate on new tasks and an 83% average success rate in sim-to-real generalization using only five real-world data samples per task. This work represents a significant step towards integrating cognitive reasoning with physical execution in robotic systems, offering a new paradigm for general robotic manipulation.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2505.01709 by the authors.

Figure 1
Figure 1. Comparison of RoBridge and previous methods. Declarative skill methods (left) directly generate specific control commands in a formulaic way, such as determining trajectories by minimizing cost. However, due to a lack of interaction experience with the physical world, the generated commands are often incorrect. Procedural skill methods (middle) forcibly transform a vision-language model (VLM) into a robotics model u… view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. RoBridge overview. RoBridge adopts a three-layer architecture, consisting of a high-level cognitive planner (HCP), an invariant operable representation (IOR), and a guided embodied agent (GEA). For example, for the instruction “Put the blocks into the corresponding shaped slots”, HCP will first plan and split the task into multiple primitive actions. Then, combined with the APIs composed of the foundation model, it … view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. Guided Embodied Agent(GEA) Training. The left figure illustrates the domain randomization methods, with the first column showing the original images. The first row employs changes in robotic arm pose, object shape variations, and camera offsets, while the second row uses pixel offsets, depth distortion, hollowing, etc. The domain randomization in the first row is used during expert training, whereas all domain rando… view at source ↗
Figures from the paper (4 more)
Figure 4
Figure 4. Figure 4: Demonstrations show the execution process of RoBridge (second row) and baselines [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p008_4.png]
Figure 5
Figure 5. Figure 5: RL training details [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p015_5.png]
Figure 6
Figure 6. Figure 6: Feature visualization of DINOv2. 15 [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p015_6.png]
Figure 7
Figure 7. Figure 7: Demonstrations of real-world experiments. [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p016_7.png]

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

66 extracted references · 58 canonical work pages

  1. [1]

    Legged locomotion in challenging terrains using egocentric vision, 2022

    Ananye Agarwal, Ashish Kumar, Jitendra Malik, and Deepak Pathak. Legged locomotion in challenging terrains using egocentric vision, 2022. 5

    work page 2022

  2. [2]

    Do as i can, not as i say: Grounding language in robotic affordances, 2022

    Michael Ahn, Anthony Brohan, Noah Brown, Yevgen Cheb- otar, Omar Cortes, Byron David, Chelsea Finn, Chuyuan Fu, Keerthana Gopalakrishnan, Karol Hausman, Alex Herzog, Daniel Ho, Jasmine Hsu, Julian Ibarz, Brian Ichter, Alex Ir- pan, Eric Jang, Rosario Jauregui Ruano, Kyle Jeffrey, Sally Jesmonth, Nikhil J Joshi, Ryan Julian, Dmitry Kalashnikov, Yuheng Kuan...

    work page 2022

  3. [3]

    Flamingo: a visual language model for few-shot learning,

    Jean-Baptiste Alayrac, Jeff Donahue, Pauline Luc, An- toine Miech, Iain Barr, Yana Hasson, Karel Lenc, Arthur Mensch, Katie Millican, Malcolm Reynolds, Roman Ring, Eliza Rutherford, Serkan Cabi, Tengda Han, Zhitao Gong, Sina Samangooei, Marianne Monteiro, Jacob Menick, Se- bastian Borgeaud, Andrew Brock, Aida Nematzadeh, Sa- hand Sharifzadeh, Mikolaj Bink...

  4. [4]

    Zero-shot robotic manipulation with pretrained image- editing diffusion models, 2023

    Kevin Black, Mitsuhiko Nakamoto, Pranav Atreya, Homer Walke, Chelsea Finn, Aviral Kumar, and Sergey Levine. Zero-shot robotic manipulation with pretrained image- editing diffusion models, 2023. 3

    work page 2023

  5. [5]

    Kevin Black, Noah Brown, Danny Driess, Adnan Esmail, Michael Equi, Chelsea Finn, Niccolo Fusai, Lachy Groom, Karol Hausman, Brian Ichter, Szymon Jakubczak, Tim Jones, Liyiming Ke, Sergey Levine, Adrian Li-Bell, Mohith Mothukuri, Suraj Nair, Karl Pertsch, Lucy Xiaoyang Shi, James Tanner, Quan Vuong, Anna Walling, Haohuan Wang, and Ury Zhilinsky.π0: A visio...

    work page 2024

  6. [6]

    Rt-1: Robotics transformer for real-world control at scale

    Anthony Brohan, Noah Brown, Justice Carbajal, Yevgen Chebotar, Joseph Dabis, Chelsea Finn, Keerthana Gopalakr- ishnan, Karol Hausman, Alex Herzog, Jasmine Hsu, et al. Rt-1: Robotics transformer for real-world control at scale. arXiv preprint arXiv:2212.06817, 2022. 1

    arXiv 2022

  7. [7]

    Rt-2: Vision-language-action mod- els transfer web knowledge to robotic control, 2023

    Anthony Brohan, Noah Brown, Justice Carbajal, Yevgen Chebotar, Xi Chen, Krzysztof Choromanski, Tianli Ding, Danny Driess, Avinava Dubey, Chelsea Finn, Pete Florence, Chuyuan Fu, Montse Gonzalez Arenas, Keerthana Gopalakr- ishnan, Kehang Han, Karol Hausman, Alexander Herzog, Jasmine Hsu, Brian Ichter, Alex Irpan, Nikhil Joshi, Ryan Julian, Dmitry Kalashnik...

    work page 2023

  8. [8]

    Rt-1: Robotics transformer for real- world control at scale, 2023

    Anthony Brohan, Noah Brown, Justice Carbajal, Yevgen Chebotar, Joseph Dabis, Chelsea Finn, Keerthana Gopalakr- ishnan, Karol Hausman, Alex Herzog, Jasmine Hsu, Ju- lian Ibarz, Brian Ichter, Alex Irpan, Tomas Jackson, Sally Jesmonth, Nikhil J Joshi, Ryan Julian, Dmitry Kalash- nikov, Yuheng Kuang, Isabel Leal, Kuang-Huei Lee, Sergey Levine, Yao Lu, Utsav M...

    2023

Show all 66 references
  1. [9]

    Gr-2: A gen- erative video-language-action model with web-scale knowl- edge for robot manipulation, 2024

    Chi-Lam Cheang, Guangzeng Chen, Ya Jing, Tao Kong, Hang Li, Yifeng Li, Yuxiao Liu, Hongtao Wu, Jiafeng Xu, Yichu Yang, Hanbo Zhang, and Minzhao Zhu. Gr-2: A gen- erative video-language-action model with web-scale knowl- edge for robot manipulation, 2024. 1

    2024

  2. [10]

    Nod-tamp: Generalizable long-horizon planning with neural object descriptors, 2024

    Shuo Cheng, Caelan Garrett, Ajay Mandlekar, and Danfei Xu. Nod-tamp: Generalizable long-horizon planning with neural object descriptors, 2024. 3

    2024

  3. [11]

    Embodiment Collaboration, Abby O’Neill, Abdul Rehman, Abhinav Gupta, Abhiram Maddukuri, Abhishek Gupta, Abhishek Padalkar, Abraham Lee, Acorn Pooley, Agrim Gupta, Ajay Mandlekar, Ajinkya Jain, Albert Tung, Alex Bewley, Alex Herzog, Alex Irpan, Alexander Khazatsky, Anant Rai, A...

    2024

  4. [12]

    Plan-seq-learn: Language model guided rl for solving long horizon robotics tasks, 2024

    Murtaza Dalal, Tarun Chiruvolu, Devendra Chaplot, and Ruslan Salakhutdinov. Plan-seq-learn: Language model guided rl for solving long horizon robotics tasks, 2024. 3, 5, 6, 7, 8

    2024

  5. [13]

    Local poli- cies enable zero-shot long-horizon manipulation, 2024

    Murtaza Dalal, Min Liu, Walter Talbott, Chen Chen, Deepak Pathak, Jian Zhang, and Ruslan Salakhutdinov. Local poli- cies enable zero-shot long-horizon manipulation, 2024. 5, 6, 7, 8

    2024

  6. [14]

    Tenenbaum, Dale Schuurmans, and Pieter Abbeel

    Yilun Du, Mengjiao Yang, Bo Dai, Hanjun Dai, Ofir Nachum, Joshua B. Tenenbaum, Dale Schuurmans, and Pieter Abbeel. Learning universal policies via text-guided video generation, 2023. 3

    2023

  7. [15]

    A survey of embodied ai: From simulators to research tasks, 2022

    Jiafei Duan, Samson Yu, Hui Li Tan, Hongyuan Zhu, and Cheston Tan. A survey of embodied ai: From simulators to research tasks, 2022. 1

    2022

  8. [16]

    Rh20t: A comprehensive robotic dataset for learning diverse skills in one-shot, 2023

    Hao-Shu Fang, Hongjie Fang, Zhenyu Tang, Jirong Liu, Chenxi Wang, Junbo Wang, Haoyi Zhu, and Cewu Lu. Rh20t: A comprehensive robotic dataset for learning diverse skills in one-shot, 2023. 3

    2023

  9. [17]

    Zhao, and Chelsea Finn

    Zipeng Fu, Tony Z. Zhao, and Chelsea Finn. Mobile aloha: Learning bimanual mobile manipulation with low- cost whole-body teleoperation, 2024. 3

    2024

  10. [18]

    Robust visual sim- to-real transfer for robotic manipulation, 2023

    Ricardo Garcia, Robin Strudel, Shizhe Chen, Etienne Ar- laud, Ivan Laptev, and Cordelia Schmid. Robust visual sim- to-real transfer for robotic manipulation, 2023. 3

    2023

  11. [19]

    Cognitive neuroscience

    Michael S Gazzaniga, Richard B Ivry, and GR Mangun. Cognitive neuroscience. the biology of the mind,(2014),

    2014

  12. [20]

    Neurobiological bases of rhythmic motor acts in vertebrates

    Sten Grillner. Neurobiological bases of rhythmic motor acts in vertebrates. Science, 228 4696:143–9, 1985. 2

    1985

  13. [21]

    Retinagan: An object-aware ap- proach to sim-to-real transfer, 2021

    Daniel Ho, Kanishka Rao, Zhuo Xu, Eric Jang, Mohi Khansari, and Yunfei Bai. Retinagan: An object-aware ap- proach to sim-to-real transfer, 2021. 3

    2021

  14. [22]

    Tenenbaum, and Jiajun Wu

    Joy Hsu, Jiayuan Mao, Joshua B. Tenenbaum, and Jiajun Wu. What’s left? concept grounding with logic-enhanced foundation models, 2023. 3

    2023

  15. [23]

    Toward general-purpose robots via founda- tion models: A survey and meta-analysis, 2024

    Yafei Hu, Quanting Xie, Vidhi Jain, Jonathan Francis, Jay Patrikar, Nikhil Keetha, Seungchan Kim, Yaqi Xie, Tianyi Zhang, Hao-Shu Fang, Shibo Zhao, Shayegan Omidshafiei, Dong-Ki Kim, Ali akbar Agha-mohammadi, Katia Sycara, Matthew Johnson-Roberson, Dhruv Batra, Xiaolong Wang, ...

    2024

  16. [24]

    V oxposer: Composable 3d value maps for robotic manipulation with language models, 2023

    Wenlong Huang, Chen Wang, Ruohan Zhang, Yunzhu Li, Jiajun Wu, and Li Fei-Fei. V oxposer: Composable 3d value maps for robotic manipulation with language models, 2023. 1

    2023

  17. [25]

    Rekep: Spatio-temporal reasoning of rela- tional keypoint constraints for robotic manipulation, 2024

    Wenlong Huang, Chen Wang, Yunzhu Li, Ruohan Zhang, and Li Fei-Fei. Rekep: Spatio-temporal reasoning of rela- tional keypoint constraints for robotic manipulation, 2024. 1, 3, 6, 7, 8

    2024

  18. [26]

    Robo-abc: Affordance gener- alization beyond categories via semantic correspondence for robot manipulation, 2024

    Yuanchen Ju, Kaizhe Hu, Guowei Zhang, Gu Zhang, Min- grun Jiang, and Huazhe Xu. Robo-abc: Affordance gener- alization beyond categories via semantic correspondence for robot manipulation, 2024. 3

    2024

  19. [27]

    Alexander Khazatsky, Karl Pertsch, Suraj Nair, Ashwin Bal- akrishna, Sudeep Dasari, Siddharth Karamcheti, Soroush Nasiriany, Mohan Kumar Srirama, Lawrence Yunliang Chen, Kirsty Ellis, Peter David Fagan, Joey Hejna, Masha Itkina, Marion Lepert, Yecheng Jason Ma, Patrick Tree Mi...

    2024

  20. [28]

    Openvla: An open- source vision-language-action model, 2024

    Moo Jin Kim, Karl Pertsch, Siddharth Karamcheti, Ted Xiao, Ashwin Balakrishna, Suraj Nair, Rafael Rafailov, Ethan Fos- ter, Grace Lam, Pannag Sanketi, Quan Vuong, Thomas Kol- lar, Benjamin Burchfiel, Russ Tedrake, Dorsa Sadigh, Sergey Levine, Percy Liang, and Chelsea Finn. Ope...

    2024

  21. [29]

    Berg, Wan-Yen Lo, Piotr Doll ´ar, and Ross Girshick

    Alexander Kirillov, Eric Mintun, Nikhila Ravi, Hanzi Mao, Chloe Rolland, Laura Gustafson, Tete Xiao, Spencer White- head, Alexander C. Berg, Wan-Yen Lo, Piotr Doll ´ar, and Ross Girshick. Segment anything, 2023. 3, 4

    2023

  22. [30]

    Ram: Retrieval-based affordance transfer for generalizable zero-shot robotic manipulation, 2024

    Yuxuan Kuang, Junjie Ye, Haoran Geng, Jiageng Mao, Con- gyue Deng, Leonidas Guibas, He Wang, and Yue Wang. Ram: Retrieval-based affordance transfer for generalizable zero-shot robotic manipulation, 2024. 3, 7

    2024

  23. [31]

    Towards generalist robot policies: What mat- ters in building vision-language-action models, 2024

    Xinghang Li, Peiyan Li, Minghuan Liu, Dong Wang, Jirong Liu, Bingyi Kang, Xiao Ma, Tao Kong, Hanbo Zhang, and Huaping Liu. Towards generalist robot policies: What mat- ters in building vision-language-action models, 2024. 3

    2024

  24. [32]

    Moka: Open-world robotic manipulation through mark- based visual prompting, 2024

    Fangchen Liu, Kuan Fang, Pieter Abbeel, and Sergey Levine. Moka: Open-world robotic manipulation through mark- based visual prompting, 2024. 1, 3

    2024

  25. [33]

    Rdt-1b: a diffusion foundation model for bimanual manipu- lation, 2024

    Songming Liu, Lingxuan Wu, Bangguo Li, Hengkai Tan, Huayu Chen, Zhengyi Wang, Ke Xu, Hang Su, and Jun Zhu. Rdt-1b: a diffusion foundation model for bimanual manipu- lation, 2024. 1, 7

    2024

  26. [34]

    Grounding dino: Marry- ing dino with grounded pre-training for open-set object de- tection, 2024

    Shilong Liu, Zhaoyang Zeng, Tianhe Ren, Feng Li, Hao Zhang, Jie Yang, Qing Jiang, Chunyuan Li, Jianwei Yang, Hang Su, Jun Zhu, and Lei Zhang. Grounding dino: Marry- ing dino with grounded pre-training for open-set object de- tection, 2024. 3, 4

    2024

  27. [35]

    Hierarchi- cal motor control in mammals and machines

    Josh Merel, Matthew Botvinick, and Greg Wayne. Hierarchi- cal motor control in mammals and machines. Nature com- munications, 10(1):5489, 2019. 2

    2019

  28. [36]

    Octo: An open-source generalist robot policy

    Octo Model Team, Dibya Ghosh, Homer Walke, Karl Pertsch, Kevin Black, Oier Mees, Sudeep Dasari, Joey Hejna, Charles Xu, Jianlan Luo, Tobias Kreiman, You Liang Tan, Dorsa Sadigh, Chelsea Finn, and Sergey Levine. Octo: An open-source generalist robot policy. https://octo- models...

    2023

  29. [37]

    Gpt-4 technical report, 2024

    OpenAI. Gpt-4 technical report, 2024. 1, 3

    2024

  30. [38]

    Solving rubik’s cube with a robot hand, 2019

    OpenAI, Ilge Akkaya, Marcin Andrychowicz, Maciek Chociej, Mateusz Litwin, Bob McGrew, Arthur Petron, Alex Paino, Matthias Plappert, Glenn Powell, Raphael Ribas, Jonas Schneider, Nikolas Tezak, Jerry Tworek, Peter Welin- der, Lilian Weng, Qiming Yuan, Wojciech Zaremba, and Lei ...

    2019

  31. [39]

    Dinov2: Learning robust visual features with- out supervision, 2024

    Maxime Oquab, Timoth ´ee Darcet, Th ´eo Moutakanni, Huy V o, Marc Szafraniec, Vasil Khalidov, Pierre Fernandez, Daniel Haziza, Francisco Massa, Alaaeldin El-Nouby, Mah- moud Assran, Nicolas Ballas, Wojciech Galuba, Russell Howes, Po-Yao Huang, Shang-Wen Li, Ishan Misra, Michae...

    2024

  32. [40]

    Omnimanip: Towards general robotic manipulation via object-centric interaction primitives as spatial constraints, 2025

    Mingjie Pan, Jiyao Zhang, Tianshu Wu, Yinghao Zhao, Wen- long Gao, and Hao Dong. Omnimanip: Towards general robotic manipulation via object-centric interaction primitives as spatial constraints, 2025. 1, 3

    2025

  33. [41]

    Alvinn: An autonomous land vehicle in a neural network

    Dean A Pomerleau. Alvinn: An autonomous land vehicle in a neural network. Advances in neural information processing systems, 1, 1988. 3

    1988

  34. [42]

    The colosseum: A bench- mark for evaluating generalization for robotic manipulation,

    Wilbert Pumacay, Ishika Singh, Jiafei Duan, Ranjay Krishna, Jesse Thomason, and Dieter Fox. The colosseum: A bench- mark for evaluating generalization for robotic manipulation,

  35. [43]

    Rl-cyclegan: Reinforcement learning aware simulation-to-real, 2020

    Kanishka Rao, Chris Harris, Alex Irpan, Sergey Levine, Ju- lian Ibarz, and Mohi Khansari. Rl-cyclegan: Reinforcement learning aware simulation-to-real, 2020. 3

    2020

  36. [44]

    Gordon, and J

    Stephane Ross, Geoffrey J. Gordon, and J. Andrew Bagnell. A reduction of imitation learning and structured prediction to no-regret online learning, 2011. 5

    2011

  37. [45]

    Learning to com- bine primitive skills: A step towards versatile robotic manip- ulation, 2020

    Robin Strudel, Alexander Pashevich, Igor Kalevatykh, Ivan Laptev, Josef Sivic, and Cordelia Schmid. Learning to com- bine primitive skills: A step towards versatile robotic manip- ulation, 2020. 3

    2020

  38. [46]

    Domain randomization for transferring deep neural networks from simulation to the real world, 2017

    Josh Tobin, Rachel Fong, Alex Ray, Jonas Schneider, Woj- ciech Zaremba, and Pieter Abbeel. Domain randomization for transferring deep neural networks from simulation to the real world, 2017. 3

    2017

  39. [47]

    Llama: Open and efficient foundation lan- guage models, 2023

    Hugo Touvron, Thibaut Lavril, Gautier Izacard, Xavier Martinet, Marie-Anne Lachaux, Timoth´ee Lacroix, Baptiste Rozi`ere, Naman Goyal, Eric Hambro, Faisal Azhar, Aure- lien Rodriguez, Armand Joulin, Edouard Grave, and Guil- laume Lample. Llama: Open and efficient foundation la...

    2023

  40. [48]

    Adaafford: Learning to adapt manipulation affordance for 3d articulated objects via few-shot interactions, 2023

    Yian Wang, Ruihai Wu, Kaichun Mo, Jiaqi Ke, Qingnan Fan, Leonidas Guibas, and Hao Dong. Adaafford: Learning to adapt manipulation affordance for 3d articulated objects via few-shot interactions, 2023. 3

    2023

  41. [49]

    All robots in one: A new standard and unified dataset for versatile, general-purpose embodied agents

    Zhiqiang Wang, Hao Zheng, Yunshuang Nie, Wenjun Xu, Qingwei Wang, Hua Ye, Zhe Li, Kaidong Zhang, Xuewen Cheng, Wanxi Dong, et al. All robots in one: A new standard and unified dataset for versatile, general-purpose embodied agents. arXiv preprint arXiv:2408.10899, 2024. 3

    2024 arXiv

  42. [50]

    Unleashing large-scale video generative pre-training for visual robot manipulation, 2023

    Hongtao Wu, Ya Jing, Chilam Cheang, Guangzeng Chen, Jiafeng Xu, Xinghang Li, Minghuan Liu, Hang Li, and Tao Kong. Unleashing large-scale video generative pre-training for visual robot manipulation, 2023. 3 12

    2023

  43. [51]

    Daydreamer: World models for physical robot learning, 2022

    Philipp Wu, Alejandro Escontrela, Danijar Hafner, Ken Goldberg, and Pieter Abbeel. Daydreamer: World models for physical robot learning, 2022. 3

    2022

  44. [52]

    Track anything: Segment anything meets videos, 2023

    Jinyu Yang, Mingqi Gao, Zhe Li, Shang Gao, Fangjing Wang, and Feng Zheng. Track anything: Segment anything meets videos, 2023. 3, 5

    2023

  45. [53]

    Set-of-mark prompting unleashes ex- traordinary visual grounding in gpt-4v, 2023

    Jianwei Yang, Hao Zhang, Feng Li, Xueyan Zou, Chunyuan Li, and Jianfeng Gao. Set-of-mark prompting unleashes ex- traordinary visual grounding in gpt-4v, 2023. 3, 4

    2023

  46. [54]

    Mastering visual continuous control: Improved data- augmented reinforcement learning, 2021

    Denis Yarats, Rob Fergus, Alessandro Lazaric, and Lerrel Pinto. Mastering visual continuous control: Improved data- augmented reinforcement learning, 2021. 3, 5, 6, 8

    2021

  47. [55]

    Meta-world: A benchmark and evaluation for multi-task and meta reinforce- ment learning, 2021

    Tianhe Yu, Deirdre Quillen, Zhanpeng He, Ryan Julian, Avnish Narayan, Hayden Shively, Adithya Bellathur, Karol Hausman, Chelsea Finn, and Sergey Levine. Meta-world: A benchmark and evaluation for multi-task and meta reinforce- ment learning, 2021. 6

    2021

  48. [56]

    Hierar- chical generative modelling for autonomous robots

    Kai Yuan, Noor Sajid, Karl Friston, and Zhibin Li. Hierar- chical generative modelling for autonomous robots. Nature Machine Intelligence, 5(12):1402–1414, 2023. 2

    2023

  49. [57]

    Sornet: Spatial object-centric representations for se- quential manipulation, 2022

    Wentao Yuan, Chris Paxton, Karthik Desingh, and Dieter Fox. Sornet: Spatial object-centric representations for se- quential manipulation, 2022. 3

    2022

  50. [58]

    Pivot-r: Primitive- driven waypoint-aware world model for robotic manipula- tion

    Kaidong Zhang, Pengzhen Ren, Bingqian Lin, Junfan Lin, Shikui Ma, Hang Xu, and Xiaodan Liang. Pivot-r: Primitive- driven waypoint-aware world model for robotic manipula- tion. arXiv preprint arXiv:2410.10394, 2024. 3

    2024 arXiv

  51. [59]

    Pivot-r: Primitive- driven waypoint-aware world model for robotic manipula- tion, 2024

    Kaidong Zhang, Pengzhen Ren, Bingqian Lin, Junfan Lin, Shikui Ma, Hang Xu, and Xiaodan Liang. Pivot-r: Primitive- driven waypoint-aware world model for robotic manipula- tion, 2024. 5

    2024

  52. [60]

    Deep imitation learning for complex manipulation tasks from virtual reality teleoperation, 2018

    Tianhao Zhang, Zoe McCarthy, Owen Jow, Dennis Lee, Xi Chen, Ken Goldberg, and Pieter Abbeel. Deep imitation learning for complex manipulation tasks from virtual reality teleoperation, 2018. 3

    2018

  53. [61]

    Zhao, Vikash Kumar, Sergey Levine, and Chelsea Finn

    Tony Z. Zhao, Vikash Kumar, Sergey Levine, and Chelsea Finn. Learning fine-grained bimanual manipulation with low-cost hardware, 2023. 5

    2023

  54. [62]

    Dino-wm: World models on pre-trained visual features en- able zero-shot planning, 2025

    Gaoyue Zhou, Hengkai Pan, Yann LeCun, and Lerrel Pinto. Dino-wm: World models on pre-trained visual features en- able zero-shot planning, 2025. 8

    2025

  55. [63]

    Nerf-aug: Data augmentation for robotics with neu- ral radiance fields, 2024

    Eric Zhu, Mara Levy, Matthew Gwilliam, and Abhinav Shri- vastava. Nerf-aug: Data augmentation for robotics with neu- ral radiance fields, 2024. 3

    2024

  56. [64]

    Learning generalizable manipulation policies with object- centric 3d representations, 2023

    Yifeng Zhu, Zhenyu Jiang, Peter Stone, and Yuke Zhu. Learning generalizable manipulation policies with object- centric 3d representations, 2023. 3

    2023

  57. [65]

    robosuite: A modu- lar simulation framework and benchmark for robot learning,

    Yuke Zhu, Josiah Wong, Ajay Mandlekar, Roberto Mart ´ın- Mart´ın, Abhishek Joshi, Kevin Lin, Abhiram Maddukuri, Soroush Nasiriany, and Yifeng Zhu. robosuite: A modu- lar simulation framework and benchmark for robot learning,

  58. [2025]

    The appendix is organized as follows: • §A provides Limitations of our work

    6 13 RoBridge: A Hierarchical Architecture Bridging Cognition and Execution for General Robotic Manipulation Supplementary Material SUMMARY OF THE APPENDIX This appendix contains additional details for this paper. The appendix is organized as follows: • §A provides Limitations...

Pith tools

Reviewed August 16, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.