Pith. sign in

REVIEW 4 major objections 6 minor 31 references

Reimagination with Test-time Observation Interventions: Distractor-Robust World Model Predictions for Visual Model Predictive Control

T0 review · 4 major / 6 minor · reviewed 2026-08-15 · deepseek-v4-flash

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

Pith's one-line read A test-time intervention detects novel objects that make world-model rollouts degrade, inpaints them, reimagines the future, and pastes them back, raising pick-and-place verification success from 0.20 to 0.70 in the presence of novel…

desk verdict ReOI is a sensible modular idea with a real effect, but the depth-compositing safety story has a hole and the evaluation is too thin to take the 0.70 success rate at face value. read the letter →

arxiv 2506.16565 v1 pith:XFWMFNOA submitted 2025-06-19 cs.RO cs.AIcs.CV

Yuxin Chen , Jianglan Wei , Chenfeng Xu , Boyi Li , Masayoshi Tomizuka , Andrea Bajcsy , Ran Tian This is my paper · ORCID
classification cs.ROcs.AIcs.CV
keywords test-timeobservationinterventionworldmodelsvisualmodelpredictivecontroldistractorsactionverificationinpaintingdepth-awarecompositingrobotmanipulation
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

World models let robots preview future frames for a planned action, but an object the model never saw in training can make those previews hallucinate: obstacles vanish, target objects get erased, and the downstream verifier picks a colliding plan. ReOI claims this failure can be fixed entirely at test time, without retraining the world model or the policy. The pipeline lets the world model roll out one in-distribution action, asks a vision-language model to flag objects that distort or disappear within the first five predicted frames, inpaints those objects out of the current observation, reimagines action outcomes from the cleaned input, and then pastes the distractors back in depth order so occlusion is correct. In a real robot pick-and-place task with novel distractors, this lifts the verifier's task success rate to 0.70, from 0.20 for unmodified DINO-WM and 0.00 for a trust-region rejection baseline, while holding collisions at 0.10. If correct, ReOI offers a plug-in robustness layer for model-based visual planning in open-world scenes.

What carries the argument

The central mechanism is Reimagination with Observation Intervention (ReOI), a three-stage test-time pipeline: detection, where the world model rolls out an in-distribution safety-check action and a vision-language model is shown the first and fifth frames plus a segmentation-mask overlay to name objects that have degraded or disappeared; intervention, where those regions are segmented and inpainted out of the current observation; and reimagination, where the original world model predicts each candidate plan from the modified observation, and the removed distractor layers are composited back in back-to-front depth order using per-layer depth estimates. The load-bearing identity is that physically implausible degradation across a short rollout is a reliable signature of out-of-distribution content; the pipeline never retrains or alters the dynamics model.

What would settle it

Run the same real-robot pick-and-place task with a novel distractor that DINO-WM predicts stably across all rollout frames, such as a visually simple colored block placed in the robot's path, and check whether the vision-language-model verifier using ReOI rejects the colliding plan; if it accepts the plan or shows the gripper passing through the reinserted block without flagging it, the detection premise fails.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

ReOI establishes that world-model-based action verification can be made robust to unseen static distractors without modifying the world model, the policy, or the reward. It detects distractors via the model's own failure mode: novel objects degrade in physically implausible ways over an autoregressive rollout, so comparing the initial frame with the fifth rollout frame and querying a vision-language model identifies which segmented regions correspond to novel distractors. Those regions are inpainted out of the current observation, the modified observation is rerolled through the same world model to produce clean future outcomes, and the removed distractors are reinserted into every predicted frame using depth-aware layer compositing so the verifier sees correct occlusion. The paper reports that this reimagination improves SSIM and LPIPS of predicted outcomes and, in ten real-robot trials with novel distractors, lifts task success from 0.20 (DINO-WM) and 0.00 (TrustRegion) to 0.70 with a collision rate of 0.10.

Load-bearing premise

The method stands or falls on the assumption that every safety-relevant novel distractor will visibly warp, distort, or disappear within the first five frames of the world-model rollout, so a vision-language model comparing the first and fifth frames can flag it; if an obstacle stays visually plausible in prediction but still blocks the robot, ReOI will not intervene and degenerates to the brittle baseline.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • A robot can verify action plans against novel static objects it has never seen, without retraining the world model or the policy, by cleaning the input observation at deployment time.
  • Removing novel distractors before rollout prevents the hallucination cascade that corrupts in-distribution components: the robot and target objects are predicted more faithfully (SSIM increases from 0.63 to 0.79, LPIPS drops from 0.14 to 0.09 on distractor-free components).
  • Because distractors are reinserted with correct depth ordering, the verifier can still see and reject collision-prone plans, keeping the collision rate at 0.10 while improving success over the conservative TrustRegion baseline, which succeeds 0.00.
  • The intervention is plug-in: it wraps any world model and any vision-language-model verifier, so the gains do not require changing pretrained weights or collecting new demonstrations.

Reading between the lines

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

  • Beyond the paper, the frame-5 detection rule is a design choice rather than a necessity: if slower-degrading distractors appear in longer rollouts, the same pipeline should work with a later reference frame, so the method can adapt to models with different autoregressive horizons.
  • Beyond the paper, because ReOI produces cleaner imagined rollouts generally, it should transfer beyond verification to model-predictive control loops and data augmentation for policy learning, although the paper only tests verification.
  • Beyond the paper, the post-hoc compositing assumes distractors are static and non-interactive: if a novel object can be pushed or grasped, reinserting it after the rollout would misrepresent physical interaction, so an extension would need to couple distractor dynamics into the rollout.
  • Beyond the paper, a vision-language-model-free detector, such as a pixel-level temporal-inconsistency measure between two rollout frames, would make ReOI cheaper and less dependent on a specific model; the paper's prompting approach could be replaced by a purely geometric consistency check.
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 / 6 minor

Summary. The paper proposes Reimagination with Observation Intervention (ReOI), a test-time, plug-in method for making visual world-model predictions robust to novel visual distractors in robot action-plan verification. Given a current observation, ReOI rolls out a world model on an in-distribution action plan, uses a GPT-4o prompt to identify objects that distort or disappear across the rollout, segments and inpaints those distractors, re-runs the world model on the modified observation, and then reinserts the distractors into the predicted frames via depth-aware compositing. The reimagined rollouts are scored by a VLM verifier that selects or rejects action plans. The paper evaluates ReOI with DINO-WM on a real Fanuc robot pick-and-place task with novel distractors, reporting improved SSIM/LPIPS prediction quality and a task success rate of 0.70 versus 0.20 for unmodified DINO-WM and 0.00 for a TrustRegion baseline, with collision rate 0.10.

Significance. The problem addressed is timely and important: visual world models are brittle under novel distractors, and existing mitigation strategies are training-time and task-specific. The proposed test-time intervention is modular, does not require retraining the dynamics model, and the qualitative results (Figures 1, 4, 5) are compelling. The paper also provides a detailed experimental setup, including hyperparameters and VLM prompts, which supports reproducibility. If the central claims hold, ReOI would be a useful contribution to world-model-based policy verification. However, the safety mechanism contains an internal tension, the quantitative evidence is statistically weak, and the evaluation protocol includes decoder fine-tuning on the test environment, so the current manuscript does not yet establish the claimed robustness.

major comments (4)
  1. [IV-B] The safety argument is internally inconsistent with the depth-aware compositing procedure. The paper states that trajectories where the gripper appears to pass through a reinserted distractor are 'automatically rejected during the verification process,' but the described back-to-front compositing renders interpenetration as occlusion: a gripper that actually intersects the distractor volume will appear either in front of or behind the distractor, visually indistinguishable from a safe pass. The VLM verifier therefore has no visual evidence of collision in the composited frame. This directly threatens the central claim that ReOI maintains a low collision rate while rejecting unsafe plans. Please supply a direct experiment measuring the verifier's rejection rate on rollouts known to collide with the reinserted distractor, or revise the verification procedure so that collision evidence is preserved in the rendered frames.
  2. [V and Appendix B] The evaluation protocol appears to include a form of test-time adaptation that undermines the claim of a purely plug-in, training-free intervention. Appendix B states that the DINOv2 feature decoder is fine-tuned on 80 trajectories collected in the testing environment that 'intentionally includes various visual distractors not present during the initial training phase.' This gives the decoder access to the test-environment distractor distribution. Please clarify whether the DINO-WM and TrustRegion baselines use the same fine-tuned decoder; if they do not, the comparison is unfair, and if they do, the paper should qualify the claim that ReOI requires no knowledge of distractors at training time. In either case, report results without this decoder fine-tuning to isolate the contribution of ReOI.
  3. [Table II and Table I] The central quantitative claim rests on 10 trials with no error bars, confidence intervals, or statistical tests. With 7/10 versus 2/10 successes, the difference between ReOI and DINO-WM is not significant at the 5% level (two-sided Fisher's exact test p ≈ 0.07). Please report per-trial results, confidence intervals, and a significance test, or increase the number of trials. Table I also reports SSIM and LPIPS without sample counts or variance; please provide these so the reader can assess the stability of the reported improvements.
  4. [Appendix A and Appendix B] The detection step is load-bearing but not adequately evaluated. Section IV-A and Appendix A assume that novel distractors degrade within the first five frames of the world-model rollout, but the paper does not report a measured distractor-detection accuracy or failure rate, despite the main text promising such an evaluation in Appendix B. If a distractor is missed or degrades only after frame 5, no inpainting occurs and ReOI collapses to the baseline. Additionally, because GPT-4o is used both to detect distractors and to verify plans, correlated VLM errors could inflate the reported success. Please report detection accuracy, failure cases, sensitivity to the frame-5 choice, and plan-verification accuracy conditioned on detection success versus failure.
minor comments (6)
  1. [IV-A] The inpainting model is cited as [2], but reference [2] is Rovi-Aug, which is a data-augmentation method, not an image inpainting model. Please cite the actual inpainting method used.
  2. [Figure 10 caption] The word 'reimaginated' appears to be a typo; it should be 'reimagined.'
  3. [Figure 12 prompt] The prompt text contains the typo 'Wach out' and the phrase 'looks safely' should likely be 'looks safe.'
  4. [III] In Equation (1), the notation o_t := o_{t:t+T} and a_t versus a^t is inconsistent; please define the action-plan indexing and horizon T explicitly.
  5. [V] There are spacing issues in the text, such as 'We use120multi-mode teleoperated demonstrations' and 'To this end, we propose Reimagination with Observation Intervention,ReOI,atest-timeandplug-instrategy.' Please proofread for formatting.
  6. [Appendix B] The TrustRegion baseline description does not specify the input space in which the r-balls are defined or the distance metric used for observation-action pairs; please add this detail so the baseline is reproducible.

Circularity Check

1 steps flagged · score 3.0 of 10

Partial by-construction element in the full-observation similarity metric; central task-success claim remains externally grounded.

  1. other [Section IV-B and Table I (quantitative evaluations of a world model's predicted visual action outcomes)]
    "We also extract the inpainted distractor layer from the original observation and estimate its depth based on its original spatial placement. This distractor layer is then added back into the set of layers for every predicted frame. Finally, we reconstruct each predicted frame by compositing the layers in back-to-front depth order, ensuring that all objects are rendered with correct occlusion."

    Table I's full-observation SSIM/LPIPS compares ReOI's output against ground truth. ReOI's output is a composite that copies the distractor layer verbatim from the original observation into every predicted frame. For a static distractor, those pasted pixels match the ground-truth pixels by construction, independent of the world model's dynamics. Thus the full-obs metric partly measures input reuse, not prediction quality. The paper explicitly acknowledges this limitation right before presenting the component eval ('the previous evaluation does not fully disentangle...'), and the in-distribution component eval avoids the artifact.

full rationale

The paper's central contribution is a test-time observation-intervention pipeline, not a derivation whose conclusion is assumed in its inputs. Distractor detection is performed by prompting a VLM with world-model rollout frames; inpainting removes the flagged regions; and post-hoc compositing reintroduces them. This is an engineering intervention with an empirical failure-mode hypothesis, not a tautology. The main benchmark evidence (Table II: success 0.70 vs 0.20, collision 0.10) comes from real robot execution and is not determined by the detection or verification components by construction: the VLM verifier can still select or reject plans, and the trial outcomes are external. The one genuine by-construction element I identified is in the supporting Table I 'full obs.' metric: the distractor pixels are copied from the current observation and therefore equal the static ground-truth pixels regardless of prediction quality. The authors acknowledge this and supply a distractor-inpainted component metric that does not share the artifact. Two non-circular but important correctness risks should be weighed separately: (1) Section IV-B asserts that pass-through trajectories are 'automatically rejected' during verification, yet the depth-aware compositing pipeline renders occlusion rather than interpenetration, so this safety claim is unsupported and in tension with the described rendering; (2) the DINOv2 feature decoder is fine-tuned on 80 trajectories from the testing environment that include distractors, which is a potential distribution leak rather than circular reasoning. There are also minor self-citations ([22] for deployment-time verification and [2] for inpainting), but neither is load-bearing. Overall, no central claim reduces to its inputs by construction; the circularity concern is limited to a supporting metric the paper itself partially disclaims.

Assumptions & free parameters 3 free parameters · 4 assumptions · 0 invented entities

The central claim rests on three behavioral assumptions about novel distractors and on the reliability of off-the-shelf vision components. There are no invented physical entities. The only hand-chosen numeric choices are the detection frame index and the TrustRegion baseline thresholds, neither of which is a fitted constant of the ReOI method itself.

free parameters (3)
  • World model rollout frame used for distractor comparison = frame 5
    Appendix A: chosen because empirical analysis shows that implausible distractor behavior manifests within the first four rollout steps. This hand-tuned detection hyperparameter changes which objects get flagged.
  • TrustRegion training-error threshold = 750
    Appendix B, baseline only: an empirically chosen threshold below which DINO-WM predictions are considered well aligned with ground truth. It affects the baseline comparison, not the ReOI pipeline.
  • TrustRegion initial ball radius r0 = 0.1
    Appendix B, baseline only: initial trust region radius, expanded per Algorithm 2 of [11]. A baseline configuration choice.
assumptions (4)
  • domain assumption Novel visual distractors degrade in physically implausible ways within the first few rollout frames of the world model.
    Section IV-A and Appendix A: the detector compares frame 1 to frame 5 because 'empirical analysis shows that distractors are most likely to have degraded or disappeared.' If a distractor does not distort early, it is never flagged.
  • domain assumption A VLM prompted with the initial frame, fifth frame, and ID-overlaid segmentation mask can reliably identify exactly the distractor regions.
    Section IV-A and Appendix A. Detection accuracy is not reported in the main text; Appendix B mentions component-level evaluation but the corresponding results are not included in this version.
  • domain assumption Inpainting the identified distractors brings the observation closer to the training distribution without corrupting task-relevant dynamics.
    Section IV-B. The decoder fine-tuning on 80 test-environment trajectories with distractors (Appendix B) may already shift the reconstruction pathway toward distractors, making this assumption nontrivial.
  • domain assumption Reinserting the inpainted distractor layers via depth-based compositing yields frames on which the VLM verifier can make correct safety judgments even though the rollout never modeled the distractor's physical interaction with the robot.
    Section IV-B explicitly acknowledges the gripper may appear to pass through reinserted distractors but asserts this does not compromise verification; no experiment supports this claim.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Reimagination with Test-time Observation Interventions: Distractor-Robust World Model Predictions for Visual Model Predictive Control." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/XFWMFNOA

@misc{pith2026250616565,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Reimagination with Test-time Observation Interventions: Distractor-Robust World Model Predictions for Visual Model Predictive Control},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/XFWMFNOA}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2506.16565}
}
read the original abstract

World models enable robots to "imagine" future observations given current observations and planned actions, and have been increasingly adopted as generalized dynamics models to facilitate robot learning. Despite their promise, these models remain brittle when encountering novel visual distractors such as objects and background elements rarely seen during training. Specifically, novel distractors can corrupt action outcome predictions, causing downstream failures when robots rely on the world model imaginations for planning or action verification. In this work, we propose Reimagination with Observation Intervention (ReOI), a simple yet effective test-time strategy that enables world models to predict more reliable action outcomes in open-world scenarios where novel and unanticipated visual distractors are inevitable. Given the current robot observation, ReOI first detects visual distractors by identifying which elements of the scene degrade in physically implausible ways during world model prediction. Then, it modifies the current observation to remove these distractors and bring the observation closer to the training distribution. Finally, ReOI "reimagines" future outcomes with the modified observation and reintroduces the distractors post-hoc to preserve visual consistency for downstream planning and verification. We validate our approach on a suite of robotic manipulation tasks in the context of action verification, where the verifier needs to select desired action plans based on predictions from a world model. Our results show that ReOI is robust to both in-distribution and out-of-distribution visual distractors. Notably, it improves task success rates by up to 3x in the presence of novel distractors, significantly outperforming action verification that relies on world model predictions without imagination interventions.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2506.16565 by the authors.

Figure 1
Figure 1. As the world model rolls out candidate action [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p001_1.png] view at source ↗
Figure 1
Figure 1. Reimagination with observation intervention for distractor-robust world model-based robot planning. A robot uses a world model (WM) to verify and select action plans proposed by a pre-trained imitation policy. The world model has never encountered the box, cooker, or teapot during training. Top (baseline): Novel visual distractors become distorted across predicted observations, causing the model to hallucinate incor… view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. Novel visual distractor identification and observation intervention. We leverage a VLM to analyze the temporal evolution of objects and flag those that undergo rapid distortion across frames as potential novel visual distractors (left-side; more examples and the full prompt can be found in Appendix A). These problematic distractors are inpainted to bring the observation closer to the world model’s training distribut… view at source ↗
Figures from the paper (10 more)
Figure 3
Figure 3. Figure 3: Reimagination with modified observation. Predicted future observations from the modified input are post-processed by reintroducing previously inpainted distractors using depth￾aware compositing. This ensures correct occlusion, e.g., the package box appears behind the g…
Figure 4
Figure 4. Figure 4: Qualitative examples of prediction quality. The presence of unfamiliar distractor objects causes DINO-WM to hallucinate and predict that a failed action plan would succeed (left side, middle row) and mistakenly erase the target object (the green pepper) from the predic…
Figure 5
Figure 5. Figure 5: Qualitative example of robot visual planning. The novel distractor object causes DINO-WM to hallucinate and erase a critical obstacle, leading the VLM plan verifier to incorrectly accept an unsafe action plan. In contrast, ReOI generates visual outcome predictions that…
Figure 6
Figure 6. Figure 6: The VLM is prompted to identify visual distractors by reasoning about missing objects between the initial frame [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p010_6.png]
Figure 7
Figure 7. Figure 7: Distractor patches extracted from the initial observation based on the identified mask. [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p010_7.png]
Figure 8
Figure 8. Figure 8: Trajectories predicted with DINO-WM with 10 different initial observations without visual distractors [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p011_8.png]
Figure 9
Figure 9. Figure 9: Trajectories predicted with DINO-WM with 10 different initial observations with visual distractors [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p012_9.png]
Figure 10
Figure 10. Figure 10: Trajectories reimaginated by DINO-WM with 10 modified initial observations [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p013_10.png]
Figure 11
Figure 11. Figure 11: Qualitative comparison of VLMs’ plan verification capabilities. GPT-4o LLaMa 4 Verification Accuracy 0.94 0.82 Selection Accuracy 0.85 0.64 TABLE IV: Plan verification and selection accuracy. the percentage of trials in which the VLM correctly rejects an unsafe or fai…
Figure 12
Figure 12. Figure 12: Qualitative example of the VLM-based plan verification and selection [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p015_12.png]

Review history (2 revisions) →

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

31 extracted references · 17 canonical work pages

  1. [1]

    Cosmos world foundation model platform for physical ai.arXiv preprint arXiv:2501.03575, 2025

    Niket Agarwal, Arslan Ali, Maciej Bala, Yogesh Bal- aji, Erik Barker, Tiffany Cai, Prithvijit Chattopadhyay, Yongxin Chen, Yin Cui, Yifan Ding, et al. Cosmos world foundation model platform for physical ai.arXiv preprint arXiv:2501.03575, 2025

    arXiv 2025

  2. [2]

    Rovi-aug: Robot and viewpoint augmentation for cross-embodiment robot learning.arXiv preprint arXiv:2409.03403, 2024

    Lawrence Yunliang Chen, Chenfeng Xu, Karthik Dhar- marajan, Muhammad Zubair Irshad, Richard Cheng, Kurt Keutzer, Masayoshi Tomizuka, Quan Vuong, and Ken Goldberg. Rovi-aug: Robot and viewpoint augmentation for cross-embodiment robot learning.arXiv preprint arXiv:2409.03403, 2024

    arXiv 2024

  3. [3]

    Dif- fusion policy: Visuomotor policy learning via action diffusion

    Cheng Chi, Siyuan Feng, Yilun Du, Zhenjia Xu, Eric Cousineau, Benjamin Burchfiel, and Shuran Song. Dif- fusion policy: Visuomotor policy learning via action diffusion. InProceedings of Robotics: Science and Systems (RSS), 2023

    2023

  4. [4]

    Im- proving transformer world models for data-efficient rl

    Antoine Dedieu, Joseph Ortiz, Xinghua Lou, Carter Wendelken, Wolfgang Lehrach, J Swaroop Guntupalli, Miguel Lazaro-Gredilla, and Kevin Patrick Murphy. Im- proving transformer world models for data-efficient rl. arXiv preprint arXiv:2502.01591, 2025

    arXiv 2025

  5. [5]

    Learning task informed abstractions

    Xiang Fu, Ge Yang, Pulkit Agrawal, and Tommi Jaakkola. Learning task informed abstractions. In International Conference on Machine Learning, pages 3480–3491. PMLR, 2021

    work page 2021

  6. [6]

    Flip: Flow-centric generative planning as general-purpose manipulation world model

    Chongkai Gao, Haozhuo Zhang, Zhixuan Xu, Cai Zhe- hao, and Lin Shao. Flip: Flow-centric generative planning as general-purpose manipulation world model. InThe Thirteenth International Conference on Learning Repre- sentations

    work page

  7. [7]

    Recurrent world models facilitate policy evolution.Advances in neural information processing systems, 31, 2018

    David Ha and J ¨urgen Schmidhuber. Recurrent world models facilitate policy evolution.Advances in neural information processing systems, 31, 2018

    work page 2018

  8. [8]

    Run-time observation interventions make vision- language-action models more visually robust.arXiv preprint arXiv:2410.01971, 2024

    Asher J Hancock, Allen Z Ren, and Anirudha Majum- dar. Run-time observation interventions make vision- language-action models more visually robust.arXiv preprint arXiv:2410.01971, 2024

    arXiv 2024

Show all 31 references
  1. [9]

    1x world model: Evaluating bits, not atoms

    Daniel Ho, Jack Monas, Juntao Ren, and Christina Yu. 1x world model: Evaluating bits, not atoms. Technical report, 1X Technologies, Palo Alto, CA, June 2025. URL https://www.1x.tech/1x-world-model.pdf. Supple- mentary technical progress report available at https:// www.1x.tech...

    2025

  2. [10]

    Leveraging separated world model for exploration in visually distracted environments.Advances in Neural Information Processing Systems, 37:82350–82374, 2024

    Kaichen Huang, Shenghua Wan, Minghao Shao, Hai- Hang Sun, Le Gan, Shuai Feng, and De-Chuan Zhan. Leveraging separated world model for exploration in visually distracted environments.Advances in Neural Information Processing Systems, 37:82350–82374, 2024

    2024

  3. [11]

    Planning with learned dynamics: Probabilis- tic guarantees on safety and reachability via lipschitz constants.IEEE Robotics and Automation Letters, 6(3): 5129–5136, 2021

    Craig Knuth, Glen Chou, Necmiye Ozay, and Dmitry Berenson. Planning with learned dynamics: Probabilis- tic guarantees on safety and reachability via lipschitz constants.IEEE Robotics and Automation Letters, 6(3): 5129–5136, 2021

    2021

  4. [12]

    Roso: Improving robotic policy inference via synthetic observations.arXiv preprint arXiv:2311.16680, 2023

    Yusuke Miyashita, Dimitris Gahtidis, Colin La, Jeremy Rabinowicz, and Jurgen Leitner. Roso: Improving robotic policy inference via synthetic observations.arXiv preprint arXiv:2311.16680, 2023

    2023 arXiv

  5. [13]

    Dinov2: Learning robust visual features without supervision.arXiv preprint arXiv:2304.07193, 2023

    Maxime Oquab, Timoth ´ee Darcet, Th ´eo Moutakanni, Huy V o, Marc Szafraniec, Vasil Khalidov, Pierre Fer- nandez, Daniel Haziza, Francisco Massa, Alaaeldin El- Nouby, et al. Dinov2: Learning robust visual features without supervision.arXiv preprint arXiv:2304.07193, 2023

    2023 arXiv

  6. [14]

    Strengthening generative robot policies through predic- tive world modeling.arXiv preprint arXiv:2502.00622, 2025

    Han Qi, Haocheng Yin, Yilun Du, and Heng Yang. Strengthening generative robot policies through predic- tive world modeling.arXiv preprint arXiv:2502.00622, 2025

    2025

  7. [15]

    Grounded sam: Assembling open- world models for diverse visual tasks.arXiv preprint arXiv:2401.14159, 2024

    Tianhe Ren, Shilong Liu, Ailing Zeng, Jing Lin, Kun- chang Li, He Cao, Jiayu Chen, Xinyu Huang, Yukang Chen, Feng Yan, et al. Grounded sam: Assembling open- world models for diverse visual tasks.arXiv preprint arXiv:2401.14159, 2024

    2024 arXiv

  8. [16]

    Less is more–the dispatcher/executor principle for multi-task reinforcement learning.arXiv preprint arXiv:2312.09120, 2023

    Martin Riedmiller, Tim Hertweck, and Roland Hafner. Less is more–the dispatcher/executor principle for multi-task reinforcement learning.arXiv preprint arXiv:2312.09120, 2023

    2023

  9. [17]

    Semail: eliminating dis- tractors in visual imitation via separated models

    Shenghua Wan, Yucen Wang, Minghao Shao, Ruying Chen, and De-Chuan Zhan. Semail: eliminating dis- tractors in visual imitation via separated models. In International Conference on Machine Learning, pages 35426–35443. PMLR, 2023

    2023

  10. [18]

    Denoised mdps: Learning world models better than the world itself.arXiv preprint arXiv:2206.15477, 2022

    Tongzhou Wang, Simon S Du, Antonio Torralba, Phillip Isola, Amy Zhang, and Yuandong Tian. Denoised mdps: Learning world models better than the world itself.arXiv preprint arXiv:2206.15477, 2022

    2022 arXiv

  11. [19]

    Ad3: Implicit action is the key for world models to distinguish the diverse visual distractors

    Yucen Wang, Shenghua Wan, Le Gan, Shuai Feng, and De-Chuan Zhan. Ad3: Implicit action is the key for world models to distinguish the diverse visual distractors. In International Conference on Machine Learning, pages 51546–51568. PMLR, 2024

    2024

  12. [20]

    Image quality assessment: from error visibil- ity to structural similarity.IEEE transactions on image processing, 13(4):600–612, 2004

    Zhou Wang, Alan C Bovik, Hamid R Sheikh, and Eero P Simoncelli. Image quality assessment: from error visibil- ity to structural similarity.IEEE transactions on image processing, 13(4):600–612, 2004

    2004

  13. [21]

    Daydreamer: World models for physical robot learning

    Philipp Wu, Alejandro Escontrela, Danijar Hafner, Pieter Abbeel, and Ken Goldberg. Daydreamer: World models for physical robot learning. InConference on robot learning, pages 2226–2240. PMLR, 2023

    2023

  14. [22]

    From foresight to forethought: Vlm-in-the-loop policy steering via latent alignment.arXiv preprint arXiv:2502.01828, 2025

    Yilin Wu, Ran Tian, Gokul Swamy, and Andrea Ba- jcsy. From foresight to forethought: Vlm-in-the-loop policy steering via latent alignment.arXiv preprint arXiv:2502.01828, 2025

    2025 arXiv

  15. [23]

    Transferring foundation models for generalizable robotic manipulation

    Jiange Yang, Wenhui Tan, Chuhao Jin, Keling Yao, Bei Liu, Jianlong Fu, Ruihua Song, Gangshan Wu, and Limin Wang. Transferring foundation models for generalizable robotic manipulation. In2025 IEEE/CVF Winter Confer- ence on Applications of Computer Vision (WACV), pages 1999–201...

    1999

  16. [24]

    Learning invariant representa- tions for reinforcement learning without reconstruction

    Amy Zhang, Rowan McAllister, Roberto Calandra, Yarin Gal, and Sergey Levine. Learning invariant representa- tions for reinforcement learning without reconstruction. arXiv preprint arXiv:2006.10742, 2020

    2006 arXiv

  17. [25]

    The unreasonable effectiveness of deep features as a perceptual metric

    Richard Zhang, Phillip Isola, Alexei A Efros, Eli Shecht- man, and Oliver Wang. The unreasonable effectiveness of deep features as a perceptual metric. InProceedings of the IEEE conference on computer vision and pattern recognition, pages 586–595, 2018

    2018

  18. [26]

    Learning 4d embodied world models

    Haoyu Zhen, Qiao Sun, Pengxiao Han, Siyuan Zhou, Yilun Du, and Chuang Gan. Learning 4d embodied world models

  19. [27]

    Dino-wm: World models on pre-trained vi- sual features enable zero-shot planning.arXiv preprint arXiv:2411.04983, 2024

    Gaoyue Zhou, Hengkai Pan, Yann LeCun, and Lerrel Pinto. Dino-wm: World models on pre-trained vi- sual features enable zero-shot planning.arXiv preprint arXiv:2411.04983, 2024

    2024 arXiv

  20. [28]

    Repo: Resilient model-based reinforce- ment learning by regularizing posterior predictability

    Chuning Zhu, Max Simchowitz, Siri Gadipudi, and Ab- hishek Gupta. Repo: Resilient model-based reinforce- ment learning by regularizing posterior predictability. Advances in Neural Information Processing Systems, 36: 32445–32467, 2023. APPENDIX Our key insight is that visual di...

    2023

  21. [29]

    img init dis - The initial image

  22. [30]

    img wm - The same scene after some changes

  23. [31]

    Look carefully at each numbered patch and determine if the corresponding object still present in img wm

    mask overlay - The initial image with numbered masks/patches created by a segmentation algorithm Your task is to identify which numbered patches from the mask overlay image exist in img init dis but have disappeared in img wm. Look carefully at each numbered patch and determin...

Pith tools

Reviewed August 15, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.