Pith. sign in

REVIEW 5 major objections 5 minor 3 cited by

RoboScape: Physics-informed Embodied World Model

T0 review · 5 major / 5 minor · reviewed 2026-08-06 · deepseek-v4-flash

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

Pith's one-line read RoboScape claims that adding temporal depth and keypoint tracking to an autoregressive video world model yields physically plausible robot videos and a policy evaluator whose success-rate judgements correlate at 0.953 with a simulator.

desk verdict Useful embodied world model with real downstream results, but the physics-informed framing outruns the evidence and the experimental reporting needs tightening. read the letter →

arxiv 2506.23135 v1 pith:WAYYKOTI submitted 2025-06-29 cs.CV cs.RO

Yu Shang , Xin Zhang , Yinzhou Tang , Lei Jin , Chen Gao , Wei Wu , Yong Li This is my paper
classification cs.CVcs.RO
keywords worldmodelrobotmanipulationvideogenerationtemporaldepthpredictionkeypointdynamicsphysics-informedlearningpolicyevaluationsyntheticdata
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 attempts to establish that a single autoregressive world model can learn usable physics for robot manipulation by predicting RGB frames, temporal depth, and keypoint trajectories together, instead of fitting pixels alone. It claims that the depth branch keeps generated 3D geometry consistent frame to frame, and that the adaptively sampled keypoint-consistency loss makes the model track deforming surfaces, thereby implicitly capturing rigidity and softness. If that is right, generated video becomes a practical stand-in for real demonstrations: training Diffusion Policy and pi0 on RoboScape output approaches or exceeds real-data performance, and the model can rank policies by success rate with a 0.953 Pearson correlation against a ground-truth simulator.

What carries the argument

The central mechanism is the dual-branch co-autoregressive Transformer (DCT), built from spatial-temporal Transformer blocks: one branch predicts RGB tokens $\hat{s}_t$, the other predicts depth tokens $\hat{z}_t$, and at every block the depth branch's features are linearly projected and added into the RGB branch's features. Physics enters through two auxiliary losses: temporal depth prediction, and a keypoint dynamics loss $\mathcal{L}_{\text{keypoint}} = \frac{1}{(T-1)K}\sum_{i=1}^K \sum_{t=2}^T \|\hat{s}_t(p_t^i) - \hat{s}_1(p_1^i)\|_2^2$ that aligns predicted tokens at adaptively sampled, high-motion keypoints back to their initial-frame tokens, together with a keypoint-guided attention weighting $A_{t,x,y}$ that up-weights the token cross-entropy loss along those trajectories. These are combined in the objective $\mathcal{L} = \mathcal{L}_{\text{RGB}} + \lambda_1 \mathcal{L}_{\text{depth}} + \lambda_2 \mathcal{L}_{\text{keypoint}} + \lambda_3 \mathcal{L}_{\text{attention}}$.

What would settle it

Run the trained model on two action-matched video pairs whose scene layout is identical but whose object material differs (e.g., a rigid block versus a cloth draped the same way), and compare the predicted keypoint token trajectories and generated deformations; if those trajectories are statistically indistinguishable, the claimed implicit material encoding via keypoint consistency is not happening.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

RoboScape's central discovery, as the authors state it, is that physical plausibility in an embodied world model does not require a physics engine or explicit material parameters: two auxiliary prediction tasks trained jointly with RGB generation are enough. The model predicts temporal depth maps in a parallel branch and injects the depth features into the RGB branch, and it samples the most dynamically active keypoints, then enforces token-level consistency across frames at those keypoints plus extra attention weight on them. On six appearance, geometry, and controllability metrics the paper reports RoboScape ahead of four baselines; in policy evaluation, its success-rate rankings correlate with the ground-truth simulator at Pearson $r = 0.953$, $R^2 = 0.908$, while two baseline world models show near-zero or negative correlation. The paper therefore claims the joint framework is both a better video generator and a usable policy evaluator.

Load-bearing premise

The strongest load-bearing premise is that the keypoint-token consistency loss makes the model track physical points on object surfaces and therefore learn material behavior; if the tokens merely get smoothed over time without tracking real surfaces, the claimed physical understanding is not there.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • Robotic policies trained on RoboScape-generated data should reach success rates close to those from real data: 91% on Robomimic Lift versus 92% with real data.
  • Scaling synthetic data improves policy success on LIBERO: pi0's average score rises from 66.6% with 200 synthetic trajectories to 79.1% with 800.
  • RoboScape can act as a policy evaluator: its success-rate judgements correlate at 0.953 with the ground-truth simulator, versus near-zero or negative correlations for two baseline world models.
  • The video generator should maintain action controllability across rollouts, with a measured action-sensitivity delta PSNR of 3.3435, far above the baselines.
  • The two auxiliary tasks are complementary: ablations removing depth or keypoint learning degrade geometric consistency or motion plausibility respectively.

Reading between the lines

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

  • Beyond the paper: the material-understanding claim has a direct experimental test, namely comparing keypoint token trajectories on rigid versus deformable objects with matched contact actions; the paper's own cloth-dragging example is qualitative only.
  • Beyond the paper: if the 0.953 policy-evaluation correlation transfers to new tasks, world-model rollouts could replace simulator-based model selection, which matters for tasks without scripted success detectors.
  • Beyond the paper: the reported data-scaling pattern, where depth metrics are inflated by overfitting to the conditioning frame, suggests that geometric-quality evaluations should use rollouts with novel action sequences as a standard protocol.
  • Beyond the paper: neither auxiliary task is manipulation-specific, so the joint RGB-depth-keypoint architecture may transfer to other embodied domains such as navigation or dexterous manipulation.
Share X Bluesky LinkedIn Reddit HN

Editorial analysis

A structured set of objections, weighed in public.

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

Referee Report

5 major / 5 minor

Summary. The paper presents RoboScape, an autoregressive transformer-based world model for robot manipulation video generation. It proposes two auxiliary tasks: temporal depth prediction, where a dual-branch co-autoregressive transformer predicts depth tokens alongside RGB tokens with cross-branch feature fusion, and keypoint dynamics learning, where adaptive keypoint sampling plus a temporal token-consistency loss (Eq. 5) and keypoint-guided attention weighting (Eqs. 6-7) aim to capture motion and deformation. The authors train on 50,000 clips from the AgiBotWorld-Beta dataset processed by a pipeline that adds depth annotation via Video Depth Anything and keypoint trajectories via SpatialTracker. They report state-of-the-art LPIPS/PSNR, depth metrics, and a DeltaPSNR action-controllability measure over four baselines (IRASim, iVideoGPT, Genie, CogVideoX), show that synthetic data improves Diffusion Policy and pi0 policies, and report a 0.953 Pearson correlation with ground-truth simulator success rates when using RoboScape as a policy evaluator.

Significance. If the claims hold, the work is a useful contribution: it demonstrates that joint training with depth and keypoint losses can improve video fidelity and, more notably, that the model can rank policies with a 0.953 correlation to a simulator, which would be a practically valuable world-model capability. The scale of the experiments (6.5M training clips, 32 GPUs, 5 epochs) and the inclusion of downstream policy training and evaluation are strengths. However, the central 'physics-informed' mechanism is not directly validated, and several evaluation metrics are either undefined or circular with respect to the training supervision. These gaps are large enough that the quantitative headline results are currently not fully interpretable.

major comments (5)
  1. [Section 2.3, Eq. (5)] The central claim that enforcing token consistency at adaptively sampled keypoints makes the model 'implicitly encode physical properties (e.g., object shape and material characteristics)' is never tested independently. Figure 3 is qualitative, and no experiment isolates rigid vs. deformable objects, measures whether keypoint tokens track physical surface points through occlusion, or checks whether the keypoint loss does more than smooth tokens over time. As written, Eq. (5) is a temporal-smoothing loss on latent tokens. The paper needs a probe such as (a) evaluating keypoint tracking accuracy on held-out videos with known ground-truth trajectories, (b) comparing latent keypoint trajectories for rigid vs. deformable objects, or (c) ablating with randomly sampled keypoints to show that tracked keypoint identity matters. Without such a test, the 'physics-informed' advantage could be attributable to generic regularization.
  2. [Section 2.2 and Table 1] Depth quality metrics (AbsRel, delta1, delta2) are evaluated without specifying the reference. The training pipeline uses Video Depth Anything [31] to generate the depth sequences, and the model is trained to predict those depth tokens. If AbsRel, delta1, and delta2 are computed against the same Video Depth Anything estimates, the 'geometric consistency' results measure imitation of the estimator, not geometric accuracy against any physical ground truth. The paper must state the evaluation reference and, if it is the same estimator, add a non-circular evaluation (e.g., on synthetic scenes with rendered depth, or against real sensor depth if available).
  3. [Section 3.2] The action-controllability metric DeltaPSNR is never formally defined. The text only says it 'quantifies output sensitivity to action condition.' Without a formula specifying the reference video, the action perturbation, and the aggregation over frames (e.g., whether it compares generated videos under different action sequences or compares to a no-action condition), the reported 3.3435 vs. 1.9871 cannot be interpreted. Additionally, in Table 2 the 'w/o depth & keypoint' row's DeltaPSNR is numerically identical to Genie's in Table 1 (1.9871), which is suspicious and needs explanation or verification.
  4. [Section 3.4, Figure 5] The policy-evaluation correlation of 0.953 depends on manual judgment of success in the world model's generated videos. The paper says 'it requires manual judgment when the policy interacts with the world model,' but does not report the judging protocol: number of judges, whether they are blind to the policy checkpoint, inter-annotator agreement, or the criteria for success. This is load-bearing because the entire correlation may depend on how the judge interprets possibly ambiguous generated frames. Please report these details and, ideally, provide automated or simulator-consistent success detection.
  5. [Table 2] The ablation results do not support the text's claim that 'removing either one leads to measurable degradation across different metrics.' Removing depth improves LPIPS (0.1249 vs. 0.1259) and PSNR (21.9465 vs. 21.8533) relative to the whole model, so the claim of complementary gains is contradicted for appearance fidelity. Furthermore, no error bars or multiple seeds are reported anywhere in the paper, so 'measurable' is unsubstantiated. Please provide variance estimates and reconcile the ablation narrative with these numbers.
minor comments (5)
  1. [Section 3] The section header says the experimental protocol is detailed in 'Section 4.1,' but the protocol appears in Section 3.1; the same incorrect forward reference appears again in Section 3.3.
  2. [Appendix D.3] The heading 'D.3 Robotic Policy Evaluation (add visualization results of our model and baselines' is incomplete and appears to be an unfinished placeholder.
  3. [Section 2.3, Eq. (8)] Equation (8) contains a typo: 'where lambda1, lambda2, lambda3 in R+ are are tunable coefficients' repeats 'are'.
  4. [Section 3.1] The dataset description is ambiguous: the text says '50,000 video clips extracted from the AgiBotWorld-Beta dataset' and later says 'we preprocess videos by extracting 16-frame clips ... yielding approximately 6.5 million training clips.' Please clarify whether the 50,000 refers to source videos or a first-level clip extraction, and how the 6.5M figure is derived.
  5. [Section 3.1] The action representation is under-specified: 'we concatenate the end position, end orientation, and effector position of the embodiment as the action sequence' should state the dimensionality and normalization of the action vector, since action conditioning is central to the DeltaPSNR and policy-evaluation experiments.

Circularity Check

1 steps flagged · score 6.0 of 10

Depth-evaluation loop: geometric-consistency metrics measure agreement with Video Depth Anything, the same estimator that produced the training depth labels, making the depth-accuracy claim partly self-referential; RGB and downstream policy results remain externally grounded.

  1. fitted input called prediction [Section 2.2 (depth annotation), Eq. 4 (depth loss), Section 3.2 and Tables 1-2 (depth metrics)]
    "Specifically, we utilize Video Depth Anything [31] to generate the depth map sequence of the video."

    The depth branch is trained with LDepth (Eq. 4) to predict tokenized depth maps, and those training depth maps are exactly the Video Depth Anything outputs produced in Section 2.2. The geometric-consistency metrics in Tables 1-2 (AbsRel, delta1, delta2) are then reported as "depth estimation errors" and "depth prediction accuracy" against the same dataset depth maps. Hence the claims of "3D geometric consistency" and SOTA depth accuracy measure the model's agreement with the teacher that generated its own training labels, not independent ground-truth geometry. This is a fitted-input-called-prediction loop: the evaluated quantity is defined by the label generator.

full rationale

The central depth-accuracy claim reduces, by construction, to matching the off-the-shelf depth estimator used to create the training labels: Video Depth Anything produces the dataset depth maps (Section 2.2), the depth branch is trained to predict those tokenized depth maps (Eq. 4), and the AbsRel/delta1/delta2 metrics in Section 3.2 measure depth estimation error against the same maps. This is a genuine fitted-input-called-prediction loop, though it affects only the geometric-consistency component of the paper's broader claim. The appearance-fidelity results (LPIPS/PSNR against real frames), the Robomimic/LIBERO policy-training gains, and the policy-evaluation correlation against the ground-truth simulator are externally grounded and not circular. The paper's additional assertion that keypoint token consistency 'implicitly encodes physical properties' is unsupported by an independent probe, but that is a missing-evidence concern, not a circularity. No load-bearing self-citation chain or uniqueness-imported-from-authors pattern is present.

Assumptions & free parameters 7 free parameters · 6 assumptions · 0 invented entities

No new physical entities (particles, forces, fields, dimensions) are introduced. The 'physics-informed' aspect comes from reusing off-the-shelf depth and tracking estimators plus hand-designed consistency losses, which are training-signal choices rather than invented entities.

free parameters (7)
  • lambda1 (depth loss weight) = 1
    Hand-chosen in Eq. 8; no sensitivity analysis is reported (Section 3.1).
  • lambda2 (keypoint loss weight) = 0.01
    Hand-chosen in Eq. 8; no sensitivity analysis is reported (Section 3.1).
  • lambda3 (attention loss weight) = 1
    Hand-chosen in Eq. 8; no sensitivity analysis is reported (Section 3.1).
  • gamma (keypoint attention weight) = 5
    Chosen in Eqs. 6 and 7; no ablation of this value is reported.
  • K and N0 (keypoint counts) = not reported
    The adaptive keypoint sampler (Section 2.3) depends on N0 sampled keypoints and K selected keypoints; neither value is given, so the operating point of the keypoint loss is unspecified.
  • action representation = end position + end orientation + effector position
    The concatenated action vector (Section 3.1) is chosen without ablating alternative encodings, yet the action controllability claims rest on it.
  • clip filtering thresholds = not specified
    The FlowNet motion filter and Intern-VL key-frame filter thresholds (Section 2.2) are not quantified; they determine the composition of the training dataset.
assumptions (6)
  • domain assumption Video Depth Anything depth maps are accurate enough to serve as geometric ground truth for both training and evaluation.
    Depth labels (Section 2.2) and the depth metrics AbsRel, delta1 and delta2 (Section 3.2) both rely on this off-the-shelf estimator; any bias in it propagates into the model and into the reported geometry numbers.
  • domain assumption SpatialTracker keypoints track the same physical surface points across frames.
    The keypoint dynamics loss (Eq. 5) treats tracked coordinates as physically meaningful; if tracking drifts, the consistency loss aligns unrelated tokens.
  • ad hoc to paper Latent-token consistency at tracked keypoints is a valid proxy for material properties.
    The core 'implicit material understanding' claim (Section 2.3) equates token consistency with physical material encoding; no experiment validates this equivalence.
  • domain assumption The compressed action vector (end position, end orientation, effector position) is sufficient to control future frames.
    The model conditions on this vector (Section 3.1); joint-level actions are not used, so some motion may be uncontrollable by the chosen action space.
  • domain assumption Clip filtering removes only nonrepresentative clips and does not bias the physics content of the dataset.
    The FlowNet and Intern-VL filtering (Section 2.2) may systematically drop clips with hard or disordered motion, making the dataset easier and inflating apparent physical plausibility.
  • domain assumption MAGVIT-2 discrete tokens preserve the spatial resolution needed for keypoint-position losses.
    The keypoint loss reads tokens at tokenized coordinates (Eq. 5); if the tokenizer blurs small objects, keypoint supervision cannot help.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of RoboScape: Physics-informed Embodied World Model." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/WAYYKOTI

@misc{pith2026250623135,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: RoboScape: Physics-informed Embodied World Model},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/WAYYKOTI}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2506.23135}
}
read the original abstract

World models have become indispensable tools for embodied intelligence, serving as powerful simulators capable of generating realistic robotic videos while addressing critical data scarcity challenges. However, current embodied world models exhibit limited physical awareness, particularly in modeling 3D geometry and motion dynamics, resulting in unrealistic video generation for contact-rich robotic scenarios. In this paper, we present RoboScape, a unified physics-informed world model that jointly learns RGB video generation and physics knowledge within an integrated framework. We introduce two key physics-informed joint training tasks: temporal depth prediction that enhances 3D geometric consistency in video rendering, and keypoint dynamics learning that implicitly encodes physical properties (e.g., object shape and material characteristics) while improving complex motion modeling. Extensive experiments demonstrate that RoboScape generates videos with superior visual fidelity and physical plausibility across diverse robotic scenarios. We further validate its practical utility through downstream applications including robotic policy training with generated data and policy evaluation. Our work provides new insights for building efficient physics-informed world models to advance embodied intelligence research. The code is available at: https://github.com/tsinghua-fib-lab/RoboScape.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2506.23135 by the authors.

Figure 1
Figure 1. Illustration of the proposed robotic data processing pipeline with physical priors annotation. [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p003_1.png] view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. Overview of the physics-informed world model, where physical knowledge is integrated [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p004_2.png] view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. Qualitative results visualization of our model (only the subsequent 8 frames are shown). [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p006_3.png] view at source ↗
Figures from the paper (9 more)
Figure 4
Figure 4. Figure 4: Effect of the physics knowledge learning. Omission of temporal depth learning leads to [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p008_4.png]
Figure 5
Figure 5. Figure 5: Correlation between the success rate of different world models and the ground-truth [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p009_5.png]
Figure 6
Figure 6. Figure 6: Model scaling law of RoboScape. A Broader Impacts Our physics-informed world model significantly advances robotic learning by generating high￾fidelity synthetic data with inherent physical plausibility, reducing reliance on costly real-world data collection while impro…
Figure 7
Figure 7. Figure 7: Data scaling law of RoboScape-S. controllability, geometric accuracy exhibits marginal improvement or even slight degradation. We find that this is because smaller datasets encourage overfitting to the final frame of conditional inputs, artificially inflating geometric…
Figure 8
Figure 8. Figure 8: Supplemented visualization results from our model (only the subsequent 8 frames are [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p016_8.png]
Figure 9
Figure 9. Figure 9: Supplemented visualization results on Robomimic (displaying every 5th frame; 8 frames [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p016_9.png]
Figure 10
Figure 10. Figure 10: Supplemented visualization results on LIBERO (displaying every 10th frame; 8 frames [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p016_10.png]
Figure 11
Figure 11. Figure 11: Supplemented visualization results of failure cases in policy evaluation. [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p017_11.png]
Figure 12
Figure 12. Figure 12: Supplemented visualization results of successful cases in policy evaluation. [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p017_12.png]

Discussion (0). Sign in to comment.

Forward citations

Cited by 3 Pith papers

Reviewed papers in the Pith corpus that reference this work. Sorted by Pith novelty score. Full citation record

  1. A Comprehensive Survey on World Models for Embodied AI

    cs.CV 2025-10 conditional novelty 6.0 of 10

    A unified three-axis taxonomy — functionality, temporal modeling, spatial representation — organizes the world-model literature for embodied AI.

  2. When Vision Overrides Language: Evaluating and Mitigating Counterfactual Failures in VLAs

    cs.CV 2026-02 conditional novelty 5.0 of 10

    VLAs fail most counterfactual instructions because vision shortcuts dominate language; the new LIBERO-CF benchmark quantifies this, and CAG, an inference-time action mixer, improves grounding and success.

  3. From World Models to World Action Models: A Concise Tutorial for Robotics

    cs.RO 2026-07 unverdicted novelty 4.0 of 10

    World models are action-conditioned predictors of task-relevant futures; world action models couple those futures to robot actions via four paradigms: imagine-then-execute, feature-conditioned, joint, and auxiliary pr...

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

55 extracted references · 8 canonical work pages · cited by 3 Pith papers

  1. [31]

    Video depth anything: Consistent depth estimation for super-long videos

    Sili Chen, Hengkai Guo, Shengnan Zhu, Feihu Zhang, Zilong Huang, Jiashi Feng, and Bingyi Kang. Video depth anything: Consistent depth estimation for super-long videos. arXiv preprint arXiv:2501.12375, 2025

    arXiv 2025

  2. [1]

    Gpt-4 technical report

    Josh Achiam, Steven Adler, Sandhini Agarwal, Lama Ahmad, Ilge Akkaya, Florencia Leoni Aleman, Diogo Almeida, Janko Altenschmidt, Sam Altman, Shyamal Anadkat, et al. Gpt-4 technical report. arXiv preprint arXiv:2303.08774, 2023

    arXiv 2023

  3. [2]

    Gemini: a family of highly capable multimodal models

    Gemini Team, Rohan Anil, Sebastian Borgeaud, Jean-Baptiste Alayrac, Jiahui Yu, Radu Soricut, Johan Schalkwyk, Andrew M Dai, Anja Hauth, Katie Millican, et al. Gemini: a family of highly capable multimodal models. arXiv preprint arXiv:2312.11805, 2023

    arXiv 2023

  4. [3]

    Bridgedata v2: A dataset for robot learning at scale

    Homer Rich Walke, Kevin Black, Tony Z Zhao, Quan Vuong, Chongyi Zheng, Philippe Hansen- Estruch, Andre Wang He, Vivek Myers, Moo Jin Kim, Max Du, et al. Bridgedata v2: A dataset for robot learning at scale. In Conference on Robot Learning, pages 1723–1736. PMLR, 2023

    2023

  5. [4]

    Open x- embodiment: Robotic learning datasets and rt-x models: Open x-embodiment collaboration 0

    Abby O’Neill, Abdul Rehman, Abhiram Maddukuri, Abhishek Gupta, Abhishek Padalkar, Abraham Lee, Acorn Pooley, Agrim Gupta, Ajay Mandlekar, Ajinkya Jain, et al. Open x- embodiment: Robotic learning datasets and rt-x models: Open x-embodiment collaboration 0. In 2024 IEEE International Conference on Robotics and Automation (ICRA), pages 6892–6903. IEEE, 2024

    work page 2024

  6. [5]

    Droid: A large-scale in-the-wild robot manipulation dataset

    Alexander Khazatsky, Karl Pertsch, Suraj Nair, Ashwin Balakrishna, Sudeep Dasari, Siddharth Karamcheti, Soroush Nasiriany, Mohan Kumar Srirama, Lawrence Yunliang Chen, Kirsty Ellis, et al. Droid: A large-scale in-the-wild robot manipulation dataset. arXiv preprint arXiv:2403.12945, 2024

    arXiv 2024

  7. [7]

    Recurrent world models facilitate policy evolution

    David Ha and Jürgen Schmidhuber. Recurrent world models facilitate policy evolution. Ad- vances in neural information processing systems, 31, 2018

    2018

  8. [8]

    Learning interactive real-world simulators

    Mengjiao Yang, Yilun Du, Kamyar Ghasemipour, Jonathan Tompson, Dale Schuurmans, and Pieter Abbeel. Learning interactive real-world simulators. arXiv preprint arXiv:2310.06114, 1(2):6, 2023

    arXiv 2023

Show all 55 references
  1. [9]

    Video generation models as world simulators

    Tim Brooks, Bill Peebles, Connor Holmes, Will DePue, Yufei Guo, Li Jing, David Schnurr, Joe Taylor, Troy Luhman, Eric Luhman, et al. Video generation models as world simulators. OpenAI Blog, 1:8, 2024

    2024

  2. [10]

    Learning re al-world action-video dynamics with heterogeneous masked autoregression

    Lirui Wang, Kevin Zhao, Chaoqi Liu, and Xinlei Chen. Learning re al-world action-video dynamics with heterogeneous masked autoregression. arXiv preprint arXiv:2502.04296, 2025

    2025 arXiv

  3. [11]

    ivideogpt: Interactive videogpts are scalable world models

    Jialong Wu, Shaofeng Yin, Ningya Feng, Xu He, Dong Li, Jianye Hao, and Mingsheng Long. ivideogpt: Interactive videogpts are scalable world models. Advances in Neural Information Processing Systems, 37:68082–68119, 2024

    2024

  4. [12]

    Irasim: Learning interactive real-robot action simulators

    Fangqi Zhu, Hongtao Wu, Song Guo, Yuxiao Liu, Chilam Cheang, and Tao Kong. Irasim: Learning interactive real-robot action simulators. arXiv preprint arXiv:2406.14540, 2024

    2024 arXiv

  5. [13]

    Cosmos world foundation model platform for physical ai

    Niket Agarwal, Arslan Ali, Maciej Bala, Yogesh Balaji, 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

    2025 arXiv

  6. [14]

    How far is video generation from world model: A physical law perspective

    Bingyi Kang, Yang Yue, Rui Lu, Zhijie Lin, Yang Zhao, Kaixin Wang, Gao Huang, and Jiashi Feng. How far is video generation from world model: A physical law perspective. arXiv preprint arXiv:2411.02385, 2024

    2024 arXiv

  7. [15]

    Exploring the evolution of physics cognition in video generation: A survey

    Minghui Lin, Xiang Wang, Yishan Wang, Shu Wang, Fengqi Dai, Pengxiang Ding, Cunxiang Wang, Zhengrong Zuo, Nong Sang, Siteng Huang, et al. Exploring the evolution of physics cognition in video generation: A survey. arXiv preprint arXiv:2503.21765, 2025

    2025 arXiv

  8. [16]

    T2vphysbench: A first-principles benchmark for physical consistency in text-to-video gen- eration

    Xuyang Guo, Jiayan Huo, Zhenmei Shi, Zhao Song, Jiahao Zhang, and Jiale Zhao. T2vphysbench: A first-principles benchmark for physical consistency in text-to-video gen- eration. arXiv preprint arXiv:2505.00337, 2025. 10

    2025 arXiv

  9. [17]

    Towards world simulator: Crafting physical commonsense- based benchmark for video generation

    Fanqing Meng, Jiaqi Liao, Xinyu Tan, Wenqi Shao, Quanfeng Lu, Kaipeng Zhang, Yu Cheng, Dianqi Li, Yu Qiao, and Ping Luo. Towards world simulator: Crafting physical commonsense- based benchmark for video generation. arXiv preprint arXiv:2410.05363, 2024

    arXiv

  10. [18]

    Towards physical understanding in video generation: A 3d point regularization approach

    Yunuo Chen, Junli Cao, Anil Kag, Vidit Goel, Sergei Korolev, Chenfanfu Jiang, Sergey Tulyakov, and Jian Ren. Towards physical understanding in video generation: A 3d point regularization approach. arXiv preprint arXiv:2502.03639, 2025

    2025

  11. [19]

    Enhancing sketch animation: Text-to-video diffusion models with temporal consistency and rigidity constraints

    Gaurav Rai and Ojaswa Sharma. Enhancing sketch animation: Text-to-video diffusion models with temporal consistency and rigidity constraints. arXiv preprint arXiv:2411.19381, 2024

    2024

  12. [20]

    Dynamic 3d gaussians: Tracking by persistent dynamic view synthesis

    Jonathon Luiten, Georgios Kopanas, Bastian Leibe, and Deva Ramanan. Dynamic 3d gaussians: Tracking by persistent dynamic view synthesis. In 2024 International Conference on 3D Vision (3DV), pages 800–809. IEEE, 2024

    2024

  13. [21]

    Physanimator: Physics-guided generative cartoon animation

    Tianyi Xie, Yiwei Zhao, Ying Jiang, and Chenfanfu Jiang. Physanimator: Physics-guided generative cartoon animation. arXiv preprint arXiv:2501.16550, 2025

    2025 arXiv

  14. [22]

    Gpt4motion: Scripting physical motions in text-to-video generation via blender-oriented gpt planning

    Jiaxi Lv, Yi Huang, Mingfu Yan, Jiancheng Huang, Jianzhuang Liu, Yifan Liu, Yafei Wen, Xiaoxin Chen, and Shifeng Chen. Gpt4motion: Scripting physical motions in text-to-video generation via blender-oriented gpt planning. In Proceedings of the IEEE/CVF conference on computer vi...

    2024

  15. [23]

    Physgen: Rigid-body physics-grounded image-to-video generation

    Shaowei Liu, Zhongzheng Ren, Saurabh Gupta, and Shenlong Wang. Physgen: Rigid-body physics-grounded image-to-video generation. In European Conference on Computer Vision, pages 360–378. Springer, 2024

    2024

  16. [24]

    Physmotion: Physics-grounded dynamics from a single image.arXiv preprint arXiv:2411.17189, 2024

    Xiyang Tan, Ying Jiang, Xuan Li, Zeshun Zong, Tianyi Xie, Yin Yang, and Chenfanfu Jiang. Physmotion: Physics-grounded dynamics from a single image.arXiv preprint arXiv:2411.17189, 2024

    2024 arXiv

  17. [25]

    Physdreamer: Physics-based interaction with 3d objects via video generation

    Tianyuan Zhang, Hong-Xing Yu, Rundi Wu, Brandon Y Feng, Changxi Zheng, Noah Snavely, Jiajun Wu, and William T Freeman. Physdreamer: Physics-based interaction with 3d objects via video generation. In European Conference on Computer Vision, pages 388–406. Springer, 2024

    2024

  18. [26]

    Physics3d: Learning physical properties of 3d gaussians via video diffusion

    Fangfu Liu, Hanyang Wang, Shunyu Yao, Shengjun Zhang, Jie Zhou, and Yueqi Duan. Physics3d: Learning physical properties of 3d gaussians via video diffusion. arXiv preprint arXiv:2406.04338, 2024

    2024 arXiv

  19. [27]

    Aether: Geometric-aware unified world modeling

    Aether Team, Haoyi Zhu, Yifan Wang, Jianjun Zhou, Wenzheng Chang, Yang Zhou, Zizun Li, Junyi Chen, Chunhua Shen, Jiangmiao Pang, et al. Aether: Geometric-aware unified world modeling. arXiv preprint arXiv:2503.18945, 2025

    2025 arXiv

  20. [28]

    Tesseract: Learning 4d embodied world models

    Haoyu Zhen, Qiao Sun, Hongxin Zhang, Junyan Li, Siyuan Zhou, Yilun Du, and Chuang Gan. Tesseract: Learning 4d embodied world models. arXiv preprint arXiv:2504.20995, 2025

    2025 arXiv

  21. [29]

    Diffusion policy: Visuomotor policy learning via action diffusion

    Cheng Chi, Zhenjia Xu, Siyuan Feng, Eric Cousineau, Yilun Du, Benjamin Burchfiel, Russ Tedrake, and Shuran Song. Diffusion policy: Visuomotor policy learning via action diffusion. The International Journal of Robotics Research, page 02783649241273668, 2023

    2023

  22. [30]

    π0: A vision-language-action flow model for general robot control

    Kevin Black, Noah Brown, Danny Driess, Adnan Esmail, Michael Equi, Chelsea Finn, Niccolo Fusai, Lachy Groom, Karol Hausman, Brian Ichter, et al. π0: A vision-language-action flow model for general robot control. arXiv preprint arXiv:2410.24164, 2024

    arXiv

  23. [32]

    Spatialtracker: Tracking any 2d pixels in 3d space

    Yuxi Xiao, Qianqian Wang, Shangzhan Zhang, Nan Xue, Sida Peng, Yujun Shen, and Xiaowei Zhou. Spatialtracker: Tracking any 2d pixels in 3d space. In Proceedings of the IEEE/CVF Conference on Computer Vision and Pattern Recognition, pages 20406–20417, 2024

    2024

  24. [33]

    Transnet v2: An effective deep network architecture for fast shot transition detection

    Tomás Soucek and Jakub Lokoc. Transnet v2: An effective deep network architecture for fast shot transition detection. In Proceedings of the 32nd ACM International Conference on Multimedia, pages 11218–11221, 2024. 11

    2024

  25. [34]

    Internvl: Scaling up vision foundation models and aligning for generic visual-linguistic tasks

    Zhe Chen, Jiannan Wu, Wenhai Wang, Weijie Su, Guo Chen, Sen Xing, Muyan Zhong, Qinglong Zhang, Xizhou Zhu, Lewei Lu, et al. Internvl: Scaling up vision foundation models and aligning for generic visual-linguistic tasks. In Proceedings of the IEEE/CVF conference on computer vis...

    2024

  26. [35]

    Flownet: Learning optical flow with convolutional networks

    Alexey Dosovitskiy, Philipp Fischer, Eddy Ilg, Philip Hausser, Caner Hazirbas, Vladimir Golkov, Patrick Van Der Smagt, Daniel Cremers, and Thomas Brox. Flownet: Learning optical flow with convolutional networks. In Proceedings of the IEEE international conference on computer v...

    2015

  27. [36]

    A survey on curriculum learning.IEEE transactions on pattern analysis and machine intelligence, 44(9):4555–4576, 2021

    Xin Wang, Yudong Chen, and Wenwu Zhu. A survey on curriculum learning.IEEE transactions on pattern analysis and machine intelligence, 44(9):4555–4576, 2021

    2021

  28. [37]

    Language model beats diffusion–tokenizer is key to visual generation

    Lijun Yu, José Lezama, Nitesh B Gundavarapu, Luca Versari, Kihyuk Sohn, David Minnen, Yong Cheng, Vighnesh Birodkar, Agrim Gupta, Xiuye Gu, et al. Language model beats diffusion–tokenizer is key to visual generation. arXiv preprint arXiv:2310.05737, 2023

    arXiv

  29. [38]

    Agibot world colosseo: A large-scale manipulation platform for scalable and intelligent embodied systems

    AgiBot-World-Contributors, Qingwen Bu, Jisong Cai, Li Chen, Xiuqi Cui, Yan Ding, Siyuan Feng, Shenyuan Gao, Xindong He, Xuan Hu, Xu Huang, Shu Jiang, Yuxin Jiang, Cheng Jing, Hongyang Li, Jialu Li, Chiming Liu, Yi Liu, Yuxiang Lu, Jianlan Luo, Ping Luo, Yao Mu, Yuehan Niu, Yix...

    2025 arXiv

  30. [39]

    Genie: Generative interactive environments

    Jake Bruce, Michael D Dennis, Ashley Edwards, Jack Parker-Holder, Yuge Shi, Edward Hughes, Matthew Lai, Aditi Mavalankar, Richie Steigerwald, Chris Apps, et al. Genie: Generative interactive environments. In Forty-first International Conference on Machine Learning, 2024

    2024

  31. [40]

    Cogvideox: Text-to-video diffusion models with an expert transformer

    Zhuoyi Yang, Jiayan Teng, Wendi Zheng, Ming Ding, Shiyu Huang, Jiazheng Xu, Yuanming Yang, Wenyi Hong, Xiaohan Zhang, Guanyu Feng, et al. Cogvideox: Text-to-video diffusion models with an expert transformer. arXiv preprint arXiv:2408.06072, 2024

    2024 arXiv

  32. [41]

    What matters in learning from offline human demonstrations for robot manipulation

    Ajay Mandlekar, Danfei Xu, Josiah Wong, Soroush Nasiriany, Chen Wang, Rohun Kulkarni, Li Fei-Fei, Silvio Savarese, Yuke Zhu, and Roberto Martín-Martín. What matters in learning from offline human demonstrations for robot manipulation. arXiv preprint arXiv:2108.03298, 2021

    2021 arXiv

  33. [42]

    Libero: Benchmarking knowledge transfer for lifelong robot learning

    Bo Liu, Yifeng Zhu, Chongkai Gao, Yihao Feng, Qiang Liu, Yuke Zhu, and Peter Stone. Libero: Benchmarking knowledge transfer for lifelong robot learning. Advances in Neural Information Processing Systems, 36:44776–44791, 2023

    2023

  34. [43]

    World models

    David Ha and Jürgen Schmidhuber. World models. arXiv preprint arXiv:1803.10122, 2018

    2018 arXiv

  35. [44]

    Drive- dreamer: Towards real-world-drive world models for autonomous driving

    Xiaofeng Wang, Zheng Zhu, Guan Huang, Xinze Chen, Jiagang Zhu, and Jiwen Lu. Drive- dreamer: Towards real-world-drive world models for autonomous driving. In European Confer- ence on Computer Vision, pages 55–72. Springer, 2024

    2024

  36. [45]

    Genad: Gen- erative end-to-end autonomous driving

    Wenzhao Zheng, Ruiqi Song, Xianda Guo, Chenming Zhang, and Long Chen. Genad: Gen- erative end-to-end autonomous driving. In European Conference on Computer Vision, pages 87–104. Springer, 2024

    2024

  37. [46]

    Gamegen-x: Interactive open-world game video generation

    Haoxuan Che, Xuanhua He, Quande Liu, Cheng Jin, and Hao Chen. Gamegen-x: Interactive open-world game video generation. arXiv preprint arXiv:2411.00769, 2024

    2024 arXiv

  38. [47]

    Maskgwm: A generalizable driving world model with video mask reconstruction

    Jingcheng Ni, Yuxin Guo, Yichen Liu, Rui Chen, Lewei Lu, and Zehuan Wu. Maskgwm: A generalizable driving world model with video mask reconstruction. arXiv preprint arXiv:2502.11663, 2025. 12

    2025 arXiv

  39. [48]

    Driving into the future: Multiview visual forecasting and planning with world model for autonomous driving

    Yuqi Wang, Jiawei He, Lue Fan, Hongxin Li, Yuntao Chen, and Zhaoxiang Zhang. Driving into the future: Multiview visual forecasting and planning with world model for autonomous driving. In Proceedings of the IEEE/CVF Conference on Computer Vision and Pattern Recognition , pages...

    2024

  40. [49]

    Vista: A generalizable driving world model with high fidelity and versatile controllability

    Shenyuan Gao, Jiazhi Yang, Li Chen, Kashyap Chitta, Yihang Qiu, Andreas Geiger, Jun Zhang, and Hongyang Li. Vista: A generalizable driving world model with high fidelity and versatile controllability. arXiv preprint arXiv:2405.17398, 2024

    2024 arXiv

  41. [50]

    Gaia-2: A controllable multi-view generative world model for autonomous driving

    Lloyd Russell, Anthony Hu, Lorenzo Bertoni, George Fedoseev, Jamie Shotton, Elahe Arani, and Gianluca Corrado. Gaia-2: A controllable multi-view generative world model for autonomous driving. arXiv preprint arXiv:2503.20523, 2025

    2025 arXiv

  42. [51]

    Learning robotic video dynamics with heterogeneous masked autoregression

    Lirui Wang, Kevin Zhao, Chaoqi Liu, and Xinlei Chen. Learning robotic video dynamics with heterogeneous masked autoregression. In Arxiv, 2025

    2025

  43. [52]

    Gamefactory: Creating new games with generative interactive videos

    Jiwen Yu, Yiran Qin, Xintao Wang, Pengfei Wan, Di Zhang, and Xihui Liu. Gamefactory: Creating new games with generative interactive videos. arXiv preprint arXiv:2501.08325, 2025

    2025

  44. [53]

    Pre-trained video generative models as world simulators

    Haoran He, Yang Zhang, Liang Lin, Zhongwen Xu, and Ling Pan. Pre-trained video generative models as world simulators. arXiv preprint arXiv:2502.07825, 2025

    2025 arXiv

  45. [54]

    Worldmem: Long-term consistent world simulation with memory

    Zeqi Xiao, Yushi Lan, Yifan Zhou, Wenqi Ouyang, Shuai Yang, Yanhong Zeng, and Xin- gang Pan. Worldmem: Long-term consistent world simulation with memory. arXiv preprint arXiv:2504.12369, 2025

    2025

  46. [55]

    Scalable diffusion models with transformers

    William Peebles and Saining Xie. Scalable diffusion models with transformers. In Proceedings of the IEEE/CVF international conference on computer vision, pages 4195–4205, 2023

    2023

  47. [56]

    Seeing the future, perceiving the future: A uni- fied driving world model for future generation and perception.arXiv preprint arXiv:2503.13587, 2025

    Dingkang Liang, Dingyuan Zhang, Xin Zhou, Sifan Tu, Tianrui Feng, Xiaofan Li, Yumeng Zhang, Mingyang Du, Xiao Tan, and Xiang Bai. Seeing the future, perceiving the future: A uni- fied driving world model for future generation and perception.arXiv preprint arXiv:2503.13587, 202...

    2025

Pith tools

Reviewed August 6, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.