Pith. sign in

REVIEW 3 major objections 6 minor 62 references

DynamicManip: Enabling Dynamic Manipulation from a Single Static Demonstration

T0 review · 3 major / 6 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 One static teleoperated demonstration can be edited into dynamic training data that matches or beats 50–200 manual demos, while stage-adaptive inference cuts latency 32.9% and raises success 18.4 points.

desk verdict Static-to-dynamic augmentation plus stage-aware inference is a genuinely useful combination with credible results, but the 'single static demo' claim overstates input cost and the contact-replay step lacks physics verification. read the letter →

arxiv 2608.01452 v1 pith:YUEZPPCR submitted 2026-08-02 cs.RO cs.CVcs.LG

Haoran Liao , Pengyue Wang , Shuoyu Chen , Kehan Cheng , Xuhang Chen , Yuhao Lin , Mu Lin , Zhizhao Liang
show 5 more authors
Xiaoyi Fan Chengyi Xing Dan Niu Yi-Lin Wei Wei-Shi Zheng
This is my paper
classification cs.ROcs.CVcs.LG
keywords dynamicmanipulationimitationlearningdataaugmentationdiffusionpolicystatic-to-dynamicstage-awareinferencelatency-awareevaluationbenchmark
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 claims that the main obstacle to learning dynamic robot manipulation—the scarcity of demonstrations of moving-object interactions—can be removed by editing, rather than collecting, data. Starting from a single static episode in which the robot interacts with an object, DynamicManip reconstructs the object and robot geometry, decomposes the motion into phases, and re-composes the interaction under newly sampled object paths so that hundreds of dynamic episodes are produced for a few minutes of human annotation. Training a diffusion policy on these episodes yields success rates comparable to or better than policies trained on 50 to 200 manually teleoperated dynamic demonstrations. The same pipeline also labels each timestep by phase, and a lightweight stage classifier lets the policy adapt its inference frequency at run time; in latency-aware evaluation the method reports a mean success rate 18.4 percentage points higher and policy-query latency 32.9% lower than the baseline. If this holds, dynamic manipulation skills could be generated with roughly 11 minutes of human effort and 30 minutes of compute per task instead of hours of synchronized teleoperation.

What carries the argument

The key machinery is a four-operator trajectory-editing engine built on reconstructed geometry. From a single episode, the pipeline builds a canonical object point cloud (a mesh generated from an RGB image, aligned to the observed points by oriented-bounding-box initialization and multi-resolution ICP) and a robot point cloud from the robot model. Four phase operators then compose new episodes: $\Phi_{\text{static}}$ applies a rigid transform to the acquisition phase; $\Phi_{\text{dyn}}$ plans an end-effector trajectory toward a time-varying target computed from the edited object motion; $\Phi_{\text{inter}}$ replays the source contact segment through the anchor-frame identity $e'_t = A_k A^

What would settle it

Take the augmented episodes for a fast-moving task, run each through a physics simulator with the same synthesized object motion, and measure contact success as a function of object speed at the moment of contact. If success drops sharply once the target moves faster than a few tens of centimeters per second, while slow episodes succeed, the anchor-based replay's assumption that contact transfers independently of velocity is falsified.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

The central discovery is that a static demonstration already contains the interaction 'recipe', and dynamic variation is mostly a question of where and when the interaction occurs. DynamicManip makes this concrete by splitting the source episode into four phase operators—static object acquisition, dynamic target alignment, contact interaction execution, and pose-conditioned transition—and recomposing them under sampled object motions. The contact-rich segment is transferred by anchor-based replay, $e'_t = A_k A^{-1} e_t$, which keeps the fine local motion pattern while moving the interaction to a new anchor pose. The paper argues these synthesized trajectories are geometrically and kinematic

Load-bearing premise

The method assumes that moving the recorded contact motion to a new position and orientation—without modeling how fast the target is moving or how momentum transfers—still yields demonstrations that would actually succeed in physics.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • A task that once required 50–200 synchronized dynamic teleoperation sessions can be tackled from one static episode, reducing human data-collection time from hours to about 11 minutes plus roughly 30 minutes of GPU time, per the paper's reported costs.
  • Augmented episodes inherit stage labels for free, so policies trained on them can predict interaction phase at test time and spend compute where it matters, rather than running the same inference cost during every motion.
  • Latency-aware evaluation—advancing the simulator by $N_{\text{delay}} = \text{round}(t_{\text{infer}}/\Delta t_{\text{sim}})$ steps before applying an action—makes response speed a first-class metric, so faster policies are not unfairly rewarded or penalized by fixed simulation timing.
  • The ablations indicate the gains accumulate: spatial transforms, quasi-static editing, planned dynamic motion, and local interaction replay each add success, and predicted-stage scheduling outperforms uniform or fixed schedules.

Reading between the lines

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

  • If anchor replay is the engine, then the method's ceiling is set by how well a recorded contact transfers across object speeds; a natural next step the paper does not take is to filter or re-aim synthesized contact segments using the object's velocity at the anchor frame.
  • The stage-labeling scheme is a cheap supervision signal that other diffusion or vision-language-action policies could adopt, and learning the scheduler rather than using the hand-set heuristic table of interval, Taylor order, and chunk length is an obvious follow-up.
  • The same static-to-dynamic editing could extend beyond rigid objects if the reconstruction step tracked deformation or articulation, but that would require replacing rigid anchor replay with physics-validated contact generation.
  • If the scaling pattern holds, dynamic manipulation benchmarks could shift from measuring teleoperation effort to measuring compute and annotation effort, which would change how data-centric robotics compares methods.
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

3 major / 6 minor

Summary. The paper proposes DynamicManip, a framework that converts a single keyframe-annotated static teleoperated demonstration into a diverse set of dynamic manipulation demonstrations, and couples this with a dynamic-aware diffusion policy that adapts its inference frequency via a stage classifier. The augmentation pipeline reconstructs object/robot geometry, segments the source motion into four phase operators (Φstatic, Φdyn, Φinter, Φtrans), and re-synthesizes dynamic episodes using task-specific sampling distributions, motion planning, and anchor-based replay. The policy uses stage labels from the augmented data to train an auxiliary classifier, which at deployment selects Taylor-accelerated DDIM schedules and action-chunk lengths. The method is evaluated on five simulated and four real-world dynamic tasks against a DP3 baseline, reporting a mean success-rate gain of 18.4 percentage points and a 32.9% reduction in policy-query latency under a latency-aware evaluation protocol.

Significance. If the central claims hold, the paper makes a useful contribution to dynamic manipulation: it reduces the cost of collecting dynamic demonstrations, introduces a latency-aware benchmark with automatic evaluation, and provides both simulation and real-world evidence, including Wilson confidence intervals and ablation studies. The reported numbers in Table 4 are internally consistent with the stated mean gains. However, the strength of the evidence is limited by three issues: (i) the augmented contact interactions are not verified for physical consistency before training, despite the paper claiming physical plausibility; (ii) the 'single static demonstration' claim requires several minutes of manual keyframe annotation and task-specific motion-distribution specification (Table 7); and (iii) the simulated 'manual demos' in Table 1 are actually generated by the same automatic planner used to create the augmented data, which tempers the data-efficiency interpretation. These issues are fixable with additional validation and careful rewriting.

major comments (3)
  1. [§3.2 / App. B.4.3 (Eq. 14)] The anchor-based replay e'_t = A_k A^{-1} e_t transfers the source end-effector pose pattern to a new anchor frame, but it does not transfer or adapt the target's velocity, closing speed, or contact timing. In dynamic tasks the target moves during Φinter, so the relative pose at contact in an augmented episode can differ from the source; a tap, strike, or grasp that made contact in the source demonstration may miss or make contact at the wrong time. The paper does not validate the edited episodes in a physics simulator before training, and Appendix D does not list this as a limitation. This is load-bearing for the claim of physically consistent augmented data. I ask for either a physics-based validation of augmented trajectories (e.g., SAPIEN rollouts checking contact success under edited object motion) or a revised, more limited claim of geometric/kinematic consistency together with an
  2. [Abstract / Table 7 / App. B.4.2] The title and abstract state that the method works 'from a single static demonstration.' However, the pipeline requires manual keyframe annotation (2 min), mesh-size correction (2 min), phase composition (1 min), and task-specific motion-distribution specification (5 min), plus task-specific target-prediction rules Γtask and composition logic (App. B.5). The input is therefore a single static demonstration plus roughly 11 minutes of task-specific human engineering. This does not erase the data-efficiency contribution, but the claim should be qualified consistently throughout the paper; the main text and Table 3 should make explicit that the 'pre-generation processing' includes task-specific specification and annotation, not just generic cleanup.
  3. [Table 1 / Section 5.2 / Section 4] The simulated 'manual dynamic demos' in Table 1 are not human teleoperation demonstrations. Section 4 states that simulation data are collected by an automatic dynamic-aware heuristic planner and CUROBO. Thus the comparison '200 demos' vs '1 demo aug→200 eps' is between planner-generated expert demos and planner-based augmented data, not between human demonstrations and augmentation. The real-world comparison in Table 2 does use human teleop demos, but the simulation evidence for Q1 should be described accordingly, and the circularity of using the same planner both to collect expert demos and to synthesize augmentations should be discussed explicitly. As written, the text says 'policies trained on much larger sets of simulated demonstrations' without noting they are machine-generated, which overstates the implication for human data-collection cost.
minor comments (6)
  1. [Table 5] The text says 'Each successive addition improves both tasks' for the inference-scheduling ablation, but the Goal Blocking row drops from 67 (Fixed Taylor) to 64 (Short Chunks). The table or the text should be corrected; the current statement is not supported by the reported numbers.
  2. [§3.3] Typo: 'at each at each policy-query cycle' should be 'at each policy-query cycle.'
  3. [App. A.3.2 (Eq. 8)] The notation c^{(i)}_1 in the finite-difference formula is undefined; please define the cache indices explicitly.
  4. [App. B.5] The phrase 'strict physical plausibility' is stronger than what the pipeline actually guarantees. The authors should use consistent terminology (e.g., 'geometric and kinematic consistency under modeling assumptions') throughout, or provide the missing physical validation.
  5. [Fig. 3 vicinity] There is a stray non-English placeholder '在此处键入公式。' in the text near Figure 3; remove it before submission.
  6. [Table 3 / Table 7] Table 3 lists 'pre-generation processing' as ~10 min of human time and ~1 min of machine time, while Table 7 gives a finer breakdown totaling 11 min of human time plus 31 min of machine time. Please make the relationship between these two tables explicit so readers do not see an inconsistency.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 0.0 of 10

No significant circularity: the static-to-dynamic pipeline is a constructive augmentation process and the reported gains are empirical comparisons against an external baseline.

full rationale

DynamicManip is a constructive data-augmentation and inference-scheduling system, not a derivation that claims to predict a quantity from first principles. The static-to-dynamic pipeline explicitly composes four operators: rigid transform (Eq. 10), planner-generated dynamic alignment (Eqs. 11-13), anchor replay (Eq. 14), and planned transitions (Eq. 15). Eq. 14 is a geometric replay rule: it transfers the source contact segment to a new anchor by SE(3) conjugation, and the augmented pose is defined as that transformation. There is no fitted parameter covertly renamed as a prediction; the augmented trajectories are generated, not inferred from the same quantity they are supposed to predict. The stage labels used in L_stage are produced by construction when phase operators compose trajectories, and the auxiliary classifier is trained to predict those labels; this is self-consistent supervision, but the reported success metric is physical task completion, not agreement with the generated labels, so the central claim does not reduce to the labels. The adaptive scheduler parameters are hand-specified heuristics (Table 6), an engineering choice rather than a circular step. Self-citations ([30,31,36,47,48]) appear in related work and are not load-bearing. Appendix D honestly flags rigid-attachment and deformable-object limitations. A real validity concern is that Eq. 14 transfers pose but not relative velocity or contact timing, and the paper does not verify augmented episodes in a physics simulator before training; this is missing verification, not equivalence of output to input by construction. No circular step can be exhibited, so the score is 0.

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

The pipeline rests on rigid-body geometry, human task configuration, planner-based synthesis, and an unverified transfer of contact interactions to new anchors. These are domain assumptions, not external benchmarks, so the 'single static demonstration' claim carries more input than the title suggests.

free parameters (4)
  • Stage-conditioned scheduling parameters (tau, K, nexec) = tau={3,7,3,8}, K={1,1,1,2}, nexec={2,2,8,8} per stage (Table 6)
    Hand-picked heuristics that directly control inference latency and action-chunk execution; not learned, and the reported 32.9% latency reduction and part of the success gains depend on these values.
  • Task-specific augmentation distribution D (object poses, motions, phase anchors, transition goals) = not specified numerically
    The sampling distribution for object motion and phase anchors is manually specified per task ('Motion-distribution specification', Table 7), so the diversity of synthesized dynamic episodes is chosen by the human, not derived from data.
  • Stage-loss weight lambda = 0.1
    Chosen to balance action fidelity and stage awareness (Appendix A.1.2); no sensitivity analysis is reported.
  • Point cloud cleanup threshold delta = 2 cm
    Set 'experientially' for merging and cleanup (Appendix B.6.1).
assumptions (4)
  • domain assumption Rigid object geometry and fixed grasp attachment (Tattach) after contact
    The augmentation pipeline assumes objects are rigid and remain rigidly attached to the gripper after grasping; the paper's own Limitations section states this breaks for deformable objects and in-hand manipulation.
  • domain assumption Anchor-based interaction replay is physically valid for new object motions
    Eq. (14) transfers the contact interaction via a rigid anchor transform without modeling object velocity or contact dynamics, so the synthesized episodes presuppose that the same local motion pattern yields success at the new anchor.
  • domain assumption Task-specific target-prediction rule Gamma_task and motion planner can synthesize feasible alignment trajectories
    Section 3.2 and Appendix B.4.2 assume a reactive planner with a per-task prediction rule can generate kinematically feasible trajectories to moving targets; the planner is shared with the baseline data collection, so the augmentation is not independent of the expert demonstration machinery.
  • domain assumption Manual keyframe annotations and task configuration are lightweight and transferable
    Table 7 shows each task requires human keyframe annotation, mesh-size correction, phase composition, and motion-distribution specification (about 11 minutes), which contradicts the 'single static demonstration' framing unless this setup cost is considered part of the input.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of DynamicManip: Enabling Dynamic Manipulation from a Single Static Demonstration." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/YUEZPPCR

@misc{pith2026260801452,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: DynamicManip: Enabling Dynamic Manipulation from a Single Static Demonstration},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/YUEZPPCR}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2608.01452}
}
read the original abstract

Dynamic manipulation is a critical capability for robots operating in complex and dynamic environments, where robots must interact with objects that are moving or require rapid adjustments. However, learning models for dynamic manipulation tasks face two major challenges: (1) the combinatorial complexity of dynamic scenarios leads to substantial data requirements, and (2) rapid variations in dynamics require real-time and accurate policy execution. In this paper, we propose DynamicManip to address these challenges through an efficient data augmentation pipeline and a low-latency imitation policy. We first propose a static-to-dynamic augmentation pipeline that synthesizes diverse dynamic manipulation demonstrations from a single static demonstration. Second, we introduce a dynamic-aware adaptive policy that adjusts its inference frequency according to task dynamics, enabling responsive and effective dynamic manipulation. Third, we build a dynamic manipulation benchmark, which includes diverse dynamic tasks with an automatic evaluation system for scalable and consistent assessment. Extensive experiments in both simulation and the real world demonstrate that DynamicManip not only provides significant improvements in data efficiency but also achieves better performance in dynamic manipulation tasks, with a mean success rate 18.4 percentage points higher and policy-query latency 32.9% lower.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2608.01452 by the authors.

Figure 1
Figure 1. DynamicManip generates diverse dynamic manipulation data from a single static task demonstration in the real world. Leveraging the augmented data, our dynamic-aware adaptive policy enables generalizable dynamic manipulation with efficient inference. Abstract Dynamic manipulation is a critical capability for robots operating in complex and dynamic environments, where robots must interact with objects that are moving … view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. The pipeline of our static-to-dynamic data augmentation. From a single static demonstration, [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p004_2.png] view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. Overview of the dynamic-aware adaptive policy. During training, stage labels auto￾matically extracted from augmented trajectories provide auxiliary supervision for stage prediction. During deployment, the predicted stage is used to adaptively regulate the policy inference frequency according to the current task dynamics. The total training objective combines the diffusion loss with this auxiliary term: L = Ldiff + λ… view at source ↗
Figures from the paper (4 more)
Figure 4
Figure 4. Figure 4: Visualization of the tasks in the DynamicManip Simulation Benchmark. [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p007_4.png]
Figure 5
Figure 5. Figure 5: Visualization of real-world robot setup and the objects used in our experiments. [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p008_5.png]
Figure 6
Figure 6. Figure 6: Visualization of the mesh alignment process. (a) shows the ego view image of a manipulation [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p019_6.png]
Figure 7
Figure 7. Figure 7: Visualization of autonomous policy inference and execution across four real-world dynamic [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p024_7.png]

Discussion (0). Sign in to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

62 extracted references · 16 canonical work pages

  1. [1]

    Dynamic grasping with reachabil- ity and motion awareness

    Iretiayo Akinola, Jingxi Xu, Shuran Song, and Peter K Allen. Dynamic grasping with reachabil- ity and motion awareness. In2021 IEEE/RSJ International Conference on Intelligent Robots and Systems (IROS), pages 9422–9429. IEEE, 2021

    work page 2021

  2. [2]

    Rocoda: Counterfac- tual data augmentation for data-efficient robot learning from demonstrations

    Ezra Ameperosa, Jeremy A Collins, Mrinal Jain, and Animesh Garg. Rocoda: Counterfac- tual data augmentation for data-efficient robot learning from demonstrations. In2025 IEEE International Conference on Robotics and Automation (ICRA), pages 13250–13256. IEEE, 2025

    2025

  3. [3]

    A survey of robot learning from demonstration.Robotics and autonomous systems, 57(5):469–483, 2009

    Brenna D Argall, Sonia Chernova, Manuela Veloso, and Brett Browning. A survey of robot learning from demonstration.Robotics and autonomous systems, 57(5):469–483, 2009

    2009

  4. [4]

    Towards a unified understanding of robot manipulation: A comprehensive survey.arXiv preprint arXiv:2510.10903, 2025

    Shuanghao Bai, Wenxuan Song, Jiayi Chen, Yuheng Ji, Zhide Zhong, Jin Yang, Han Zhao, Wanqi Zhou, Wei Zhao, Zhe Li, et al. Towards a unified understanding of robot manipulation: A comprehensive survey.arXiv preprint arXiv:2510.10903, 2025

    arXiv 2025

  5. [5]

    Far-dex: Few-shot data augmentation and adaptive residual policy refinement for dexterous manipulation

    Yushan Bai, Fulin Chen, Hongzheng Sun, Yuchuang Tong, En Li, and Zhengtao Zhang. Far-dex: Few-shot data augmentation and adaptive residual policy refinement for dexterous manipulation. arXiv preprint arXiv:2603.10451, 2026

    work page arXiv 2026

  6. [6]

    Data quality in imitation learning.Advances in neural information processing systems, 36:80375–80395, 2023

    Suneel Belkhale, Yuchen Cui, and Dorsa Sadigh. Data quality in imitation learning.Advances in neural information processing systems, 36:80375–80395, 2023

    work page 2023

  7. [7]

    A method for registration of 3-d shapes.IEEE Transactions on Pattern Analysis and Machine Intelligence, 14(2):239–256, 1992

    Paul J Besl and Neil D McKay. A method for registration of 3-d shapes.IEEE Transactions on Pattern Analysis and Machine Intelligence, 14(2):239–256, 1992

    1992

  8. [8]

    Trends and challenges in robot manipulation.Science, 364 (6446):eaat8414, 2019

    Aude Billard and Danica Kragic. Trends and challenges in robot manipulation.Science, 364 (6446):eaat8414, 2019

    work page 2019

Show all 62 references
  1. [9]

    Gr00t n1: An open foundation model for generalist humanoid robots.arXiv preprint arXiv:2503.14734, 2025

    Johan Bjorck, Fernando Castañeda, Nikita Cherniadev, Xingye Da, Runyu Ding, Linxi Fan, Yu Fang, Dieter Fox, Fengyuan Hu, Spencer Huang, et al. Gr00t n1: An open foundation model for generalist humanoid robots.arXiv preprint arXiv:2503.14734, 2025

    2025 arXiv

  2. [10]

    π0: A vision-language-action flow model for general robot control, 2024

    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, Jam...

    2024 arXiv

  3. [11]

    Real-time execution of action chunking flow policies.arXiv preprint arXiv:2506.07339, 2025

    Kevin Black, Manuel Y Galliker, and Sergey Levine. Real-time execution of action chunking flow policies.arXiv preprint arXiv:2506.07339, 2025

    2025 arXiv

  4. [12]

    Rt-1: Robotics transformer for real-world control at scale.arXiv preprint arXiv:2212.06817, 2022

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

    2022 arXiv

  5. [13]

    Pointnet: Deep learning on point sets for 3d classification and segmentation

    R Qi Charles, Hao Su, Mo Kaichun, and Leonidas J Guibas. Pointnet: Deep learning on point sets for 3d classification and segmentation. In2017 IEEE conference on computer vision and pattern recognition (CVPR), pages 77–85. Ieee, 2017

    2017

  6. [14]

    Robotwin 2.0: A scalable data generator and benchmark with strong domain randomization for robust bimanual robotic manipulation.arXiv preprint arXiv:2506.18088, 2025

    Tianxing Chen, Zanxin Chen, Baijun Chen, Zijian Cai, Yibin Liu, Zixuan Li, Qiwei Liang, Xianliang Lin, Yiheng Ge, Zhenyu Gu, et al. Robotwin 2.0: A scalable data generator and benchmark with strong domain randomization for robust bimanual robotic manipulation.arXiv preprint ar...

    2025 arXiv

  7. [15]

    Genaug: Retargeting behaviors to unseen situations via generative augmentation.arXiv preprint arXiv:2302.06671, 2023

    Zoey Chen, Sho Kiami, Abhishek Gupta, and Vikash Kumar. Genaug: Retargeting behaviors to unseen situations via generative augmentation.arXiv preprint arXiv:2302.06671, 2023

    2023 arXiv

  8. [16]

    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, 44(10-11):1684–1704, 2025. 11

    2025

  9. [17]

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

    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. arXiv preprint arXiv:2307.00595, 2023

    2023 arXiv

  10. [18]

    Dreamdojo: A generalist robot world model from large-scale human videos.arXiv preprint arXiv:2602.06949, 2026

    Shenyuan Gao, William Liang, Kaiyuan Zheng, Ayaan Malik, Seonghyeon Ye, Sihyun Yu, Wei-Cheng Tseng, Yuzhu Dong, Kaichun Mo, Chen-Hsuan Lin, et al. Dreamdojo: A generalist robot world model from large-scale human videos.arXiv preprint arXiv:2602.06949, 2026

    2026 arXiv

  11. [19]

    Roboverse: Towards a unified plat- form, dataset and benchmark for scalable and generalizable robot learning.arXiv preprint arXiv:2504.18904, 2025

    Haoran Geng, Feishi Wang, Songlin Wei, Yuyang Li, Bangjun Wang, Boshi An, Charlie Tianyue Cheng, Haozhe Lou, Peihao Li, Yen-Jen Wang, et al. Roboverse: Towards a unified plat- form, dataset and benchmark for scalable and generalizable robot learning.arXiv preprint arXiv:2504.1...

    2025 arXiv

  12. [20]

    Hyper3d: Ai-powered 3d model generator, 2024

    Hyper3D. Hyper3d: Ai-powered 3d model generator, 2024. URLhttps://hyper3d.ai/

    2024

  13. [21]

    Physical Intelligence, Kevin Black, Noah Brown, James Darpinian, Karan Dhabalia, Danny Driess, Adnan Esmail, Michael Equi, Chelsea Finn, Niccolo Fusai, Manuel Y . Galliker, Dibya Ghosh, Lachy Groom, Karol Hausman, Brian Ichter, Szymon Jakubczak, Tim Jones, Liyiming Ke, Devin L...

    2025 arXiv

  14. [22]

    π0.7: A steerable gen- eralist robotic foundation model with emergent capabilities.arXiv preprint arXiv:2604.15483, 2026

    Physical Intelligence, Bo Ai, Ali Amin, Raichelle Aniceto, Ashwin Balakrishna, Greg Balke, Kevin Black, George Bokinsky, Shihao Cao, Thomas Charbonnier, et al. π0.7: A steerable gen- eralist robotic foundation model with emergent capabilities.arXiv preprint arXiv:2604.15483, 2026

    2026 arXiv

  15. [23]

    Rlbench: The robot learning benchmark & learning environment.IEEE Robotics and Automation Letters, 5(2): 3019–3026, 2020

    Stephen James, Zicong Ma, David Rovick Arrojo, and Andrew J Davison. Rlbench: The robot learning benchmark & learning environment.IEEE Robotics and Automation Letters, 5(2): 3019–3026, 2020

    2020

  16. [24]

    Droid: A large-scale in-the-wild robot manipulation dataset.arXiv preprint arXiv:2403.12945, 2024

    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:2403.12...

    2024 arXiv

  17. [25]

    Openvla: An open-source vision-language-action model.arXiv preprint arXiv:2406.09246, 2024

    Moo Jin Kim, Karl Pertsch, Siddharth Karamcheti, Ted Xiao, Ashwin Balakrishna, Suraj Nair, Rafael Rafailov, Ethan Foster, Grace Lam, Pannag Sanketi, et al. Openvla: An open-source vision-language-action model.arXiv preprint arXiv:2406.09246, 2024

    2024 arXiv

  18. [26]

    Catching objects in flight.IEEE Transactions on Robotics, 30(5):1049–1065, 2014

    Seungsu Kim, Ashwini Shukla, and Aude Billard. Catching objects in flight.IEEE Transactions on Robotics, 30(5):1049–1065, 2014

    2014

  19. [27]

    Train once, deploy anywhere: Realize data-efficient dynamic object manipulation.arXiv preprint arXiv:2508.14042, 2025

    Zhuoling Li, Xiaoyang Wu, Zhenhua Xu, and Hengshuang Zhao. Train once, deploy anywhere: Realize data-efficient dynamic object manipulation.arXiv preprint arXiv:2508.14042, 2025

    2025

  20. [28]

    Delay-aware diffusion policy: Bridging the observation-execution gap in dynamic tasks.arXiv preprint arXiv:2512.07697, 2025

    Aileen Liao, Dong-Ki Kim, Max Olan Smith, Ali-akbar Agha-mohammadi, and Shayegan Omidshafiei. Delay-aware diffusion policy: Bridging the observation-execution gap in dynamic tasks.arXiv preprint arXiv:2512.07697, 2025

    2025

  21. [29]

    Data scaling laws in imitation learning for robotic manipulation

    Fanqi Lin, Yingdong Hu, Pingyue Sheng, Chuan Wen, Jiacheng You, and Yang Gao. Data scaling laws in imitation learning for robotic manipulation. InThe Thirteenth International Conference on Learning Representations, 2025. URL https://openreview.net/forum? id=pISLZG7ktL

    2025

  22. [30]

    Bidexgrasp: Coordinated bimanual dexterous grasps across object geometries and sizes.arXiv preprint arXiv:2604.06589, 2026

    Mu Lin, Yi-Lin Wei, Jiaxuan Chen, Yuhao Lin, Shuoyu Chen, Jiangran Lyu, Jiayi Chen, Yansong Tang, He Wang, and Wei-Shi Zheng. Bidexgrasp: Coordinated bimanual dexterous grasps across object geometries and sizes.arXiv preprint arXiv:2604.06589, 2026

    2026 arXiv

  23. [31]

    Typetele: Releasing dexterity in teleoperation by dexterous manipulation types.arXiv preprint arXiv:2507.01857, 2025

    Yuhao Lin, Yi-Lin Wei, Haoran Liao, Mu Lin, Chengyi Xing, Hao Li, Dandan Zhang, Mark Cutkosky, and Wei-Shi Zheng. Typetele: Releasing dexterity in teleoperation by dexterous manipulation types.arXiv preprint arXiv:2507.01857, 2025. 12

    2025 arXiv

  24. [32]

    Libero: Benchmarking knowledge transfer for lifelong robot learning.Advances in Neural Information Processing Systems, 36:44776–44791, 2023

    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

  25. [33]

    From reusing to forecasting: Accelerating diffusion models with taylorseers

    Jiacheng Liu, Chang Zou, Yuanhuiyi Lyu, Junjie Chen, and Linfeng Zhang. From reusing to forecasting: Accelerating diffusion models with taylorseers. InProceedings of the IEEE/CVF International Conference on Computer Vision, pages 15853–15863, 2025

    2025

  26. [34]

    Rdt-1b: a diffusion foundation model for bimanual manipulation.arXiv preprint arXiv:2410.07864, 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 manipulation.arXiv preprint arXiv:2410.07864, 2024

    2024 arXiv

  27. [35]

    Dywa: Dynamics-adaptive world action model for generalizable non-prehensile manipulation

    Jiangran Lyu, Ziming Li, Xuesong Shi, Chaoyi Xu, Yizhou Wang, and He Wang. Dywa: Dynamics-adaptive world action model for generalizable non-prehensile manipulation. In Proceedings of the IEEE/CVF International Conference on Computer Vision, pages 11058– 11068, 2025

    2025

  28. [36]

    Lda-1b: Scaling latent dynamics action model via universal embodied data ingestion.arXiv preprint arXiv:2602.12215, 2026

    Jiangran Lyu, Kai Liu, Xuheng Zhang, Haoran Liao, Yusen Feng, Wenxuan Zhu, Tingrui Shen, Jiayi Chen, Jiazhao Zhang, Yifei Dong, et al. Lda-1b: Scaling latent dynamics action model via universal embodied data ingestion.arXiv preprint arXiv:2602.12215, 2026

    2026 arXiv

  29. [37]

    Running vlas at real-time speed.arXiv preprint arXiv:2510.26742, 2025

    Yunchao Ma, Yizhuang Zhou, Yunhuan Yang, Tiancai Wang, and Haoqiang Fan. Running vlas at real-time speed.arXiv preprint arXiv:2510.26742, 2025

    2025

  30. [38]

    Mimicgen: A data generation system for scalable robot learning using human demonstrations.arXiv preprint arXiv:2310.17596, 2023

    Ajay Mandlekar, Soroush Nasiriany, Bowen Wen, Iretiayo Akinola, Yashraj Narang, Linxi Fan, Yuke Zhu, and Dieter Fox. Mimicgen: A data generation system for scalable robot learning using human demonstrations.arXiv preprint arXiv:2310.17596, 2023

    2023 arXiv

  31. [39]

    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. In2024 IEEE Internat...

    2024

  32. [40]

    Courville

    Ethan Perez, Florian Strub, Harm de Vries, Vincent Dumoulin, and Aaron C. Courville. Film: Visual reasoning with a general conditioning layer. InAAAI, 2018

    2018

  33. [41]

    Leave no observation behind: Real-time correction for vla action chunks.arXiv preprint arXiv:2509.23224, 2025

    Kohei Sendai, Maxime Alvarez, Tatsuya Matsushima, Yutaka Matsuo, and Yusuke Iwasawa. Leave no observation behind: Real-time correction for vla action chunks.arXiv preprint arXiv:2509.23224, 2025

    2025

  34. [42]

    Denoising diffusion implicit models.arXiv preprint arXiv:2010.02502, 2020

    Jiaming Song, Chenlin Meng, and Stefano Ermon. Denoising diffusion implicit models.arXiv preprint arXiv:2010.02502, 2020

    2010 arXiv

  35. [43]

    curobo: Parallelized collision-free minimum-jerk robot motion generation.arXiv preprint arXiv:2310.17274, 2023

    Balakumar Sundaralingam, Siva Kumar Sastry Hari, Adam Fishman, Caelan Garrett, Karl Van Wyk, Valts Blukis, Alexander Millane, Helen Oleynikova, Ankur Handa, Fabio Ramos, et al. curobo: Parallelized collision-free minimum-jerk robot motion generation.arXiv preprint arXiv:2310.1...

    2023 arXiv

  36. [44]

    Vlash: Real-time vlas via future-state-aware asynchronous inference.arXiv preprint arXiv:2512.01031, 2025

    Jiaming Tang, Yufei Sun, Yilong Zhao, Shang Yang, Yujun Lin, Zhuoyang Zhang, James Hou, Yao Lu, Zhijian Liu, and Song Han. Vlash: Real-time vlas via future-state-aware asynchronous inference.arXiv preprint arXiv:2512.01031, 2025

    2025 arXiv

  37. [45]

    Rdt2: Enabling zero-shot cross-embodiment generalization by scaling up umi data, September 2025

    RDT Team. Rdt2: Enabling zero-shot cross-embodiment generalization by scaling up umi data, September 2025. URLhttps://github.com/thu-ml/RDT2

    2025

  38. [46]

    Grasp as you say: Language-guided dexterous grasp generation

    Yi-Lin Wei, Jian-Jian Jiang, Chengyi Xing, Xian-Tuo Tan, Xiao-Ming Wu, Hao Li, Mark Cutkosky, and Wei-Shi Zheng. Grasp as you say: Language-guided dexterous grasp generation. Advances in Neural Information Processing Systems, 37:46881–46907, 2024

    2024

  39. [47]

    Cyclemanip: Enabling cyclic task manipulation via effective historical perception and understanding.arXiv preprint arXiv:2512.01022, 2025

    Yi-Lin Wei, Haoran Liao, Yuhao Lin, Pengyue Wang, Zhizhao Liang, Guiliang Liu, and Wei-Shi Zheng. Cyclemanip: Enabling cyclic task manipulation via effective historical perception and understanding.arXiv preprint arXiv:2512.01022, 2025. 13

    2025

  40. [48]

    Omnidexgrasp: Generalizable dexterous grasping via foundation model and force feedback

    Yi-Lin Wei, Zhexi Luo, Yuhao Lin, Mu Lin, Zhizhao Liang, Shuoyu Chen, and Wei-Shi Zheng. Omnidexgrasp: Generalizable dexterous grasping via foundation model and force feedback. arXiv preprint arXiv:2510.23119, 2025

    2025

  41. [49]

    Sapien: A simulated part-based interactive environ- ment

    Fanbo Xiang, Yuzhe Qin, Kaichun Mo, Yikuan Xia, Hao Zhu, Fangchen Liu, Minghua Liu, Hanxiao Jiang, Yifu Yuan, He Wang, et al. Sapien: A simulated part-based interactive environ- ment. InProceedings of the IEEE/CVF conference on computer vision and pattern recognition, pages 11...

    2020

  42. [50]

    Robot learning in the era of foundation models: A survey.Neurocomputing, 638: 129963, 2025

    Xuan Xiao, Jiahang Liu, Zhipeng Wang, Yanmin Zhou, Yong Qi, Shuo Jiang, Bin He, and Qian Cheng. Robot learning in the era of foundation models: A survey.Neurocomputing, 638: 129963, 2025

    2025

  43. [51]

    Dynamicvla: A vision-language-action model for dynamic object manipulation

    Haozhe Xie, Beichen Wen, Jiarui Zheng, Zhaoxi Chen, Fangzhou Hong, Haiwen Diao, and Ziwei Liu. Dynamicvla: A vision-language-action model for dynamic object manipulation. arXiv preprint arXiv:2601.22153, 2026

    2026

  44. [52]

    Demogen: Synthetic demonstration generation for data-efficient visuomotor policy learning

    Zhengrong Xue, Shuying Deng, Zhenyang Chen, Yixuan Wang, Zhecheng Yuan, and Huazhe Xu. Demogen: Synthetic demonstration generation for data-efficient visuomotor policy learning. arXiv preprint arXiv:2502.16932, 2025

    2025 arXiv

  45. [53]

    Novel demonstration generation with gaussian splatting enables robust one-shot manipulation

    Sizhe Yang, Wenye Yu, Jia Zeng, Jun Lv, Kerui Ren, Cewu Lu, Dahua Lin, and Jiangmiao Pang. Novel demonstration generation with gaussian splatting enables robust one-shot manipulation. arXiv preprint arXiv:2504.13175, 2025

    2025 arXiv

  46. [54]

    World action models are zero-shot policies.arXiv preprint arXiv:2602.15922, 2026

    Seonghyeon Ye, Yunhao Ge, Kaiyuan Zheng, Shenyuan Gao, Sihyun Yu, George Kurian, Suneel Indupuru, You Liang Tan, Chuning Zhu, Jiannan Xiang, et al. World action models are zero-shot policies.arXiv preprint arXiv:2602.15922, 2026

    2026 arXiv

  47. [55]

    Real2render2real: Scaling robot data without dynamics simulation or robot hardware.arXiv preprint arXiv:2505.09601, 2025

    Justin Yu, Letian Fu, Huang Huang, Karim El-Refai, Rares Andrei Ambrus, Richard Cheng, Muhammad Zubair Irshad, and Ken Goldberg. Real2render2real: Scaling robot data without dynamics simulation or robot hardware.arXiv preprint arXiv:2505.09601, 2025

    2025 arXiv

  48. [56]

    3d diffusion policy: Generalizable visuomotor policy learning via simple 3d representations.arXiv preprint arXiv:2403.03954, 2024

    Yanjie Ze, Gu Zhang, Kangning Zhang, Chenyuan Hu, Muhan Wang, and Huazhe Xu. 3d diffusion policy: Generalizable visuomotor policy learning via simple 3d representations.arXiv preprint arXiv:2403.03954, 2024

    2024 arXiv

  49. [57]

    Dynamic behavior cloning with temporal feature prediction: Enhancing robotic arm manipulation in moving object tasks.IEEE Robotics and Automation Letters, 2025

    Yifan Zhang, Ruiping Wang, and Xilin Chen. Dynamic behavior cloning with temporal feature prediction: Enhancing robotic arm manipulation in moving object tasks.IEEE Robotics and Automation Letters, 2025

    2025

  50. [58]

    Catch it! learning to catch in flight with mobile dexterous hands

    Yuanhang Zhang, Tianhai Liang, Zhenyang Chen, Yanjie Ze, and Huazhe Xu. Catch it! learning to catch in flight with mobile dexterous hands. In2025 IEEE International Conference on Robotics and Automation (ICRA), pages 14385–14391. IEEE, 2025

    2025

  51. [59]

    Hail: Human-in-the-loop assembly imitation learning system.Journal of Manufacturing Systems, 86:991–1006, 2026

    Qianyou Zhao, Duidi Wu, Yuliang Shen, Junlai Li, Qiaojun Yu, Shuo Zhang, Jin Qi, and Jie Hu. Hail: Human-in-the-loop assembly imitation learning system.Journal of Manufacturing Systems, 86:991–1006, 2026

    2026

  52. [60]

    Learning fine-grained bimanual manipulation with low-cost hardware.arXiv preprint arXiv:2304.13705, 2023

    Tony Z Zhao, Vikash Kumar, Sergey Levine, and Chelsea Finn. Learning fine-grained bimanual manipulation with low-cost hardware.arXiv preprint arXiv:2304.13705, 2023

    2023 arXiv

  53. [61]

    Unified world models: Coupling video and action diffusion for pretraining on large robotic datasets.arXiv preprint arXiv:2504.02792, 2025

    Chuning Zhu, Raymond Yu, Siyuan Feng, Benjamin Burchfiel, Paarth Shah, and Abhishek Gupta. Unified world models: Coupling video and action diffusion for pretraining on large robotic datasets.arXiv preprint arXiv:2504.02792, 2025

    2025 arXiv

  54. [62]

    Rt-2: Vision-language-action models transfer web knowledge to robotic control

    Brianna Zitkovich, Tianhe Yu, Sichun Xu, Peng Xu, Ted Xiao, Fei Xia, Jialin Wu, Paul Wohlhart, Stefan Welker, Ayzaan Wahid, et al. Rt-2: Vision-language-action models transfer web knowledge to robotic control. InConference on Robot Learning, pages 2165–2183. PMLR, 2023. 14 App...

    2023

Pith tools

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