Pith. sign in

REVIEW 4 major objections 6 minor 3 cited by

ControlVLA: Few-shot Object-centric Adaptation for Pre-trained Vision-Language-Action Models

T0 review · 4 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 ControlVLA shows that a pre-trained vision-language-action policy can learn real manipulation skills from 10–20 demonstrations by adding a zero-initialized object-centric conditioning branch, reaching 76.7% success.

desk verdict A sensible ControlNet-style trick for injecting object-centric masks into a pretrained VLA, with real few-shot gains, but the headline 76.7% is only for six short-horizon tasks and the pi0 comparison is only reported on a four-task subset. read the letter →

arxiv 2506.16211 v1 pith:2QIT3AKD submitted 2025-06-19 cs.RO

Puhao Li , Yingying Wu , Ziheng Xi , Wanlin Li , Yuzhe Huang , Zhiyuan Zhang , Yinghan Chen , Jianan Wang
show 3 more authors
Song-Chun Zhu Tengyu Liu Siyuan Huang
This is my paper · ORCID
classification cs.RO
keywords vision-language-actionmodelsfew-shotimitationlearningobject-centricrepresentationszero-initializedadaptationroboticmanipulationdiffusiontransformerpolicyreal-worldrobotlong-horizon
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

ControlVLA is a method for adapting a general-purpose vision-language-action (VLA) policy to a specific real-world manipulation task using only 10–20 demonstrations. The paper proposes to inject object-centric conditions—masks and positions of task-relevant objects obtained from open-vocabulary segmentation and tracking—into a pre-trained diffusion-transformer policy through additional cross-attention layers whose key and value projections start at zero. Because the added branch contributes nothing at initialization, fine-tuning preserves the pre-trained action prior while gradually learning to read the object cues. On six short-horizon real robot tasks the adapted policy reaches 76.7% success, against 20.8% for the strongest baseline, and it extends to long-horizon and unseen-object settings. The central claim is that pre-trained manipulation priors and object-centric grounding together make few-shot real-world imitation practical.

What carries the argument

The load-bearing mechanism is the dual cross-attention block with zero-initialized key-value projections. The pre-trained policy models actions conditioned on observations as a diffusion-transformer cross-attention; ControlVLA adds a parallel attention branch over object-centric representations, each composed of a sinusoidal positional encoding of the object mask centroid and a CNN-extracted geometry feature. The added branch is gated by design: because its key and value projections start at zero, the dual attention reduces exactly to the original cross-attention at initialization, so the pre-trained action prior is preserved untouched and task-specific object grounding is phased in only as gradients flow. This carries the argument that the method can inject new conditioning without destroying prior knowledge.

What would settle it

A concrete test: fine-tune the identical architecture on the same six tasks with random-initialized weights, or with a base policy pretrained on an unrelated dataset, and compare success rates; if the gap to 76.7% nearly closes, the gain comes from the object-centric features rather than the pretrained prior. A second check: run the object-mask extraction on heavily occluded versions of the tasks and measure whether success collapses when masks degrade.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

The paper's central claim is that a pre-trained VLA policy can be turned into a task-specific expert with an order of magnitude fewer demonstrations than standard imitation learning by adding a zero-initialized object-conditioning branch. Formally, the policy is a diffusion transformer whose cross-attention becomes dual-attention: the original attention over observations is summed with a second attention term over object-centric keys and values, with the added key and value projections initialized to zero. At step zero the extra term vanishes, so the expert behaves exactly like the pre-trained policy; gradients through the non-zero object representation then pull the projection weights away from zero during fine-tuning. With 10–20 demonstrations per task, ControlVLA reports 76.7% average success on six short-horizon tasks, 60.0% on two long-horizon tasks, and improved robustness to unseen objects and backgrounds, while baselines trained on the same data stay below 25%.

Load-bearing premise

The load-bearing premise is that the large-scale pretrained policy provides a genuinely useful action prior for these six tasks; if that prior is weak, the 76.7% result mainly reflects the object-centric branch and the method may not transfer to other base policies.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • Fine-tuning a general VLA policy for a new task can drop from hundreds of demonstrations to 10–20, making real-world deployment practical where demonstration collection is expensive.
  • The same adapter scheme is reported to work on a second, independently pre-trained VLA base, suggesting the zero-initialized conditioning branch is a portable plug-in rather than a fix tied to one architecture.
  • On long-horizon tasks, stage-wise success rates stay high through the sequence, implying the approach does not just memorize the first sub-goal and can reduce compounding errors.
  • Robustness to unseen objects and backgrounds holds without retraining, with success dropping from 90% in-domain to roughly 60–77% under appearance changes, indicating the object-centric cues transfer better than pixel-level features.

Reading between the lines

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

  • Editorial inference: the zero-initialized dual-attention recipe is a general mechanism, so the same adapter could inject other conditioning modalities such as depth, tactile readings, or goal images; the paper's evidence suggests that what limits few-shot gains is the usefulness of the prior, not the type of conditioning.
  • Editorial inference: because the reported gains rely on open-vocabulary detection and video segmentation run at inference, performance in cluttered or heavily occluded scenes may degrade where masks are noisy; a direct stress test with imperfect masks would bound the practical benefit.
  • Editorial inference: a fair attribution test would fine-tune the same architecture with random-initialized weights on identical tasks; if that baseline also reaches high success, the headline gain belongs to the object-centric branch rather than the pretrained policy.
  • Editorial inference: the data-scaling curve saturating around 20 demonstrations hints that the method's advantage is concentrated in the very-low-data regime, and additional demonstrations may buy less than they do for standard policies.
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

4 major / 6 minor

Summary. The paper proposes ControlVLA, a method for few-shot adaptation of pre-trained vision-language-action (VLA) models. It injects object-centric representations, extracted via GroundingDINO and SAM2 and encoded by a learned CNN plus sinusoidal positional encoding, into a pre-trained diffusion-transformer policy through additional cross-attention branches with zero-initialized key/value projections. The authors pre-train a 29M-parameter policy on the DROID dataset, then fine-tune with 10-20 demonstrations per task on six short-horizon Franka tasks and two long-horizon AstriBot tasks. They report a 76.7% average success rate on the short-horizon tasks, outperforming Diffusion Policy (20.8%) and other baselines (Octo 1.6%, ACT 5.0%, VIOLA 0.0%), plus ablations, data-scaling experiments, and generalization tests on unseen objects and backgrounds. An appendix extends the method to a pi0 base model (ControlVLA@pi0) on four subtasks.

Significance. If the reported results are reproducible, ControlVLA would be a valuable contribution to few-shot robotic manipulation, combining the generalization of VLA pre-training with the data-efficiency of object-centric conditioning. The zero-initialization mechanism is clearly motivated, and the gradient-flow argument in Appendix C is parameter-free and does not assume the target result. The paper also includes real-world evaluations on two robot platforms, which is commendable. However, the strength of the comparative claims is undermined by incomplete baseline reporting, as detailed below.

major comments (4)
  1. [Sections 1, 5.2, 6] The headline result 76.7% is described as being achieved across '8 diverse real-world tasks' in Sections 1 and 6, but the experiments in Section 5.2 define it as the aggregate over the six short-horizon tasks; the two long-horizon tasks achieve 56.7% and 63.3% (Table 2). This is a factual inconsistency that affects the main claim. Please clarify exactly which tasks are included in the headline aggregate and correct the text in Sections 1, 5.2, and 6 accordingly.
  2. [Section 5.1, 5.2, Appendix A] The paper lists pi0 as a comparison baseline in Section 5.1, but no per-task pi0 results are reported for the six short-horizon tasks. The only pi0 numbers are the four-task aggregate in Appendix A (38.6%) and the two long-horizon tasks in Table 2. If pi0 was evaluated on all six short-horizon tasks, its aggregate should be reported alongside the other baselines in Section 5.2 and Figure 4; if it was not, then the claim that ControlVLA outperforms pi0 in the same six-task low-data regime is unsupported. Please provide a complete per-task comparison table for all baselines, including pi0, and state which tasks each baseline was evaluated on.
  3. [Section 5.2] The paper reports very low success rates for Octo (1.6%), ACT (5.0%), and VIOLA (0.0%), and 20.8% for Diffusion Policy, but no tuning protocol or compute budget is given for these baselines. Without evidence that each baseline received comparable hyperparameter tuning (e.g., learning rate sweeps, training steps, observation and action horizons), the observed gaps could partly reflect undertuned baselines. Please specify the tuning procedure, the number of configurations tried, and the total compute used for each baseline.
  4. [Section 5.2] The ablation study shows that removing the object-centric branch ('w/o object-centric') gives only marginal improvement over training Diffusion Policy from scratch, while removing pre-training ('w/o pretrain') also fails. This suggests the method's success relies on the combination of the DROID prior and the object-centric conditioning, but the paper does not quantify the contribution of the pre-trained prior in isolation. A direct evaluation of the pre-trained policy before ControlVLA adaptation on the same tasks would strengthen the claim that the prior is load-bearing, rather than only the architectural modifications.
minor comments (6)
  1. [Appendix C] The gradient expression for partial L / partial W_z in Eq. (8) is written as a summation over scalar entries, but W_z and Z are matrices; the correct form is a matrix product (partial L / partial V_z) Z^T (with appropriate batching). Please correct the notation.
  2. [Throughout] The notation 'pi0' and 'pi 0' is used inconsistently across the text; choose one consistent form and apply it throughout.
  3. [Figure 4 and Section 5.2] Figure 4 omits Octo, ACT, and VIOLA, yet the text discusses their per-task results. Consider showing all baselines in the figure or explicitly stating in the caption that they are omitted for visual clarity; the current caption already notes this, but the text and figure should be aligned so the reader is not confused about the comparison set.
  4. [Table 3] The number of trials per condition in the generalization experiments is not reported. Please add trial counts and, ideally, confidence intervals for the success rates on unseen objects and backgrounds.
  5. [Section 5.4] The text says the data-scaling experiments benchmark against 'established baseline methods' but does not specify which methods appear in Figure 5. Please list the baselines in the caption or text so the reader can interpret the comparison.
  6. [Abstract and Section 1] The abstract states 'across 6 diverse tasks' while Section 1 states 'across 8 diverse real-world tasks'; these counts should be made consistent after clarifying the scope of the headline result.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 1.0 of 10

No significant circularity: the claimed few-shot gains are empirical measurements against external baselines, not reductions of the architecture's construction.

full rationale

ControlVLA's central success claims are measured outcomes (per-task success rates over fixed trials, Fig. 4 and Tab. 2), not quantities derived from the model equations. The only derivation in the method section, Eq. (3), shows that zero-initialized KV projections make the dual-attention term vanish at initialization, so the fine-tuned policy starts as the pretrained policy; this is a mathematical identity, not an assumed conclusion. Appendix C's gradient calculation (Eqs. 8-10) establishes only that zero-initialized parameters are trainable because the object-centric input Z is nonzero; it does not presuppose the reported success rates. The ControlNet inspiration is an external prior work (Zhang et al.), and the authors' self-citations (Ag2Manip, Maniptrans, Gendexgrasp) appear only in related-work positioning and are not load-bearing for the few-shot performance claim. No fitted parameter is relabeled as a prediction, and no uniqueness theorem is imported to force the design. The main weakness is experimental reporting: pi0 is listed as a baseline but its full six-task aggregate is not given in the main text, and baseline tuning budgets are not documented; those are evidence-quality issues, not circularity. Therefore no circular step meets the quoting standard, and the paper is not circular within the meaning of this review.

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

The central claim depends on domain assumptions rather than fitted constants. There are no analytical predictions of the success rates; the success rates are measured. The model uses standard learned components (CNN, adapters), so no separate free parameters are introduced. Main assumptions are the transferability of DROID pretraining, the reliability of open-set segmentation, and the evaluation protocol.

assumptions (4)
  • domain assumption DROID dataset provides a generalizable action prior for the downstream tasks when fine-tuned with 10-20 demos
    Sec. 4.1 pre-trains on DROID (76K episodes) and assumes this transfers to the specific Franka and AstriBot setups; no independent measurement of this prior is provided.
  • domain assumption GroundingDINO and SAM2 can reliably segment and track task-relevant objects from a text prompt in both training and inference
    Sec. 4.2 uses these models; no ablation on segmentation accuracy or failure cases is reported.
  • standard math Zero-initialized KV projections preserve the pretrained policy's output at initialization and receive non-zero gradients
    Appendix C, Eq. (8)-(10) shows gradients are non-zero because Z is non-zero; this is a standard consequence of the chain rule.
  • domain assumption Task success rate over 20 trials with randomized initial configurations is a representative and unbiased metric
    Appendix E.2 describes the protocol; no confidence intervals or multiple seeds are reported.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of ControlVLA: Few-shot Object-centric Adaptation for Pre-trained Vision-Language-Action Models." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/2QIT3AKD

@misc{pith2026250616211,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: ControlVLA: Few-shot Object-centric Adaptation for Pre-trained Vision-Language-Action Models},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/2QIT3AKD}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2506.16211}
}
read the original abstract

Learning real-world robotic manipulation is challenging, particularly when limited demonstrations are available. Existing methods for few-shot manipulation often rely on simulation-augmented data or pre-built modules like grasping and pose estimation, which struggle with sim-to-real gaps and lack extensibility. While large-scale imitation pre-training shows promise, adapting these general-purpose policies to specific tasks in data-scarce settings remains unexplored. To achieve this, we propose ControlVLA, a novel framework that bridges pre-trained VLA models with object-centric representations via a ControlNet-style architecture for efficient fine-tuning. Specifically, to introduce object-centric conditions without overwriting prior knowledge, ControlVLA zero-initializes a set of projection layers, allowing them to gradually adapt the pre-trained manipulation policies. In real-world experiments across 6 diverse tasks, including pouring cubes and folding clothes, our method achieves a 76.7% success rate while requiring only 10-20 demonstrations -- a significant improvement over traditional approaches that require more than 100 demonstrations to achieve comparable success. Additional experiments highlight ControlVLA's extensibility to long-horizon tasks and robustness to unseen objects and backgrounds.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2506.16211 by the authors.

Figure 1
Figure 1. ControlVLA bridges pre-trained manipulation policies with object-centric representa￾tions via ControlNet-style efficient fine-tuning. ControlVLA requires only 10–20 demonstrations to achieve 76.7% task success rate, significantly surpassing baseline’s 20.8% success rate. pert policies [4, 7, 27]. By focusing on relevant object properties (e.g., shape, size, and position), object-centric representations reduce the co… view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. Overview of ControlVLA. ControlVLA leverages a ControlNet-style fine-tuning strategy to integrate object-centric representations with the pre-trained VLA model. The zero-initialized weights and biases preserve the rich prior knowledge of the pre-trained policy while progressively grounding it in object-centric representation. with a pre-trained VLA model (see [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p004_2.png] view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. Task Visualization. The initial and target states are shown as transparent and solid layers, respectively. The yellow arrow highlights the desired transition. 5.1 Experimental Setup Tasks. We develop a suite of various real-world tasks to evaluate the efficacy of our proposed method. These tasks are designed to cover a wide range of manipulation challenges, including pick-and-place various types of objects like rigi… view at source ↗
Figures from the paper (5 more)
Figure 4
Figure 4. Figure 4: Main Comparison and Ablation Study. All policies are trained or fine-tuned from a shared, limited demonstration dataset for each task. *Octo, ACT, and VIOLA are omitted due to very low success rates, with overall success rates of 1.6%, 5.0%, and 0.0%, respectively. Tab…
Figure 5
Figure 5. Figure 5: Effect of Data Scaling on Perfor￾mance in the OrganizeToy Task. We evaluate ControlVLA’s data efficiency through con￾trolled scaling experiments on the OrganizeToy task, benchmarking against established baseline methods. Each approach is tested across demonstration set…
Figure 6
Figure 6. Figure 6: Generalization over object and background appearance changes. We evaluate the generalization and robustness of Con￾trolVLA on the OrganizeToy task by testing it with unseen objects and backgrounds. Trained on 20 demon￾strations using a green toy and uniform background,…
Figure 7
Figure 7. Figure 7: Evaluation Setup. The evaluation uses two robot platforms: the Franka Panda (left), for 6 short-horizon tasks; and the AstriBot-S1 (right), for 2 long-horizon tasks. gathering. UMI features a wrist-mounted GoPro camera that captures RGB images and 6D end￾effector pose …
Figure 8
Figure 8. Figure 8: Initial state distribution of policy evaluation. 16 [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p016_8.png]

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID 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. Ag2x2: Robust Agent-Agnostic Visual Representations for Zero-Shot Bimanual Manipulation

    cs.RO 2025-07 conditional novelty 6.0 of 10

    Ag2x2 learns coordination-aware, agent-agnostic visual representations from human videos and uses them as rewards to acquire bimanual manipulation skills in simulation, reaching 73.5% success across 13 tasks.

  2. SkillMemo: Expert-guided Skill Memory Framework for Compositional Embodied Manipulation

    cs.RO 2026-08 conditional novelty 5.0 of 10

    SkillMemo couples MoE-based skill discovery with episodic memory retrieval and reports consistent success-rate gains on diffusion and VLA policies for simulated and real manipulation tasks.

  3. RoDyn: Taming Interactive Robot-Dynamic 2.5D World Model for Robotic Manipulation

    cs.RO 2025-10 unverdicted novelty 5.0 of 10

    Abstract describes RoDyn but full text describes iMoWM; the record is internally inconsistent and the headline claims are absent from the body.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

63 extracted references · 28 canonical work pages · cited by 3 Pith papers

  1. [1]

    Z. Fu, T. Z. Zhao, and C. Finn. Mobile aloha: Learning bimanual mobile manipulation with low-cost whole-body teleoperation.arXiv preprint arXiv:2401.02117, 2024

    arXiv 2024

  2. [2]

    P. Li, T. Liu, Y . Li, M. Han, H. Geng, S. Wang, Y . Zhu, S.-C. Zhu, and S. Huang. Ag2manip: Learning novel manipulation skills with agent-agnostic visual and action representations. In 2024 IEEE/RSJ International Conference on Intelligent Robots and Systems (IROS), pages 573–580. IEEE, 2024

    work page 2024

  3. [3]

    S. Liu, L. Wu, B. Li, H. Tan, H. Chen, Z. Wang, K. Xu, H. Su, and J. Zhu. Rdt-1b: a diffusion foundation model for bimanual manipulation.arXiv preprint arXiv:2410.07864, 2024

    arXiv 2024

  4. [4]

    Y . Zhu, A. Joshi, P. Stone, and Y . Zhu. Viola: Imitation learning for vision-based manipulation with object proposal priors. InConference on Robot Learning, pages 1199–1210. PMLR, 2023

    work page 2023

  5. [5]

    T. Chen, Y . Mu, Z. Liang, Z. Chen, S. Peng, Q. Chen, M. Xu, R. Hu, H. Zhang, X. Li, et al. G3flow: Generative 3d semantic flow for pose-aware and generalizable object manipulation. arXiv preprint arXiv:2411.18369, 2024

    arXiv 2024

  6. [6]

    Y . Wang, G. Yin, B. Huang, T. Kelestemur, J. Wang, and Y . Li. Gendp: 3d semantic fields for category-level generalizable diffusion policy. In8th Annual Conference on Robot Learning, volume 2, 2024

    work page 2024

  7. [7]

    C.-C. Hsu, B. Wen, J. Xu, Y . Narang, X. Wang, Y . Zhu, J. Biswas, and S. Birchfield. Spot: Se (3) pose trajectory diffusion for object-centric manipulation.arXiv preprint arXiv:2411.00965, 2024

    arXiv 2024

  8. [8]

    C. Chi, Z. Xu, C. Pan, E. Cousineau, B. Burchfiel, S. Feng, R. Tedrake, and S. Song. Universal manipulation interface: In-the-wild robot teaching without in-the-wild robots.arXiv preprint arXiv:2402.10329, 2024

    arXiv 2024

Show all 63 references
  1. [9]

    Y . J. Ma, S. Sodhani, D. Jayaraman, O. Bastani, V . Kumar, and A. Zhang. Vip: Towards universal visual reward and representation via value-implicit pre-training. InThe Eleventh International Conference on Learning Representations, 2023

    2023

  2. [10]

    Jiang, Y

    Z. Jiang, Y . Xie, K. Lin, Z. Xu, W. Wan, A. Mandlekar, L. Fan, and Y . Zhu. Dexmimicgen: Automated data generation for bimanual dexterous manipulation via imitation learning.arXiv preprint arXiv:2410.24185, 2024. 9

    2024 arXiv

  3. [11]

    Brohan, N

    A. Brohan, N. Brown, J. Carbajal, Y . Chebotar, X. Chen, K. Choromanski, T. Ding, D. Driess, A. Dubey, C. Finn, et al. Rt-2: Vision-language-action models transfer web knowledge to robotic control.arXiv preprint arXiv:2307.15818, 2023

    2023 arXiv

  4. [12]

    S. Yang, Y . Du, S. K. S. Ghasemipour, J. Tompson, L. P. Kaelbling, D. Schuurmans, and P. Abbeel. Learning interactive real-world simulators. InThe Twelfth International Conference on Learning Representations, 2024

    2024

  5. [13]

    K. Li, P. Li, T. Liu, Y . Li, and S. Huang. Maniptrans: Efficient dexterous bimanual manipula- tion transfer via residual learning. InProceedings of the IEEE conference on computer vision and pattern recognition, 2025

    2025

  6. [14]

    Huang, S

    J. Huang, S. Yong, X. Ma, X. Linghu, P. Li, Y . Wang, Q. Li, S.-C. Zhu, B. Jia, and S. Huang. An embodied generalist agent in 3d world. InProceedings of the 41st International Conference on Machine Learning, pages 20413–20451, 2024

    2024

  7. [15]

    P. Li, T. Liu, Y . Li, Y . Geng, Y . Zhu, Y . Yang, and S. Huang. Gendexgrasp: Generalizable dex- terous grasping. In2023 IEEE International Conference on Robotics and Automation (ICRA), pages 8068–8074. IEEE, 2023

    2023

  8. [16]

    Y . Li, B. Liu, Y . Geng, P. Li, Y . Yang, Y . Zhu, T. Liu, and S. Huang. Grasp multiple objects with one hand.IEEE Robotics and Automation Letters, 2024

    2024

  9. [17]

    Torne, A

    M. Torne, A. Simeonov, Z. Li, A. Chan, T. Chen, A. Gupta, and P. Agrawal. Reconciling reality through simulation: A real-to-sim-to-real approach for robust manipulation.arXiv preprint arXiv:2403.03949, 2024

    2024 arXiv

  10. [18]

    Mandlekar, S

    A. Mandlekar, S. Nasiriany, B. Wen, I. Akinola, Y . Narang, L. Fan, Y . Zhu, and D. Fox. Mimicgen: A data generation system for scalable robot learning using human demonstrations. arXiv preprint arXiv:2310.17596, 2023

    2023 arXiv

  11. [19]

    Y . Mu, T. Chen, S. Peng, Z. Chen, Z. Gao, Y . Zou, L. Lin, Z. Xie, and P. Luo. Robotwin: Dual-arm robot benchmark with generative digital twins (early version).arXiv preprint arXiv:2409.02920, 2024

    2024 arXiv

  12. [20]

    C. Chi, Z. Xu, S. Feng, E. Cousineau, Y . Du, B. Burchfiel, R. Tedrake, and S. Song. Diffusion policy: Visuomotor policy learning via action diffusion.The International Journal of Robotics Research, page 02783649241273668, 2023

    2023

  13. [21]

    S. Nair, A. Rajeswaran, V . Kumar, C. Finn, and A. Gupta. R3m: A universal visual repre- sentation for robot manipulation. InConference on Robot Learning, pages 892–909. PMLR, 2023

    2023

  14. [22]

    O. M. Team, D. Ghosh, H. Walke, K. Pertsch, K. Black, O. Mees, S. Dasari, J. Hejna, T. Kreiman, C. Xu, et al. Octo: An open-source generalist robot policy.arXiv preprint arXiv:2405.12213, 2024

    2024 arXiv

  15. [23]

    M. J. Kim, K. Pertsch, S. Karamcheti, T. Xiao, A. Balakrishna, S. Nair, R. Rafailov, E. Foster, G. Lam, P. Sanketi, et al. Openvla: An open-source vision-language-action model.arXiv preprint arXiv:2406.09246, 2024

    2024 arXiv

  16. [24]

    Brohan, N

    A. Brohan, N. Brown, J. Carbajal, Y . Chebotar, J. Dabis, C. Finn, K. Gopalakrishnan, K. Haus- man, A. Herzog, J. Hsu, et al. Rt-1: Robotics transformer for real-world control at scale.arXiv preprint arXiv:2212.06817, 2022

    2022 arXiv

  17. [25]

    O’Neill, A

    A. O’Neill, A. Rehman, A. Gupta, A. Maddukuri, A. Gupta, A. Padalkar, A. Lee, A. Pooley, A. Gupta, A. Mandlekar, et al. Open x-embodiment: Robotic learning datasets and rt-x models. arXiv preprint arXiv:2310.08864, 2023. 10

    2023 arXiv

  18. [26]

    Black, N

    K. Black, N. Brown, D. Driess, A. Esmail, M. Equi, C. Finn, N. Fusai, L. Groom, K. Hausman, B. Ichter, et al.π0: A vision-language-action flow model for general robot control, 2024.URL https://arxiv. org/abs/2410.24164, 2024

    2024 arXiv

  19. [27]

    Y . Zhu, Z. Jiang, P. Stone, and Y . Zhu. Learning generalizable manipulation policies with object-centric 3d representations. InConference on Robot Learning, pages 3418–3433. PMLR, 2023

    2023

  20. [28]

    Zhang, A

    L. Zhang, A. Rao, and M. Agrawala. Adding conditional control to text-to-image diffusion models. InProceedings of the IEEE/CVF International Conference on Computer Vision, pages 3836–3847, 2023

    2023

  21. [29]

    J. Zhu, Y . Ju, J. Zhang, M. Wang, Z. Yuan, K. Hu, and H. Xu. Densematcher: Learning 3d semantic correspondence for category-level manipulation from a single demo.arXiv preprint arXiv:2412.05268, 2024

    2024 arXiv

  22. [30]

    Tremblay, T

    J. Tremblay, T. To, B. Sundaralingam, Y . Xiang, D. Fox, and S. Birchfield. Deep object pose es- timation for semantic robotic grasping of household objects.arXiv preprint arXiv:1809.10790, 2018

    2018 arXiv

  23. [31]

    Tyree, J

    S. Tyree, J. Tremblay, T. To, J. Cheng, T. Mosier, J. Smith, and S. Birchfield. 6-dof pose esti- mation of household objects for robotic manipulation: An accessible dataset and benchmark. In2022 IEEE/RSJ International Conference on Intelligent Robots and Systems (IROS), pages ...

    2022

  24. [32]

    Migimatsu and J

    T. Migimatsu and J. Bohg. Object-centric task and motion planning in dynamic environments. IEEE Robotics and Automation Letters, 5(2):844–851, 2020

    2020

  25. [33]

    D. Wang, C. Devin, Q.-Z. Cai, F. Yu, and T. Darrell. Deep object-centric policies for au- tonomous driving. In2019 International Conference on Robotics and Automation (ICRA), pages 8853–8859. IEEE, 2019

    2019

  26. [34]

    Devin, P

    C. Devin, P. Abbeel, T. Darrell, and S. Levine. Deep object-centric representations for gener- alizable robot learning. In2018 IEEE International Conference on Robotics and Automation (ICRA), pages 7111–7118. IEEE, 2018

    2018

  27. [35]

    Locatello, D

    F. Locatello, D. Weissenborn, T. Unterthiner, A. Mahendran, G. Heigold, J. Uszkoreit, A. Dosovitskiy, and T. Kipf. Object-centric learning with slot attention.Advances in neu- ral information processing systems, 33:11525–11538, 2020

    2020

  28. [36]

    C. P. Burgess, L. Matthey, N. Watters, R. Kabra, I. Higgins, M. Botvinick, and A. Ler- chner. Monet: Unsupervised scene decomposition and representation.arXiv preprint arXiv:1901.11390, 2019

    1901 arXiv

  29. [37]

    C. Wang, R. Wang, A. Mandlekar, L. Fei-Fei, S. Savarese, and D. Xu. Generalization through hand-eye coordination: An action space for learning spatially-invariant visuomotor control. In2021 IEEE/RSJ International Conference on Intelligent Robots and Systems (IROS), pages 8913–...

    2021

  30. [38]

    Heravi, A

    N. Heravi, A. Wahid, C. Lynch, P. Florence, T. Armstrong, J. Tompson, P. Sermanet, J. Bohg, and D. Dwibedi. Visuomotor control in multi-object scenes using object-aware representations. In2023 IEEE International Conference on Robotics and Automation (ICRA), pages 9515–

  31. [39]

    Didolkar, A

    A. Didolkar, A. Zadaianchuk, A. Goyal, M. Mozer, Y . Bengio, G. Martius, and M. Seitzer. Zero-shot object-centric representation learning.arXiv preprint arXiv:2408.09162, 2024

    2024 arXiv

  32. [40]

    Yoon, Y .-F

    J. Yoon, Y .-F. Wu, H. Bae, and S. Ahn. An investigation into pre-training object-centric repre- sentations for reinforcement learning.arXiv preprint arXiv:2302.04419, 2023. 11

    2023 arXiv

  33. [41]

    N. Gao, V . A. Ngo, H. Ziesche, and G. Neumann. Sa6d: Self-adaptive few-shot 6d pose estimator for novel and occluded objects. In7th Annual Conference on Robot Learning, 2023

    2023

  34. [42]

    Q. Yi, R. Zhang, J. Guo, X. Hu, Z. Du, Q. Guo, Y . Chen, et al. Object-category aware re- inforcement learning.Advances in Neural Information Processing Systems, 35:36453–36465, 2022

    2022

  35. [43]

    Stable diffusion v1.5 model card.https://huggingface.co/runwayml/ stable-diffusion-v1-5, 2022

    Stability. Stable diffusion v1.5 model card.https://huggingface.co/runwayml/ stable-diffusion-v1-5, 2022. Accessed: 2024-09-05

    2022

  36. [44]

    M. Li, T. Yang, H. Kuang, J. Wu, Z. Wang, X. Xiao, and C. Chen. Controlnet++: Im- proving conditional controls with efficient consistency feedback: Project page: liming-ai. github. io/controlnet plus plus. InEuropean Conference on Computer Vision, pages 129–147. Springer, 2024

    2024

  37. [45]

    Zavadski, J.-F

    D. Zavadski, J.-F. Feiden, and C. Rother. Controlnet-xs: Designing an efficient and effective architecture for controlling text-to-image diffusion models.arXiv preprint arXiv:2312.06573, 2023

    2023 arXiv

  38. [46]

    Y . Guo, C. Yang, A. Rao, Z. Liang, Y . Wang, Y . Qiao, M. Agrawala, D. Lin, and B. Dai. An- imatediff: Animate your personalized text-to-image diffusion models without specific tuning. InThe Twelfth International Conference on Learning Representations, 2024

    2024

  39. [47]

    T. Wang, L. Li, K. Lin, Y . Zhai, C.-C. Lin, Z. Yang, H. Zhang, Z. Liu, and L. Wang. Disco: Disentangled control for realistic human dance generation. InProceedings of the IEEE/CVF Conference on Computer Vision and Pattern Recognition, pages 9326–9336, 2024

    2024

  40. [48]

    Bar-Tal, H

    O. Bar-Tal, H. Chefer, O. Tov, C. Herrmann, R. Paiss, S. Zada, A. Ephrat, J. Hur, G. Liu, A. Raj, et al. Lumiere: A space-time diffusion model for video generation. InSIGGRAPH Asia 2024 Conference Papers, pages 1–11, 2024

    2024

  41. [49]

    Dai, L.-H

    W. Dai, L.-H. Chen, J. Wang, J. Liu, B. Dai, and Y . Tang. Motionlcm: Real-time controllable motion generation via latent consistency model. InEuropean Conference on Computer Vision, pages 390–408. Springer, 2024

    2024

  42. [50]

    Y . Xie, V . Jampani, L. Zhong, D. Sun, and H. Jiang. Omnicontrol: Control any joint at any time for human motion generation. InThe Twelfth International Conference on Learning Representations, 2024

    2024

  43. [51]

    J. Song, C. Meng, and S. Ermon. Denoising diffusion implicit models. InInternational Con- ference on Learning Representations, 2021

    2021

  44. [52]

    S. Liu, Z. Zeng, T. Ren, F. Li, H. Zhang, J. Yang, Q. Jiang, C. Li, J. Yang, H. Su, et al. Grounding dino: Marrying dino with grounded pre-training for open-set object detection. In European Conference on Computer Vision, pages 38–55. Springer, 2024

    2024

  45. [53]

    N. Ravi, V . Gabeur, Y .-T. Hu, R. Hu, C. Ryali, T. Ma, H. Khedr, R. R ¨adle, C. Rolland, L. Gustafson, et al. Sam 2: Segment anything in images and videos.arXiv preprint arXiv:2408.00714, 2024

    2024 arXiv

  46. [54]

    A. Vaswani. Attention is all you need.Advances in Neural Information Processing Systems, 2017

    2017

  47. [55]

    Krizhevsky, I

    A. Krizhevsky, I. Sutskever, and G. E. Hinton. Imagenet classification with deep convolutional neural networks.Advances in neural information processing systems, 25, 2012

    2012

  48. [56]

    T. Z. Zhao, V . Kumar, S. Levine, and C. Finn. Learning fine-grained bimanual manipulation with low-cost hardware.arXiv preprint arXiv:2304.13705, 2023. 12

    2023 arXiv

  49. [57]

    X. Zhou, R. Girdhar, A. Joulin, P. Kr¨ahenb¨uhl, and I. Misra. Detecting twenty-thousand classes using image-level supervision. InEuropean Conference on Computer Vision, pages 350–368. Springer, 2022

    2022

  50. [58]

    J. Ho, A. Jain, and P. Abbeel. Denoising diffusion probabilistic models.Advances in neural information processing systems, 33:6840–6851, 2020

    2020

  51. [59]

    Khazatsky, K

    A. Khazatsky, K. Pertsch, S. Nair, A. Balakrishna, S. Dasari, S. Karamcheti, S. Nasiriany, M. K. Srirama, L. Y . Chen, K. Ellis, et al. Droid: A large-scale in-the-wild robot manipulation dataset. InRobotics: Science and Systems, 2024

    2024

  52. [60]

    Radford, J

    A. Radford, J. W. Kim, C. Hallacy, A. Ramesh, G. Goh, S. Agarwal, G. Sastry, A. Askell, P. Mishkin, J. Clark, et al. Learning transferable visual models from natural language supervi- sion. InInternational conference on machine learning, pages 8748–8763. PMLR, 2021

    2021

  53. [61]

    Campos, R

    C. Campos, R. Elvira, J. J. G. Rodr ´ıguez, J. M. Montiel, and J. D. Tard ´os. Orb-slam3: An accurate open-source library for visual, visual–inertial, and multimap slam.IEEE transactions on robotics, 37(6):1874–1890, 2021

    2021

  54. [62]

    Meta Quest: Virtual Reality Headset.https://www.meta.com/ quest/, n.d

    Meta Platforms, Inc. Meta Quest: Virtual Reality Headset.https://www.meta.com/ quest/, n.d. Accessed: 2025-05-08

    2025

  55. [63]

    Astribot S1: AI Robotic Partner.https://www.astribot.com/ product-en, 2024

    Astribot, Inc. Astribot S1: AI Robotic Partner.https://www.astribot.com/ product-en, 2024. Accessed: 2025-05-06. 13 A More Experiments onπ 0 We further adapt and evaluate our ControlVLA method on a more general pre-trained VLA model, π0 [26], referred to as ControlVLA@π 0. The...

    2024

Pith tools

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