Pith. sign in

REVIEW 4 major objections 7 minor 73 references

RwoR: Generating Robot Demonstrations from Human Hand Collection for Policy Learning without Robot

T0 review · 4 major / 7 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 A wrist-mounted camera and a generative image translator can turn human hand demonstrations into robot gripper training data, matching hand-held gripper collection within 0.04 average success on nine tasks.

desk verdict A genuinely new pipeline for turning human hand videos into robot gripper demonstrations, with real-robot results close to UMI, but the unvalidated fixed camera-to-fingertip transform for action extraction and the absence of error bars keep the parity claim from being fully established. read the letter →

arxiv 2507.03930 v2 pith:BL2SCQAZ submitted 2025-07-05 cs.RO

Liang Heng , Xiaoqi Li , Shangqing Mao , Jiaming Liu , Ruolin Liu , Jingli Wei , Yu-Kai Wang , Yueru Jia
show 4 more authors
Chenyang Gu Rui Zhao Shanghang Zhang Hao Dong
This is my paper
classification cs.RO
keywords imitationlearningdatacollectionwithoutrobothand-to-grippergenerationdiffusionpolicyInstructPix2PixSE(3)actionextractionUMIgripperegocentricdemonstration
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

RwoR claims that robot manipulation policies can be trained from human hand demonstrations alone, with no robot involved in the data-collection step, by translating the hand videos into gripper demonstrations with a learned generative model. On nine real-world tasks, a Diffusion Policy trained on the generated gripper demonstrations reaches an average success rate of $0.78$, against $0.82$ for the same policy trained on demonstrations collected with a hand-held UMI gripper. The paper argues this closes the observation gap between human hands and robot grippers, making scalable, low-cost data collection possible. The quality gap is small enough that the authors present the UMI-trained policy as the upper bound.

What carries the argument

The load-bearing mechanism is a hand-to-gripper translation pipeline built on InstructPix2Pix, a diffusion image-editing model initialized from Stable Diffusion, trained on a self-collected dataset of 200 paired human-hand and UMI gripper demonstrations (15,000 frames). Before training, Temporal Cycle-Consistency Learning aligns the two video streams in time, and a pre-processing stage uses SAM2 to segment foreground objects and Inpaint Anything to compose training ground truth whose background matches the human-hand view; this forces the model to change only the hand into a gripper. Actions are extracted separately: ORB-SLAM3 with GoPro IMU gives the wrist camera's 6DoF pose, a fixed transformation maps it to the fingertip pose used as the gripper action, and gripper open/close is read off from whether the hand is interacting with the object. The downstream policy is Diffusion Policy, conditioned on the generated gripper images, pose, and open state.

What would settle it

Record human hand demonstrations while a tracked UMI gripper or motion-capture markers on the hand simultaneously records ground-truth gripper poses for the same manipulation, then compare the fixed-transform fingertip $\mathrm{SE}(3)$ trajectory from RwoR with the ground truth frame-by-frame; a mean positional error comparable to or larger than the target object's characteristic size would falsify the claim that usable actions can be extracted without robot hardware.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

The central claim is that a diffusion-based image-to-image model, trained on a few hundred paired human-hand and gripper demonstration frames, can replace the human hand in a demonstration with a robot gripper while preserving timestamps, backgrounds, camera viewpoint, and object states; the resulting gripper videos, combined with pose-derived $\mathrm{SE}(3)$ actions, can train a visuomotor policy whose real-robot success rates nearly match training on directly collected gripper demonstrations. The paper further claims the translation generalizes to unseen action types and object instances, because the model learns to transform the foreground interaction rather than memorize a particular action. This is an application claim: it positions generative video translation as the bridge that previous rule-based, AR, or retargeting methods provided with less scalability.

Load-bearing premise

The load-bearing assumption is that the robot gripper's six-degree-of-freedom action can be read off from the wrist camera pose through a fixed rigid transformation to the fingertip, treating the hand as one rigid body; if that mapping drifts from the true fingertip trajectory, every downstream policy is trained on inaccurate actions, and the paper does not validate the extracted actions against ground-truth robot trajectories.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • Data collection for imitation learning no longer requires a robot, a teleoperation rig, or a trained operator: a wrist-mounted GoPro and a human hand suffice.
  • The policy trained on generated demonstrations reaches 0.78 average success over nine tasks versus 0.82 for the gripper-collected upper bound, and beats a rule-based texture-mapping baseline (0.37), so the generative translation is what carries the performance.
  • The generative model transfers foreground interaction rather than memorizing tasks, so it can produce usable demonstrations for unseen action types (rotate, unstack) and unseen object instances (yellow cup, white block) at success rates around 0.80-0.87.
  • Because backgrounds are preserved and the model is trained on diverse scenes, the method can generate demonstrations in environments different from the generative model's training set.

Reading between the lines

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

  • Going beyond the paper, the fixed camera-to-fingertip transform treats the hand as rigid and ignores finger articulation; a hand-pose estimator in place of the fixed transform could improve action accuracy for tasks requiring finer finger control.
  • Going beyond the paper, the paired-data requirement is the current bottleneck: collecting 200 paired human-hand/gripper demonstrations still needs a UMI gripper and a human operator, but generated gripper demonstrations could be bootstrapped to expand the training pool without new paired collection.
  • Going beyond the paper, the comparative success rates suggest image-level translation may be a viable alternative to action-space retargeting for parallel-jaw gripper tasks, yet the fixed wrist mounting and camera alignment requirement may limit transfer to wrist-mounted deployment setups.
  • Going beyond the paper, a testable extension is replacing the binary gripper open/close rule with a learned contact or state estimator, since the paper's interaction-detection heuristic may mislabel pre-grasp or in-hand manipulation frames.
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 / 7 minor

Summary. The paper proposes RwoR, a data collection pipeline that uses only human hand demonstrations, recorded with a wrist-mounted GoPro, to train robot manipulation policies. The pipeline has three main components: (i) extracting SE(3) gripper actions from hand videos using ORB-SLAM3/IMU tracking plus a fixed camera-to-fingertip transformation, with a hand-object interaction heuristic for gripper open/closed status; (ii) training an InstructPix2Pix-based generative model on 200 paired human-hand and UMI-gripper demonstrations to translate hand images into gripper images; and (iii) training a Diffusion Policy on the generated gripper images paired with the extracted actions. The experiments report real-robot success rates on nine tasks, claiming comparable performance to training on real UMI gripper demonstrations (0.78 vs. 0.82 average over 15 trials per task), plus image-quality metrics and generalization studies on unseen actions and object instances.

Significance. If the reported parity holds, RwoR would be a practically useful contribution: it would let practitioners collect policy-training data without operating a robot at collection time, requiring only a wrist-mounted camera plus a one-time paired dataset for the generative model. The paper includes real-robot deployment, a comparison against a rule-based texture-mapping baseline, and ablations of the proposed pre-processing strategy. However, the current evidence is not strong enough to establish the central claim. The main risks are the very small number of evaluation trials, the absence of any validation of the action-extraction transform, the unvalidated gripper open/closed heuristic, and insufficient clarity about whether the generative model's training data overlaps with the policy-evaluation tasks. These issues are fixable, but they are load-bearing for the paper's headline conclusion.

major comments (4)
  1. [IV-A.1, Table I] The parity claim rests on only 15 trials per task with no variance reporting and no multiple training seeds. Across the 135 trials per method, the 0.78 vs. 0.82 average gap corresponds to a few successes and is well within binomial sampling noise; individual task gaps (e.g., Stack Bowl 0.73 vs. 0.80, Upright Bottle 0.70 vs. 0.80) are also not resolvable at this sample size. The authors should report per-trial results and confidence intervals, increase the number of trials, or provide multi-seed training runs and an appropriate statistical test to support the claim of comparable performance.
  2. [III-C.1] The SE(3) action labels used to train the policy are computed from a fixed transformation matrix applied to the wrist-camera pose from ORB-SLAM3/IMU. Unlike UMI, where the camera is rigidly attached to the gripper, the human hand's fingertip can move relative to the wrist camera because of finger articulation. The manuscript provides no calibration procedure, no hand-posture constraint, and no validation of the extracted actions against ground-truth robot gripper trajectories. Since these actions are the policy's training labels, any systematic error in this transform propagates directly into the learned policy. The 'Alter.' baseline (0.37 vs. 0.78) shows that the evaluation is sensitive to training-data fidelity, which makes this unquantified error channel load-bearing. Please add a validation study that compares the predicted fingertip poses against UMI-collected gripper poses on the same trajectories, or otherwise bound the action error.
  3. [III-C.1] The binary gripper open/closed signal is inferred from the relative positions of the object and the hand using the interaction criterion described in Sec. III-B.1, but there is no evidence that this heuristic matches actual grasp timing. Since gripper state is one of the action dimensions of the Diffusion Policy, an incorrect opening or closing time will directly change the learned behavior. The authors should report the accuracy of this heuristic against annotated or real gripper states, or use a more direct sensing signal for the gripper state.
  4. [IV-A.1, III-B.1] The manuscript does not state whether the 50 human-hand demonstrations per task used for policy training are disjoint from the 200 paired demonstrations used to train the generative model. If the generative model was trained on the same task demonstrations, part of the reported success could reflect memorization of those demonstrations rather than genuine hand-to-gripper translation. Please clarify the data split and, if needed, evaluate with task demonstrations that are disjoint from the generative model's training set.
minor comments (7)
  1. [III-C.1] There is a typo in Section III-C.1: 'desmontrations' should be 'demonstrations'.
  2. [References] The paper cites reference [73] as 'ORB-SLAM3' but the listed reference is the original ORB-SLAM paper by Mur-Artal et al.; please cite the actual ORB-SLAM3 paper by Campos et al.
  3. [IV-B.1] The PSNR/SSIM metrics are computed on frames that come from the training demonstrations but are held out from training. This measures in-distribution image fidelity, not generalization to new scenes; the generalization study in Sec. IV-B.3 is more informative and should be emphasized as the primary evidence of generative-model generalization.
  4. [IV-A.2] The 'Alter.' baseline is described only briefly. Please provide more details on the texture-mapping procedure, including how the gripper pattern is overlaid, how the foreground/background split is done, and any hyperparameters, so that readers can assess the fairness of this comparison.
  5. [Title/Abstract] The title and abstract claim 'without Robot', but the pipeline requires a robot or a UMI gripper to collect the 200 paired demonstrations used to train the generative model. Please qualify the claim, for example 'without robot at policy-training time', to avoid overstating the hardware requirement.
  6. [III-B.1] The TCC alignment step is not described in enough detail for reproducibility; please specify the embedding network architecture, training procedure, and how the nearest-neighbor alignment is performed.
  7. [Table II] The row labels 'Edit' and 'Interactive' in Table II are not defined in the caption; please define these terms so that the ablation rows are self-explanatory.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 1.0 of 10

No significant circularity: the central result is anchored by an external UMI baseline and real-robot deployment; the fixed hand-to-fingertip transform is an unvalidated correctness risk, not a constructed equivalence.

full rationale

The central claim is validated externally: policies trained on RwoR-generated demonstrations are deployed on a Franka Research 3 robot and compared against UMI gripper demonstrations collected under matched workspace, sample count, and training epochs (Section IV-A, Table I). Nothing in this comparison is fitted by construction. The action labels are produced by ORB-SLAM3/IMU tracking followed by a fixed transformation matrix from camera pose to human fingertip (Section III-C.1), and the gripper images are produced by an InstructPix2Pix model supervised on paired human-hand/UMI-gripper data (Section III-B.2); neither is tuned to the reported success rates. The 'Alter.' baseline (0.37 vs 0.78) is an external sensitivity check, not a self-referential target. The uncalibrated constant camera-to-fingertip transform and the heuristic gripper open/close signal are genuine correctness risks: the paper gives no calibration procedure and no validation of extracted actions against ground-truth robot trajectories, so systematic action error could propagate into the policy. However, this is an input-quality concern, not a circular derivation: the transform is not defined in terms of the policy outcome, and the external UMI comparison prevents the result from reducing to its own assumptions. The appended Limitations section (Sec. VI) explicitly acknowledges failure modes from generated video quality and joint limits, further showing these are recognized empirical risks rather than hidden definitions. Self-citations appear only in related-work enumeration and are not load-bearing. Overall, no step equates a predicted quantity with its input by construction, so the circularity score is low.

Assumptions & free parameters 2 free parameters · 5 assumptions · 0 invented entities

The central claim depends on several off-the-shelf components whose accuracy in this new setting is unverified, most critically the fixed rigid transform between the wrist camera and the fingertip, and the ORB-SLAM3 pose estimation. No new physical entities are introduced.

free parameters (2)
  • Fixed camera-to-fingertip rigid transformation = Not numerically specified; described as a fixed transformation matrix
    Used to convert wrist camera 6DoF pose into fingertip 6DoF pose, which becomes the robot gripper action (Sec. III-C.1). Its accuracy is not validated, and it ignores finger articulation.
  • Interaction detection threshold for gripper open/closed = None stated; based on relative positions of hand and object
    The rule 'if interaction, gripper closed; otherwise open' (Sec. III-C.1) requires an unspecified positional threshold that determines both the generated ground truth and the policy actions.
assumptions (5)
  • domain assumption InstructPix2Pix, initialized with pretrained Stable Diffusion weights, can be fine-tuned to transform human hand images into robot gripper images while preserving background and interactive objects.
    The whole pipeline depends on this generative capability; Section III-B.2 states this without proof.
  • domain assumption Temporal Cycle-Consistency Learning provides correct temporal alignment between independently collected human hand and UMI gripper demonstrations.
    Section III-B.1 relies on TCC to align timestamps, but the alignment accuracy is not quantified.
  • domain assumption SAM2 segmentation and Inpaint Anything correctly identify foreground gripper/object and background regions across varied scenes and interactions.
    Used to construct the preprocessed ground truth in Section III-B.1; errors would propagate to the generative model.
  • domain assumption ORB-SLAM3 with GoPro IMU provides accurate 6DoF camera pose in the demonstration environments, and the hand moves rigidly relative to the wrist camera.
    Action extraction in Section III-C.1 depends on this; no evaluation of pose accuracy is given.
  • domain assumption The test-time workspace and camera viewpoint match those of the collected demonstrations closely enough for the diffusion policy to transfer.
    Policy success is evaluated only within the training working space (Section IV-A.1), so the claim of 'without robot' data collection is scoped to that condition.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of RwoR: Generating Robot Demonstrations from Human Hand Collection for Policy Learning without Robot." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/BL2SCQAZ

@misc{pith2026250703930,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: RwoR: Generating Robot Demonstrations from Human Hand Collection for Policy Learning without Robot},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/BL2SCQAZ}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2507.03930}
}
read the original abstract

Recent advancements in imitation learning have shown promising results in robotic manipulation, driven by the availability of high-quality training data. To improve data collection efficiency, some approaches focus on developing specialized teleoperation devices for robot control, while others directly use human hand demonstrations to obtain training data. However, the former requires both a robotic system and a skilled operator, limiting scalability, while the latter faces challenges in aligning the visual gap between human hand demonstrations and the deployed robot observations. To address this, we propose a human hand data collection system combined with our hand-to-gripper generative model, which translates human hand demonstrations into robot gripper demonstrations, effectively bridging the observation gap. Specifically, a GoPro fisheye camera is mounted on the human wrist to capture human hand demonstrations. We then train a generative model on a self-collected dataset of paired human hand and UMI gripper demonstrations, which have been processed using a tailored data pre-processing strategy to ensure alignment in both timestamps and observations. Therefore, given only human hand demonstrations, we are able to automatically extract the corresponding SE(3) actions and integrate them with high-quality generated robot demonstrations through our generation pipeline for training robotic policy model. In experiments, the robust manipulation performance demonstrates not only the quality of the generated robot demonstrations but also the efficiency and practicality of our data collection method. More demonstrations can be found at: https://rwor.github.io/

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2507.03930 by the authors.

Figure 1
Figure 1. RwoR’s data collection pipeline for policy model training. The top part illustrates the RwoR pipeline, which extracts actions from human hand demonstrations and trains a generative model to convert these demonstrations into UMI gripper demonstrations for policy learning. The bottom part visualizes the collected human hand demonstrations and the corresponding agent execution during real robot deployment. one hand, ty… view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. Overall Pipeline. We design a data pre-processing strategy to train the hand-to-gripper generative model. With this generative model, given human hand demonstrations, we first extract the corresponding gripper poses and then transform the demonstrations into gripper demonstrations using the generative model, thereby enabling effective training of the robotic policy model. hand with a robot for policy model training.… view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. Training Dataset for Generative model. We visualize our self-collected dataset of paired human hand and UMI gripper demonstrations. The dataset includes a variety of household objects across different scenarios. background h b t of the human hand frame and the foreground objects r f t from the corresponding robot gripper frame. With the foreground and background segmentation mask, for both stages, we apply Inpaint A… view at source ↗
Figures from the paper (3 more)
Figure 4
Figure 4. Figure 4: Real-World Execution Visualization. We visualize key frames of the agent’s execution from the real-world manipulation perspective. TABLE I REAL-WORLD PERFORMANCE. WE COMPARE THE SUCCESS RATE PERFORMANCE OF THE POLICY MODEL WHEN TRAINED ON DATASETS COLLECTED USING OUR D…
Figure 5
Figure 5. Figure 5: Visualization of generative model’s performance. We visualize the input human hand image provided to the generative model alongside its corresponding predicted UMI gripper image. TABLE II GENERATIVE MODEL’S PERFORMANCE AND ABLATION STUDY. Row ID Edit Interactive PSNR↑ …
Figure 6
Figure 6. Figure 6: Visualization of generative model’s generalization ability on unseen [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p007_6.png]

Discussion (0). Sign in to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

73 extracted references · 31 canonical work pages

  1. [1]

    Diffusion policy: Visuomotor policy learning via ac- tion diffusion,

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

    2023

  2. [2]

    Rvt- 2: Learning precise manipulation from few demonstrations,

    A. Goyal, V . Blukis, J. Xu, Y . Guo, Y .-W. Chao, and D. Fox, “Rvt- 2: Learning precise manipulation from few demonstrations,” arXiv preprint arXiv:2406.08545, 2024

    arXiv 2024

  3. [3]

    3d diffuser ac- tor: Policy diffusion with 3d scene representations,

    T.-W. Ke, N. Gkanatsios, and K. Fragkiadaki, “3d diffuser ac- tor: Policy diffusion with 3d scene representations,” arXiv preprint arXiv:2402.10885, 2024

    arXiv 2024

  4. [4]

    3d diffusion policy: Generalizable visuomotor policy learning via simple 3d rep- resentations,

    Y . Ze, G. Zhang, K. Zhang, C. Hu, M. Wang, and H. Xu, “3d diffusion policy: Generalizable visuomotor policy learning via simple 3d rep- resentations,” in ICRA 2024 Workshop on 3D Visual Representations for Robot Manipulation , 2024

    2024

  5. [5]

    Act3d: 3d feature field transformers for multi-task robotic manipulation,

    T. Gervet, Z. Xian, N. Gkanatsios, and K. Fragkiadaki, “Act3d: 3d feature field transformers for multi-task robotic manipulation,” in 7th Annual Conference on Robot Learning , 2023

    work page 2023

  6. [6]

    Perceiver-actor: A multi- task transformer for robotic manipulation,

    M. Shridhar, L. Manuelli, and D. Fox, “Perceiver-actor: A multi- task transformer for robotic manipulation,” in Conference on Robot Learning. PMLR, 2023, pp. 785–799

    work page 2023

  7. [7]

    Cliport: What and where pathways for robotic manipulation,

    ——, “Cliport: What and where pathways for robotic manipulation,” in Conference on robot learning . PMLR, 2022, pp. 894–906

    work page 2022

  8. [8]

    Behavioral cloning from obser- vation,

    F. Torabi, G. Warnell, and P. Stone, “Behavioral cloning from obser- vation,” arXiv preprint arXiv:1805.01954 , 2018

    arXiv 2018

Show all 73 references
  1. [9]

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

    B. Zitkovich, T. Yu, S. Xu, P. Xu, T. Xiao, F. Xia, J. Wu, P. Wohlhart, S. Welker, A. Wahid, et al. , “Rt-2: Vision-language-action models transfer web knowledge to robotic control,” in 7th Annual Conference on Robot Learning , 2023

    2023

  2. [10]

    Lift3d foundation policy: Lifting 2d large- scale pretrained models for robust 3d robotic manipulation,

    Y . Jia, J. Liu, S. Chen, C. Gu, Z. Wang, L. Luo, L. Lee, P. Wang, Z. Wang, R. Zhang, et al., “Lift3d foundation policy: Lifting 2d large- scale pretrained models for robust 3d robotic manipulation,” arXiv preprint arXiv:2411.18623, 2024

    2024 arXiv

  3. [11]

    3dwg: 3d weakly supervised visual grounding via category and instance-level alignment,

    X. Li, J. Liu, N. Han, L. Heng, Y . Guo, H. Dong, and Y . Liu, “3dwg: 3d weakly supervised visual grounding via category and instance-level alignment,” arXiv preprint arXiv:2505.01809 , 2025

    2025 arXiv

  4. [12]

    Lidar-llm: Exploring the potential of large language models for 3d lidar understanding,

    S. Yang, J. Liu, R. Zhang, M. Pan, Z. Guo, X. Li, Z. Chen, P. Gao, H. Li, Y . Guo, et al. , “Lidar-llm: Exploring the potential of large language models for 3d lidar understanding,” in Proceedings of the AAAI Conference on Artificial Intelligence , vol. 39, no. 9, 2025, pp. 9247–9255

    2025

  5. [13]

    A survey of robot learning from demonstration,

    B. D. Argall, S. Chernova, M. Veloso, and B. Browning, “A survey of robot learning from demonstration,” Robotics and autonomous systems, vol. 57, no. 5, pp. 469–483, 2009

    2009

  6. [14]

    Bunny-visionpro: Real-time bimanual dexterous teleoperation for imitation learning,

    R. Ding, Y . Qin, J. Zhu, C. Jia, S. Yang, R. Yang, X. Qi, and X. Wang, “Bunny-visionpro: Real-time bimanual dexterous teleoperation for imitation learning,” arXiv preprint arXiv:2407.03162 , 2024

    2024 arXiv

  7. [15]

    Gello: A general, low- cost, and intuitive teleoperation framework for robot manipulators,

    P. Wu, Y . Shentu, Z. Yi, X. Lin, and P. Abbeel, “Gello: A general, low- cost, and intuitive teleoperation framework for robot manipulators,” in 2024 IEEE/RSJ International Conference on Intelligent Robots and Systems (IROS). IEEE, 2024, pp. 12 156–12 163

    2024

  8. [16]

    Holo-dex: Teaching dexterity with immersive mixed reality,

    S. P. Arunachalam, I. G ¨uzey, S. Chintala, and L. Pinto, “Holo-dex: Teaching dexterity with immersive mixed reality,” in 2023 IEEE International Conference on Robotics and Automation (ICRA). IEEE, 2023, pp. 5962–5969

    2023

  9. [17]

    Dexpilot: Vision-based tele- operation of dexterous robotic hand-arm system,

    A. Handa, K. Van Wyk, W. Yang, J. Liang, Y .-W. Chao, Q. Wan, S. Birchfield, N. Ratliff, and D. Fox, “Dexpilot: Vision-based tele- operation of dexterous robotic hand-arm system,” in 2020 IEEE International Conference on Robotics and Automation (ICRA). IEEE, 2020, pp. 9164–9170

    2020

  10. [18]

    Anyteleop: A general vision-based dexterous robot arm- hand teleoperation system,

    Y . Qin, W. Yang, B. Huang, K. Van Wyk, H. Su, X. Wang, Y .-W. Chao, and D. Fox, “Anyteleop: A general vision-based dexterous robot arm- hand teleoperation system,” arXiv preprint arXiv:2307.04577 , 2023

    2023 arXiv

  11. [19]

    Grasping in the wild: Learning 6dof closed-loop grasping from low-cost demonstrations,

    S. Song, A. Zeng, J. Lee, and T. Funkhouser, “Grasping in the wild: Learning 6dof closed-loop grasping from low-cost demonstrations,” IEEE Robotics and Automation Letters , vol. 5, no. 3, pp. 4978–4985, 2020

    2020

  12. [20]

    Shared-autonomy control for intuitive bimanual tele-manipulation,

    M. Laghi, M. Maimeri, M. Marchand, C. Leparoux, M. Catalano, A. Ajoudani, and A. Bicchi, “Shared-autonomy control for intuitive bimanual tele-manipulation,” in 2018 IEEE-RAS 18th International Conference on Humanoid Robots (Humanoids) . IEEE, 2018, pp. 1– 9

    2018

  13. [21]

    A teleoperation interface for loco-manipulation control of mobile col- laborative robotic assistant,

    Y . Wu, P. Balatti, M. Lorenzini, F. Zhao, W. Kim, and A. Ajoudani, “A teleoperation interface for loco-manipulation control of mobile col- laborative robotic assistant,” IEEE Robotics and Automation Letters , vol. 4, no. 4, pp. 3593–3600, 2019

    2019

  14. [22]

    Arcap: Collecting high-quality human demonstrations for robot learning with augmented reality feedback,

    S. Chen, C. Wang, K. Nguyen, L. Fei-Fei, and C. K. Liu, “Arcap: Collecting high-quality human demonstrations for robot learning with augmented reality feedback,” arXiv preprint arXiv:2410.08464, 2024

    2024 arXiv

  15. [23]

    Ar2-d2: Training a robot without a robot,

    J. Duan, Y . R. Wang, M. Shridhar, D. Fox, and R. Krishna, “Ar2-d2: Training a robot without a robot,” arXiv preprint arXiv:2306.13818 , 2023

    2023 arXiv

  16. [24]

    Universal manipulation interface: In-the-wild robot teaching without in-the-wild robots,

    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

    2024 arXiv

  17. [25]

    Dexcap: Scalable and portable mocap data collection system for dexterous manipulation,

    C. Wang, H. Shi, W. Wang, R. Zhang, L. Fei-Fei, and C. K. Liu, “Dexcap: Scalable and portable mocap data collection system for dexterous manipulation,” arXiv preprint arXiv:2403.07788 , 2024

    2024 arXiv

  18. [26]

    Learn- ing periodic tasks from human demonstrations,

    J. Yang, J. Zhang, C. Settle, A. Rai, R. Antonova, and J. Bohg, “Learn- ing periodic tasks from human demonstrations,” in 2022 International Conference on Robotics and Automation (ICRA) . IEEE, 2022, pp. 8658–8665

    2022

  19. [27]

    Robotube: Learning household manipulation from human videos with simulated twin environments,

    H. Xiong, H. Fu, J. Zhang, C. Bao, Q. Zhang, Y . Huang, W. Xu, A. Garg, and C. Lu, “Robotube: Learning household manipulation from human videos with simulated twin environments,” in Conference on Robot Learning . PMLR, 2023, pp. 1–10

    2023

  20. [28]

    Ego4d: Around the world in 3,000 hours of egocentric video,

    K. Grauman, A. Westbury, E. Byrne, Z. Chavis, A. Furnari, R. Girdhar, J. Hamburger, H. Jiang, M. Liu, X. Liu, et al. , “Ego4d: Around the world in 3,000 hours of egocentric video,” in Proceedings of the IEEE/CVF conference on computer vision and pattern recognition , 2022, pp....

    2022

  21. [29]

    Learning from active human involvement through proxy value propagation,

    Z. M. Peng, W. Mo, C. Duan, Q. Li, and B. Zhou, “Learning from active human involvement through proxy value propagation,”Advances in neural information processing systems , vol. 36, 2024

    2024

  22. [30]

    What matters in learning from offline human demonstrations for robot manipula- tion,

    A. Mandlekar, D. Xu, J. Wong, S. Nasiriany, C. Wang, R. Kulkarni, L. Fei-Fei, S. Savarese, Y . Zhu, and R. Mart´ın-Mart´ın, “What matters in learning from offline human demonstrations for robot manipula- tion,” arXiv preprint arXiv:2108.03298 , 2021

    2021 arXiv

  23. [31]

    Viola: Imitation learning for vision-based manipulation with object proposal priors,

    Y . Zhu, A. Joshi, P. Stone, and Y . Zhu, “Viola: Imitation learning for vision-based manipulation with object proposal priors,” arXiv preprint arXiv:2210.11339, 2022

    2022 arXiv

  24. [32]

    Manipllm: Embodied multimodal large language model for object-centric robotic manipulation,

    X. Li, M. Zhang, Y . Geng, H. Geng, Y . Long, Y . Shen, R. Zhang, J. Liu, and H. Dong, “Manipllm: Embodied multimodal large language model for object-centric robotic manipulation,” in Proceedings of the IEEE/CVF Conference on Computer Vision and Pattern Recognition , 2024, pp....

    2024

  25. [33]

    Manipvqa: Injecting robotic affordance and physically grounded information into multi-modal large language models,

    S. Huang, I. Ponomarenko, Z. Jiang, X. Li, X. Hu, P. Gao, H. Li, and H. Dong, “Manipvqa: Injecting robotic affordance and physically grounded information into multi-modal large language models,” in 2024 IEEE/RSJ International Conference on Intelligent Robots and Systems (IROS)...

    2024

  26. [34]

    Robomamba: Multimodal state space model for efficient robot reasoning and manipulation,

    J. Liu, M. Liu, Z. Wang, L. Lee, K. Zhou, P. An, S. Yang, R. Zhang, Y . Guo, and S. Zhang, “Robomamba: Multimodal state space model for efficient robot reasoning and manipulation,” arXiv preprint arXiv:2406.04339, 2024

    2024 arXiv

  27. [35]

    Crayonrobo: Object-centric prompt-driven vision-language-action model for robotic manipula- tion,

    X. Li, L. Xu, M. Zhang, J. Liu, Y . Shen, I. Ponomarenko, J. Xu, L. Heng, S. Huang, S. Zhang, et al. , “Crayonrobo: Object-centric prompt-driven vision-language-action model for robotic manipula- tion,” arXiv preprint arXiv:2505.02166 , 2025

    2025 arXiv

  28. [36]

    Hybridvla: Collaborative diffusion and au- toregression in a unified vision-language-action model,

    J. Liu, H. Chen, P. An, Z. Liu, R. Zhang, C. Gu, X. Li, Z. Guo, S. Chen, M. Liu, et al. , “Hybridvla: Collaborative diffusion and au- toregression in a unified vision-language-action model,” arXiv preprint arXiv:2503.10631, 2025

    2025 arXiv

  29. [37]

    Fast-in-slow: A dual-system foundation model unifying fast manipulation within slow reasoning,

    H. Chen, J. Liu, C. Gu, Z. Liu, R. Zhang, X. Li, X. He, Y . Guo, C.-W. Fu, S. Zhang, et al. , “Fast-in-slow: A dual-system foundation model unifying fast manipulation within slow reasoning,” arXiv preprint arXiv:2506.01953, 2025

    2025 arXiv

  30. [38]

    Naturalvlm: Leveraging fine-grained natural language for affordance-guided visual manipula- tion,

    R. Xu, Y . Shen, X. Li, R. Wu, and H. Dong, “Naturalvlm: Leveraging fine-grained natural language for affordance-guided visual manipula- tion,” IEEE Robotics and Automation Letters , 2024

    2024

  31. [39]

    Spatialbot: Precise spatial understanding with vision lan- guage models,

    W. Cai, I. Ponomarenko, J. Yuan, X. Li, W. Yang, H. Dong, and B. Zhao, “Spatialbot: Precise spatial understanding with vision lan- guage models,” arXiv preprint arXiv:2406.13642 , 2024

    2024 arXiv

  32. [40]

    Autonomous interactive correction mllm for robust robotic manipu- lation,

    C. Xiong, C. Shen, X. Li, K. Zhou, J. Liu, R. Wang, and H. Dong, “Autonomous interactive correction mllm for robust robotic manipu- lation,” in 8th Annual Conference on Robot Learning , 2024

    2024

  33. [41]

    Learning fine-grained bimanual manipulation with low-cost hardware,

    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

    2023 arXiv

  34. [42]

    Telemanipulation with chopsticks: Analyzing human factors in user demonstrations,

    L. Ke, A. Kamat, J. Wang, T. Bhattacharjee, C. Mavrogiannis, and S. S. Srinivasa, “Telemanipulation with chopsticks: Analyzing human factors in user demonstrations,” in 2020 IEEE/RSJ International Conference on Intelligent Robots and Systems (IROS) . IEEE, 2020, pp. 11 539–11 546

    2020

  35. [43]

    Generalization through hand-eye coordination: An action space for learning spatially-invariant visuomotor control,

    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,” in 2021 IEEE/RSJ International Conference on Intelligent Robots and Systems (IROS) . IEEE, 2...

    2021

  36. [44]

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

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

    2022 arXiv

  37. [45]

    Gello: A general, low- cost, and intuitive teleoperation framework for robot manipulators,

    P. Wu, Y . Shentu, Z. Yi, X. Lin, and P. Abbeel, “Gello: A general, low- cost, and intuitive teleoperation framework for robot manipulators,” arXiv preprint arXiv:2309.13037 , 2023

    2023 arXiv

  38. [46]

    Efficient data collection for robotic manipulation via compositional generalization,

    J. Gao, A. Xie, T. Xiao, C. Finn, and D. Sadigh, “Efficient data collection for robotic manipulation via compositional generalization,” arXiv preprint arXiv:2403.05110 , 2024

    2024 arXiv

  39. [47]

    Learning visuotactile skills with two multifingered hands,

    T. Lin, Y . Zhang, Q. Li, H. Qi, B. Yi, S. Levine, and J. Ma- lik, “Learning visuotactile skills with two multifingered hands,” arXiv:2404.16823, 2024

    2024 arXiv

  40. [48]

    Mobile aloha: Learning bimanual mobile manipulation with low-cost whole-body teleoperation,

    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

    2024 arXiv

  41. [49]

    Open-television: teleoperation with immersive active visual feedback,

    X. Cheng, J. Li, S. Yang, G. Yang, and X. Wang, “Open-television: teleoperation with immersive active visual feedback,” arXiv preprint arXiv:2407.01512, 2024

    2024 arXiv

  42. [50]

    Consistency policy: Accelerated visuomotor policies via consistency distillation,

    A. Prasad, K. Lin, J. Wu, L. Zhou, and J. Bohg, “Consistency policy: Accelerated visuomotor policies via consistency distillation,” arXiv preprint arXiv:2405.07503, 2024

    2024 arXiv

  43. [51]

    Omnih2o: Universal and dexterous human- to-humanoid whole-body teleoperation and learning,

    T. He, Z. Luo, X. He, W. Xiao, C. Zhang, W. Zhang, K. Kitani, C. Liu, and G. Shi, “Omnih2o: Universal and dexterous human- to-humanoid whole-body teleoperation and learning,” arXiv preprint arXiv:2406.08858, 2024

    2024 arXiv

  44. [52]

    Puppeteer your robot: Augmented reality leader-follower teleoperation,

    J. van Haastregt, M. C. Welle, Y . Zhang, and D. Kragic, “Puppeteer your robot: Augmented reality leader-follower teleoperation,” arXiv preprint arXiv:2407.11741, 2024

    2024 arXiv

  45. [53]

    A comparison of remote robot teleoperation interfaces for general object manipulation,

    D. Kent, C. Saldanha, and S. Chernova, “A comparison of remote robot teleoperation interfaces for general object manipulation,” in Proceedings of the 2017 ACM/IEEE international conference on human-robot interaction, 2017, pp. 371–379

    2017

  46. [54]

    Strategies for human-in-the-loop robotic grasping,

    A. E. Leeper, K. Hsiao, M. Ciocarlie, L. Takayama, and D. Gossow, “Strategies for human-in-the-loop robotic grasping,” in Proceedings of the seventh annual ACM/IEEE international conference on Human- Robot Interaction, 2012, pp. 1–8

    2012

  47. [55]

    Comparing human-centric and robot- centric sampling for robot deep learning from demonstrations,

    M. Laskey, C. Chuck, J. Lee, J. Mahler, S. Krishnan, K. Jamieson, A. Dragan, and K. Goldberg, “Comparing human-centric and robot- centric sampling for robot deep learning from demonstrations,” in2017 IEEE International Conference on Robotics and Automation (ICRA) . IEEE, 2017,...

    2017

  48. [56]

    Online customization of teleopera- tion interfaces,

    A. D. Dragan and S. S. Srinivasa, “Online customization of teleopera- tion interfaces,” in 2012 IEEE RO-MAN: The 21st IEEE International Symposium on Robot and Human Interactive Communication . IEEE, 2012, pp. 919–924

    2012

  49. [57]

    Roboturk: A crowdsourcing platform for robotic skill learning through imitation,

    A. Mandlekar, Y . Zhu, A. Garg, J. Booher, M. Spero, A. Tung, J. Gao, J. Emmons, A. Gupta, E. Orbay, et al., “Roboturk: A crowdsourcing platform for robotic skill learning through imitation,” in Conference on Robot Learning . PMLR, 2018, pp. 879–893

    2018

  50. [58]

    Comparing robot grasping teleoperation across desktop and virtual reality with ros reality,

    D. Whitney, E. Rosen, E. Phillips, G. Konidaris, and S. Tellex, “Comparing robot grasping teleoperation across desktop and virtual reality with ros reality,” in Robotics Research: The 18th International Symposium ISRR. Springer, 2019, pp. 335–350

    2019

  51. [59]

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

    T. Zhang, Z. McCarthy, O. Jow, D. Lee, X. Chen, K. Goldberg, and P. Abbeel, “Deep imitation learning for complex manipulation tasks from virtual reality teleoperation,” in 2018 IEEE international conference on robotics and automation (ICRA). Ieee, 2018, pp. 5628– 5635

    2018

  52. [60]

    Baxter’s homunculus: Virtual reality spaces for teleoperation in manufacturing,

    J. I. Lipton, A. J. Fay, and D. Rus, “Baxter’s homunculus: Virtual reality spaces for teleoperation in manufacturing,” IEEE Robotics and Automation Letters, vol. 3, no. 1, pp. 179–186, 2017

    2017

  53. [61]

    Perceiver: General perception with iterative attention,

    A. Jaegle, F. Gimeno, A. Brock, O. Vinyals, A. Zisserman, and J. Carreira, “Perceiver: General perception with iterative attention,” in International conference on machine learning . PMLR, 2021, pp. 4651–4664

    2021

  54. [62]

    Genaug: Retargeting behaviors to unseen situations via generative augmentation,

    Z. Chen, S. Kiami, A. Gupta, and V . Kumar, “Genaug: Retargeting behaviors to unseen situations via generative augmentation,” arXiv preprint arXiv:2302.06671, 2023

    2023 arXiv

  55. [63]

    Cacti: A framework for scalable multi-task multi-scene visual imitation learning,

    Z. Mandi, H. Bharadhwaj, V . Moens, S. Song, A. Rajeswaran, and V . Kumar, “Cacti: A framework for scalable multi-task multi-scene visual imitation learning,” arXiv preprint arXiv:2212.05711 , 2022

    2022 arXiv

  56. [64]

    Scaling robot learning with semantically imagined experience,

    T. Yu, T. Xiao, A. Stone, J. Tompson, A. Brohan, S. Wang, J. Singh, C. Tan, J. Peralta, B. Ichter, et al. , “Scaling robot learning with semantically imagined experience,” arXiv preprint arXiv:2302.11550 , 2023

    2023 arXiv

  57. [65]

    Exaug: Robot- conditioned navigation policies via geometric experience augmen- tation,

    N. Hirose, D. Shah, A. Sridhar, and S. Levine, “Exaug: Robot- conditioned navigation policies via geometric experience augmen- tation,” in 2023 IEEE International Conference on Robotics and Automation (ICRA). IEEE, 2023, pp. 4077–4084

    2023

  58. [66]

    Human-to-robot imitation in the wild,

    S. Bahl, A. Gupta, and D. Pathak, “Human-to-robot imitation in the wild,” arXiv preprint arXiv:2207.09450 , 2022

    2022 arXiv

  59. [67]

    Mirage: Cross-embodiment zero-shot policy transfer with cross- painting,

    L. Y . Chen, K. Hari, K. Dharmarajan, C. Xu, Q. Vuong, and K. Gold- berg, “Mirage: Cross-embodiment zero-shot policy transfer with cross- painting,” arXiv preprint arXiv:2402.19249 , 2024

    2024 arXiv

  60. [68]

    Instructpix2pix: Learning to follow image editing instructions,

    T. Brooks, A. Holynski, and A. A. Efros, “Instructpix2pix: Learning to follow image editing instructions,” in Proceedings of the IEEE/CVF conference on computer vision and pattern recognition , 2023, pp. 18 392–18 402

    2023

  61. [69]

    High-resolution image synthesis with latent diffusion models,

    R. Rombach, A. Blattmann, D. Lorenz, P. Esser, and B. Ommer, “High-resolution image synthesis with latent diffusion models,” in Proceedings of the IEEE/CVF conference on computer vision and pattern recognition, 2022, pp. 10 684–10 695

    2022

  62. [70]

    Temporal cycle-consistency learning,

    D. Dwibedi, Y . Aytar, J. Tompson, P. Sermanet, and A. Zisserman, “Temporal cycle-consistency learning,” in The IEEE Conference on Computer Vision and Pattern Recognition (CVPR) , June 2019

    2019

  63. [71]

    Sam 2: Segment anything in images and videos,

    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

  64. [72]

    Inpaint anything: Segment anything meets image inpainting,

    T. Yu, R. Feng, R. Feng, J. Liu, X. Jin, W. Zeng, and Z. Chen, “Inpaint anything: Segment anything meets image inpainting,” arXiv preprint arXiv:2304.06790, 2023

    2023 arXiv

  65. [73]

    Orb-slam: A versatile and accurate monocular slam system,

    R. Mur-Artal, J. M. M. Montiel, and J. D. Tardos, “Orb-slam: A versatile and accurate monocular slam system,” IEEE transactions on robotics, vol. 31, no. 5, pp. 1147–1163, 2015

    2015

Pith tools

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