Pith. sign in

REVIEW 3 major objections 7 minor 46 references

Mind-VLA: Instruction-Aware Spatial Representation Alignment for Vision-Language-Action Models

T0 review · 3 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 Mind-VLA claims that conditioning 3D supervision on the language-specified target object, rather than the whole scene, lets a 345M-parameter VLA match 7B models on LIBERO and stay far more robust under target occlusion.

desk verdict A solid, well-motivated extension of 3D alignment for VLA models: instruction-conditioned target-object tri-view supervision, but the real-robot occlusion claim conflates object focus with the clean canonical-view prior and the statistics are thin. read the letter →

arxiv 2608.04633 v1 pith:KRAAIODE submitted 2026-08-05 cs.RO

Xingyu Ding , Yuzhong Zhao , Yang Wu , Chaoyang Zhao , Chunhai Zhao , Yifan Zhang , Jian Cheng This is my paper
classification cs.RO
keywords Vision-Language-Actionmodelsinstruction-awarespatialrepresentationalignmenttarget-objecttri-viewVAElatentpredictionVGGTfeaturerobotmanipulationocclusionrobustnessCALVINbenchmark
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

This paper argues that existing 3D-aware VLA models fail because their 3D supervision is instruction-agnostic: it aligns the model to whole-scene geometry regardless of which object the language instruction names. Mind-VLA instead identifies the target object from the instruction and, during training only, aligns the model's latent representation with that object's canonical tri-view, encoded by a frozen latent-image autoencoder and a frozen visual geometry transformer. The claim is that this instruction-aware alignment gives a compact 345M-parameter model large-model-level benchmark performance and much better robustness to target occlusion. The paper reports 93.9% on LIBERO, 4.47 on CALVIN, and 54% average real-robot success under roughly 25% target occlusion, 32 percentage points above the best instruction-agnostic comparison method.

What carries the argument

The central object is the target-object tri-view: an offline canonical top/front/side image set prepared per instructed object, rendered from the mesh in simulation or photographed once by hand on the real robot. A frozen VAE compresses the tri-view into a latent that the model's object queries must predict, and a frozen VGGT produces multi-level feature targets that four backbone layers are aligned to by cosine similarity. This machinery carries instruction-awareness because the instruction selects which object's tri-view supervises the model, and it carries occlusion robustness because the canonical views are fixed and independent of the current observation.

What would settle it

Train Mind-VLA on a fixed object set and evaluate it on a new object whose tri-view was never provided: if its success rate collapses to the scene-level alignment baseline, then the benefit is tied to memorized canonical views rather than to instruction-conditioned 3D understanding.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

Mind-VLA's central discovery is that the supervised 3D target for VLA training should be the geometry of the object named by the instruction, not the full scene. The method prepares an offline tri-view (top, front, side) of each target object, encodes it with a frozen Stable Diffusion VAE into a compact latent for prediction and with VGGT into multi-level feature targets, and aligns the VLA backbone's latent to these targets through two auxiliary losses. Because the supervision is tied to the instruction through object selection, the model is pushed to encode target-object 3D structure; because the views are canonical and occlusion-free, the model receives a prior about object shape that is missing from a single occluded observation. The training-only auxiliary branches are removed at inference, so deployment keeps the original RGB-language-state interface with negligible added cost.

Load-bearing premise

Every target object must have an offline canonical tri-view available before training, rendered from the mesh in simulation or photographed once by hand on the real robot, so the method cannot be deployed zero-shot to arbitrary unseen objects.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • A VLA with 345M parameters can match 7B-class models on LIBERO when 3D supervision focuses on the instructed object, indicating that model capacity is not the only route to spatial competence.
  • Instruction-aware target-object alignment specifically helps fine-grained object discrimination, with the largest benchmark gain on LIBERO-Object.
  • The canonical tri-view prior becomes decisive when the current view is incomplete: under roughly 25% real-robot occlusion, Mind-VLA drops only 13 percentage points while the scene-image VGGT ablation drops 29.
  • Because the VAE, VGGT, and auxiliary decoders are removed at inference, no depth sensor, 3D preprocessing, or extra geometric module is needed at deployment time.

Reading between the lines

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

  • The paper's bounded-vocabulary limitation could be eased by coupling the same tri-view alignment with an open-vocabulary object grounding module, but that combination is not tested here.
  • A test that varies occlusion fraction and compares tri-view latent prediction against scene-level alignment could separate whether the gain comes from memorized canonical shape or from genuinely instruction-conditioned 3D understanding.
  • The paper's weaker LIBERO-Long result suggests a hybrid design in which scene-level alignment is retained and target-object alignment is added only for the instructed entity, which would be a natural extension for chained long-horizon tasks.
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 / 7 minor

Summary. The paper proposes Mind-VLA, a training-time auxiliary-supervision method for vision-language-action (VLA) models. Instead of aligning VLA representations to scene-level 3D features, Mind-VLA first identifies the target object from the language instruction, prepares a target-object tri-view offline, and aligns the VLA's object-query latent and intermediate features to Stable Diffusion VAE latents and VGGT features extracted from that tri-view. The auxiliary branches are removed at inference. Experiments report strong results on LIBERO (93.9% average success) and CALVIN (4.47 average completed length) with a 345M backbone, and real-robot Pick/Place/Drawer experiments report improved robustness under roughly 25% target occlusion. The paper also includes ablations separating instruction-aware from scene-image VGGT alignment, and object-focus from canonical-view effects.

Significance. The core idea is a plausible and potentially meaningful advance: existing 3D-aware VLA methods use instruction-agnostic scene-level supervision, and conditioning geometric supervision on the instructed target object is a natural fix. The use of frozen external teachers (SD-VAE and VGGT) avoids circularity, and the compact-backbone benchmark results are strong if confirmed. The paper explicitly acknowledges the bounded-object-vocabulary limitation. However, the real-robot occlusion result currently conflates instruction-aware object focus with a clean canonical-view prior, and the real-robot data have no uncertainty quantification. These issues are fixable, but they currently block full confidence in the headline 32pp robustness claim.

major comments (3)
  1. [Sec. 4.4 / Table 3 / Figure 5] The central robustness claim is confounded: the headline real-robot comparison (Mind-VLA vs. Mind-VLA with scene-image VGGT) varies both the alignment target (target-object tri-view vs. full scene) and the source of the teacher features (clean offline canonical views vs. the currently observed, partially occluded image). The paper's own Sec. 4.3 shows that when object focus is controlled via an instruction-aware SAM crop on LIBERO-Object, the canonical-view prior contributes only +1.5pp; no such control is run on the real-robot occluded tasks. The statement in Sec. 4.4 that 'the robustness benefit comes from target-object views, not object focus alone' is therefore not supported by the reported experiments. Please add a real-robot condition that selects the target object from the current view (e.g., an instruction-aware SAM crop) but does not use the clean canonical tri-view, or explicitly temper the attribution of the real-robot gain to instruction awareness.
  2. [Sec. 4.4 / Table 3 and Sec. 4.2 / Table 2] No uncertainty quantification is provided anywhere in the experiments. The real-robot results are 30 trials per cell under a binary outcome; without binomial confidence intervals or a significance test, differences such as 70% vs. 73% (Drawer, normal) and even the headline 57% vs. 27% (banana, occluded) cannot be distinguished from sampling noise. The same issue applies to Table 2: with 20 rollouts per LIBERO task, the A3a vs. A3b average gap of 1.1pp is within the noise floor. Please report Wilson intervals, exact binomial tests, or additional trials, and adjust the abstract's numerical claims accordingly.
  3. [Sec. 6] The method's scope relies on a bounded object vocabulary and per-object offline tri-view preparation, and Sec. 6 explicitly states that this 'precludes zero-shot deployment to arbitrary unseen objects.' This is a real restriction on the contribution: the claimed instruction-aware benefit is demonstrated only for objects for which a canonical tri-view has been manually or procedurally supplied. The abstract and introduction should state this requirement prominently, and the evaluation should make clear that all target objects in the test tasks were ones for which such tri-views existed.
minor comments (7)
  1. [Eq. (4)] The mean-pooled alignment over spatial positions and views discards spatial structure; the paper should either justify this choice or include a spatial-alignment ablation.
  2. [Sec. 3.2] Specify the VGGT layer indices and projection-head architecture used for the four-layer alignment.
  3. [Sec. 4.1 / Eq. (5)] Report the values of lambda_tri and lambda_geo; no sensitivity analysis is provided for these free parameters.
  4. [Table 1(b)] Define the T5 metric; it is referenced but never explained in the text.
  5. [Figure 5] The bar-chart labels are small, and the '~25%' occlusion is not quantified per trial; specify how the occlusion fraction is estimated.
  6. [Sec. 4.4] The statement that baselines are 'fine-tuned on the same demonstrations for an equal number of iterations' should also report batch size, learning rate, and number of seeds per baseline.
  7. [Sec. 6] The cross-reference 'improves occlusion robustness (Sec. 4.3)' is incorrect because Sec. 4.3 is the LIBERO ablation and does not include occlusion; the occlusion evidence is in Sec. 4.4.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 0.0 of 10

No circularity found: the reported successes are externally measured rollouts, and the auxiliary losses supervise against frozen teacher features rather than against the evaluation metric.

full rationale

The paper's derivation chain is a training-time representation-alignment objective, not a self-fulfilling prediction. The reported numbers (93.9% on LIBERO, 4.47 on CALVIN, 54% on the real robot) come from independent simulator rollouts and physical robot trials; these success signals are never used as regression targets in the training loss. The auxiliary losses L_tri and L_geo compare VLA features with frozen external teacher outputs (Stable Diffusion VAE latent and VGGT features of a pre-captured target-object tri-view), so the supervision targets are fixed by the object geometry and teacher models, not by the method's own outputs or by the benchmark metric. There are no load-bearing self-citations and no imported uniqueness theorems that force the design: the method is a standard latent/feature-distillation variant whose claims are evaluated against external baselines. The real-robot occlusion comparison between Mind-VLA (target-object tri-view VGGT) and Mind-VLA (scene-image VGGT) does differ in two variables at once (alignment target and clean canonical reference view), and the paper's claim that the robustness benefit comes from target-object views 'not object focus alone' is accordingly under-supported on the real robot; however, that is an attribution/confound limitation, not circularity, because the numbers are empirical and are not equivalent by construction to the method's equations. The Limitations section is explicit that per-object tri-view setup is privileged supervision, which is a deployment-scope constraint rather than a circular step. No step in the paper reduces a claimed result to its own inputs by definition, fitting-to-target, or self-citation chain.

Assumptions & free parameters 2 free parameters · 4 assumptions · 0 invented entities

The method introduces no new physical entities or external objects; it relies on standard frozen models (VAE, VGGT) and standard diffusion training. The key axioms are all about the availability and informativeness of the pre-prepared target-object tri-view, which the authors themselves list as a limitation.

free parameters (2)
  • lambda_tri (weight on L_tri) = not reported
    Hyperparameter in Eq. 5 that balances the tri-view latent prediction loss; chosen by hand, exact value omitted, and the central claim depends on it being appropriately tuned.
  • lambda_geo (weight on L_geo) = not reported
    Hyperparameter in Eq. 5 that balances the VGGT alignment loss; chosen by hand and not specified in the paper.
assumptions (4)
  • domain assumption The target object m(l) can be identified from the language instruction l.
    Sec. 3.2 defines m(l) as the object referred to by the instruction, but the paper does not describe an automatic grounding mechanism; it uses task definitions to pair instructions with objects, which may not generalize to open-vocabulary instructions.
  • domain assumption A fixed offline target-object tri-view remains a valid supervision target across episodes despite viewpoint and lighting changes at inference.
    Sec. 3.2 and Sec. 6 acknowledge that tri-views are pre-rendered or photographed once; if the robot encounters the object from a very different angle or under different lighting, the fixed view may not provide the intended geometric prior.
  • domain assumption Mean-pooled VGGT features from the tri-view preserve enough geometric information to guide four intermediate VLA layers.
    Eq. 4 mean-pools over views and spatial positions before the cosine similarity loss, discarding spatial layout; the paper provides no analysis of what geometric signal survives this pooling, yet the central claim depends on that signal being useful.
  • domain assumption The frozen Stable Diffusion VAE latent is a tractable and informative regression target for object geometry.
    Sec. 3.2 uses a 48x smaller VAE latent as the prediction target, assuming it retains shape information relevant for manipulation; no reconstruction quality check or ablation of latent dimensionality is provided.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Mind-VLA: Instruction-Aware Spatial Representation Alignment for Vision-Language-Action Models." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/KRAAIODE

@misc{pith2026260804633,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Mind-VLA: Instruction-Aware Spatial Representation Alignment for Vision-Language-Action Models},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/KRAAIODE}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2608.04633}
}
read the original abstract

Recent Vision-Language-Action (VLA) methods improve generalization by aligning their representations with 3D scene geometry. However, these methods are fundamentally instruction-agnostic: the representations align the entire scene uniformly, neglecting the 3D geometry of the specific target object designated by the language instruction. This causes failures on fine-grained manipulation and target occlusion tasks, where success depends on accurate 3D understanding of the target object rather than the entire scene. To address this, we present Mind-VLA, an instruction-aware spatial representation alignment method for VLA models. Specifically, Mind-VLA first obtains the target object specified by the language instruction, then prepares its target-object tri-view and extracts the corresponding VAE and VGGT features. Finally, the latent representation of the VLA model is aligned with these features to enable instruction-aware 3D understanding. Mind-VLA reaches 93.9% on LIBERO and 4.47 on CALVIN with a compact 345M-parameter backbone. On real-robot tasks with target occlusion, Mind-VLA reaches 54% average success, outperforming the best-performing instruction-agnostic method in real-robot comparison by 32 percentage points. Code will be publicly available.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2608.04633 by the authors.

Figure 1
Figure 1. Comparison of 3D-aware VLA paradigms. Existing 3D-aware VLA methods are fun￾damentally instruction-agnostic. They either provide instruction-agnostic 3D features as additional model inputs (a) [6, 5, 7] or align VLA representations with instruction-agnostic 3D features dur￾ing training (b) [8, 9], neglecting the 3D geometry of the specific target object designated by the language instruction. (c) Mind-VLA (Ours) ali… view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. Overview of Mind-VLA. Instructions, states, and observations are tokenized and pro￾cessed by a transformer backbone together with three groups of learnable queries. Scene queries are decoded into per-patch RGB and dense 2D motion. Object queries are decoded into a target-object tri-view latent. The backbone is also aligned with VGGT [27] features extracted from the same tri￾view at four intermediate layers. Action q… view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. Mind-VLA vs. compact-backbone baselines on LIBERO. Per-suite success rate (%). Bold-italic labels mark Mind-VLA’s value; lighter italic labels mark the best non-Mind-VLA base￾line per suite. 4.2 Main Benchmark Results Panel (a) of [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p006_3.png] view at source ↗
Figures from the paper (2 more)
Figure 4
Figure 4. Figure 4: Real robot setup and tasks. (a) Dual-arm xArm 6 workspace (one arm used) with static and wrist-mounted cameras. (b) Example tasks under normal conditions: Pick, Place, and Drawer. (c) Occluded conditions for Pick and Drawer, where ∼25% of the target is blocked by a phy…
Figure 5
Figure 5. Figure 5: Real-robot robustness under 25% occlusion. Mind-VLA drops only 13 pp; the scene-image VGGT ablation drops 29 pp. object, banana or potato, from the tabletop), Place (pick up an object and place it at a designated target location), and Drawer (close an open drawer; cont…

Discussion (0). Sign in to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

46 extracted references · 8 canonical work pages

  1. [1]

    Zitkovich, T

    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 Conference on Robot Learning, pages 2165–2183. PMLR, 2023

    2023

  2. [2]

    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

    arXiv 2024

  3. [3]

    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

    arXiv 2024

  4. [4]

    Black, N

    K. Black, N. Brown, D. Driess, A. Esmail, M. Equi, C. Finn, N. Fusai, L. Groom, K. Hausman, B. Ichter, et al.π 0: A vision-language-action flow model for general robot control.arXiv preprint arXiv:2410.24164, 2024

    arXiv 2024

  5. [5]

    C. Li, J. Wen, Y . Peng, Y . Peng, and Y . Zhu. Pointvla: Injecting the 3d world into vision- language-action models.IEEE Robotics and Automation Letters, 11(3):2506–2513, 2026

    work page 2026

  6. [6]

    L. Sun, B. Xie, Y . Liu, H. Shi, T. Wang, and J. Cao. Geovla: Empowering 3d representations in vision-language-action models.arXiv preprint arXiv:2508.09071, 2025

    arXiv 2025

  7. [7]

    Singh, A

    I. Singh, A. Goyal, S. Birchfield, D. Fox, A. Garg, and V . Blukis. Og-vla: Orthographic im- age generation for 3d-aware vision-language action model.arXiv preprint arXiv:2506.01196, 2025

    arXiv 2025

  8. [8]

    F. Li, W. Song, H. Zhao, J. Wang, P. Ding, D. Wang, L. Zeng, and H. Li. Spatial forcing: Implicit spatial representation alignment for vision-language-action model.arXiv preprint arXiv:2510.12276, 2025

    arXiv 2025

Show all 46 references
  1. [9]

    M. Guo, M. Cao, J. Tao, R. Xu, Y . Yan, X. Liang, I. Laptev, and X. Chang. Glad: Geometric latent distillation for vision-language-action models.arXiv preprint arXiv:2512.09619, 2025

    2025

  2. [10]

    Y . Tian, S. Yang, J. Zeng, P. Wang, D. Lin, H. Dong, and J. Pang. Predictive inverse dynamics models are scalable learners for robotic manipulation. InInternational Conference on Learning Representations, volume 2025, pages 92033–92052, 2025

    2025

  3. [11]

    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, 44(10-11):1684–1704, 2025

    2025

  4. [12]

    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

  5. [13]

    E. Jang, A. Irpan, M. Khansari, D. Kappler, F. Ebert, C. Lynch, S. Levine, and C. Finn. Bc-z: Zero-shot task generalization with robotic imitation learning. Inconference on Robot Learning, pages 991–1002. PMLR, 2022

    2022

  6. [14]

    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

  7. [15]

    O’Neill, A

    A. O’Neill, A. Rehman, A. Maddukuri, A. Gupta, A. Padalkar, A. Lee, A. Pooley, A. Gupta, A. Mandlekar, A. Jain, et al. Open x-embodiment: Robotic learning datasets and rt-x models: Open x-embodiment collaboration 0. In2024 IEEE International Conference on Robotics and Automati...

    2024

  8. [16]

    D. Qu, H. Song, Q. Chen, Y . Yao, X. Ye, Y . Ding, Z. Wang, J. Gu, B. Zhao, D. Wang, et al. Spatialvla: Exploring spatial representations for visual-language-action model.arXiv preprint arXiv:2501.15830, 2025

    2025 arXiv

  9. [17]

    Zheng, Y

    R. Zheng, Y . Liang, S. Huang, J. Gao, H. Daum ´e III, A. Kolobov, F. Huang, and J. Yang. Tracevla: Visual trace prompting enhances spatial-temporal awareness for generalist robotic policies.arXiv preprint arXiv:2412.10345, 2024

    2024 arXiv

  10. [18]

    Q. Li, Y . Liang, Z. Wang, L. Luo, X. Chen, M. Liao, F. Wei, Y . Deng, S. Xu, Y . Zhang, et al. Cogact: A foundational vision-language-action model for synergizing cognition and action in robotic manipulation.arXiv preprint arXiv:2411.19650, 2024

    2024 arXiv

  11. [19]

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

    2025 arXiv

  12. [20]

    Shridhar, L

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

    2023

  13. [21]

    Gervet, Z

    T. Gervet, Z. Xian, N. Gkanatsios, and K. Fragkiadaki. Act3d: 3d feature field transformers for multi-task robotic manipulation.arXiv preprint arXiv:2306.17817, 2023

    2023 arXiv

  14. [22]

    Goyal, J

    A. Goyal, J. Xu, Y . Guo, V . Blukis, Y .-W. Chao, and D. Fox. Rvt: Robotic view transformer for 3d object manipulation. InConference on Robot Learning, pages 694–710. PMLR, 2023

    2023

  15. [23]

    Goyal, V

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

    2024 arXiv

  16. [24]

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

    2024 arXiv

  17. [25]

    X. Fan, S. Deng, X. Wu, Y . Lu, Z. Li, M. Yan, Y . Zhang, Z. Zhang, H. Wang, and H. Zhao. Any3d-vla: Enhancing vla robustness via diverse point clouds.arXiv preprint arXiv:2602.00807, 2026

    2026 arXiv

  18. [26]

    S. Deng, M. Yan, Y . Zheng, J. Su, W. Zhang, X. Zhao, H. Cui, Z. Zhang, and H. Wang. Stereovla: Enhancing vision-language-action models with stereo vision.arXiv preprint arXiv:2512.21970, 2025

    2025 arXiv

  19. [27]

    J. Wang, M. Chen, N. Karaev, A. Vedaldi, C. Rupprecht, and D. Novotny. Vggt: Visual ge- ometry grounded transformer. InProceedings of the Computer Vision and Pattern Recognition Conference, pages 5294–5306, 2025

    2025

  20. [28]

    Y . Li, Y . Chen, M. Zhou, H. Li, Z. Zhang, and D. Zhao. Qdepth-vla: quantized depth prediction as auxiliary supervision for vision-language-action models.arXiv preprint arXiv:2510.14836, 2025

    2025 arXiv

  21. [29]

    Zhang, H

    W. Zhang, H. Liu, Z. Qi, Y . Wang, X. Yu, J. Zhang, R. Dong, J. He, F. Lu, H. Wang, et al. Dreamvla: a vision-language-action model dreamed with comprehensive world knowledge. arXiv preprint arXiv:2507.04447, 2025

    2025 arXiv

  22. [30]

    Y . Liu, J. Zhu, Y . Mo, G. Li, X. Cao, J. Jin, Y . Shen, Z. Li, T. Yu, W. Yuan, et al. Palm: Progress- aware policy learning via affordance reasoning for long-horizon robotic manipulation.arXiv preprint arXiv:2601.07060, 2026

    2026 arXiv

  23. [31]

    H. Wu, D. Wu, T. He, J. Guo, Y . Ye, Y . Duan, and J. Bian. Geometry forcing: Mar- rying video diffusion and 3d representation for consistent world modeling.arXiv preprint arXiv:2507.07982, 2025. 10

    2025 arXiv

  24. [32]

    Peebles and S

    W. Peebles and S. Xie. Scalable diffusion models with transformers. InProceedings of the IEEE/CVF international conference on computer vision, pages 4195–4205, 2023

    2023

  25. [33]

    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

  26. [34]

    J. Song, C. Meng, and S. Ermon. Denoising diffusion implicit models.arXiv preprint arXiv:2010.02502, 2020

    2010 arXiv

  27. [35]

    H. Wu, Y . Jing, C. Cheang, G. Chen, J. Xu, X. Li, M. Liu, H. Li, and T. Kong. Unleash- ing large-scale video generative pre-training for visual robot manipulation.arXiv preprint arXiv:2312.13139, 2023

    2023 arXiv

  28. [36]

    Rombach, A

    R. Rombach, A. Blattmann, D. Lorenz, P. Esser, and B. Ommer. High-resolution image syn- thesis with latent diffusion models. InProceedings of the IEEE/CVF conference on computer vision and pattern recognition, pages 10684–10695, 2022

    2022

  29. [37]

    B. Liu, Y . Zhu, C. Gao, Y . Feng, Q. Liu, Y . Zhu, and P. Stone. Libero: Benchmarking knowl- edge transfer for lifelong robot learning.Advances in Neural Information Processing Systems, 36:44776–44791, 2023

    2023

  30. [38]

    O. Mees, L. Hermann, E. Rosete-Beas, and W. Burgard. Calvin: A benchmark for language- conditioned policy learning for long-horizon robot manipulation tasks.IEEE Robotics and Automation Letters, 7(3):7327–7334, 2022

    2022

  31. [39]

    O. Mees, L. Hermann, and W. Burgard. What matters in language conditioned robotic imitation learning over unstructured data.IEEE Robotics and Automation Letters, 7(4):11205–11212, 2022

    2022

  32. [40]

    Shukor, D

    M. Shukor, D. Aubakirova, F. Capuano, P. Kooijmans, S. Palma, A. Zouitine, M. Aractingi, C. Pascal, M. Russi, A. Marafioti, et al. Smolvla: A vision-language-action model for afford- able and efficient robotics.arXiv preprint arXiv:2506.01844, 2025

    2025 arXiv

  33. [41]

    Q. Zhao, Y . Lu, M. J. Kim, Z. Fu, Z. Zhang, Y . Wu, Z. Li, Q. Ma, S. Han, C. Finn, et al. Cot- vla: Visual chain-of-thought reasoning for vision-language-action models. InProceedings of the Computer Vision and Pattern Recognition Conference, pages 1702–1713, 2025

    2025

  34. [42]

    Y . Hu, Y . Guo, P. Wang, X. Chen, Y .-J. Wang, J. Zhang, K. Sreenath, C. Lu, and J. Chen. Video prediction policy: A generalist robot policy with predictive visual representations.arXiv preprint arXiv:2412.14803, 2024

    2024 arXiv

  35. [43]

    Q. Bu, J. Zeng, L. Chen, Y . Yang, G. Zhou, J. Yan, P. Luo, H. Cui, Y . Ma, and H. Li. Closed- loop visuomotor control with generative expectation for robotic manipulation.Advances in Neural Information Processing Systems, 37:139002–139029, 2024

    2024

  36. [44]

    Q. Bu, H. Li, L. Chen, J. Cai, J. Zeng, H. Cui, M. Yao, and Y . Qiao. Towards synergistic, gen- eralized, and efficient dual-system for robotic manipulation.arXiv preprint arXiv:2410.08001, 2024

    2024 arXiv

  37. [45]

    Kirillov, E

    A. Kirillov, E. Mintun, N. Ravi, H. Mao, C. Rolland, L. Gustafson, T. Xiao, S. Whitehead, A. C. Berg, W.-Y . Lo, et al. Segment anything. InProceedings of the IEEE/CVF international conference on computer vision, pages 4015–4026, 2023

    2023

  38. [46]

    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.arXiv preprint arXiv:2403.12945, 2024. 11

    2024 arXiv

Pith tools

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