Pith. sign in

REVIEW 4 major objections 6 minor 8 cited by

3DFlowAction: Learning Cross-Embodiment Manipulation from 3D Flow World Model

T0 review · 4 major / 6 minor · reviewed 2026-08-07 · deepseek-v4-flash

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

Pith's one-line read 3DFlowAction proposes 3D optical flow as a universal, embodiment-agnostic action representation: a flow world model predicts how objects should move from human and robot videos, and an optimization policy turns that predicted flow into…

desk verdict A promising flow-based manipulation system with a genuinely useful dataset, but the uncalibrated monocular depth behind the '3D' flow is a real hole that undermines the physical-interpretation claims. read the letter →

arxiv 2506.06199 v1 pith:MXV6OSVO submitted 2025-06-06 cs.RO cs.CV

Hongyan Zhi , Peihao Chen , Siyuan Zhou , Yubo Dong , Quanxi Wu , Lei Han , Mingkui Tan This is my paper · ORCID
classification cs.ROcs.CV
keywords 3Dopticalflowrobotmanipulationworldmodelvideodiffusioncross-embodimentlearningflow-guidedactionplanningManiFlow-110kzero-shotgeneralization
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

3DFlowAction is built on the idea that the right thing to learn from manipulation videos is not an action in joint space but the 3D motion of the object being manipulated. The paper constructs a large corpus of 3D optical-flow demonstrations, trains a video-diffusion world model to generate future object flow from language and scene context, and then treats that flow as the constraint in an optimization solver that outputs a chunk of end-effector poses. Because the representation is object-centric rather than robot-centric, the same model transfers to a second robotic arm with no additional hardware-specific training, and it outperforms video-world-model and imitation baselines on four foundational manipulation tasks (70% average success). If the approach works as claimed, manipulation skills can be harvested from ordinary human videos and reused across robot platforms, bypassing expensive teleoperation data.

What carries the argument

The load-bearing object is the 3D optical flow trajectory $F \in \mathbb{R}^{T \times H \times W \times 4}$: image coordinates, depth, and visibility per pixel per timestep. Around it, the machinery consists of four coupled pieces: a moving-object detection pipeline (open-vocabulary segmentation plus point tracking) that builds the 110k-example pretraining set; a video-diffusion flow generator with a temporal motion module and low-rank adaptation layers that preserves the image prior while learning object dynamics; an SVD-based rigid-transform rendering step that turns predicted flow into a checkable final state and a filtered grasp pose; and a constrained optimization solver that converts the flow constraints into a chunk of SE(3) end-effector poses. The job this assembly does is to keep every representation object-centric and embodiment-agnostic, so no downstream component ever sees joint angles or per-robot action statistics.

What would settle it

During rollouts of one of the four tasks, record the manipulated object's measured 3D trajectory with an external motion-capture or stereo sensor and compare it with the predicted flow points at each timestep; if the median error exceeds the task tolerance (about 5 cm for the cup opening, 3 cm for the drawer) while the rendered final state still passes the visual-language check, then the 3D flow is not metric and the reported success rates would not be explained by accurate 3D prediction.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

On its own terms, the paper's discovery is that dense 3D optical flow can be both a training target and an action interface for manipulation. The method represents the future movement of the manipulated object as a flow field $F \in \mathbb{R}^{T \times H \times W \times 4}$ whose channels are image coordinates, depth, and visibility, and it trains a diffusion-based flow world model on 110k such flows assembled from existing human and robot videos. At inference the model produces the object's predicted 3D trajectory from the current frame and instruction; a rigid transform fitted via SVD between the first and last flow frames renders the predicted final object state back into the scene, and a vision-language model checks whether that state matches the instruction, giving closed-loop re-prediction. The same fitted transform helps select a task-relevant grasp pose that is reachable under inverse kinematics. Finally, an optimization policy minimizes the Euclidean distance between sampled object keypoints and their predicted flow positions at each timestep to output end-effector poses, so the entire planning chain is expressed in object motion rather than robot-specific coordinates.

Load-bearing premise

The pipeline assumes that monocular depth estimates are metric and consistent within each video, so when 2D tracks are unprojected to 3D, the flow, the rigid transform, and the optimization all live in the same true scale; if the depth is not metric, planned end-effector poses would be systematically off.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • New manipulation tasks can be learned from a handful of human hand demonstrations (10–30 per task, about ten minutes of video) with no robot teleoperation, because the flow representation carries the skill.
  • The same pretrained flow world model can be deployed on a different robot arm with no hardware-specific fine-tuning; in the paper's tests, the two arms succeed at comparable rates (67.5% and 70% across the four tasks).
  • Switching from 2D to true 3D flow is what enables rotations and out-of-plane motion: the 3D flow policy outperforms the 2D flow baseline on every task, with the largest gaps on pen insertion and cup hanging.
  • Closed-loop verification through the rendered final state and large-scale flow pretraining are both load-bearing: removing closed-loop planning costs about 20 percentage points and removing large-scale pretraining costs about 40 percentage points in average success.

Reading between the lines

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

  • Going beyond the paper, the flow interface is separable from the diffusion generator: any module that outputs dense point trajectories could feed the same optimizer, so future planners or trackers could replace the world model without redesigning control.
  • The same flow-conditioned optimizer is in principle embodiment-agnostic beyond fixed arms, and could drive grippers with different topologies, mobile manipulators, or humanoid hands as long as an inverse-kinematics or motion planner accepts the point constraints.
  • The paper leaves implicit that monocular depth unprojection is a promising first lever to stress-test: swapping in calibrated stereo depth and measuring task success would show whether the reported cross-embodiment numbers rely on scene-specific depth statistics.
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 3DFlowAction, a method that learns a 3D optical-flow world model from a large synthesized dataset (ManiFlow-110k) and uses predicted 3D flow as an embodiment-agnostic action representation. At inference, a video diffusion model generates 3D flow trajectories conditioned on language and the initial scene; a GPT-4o-based rendering loop verifies the predicted final state; a task-aware grasp pose is selected via AnyGrasp and inverse kinematics; and an optimization procedure converts the flow into a chunk of end-effector actions. Experiments on four manipulation tasks report a 70% average success rate (Table 1), cross-embodiment deployment on Franka and XTrainer without robot-specific fine-tuning (Table 2), and improvements over world-model and imitation-learning baselines (Tables 1, 3), plus object/background generalization (Table 4).

Significance. If the central claims hold, the work is a meaningful step toward a unified, embodiment-agnostic action representation for manipulation. The large-scale 3D flow dataset, the closed-loop GPT-4o verification, and the cross-embodiment experiments without hardware-specific training are concrete contributions that go beyond prior 2D-flow methods. However, the soundness of the entire pipeline hinges on whether the extracted 3D flow is in a physically meaningful, metric coordinate frame; the paper provides no evidence for this. The evaluation also rests on small trial counts with no uncertainty quantification, so several quantitative claims are not yet supported. The manuscript is readable and the system is clearly described, but the load-bearing depth-calibration issue and evaluation weaknesses require substantial revision.

major comments (4)
  1. [Sec. 3.1, Eq. (1), Sec. 4.2, Sec. 4.3, Appendix B] The 3D flow is built by applying DepthAnythingV2 to each video frame (Sec. 3.1). DepthAnythingV2 outputs per-frame affine-invariant inverse depth with unknown scale and shift. The paper never calibrates this depth to metric units, never aligns scale/shift across frames, and never validates that the resulting 3D coordinates are consistent with the robot workspace. All downstream steps — the SVD rigid transform in Eq. (1), the grasp-pose transfer in Sec. 4.2, and the Euclidean-distance objective in Sec. 4.3/Appendix B — treat the unprojected points as metric 3D positions. If the depth scale/shift varies per frame, the computed '3D flow' contains spurious motion and the optimized end-effector chunk is not expressed in meters. This is load-bearing because the paper's central claim is that 3D flow provides a physically accurate, embodiment-agnostic action representation. The authors must specify how metric scale is recovered (e.g., by calibrating to known camera intrinsics and workspace dimensions, or by using RGB-D input) and provide evidence of scale consistency across frames, or clearly show that the algorithm is invariant to the unknown scale/shift.
  2. [Sec. 5.1, Tables 1-4] All success rates are based on 10 trials per task with no variance, confidence intervals, or statistical tests. Many reported differences are within binomial noise; for example, in Table 3, 'Pour tea from teapot to the cup' is 6/10 vs 5/10, and 'Hang the cup to the mug rack' is 5/10 vs 4/10. The paper's strong claim that 3DFlowAction 'consistently performs well' over baselines is not adequately supported by these point estimates. The authors should report multiple seeds or trials, confidence intervals, and/or pairwise significance tests, especially for the head-to-head comparisons in Tables 1, 3, and 4.
  3. [Sec. 5.4, Table 3] The PI0 baseline is fine-tuned on only 30 demonstrations per task (Sec. 5.1). PI0 is a large vision-language-action model that typically requires substantially more robot data for fine-tuning; comparing a 30-demo fine-tune of PI0 against the proposed method may be an unfair baseline. The authors should either fine-tune PI0 with a larger number of demonstrations (e.g., 100 or 200) or include a scaling curve showing how PI0's performance changes with demonstration count. Without this, the imitation-learning comparison in Table 3 does not establish that 3DFlowAction outperforms a well-tuned VLA baseline.
  4. [Sec. 3.2, Sec. 5.2, Appendix F] The paper never evaluates the flow world model's prediction quality directly (e.g., endpoint error or other flow metrics on held-out ManiFlow instances). The only evidence is downstream task success, which conflates flow quality with the robustness of the optimization and the closed-loop GPT-4o correction. Since a core contribution is the world model itself, the authors should report quantitative flow prediction accuracy on a held-out split, ideally including per-task accuracy of the generated 3D flow against the oracle flow used in training.
minor comments (6)
  1. [Sec. 2] In the Related Works paragraph on optical flow, the phrase 'human-collected collected' appears to be a typo; it should likely be 'human-collected videos' or similar.
  2. [Sec. 3.1] The phrase 'remove the camera motion follow [44] if needed' is vague; please specify the exact procedure used for camera-motion compensation and when it is applied.
  3. [Sec. 3.2] The term 'corrosion process' likely means 'erosion' in the image-processing sense; please correct the terminology.
  4. [Sec. 4.1] The notation 'T = SVD(P2, P1)' is mathematically under-specified; a rigid transform estimated by SVD typically requires centering the point sets and potentially handling scaling. Please provide the exact minimization and any preprocessing steps.
  5. [Appendix B] The objective f^{(t)} is defined for N keypoints but the function signature is written as f: R^{K×3} -> R; please make the notation consistent (K vs N) and clarify that the optimization is performed per time step.
  6. [Tables 2 and 5] Table 2 reports cross-embodiment results on Franka and XTrainer, and Table 5 reports ablations, but neither table includes any statistical significance testing; see the related major comment. In addition, Table 5 lists 'Success Rate' as a percentage, which is helpful, but the per-task counts in Variant 2 sum to 12/40, which matches 30% only if the reader calculates it; please add a footnote clarifying the denominator.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 0.0 of 10

No significant circularity: 3D flow prediction is an intermediate representation evaluated by external task success, not by its own outputs.

full rationale

3DFlowAction's derivation chain is: (i) extract 3D flow from videos via Co-tracker3 and DepthAnythingV2; (ii) train a video diffusion model to predict 3D flow conditioned on instruction and initial frame; (iii) use the predicted flow as constraints in an optimization that solves for end-effector poses; (iv) evaluate by physical task success (pouring, inserting, hanging, opening). At no point is the evaluation metric defined in terms of the model's own outputs: success is measured by task completion, not by agreement with predicted flow. The optimization objective in Appendix B, f(t)(k_initial) = min sum_i ||k^i_initial - k^i_pred(t)||^2, is a design choice that uses the prediction as an intermediate constraint; the prediction itself is not fitted to success labels, and no fitted parameter is renamed as a prediction. The 30 human demonstrations per task used for fine-tuning are training data for the flow generator, not the action policy, and the cross-embodiment experiments use a fixed flow model with only IK changed; this is a generalization claim, not a circular one. The self-citations (e.g., RoboDreamer and Tesseract, which share co-author Siyuan Zhou) appear only in the related-work survey and are not load-bearing. The uncalibrated DepthAnythingV2 depth is a validity and correctness concern, since the SVD transform and cost function assume metric consistency, but it does not make the derivation circular. No step in the paper's own equations reduces a predicted quantity to its fitted input.

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

The system is a pipeline of pretrained components; the load-bearing assumptions are mainly about the reliability of the perceptual components (depth, tracking, detection) and the VLM judge, none of which are independently validated in the paper.

free parameters (2)
  • Diffusion model weights = not specified (large neural network)
    The flow world model's predictions, which drive the entire action plan, are learned parameters fitted to ManiFlow-110k; no independent validation of flow accuracy is provided.
  • Number of keypoints N for optimization = not reported
    The number of object keypoints used in the optimization objective (Appendix B) is a hyperparameter that affects action quality and is not swept or justified.
assumptions (5)
  • domain assumption Monocular depth from DepthAnythingV2 provides metric or scale-consistent 3D coordinates
    Section 3.1 projects 2D flow to 3D using this depth, with no calibration to the robot workspace.
  • domain assumption Co-tracker3 reliably tracks the same physical points of the manipulated object across the entire video
    Used both for dataset generation and for initial keypoint tracking; tracking drift would corrupt flow labels.
  • domain assumption The moving object detection pipeline identifies the manipulated object correctly in all source datasets
    The pipeline is validated only on BridgeV2 (>80%), and applied without re-validation to RT-1, DROID, AgiWorld, LIBERO, RH20T, HOI4D.
  • domain assumption The object can be treated as rigidly attached to the gripper during the place phase
    Appendix B assumes object and gripper share the same trajectory, so object keypoints can be used to optimize gripper poses; slipping or non-rigid grasping invalidates this.
  • domain assumption GPT-4o's verification of the rendered target state is accurate and unbiased
    The closed-loop planning relies on GPT-4o to accept or reject the predicted flow, but its false-positive and false-negative rates are not evaluated.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of 3DFlowAction: Learning Cross-Embodiment Manipulation from 3D Flow World Model." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/MXV6OSVO

@misc{pith2026250606199,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: 3DFlowAction: Learning Cross-Embodiment Manipulation from 3D Flow World Model},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/MXV6OSVO}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2506.06199}
}
read the original abstract

Manipulation has long been a challenging task for robots, while humans can effortlessly perform complex interactions with objects, such as hanging a cup on the mug rack. A key reason is the lack of a large and uniform dataset for teaching robots manipulation skills. Current robot datasets often record robot action in different action spaces within a simple scene. This hinders the robot to learn a unified and robust action representation for different robots within diverse scenes. Observing how humans understand a manipulation task, we find that understanding how the objects should move in the 3D space is a critical clue for guiding actions. This clue is embodiment-agnostic and suitable for both humans and different robots. Motivated by this, we aim to learn a 3D flow world model from both human and robot manipulation data. This model predicts the future movement of the interacting objects in 3D space, guiding action planning for manipulation. Specifically, we synthesize a large-scale 3D optical flow dataset, named ManiFlow-110k, through a moving object auto-detect pipeline. A video diffusion-based world model then learns manipulation physics from these data, generating 3D optical flow trajectories conditioned on language instructions. With the generated 3D object optical flow, we propose a flow-guided rendering mechanism, which renders the predicted final state and leverages GPT-4o to assess whether the predicted flow aligns with the task description. This equips the robot with a closed-loop planning ability. Finally, we consider the predicted 3D optical flow as constraints for an optimization policy to determine a chunk of robot actions for manipulation. Extensive experiments demonstrate strong generalization across diverse robotic manipulation tasks and reliable cross-embodiment adaptation without hardware-specific training.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2506.06199 by the authors.

Figure 1
Figure 1. 3DFlowAction seeks to build a flow world model to generate 3D optical flow that serves [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p002_1.png] view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. Overview of 3D Flow Generation pipeline. (I) We synthesized the 3D flow dataset ManiFlow-110k using a moving object detection pipeline. (II) We pre-trained a video diffusion model as the flow world model on ManiFlow-110k to learn the physical motion patterns of objects in manipulation tasks. (III) ManiFlow-110k comes from a wide range of robot and human videos. 3.1 Extracting 3D Flow from Raw Video The 3D flow world… view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. Overview of flow-guided action generation pipeline . (I) 3DFlowAction first performs closed-loop 3D flow generation through a self-correcting process. (II) A task-aware grasp pose generation process selects a task-relevant grasp pose while avoiding unreachable target positions. (III) An optimization procedure conditioning on 3D flow solves a chunk of actions. the 3D flow into latent space, as we discovered that the … view at source ↗
Figures from the paper (6 more)
Figure 4
Figure 4. Figure 4: Demonstration of placement of four foundational tasks. [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p006_4.png]
Figure 5
Figure 5. Figure 5: Visualization of planning and execution from different world models for pouring tea from the teapot to the cup. All baseline methods for planning are correct; however, their code-base or 2D planning struggles to fully capture the motion of objects in 3D space, resultin…
Figure 6
Figure 6. Figure 6: Visualization of 3DFlowAction on four tasks. [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p009_6.png]
Figure 7
Figure 7. Figure 7: Object generalization experiment visualization. [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p015_7.png]
Figure 8
Figure 8. Figure 8: Background generalization experiment visualization. [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p015_8.png]
Figure 9
Figure 9. Figure 9: Visualization of in-domain flow generation and target state rendering in ManiFlow-110k. [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p016_9.png]

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Forward citations

Cited by 8 Pith papers

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

  1. Hand-Object Interaction in the Age of Large Foundation Models:Reconstruction, Generation, and Embodied Transfer

    cs.CV 2026-07 conditional novelty 7.0 of 10

    Foundation-model HOI work is organized into eight geometric, semantic, and visual sub-priors that enter six reconstruction/generation tasks and three robot-transfer routes.

  2. Track4Action: Distilling World-Centric 3D Tracker into Vision-Language-Action Policies

    cs.RO 2026-08 conditional novelty 6.0 of 10

    Track4Action distills a frozen 3D tracker's pooled feature over demonstration clips into track queries that condition a VLA action head, reporting gains on LIBERO, LIBERO-Plus, RoboTwin 2.0, and physical bimanual task...

  3. SG-WAM: Self-Guided World Modeling in Geometry-Aware Policy Space

    cs.RO 2026-08 conditional novelty 6.0 of 10

    A 0.9B policy that couples action generation with latent future-state prediction in its own representation space, plus geometric supervision, reaches 98.5% LIBERO and 73% LIBERO-Plus.

  4. ContactFlow: A video action conditioning that transfers across embodiments

    cs.RO 2026-07 conditional novelty 6.0 of 10

    A contact-point-based action representation lets a video world model transfer manipulation knowledge across human and robot embodiments.

  5. LaMP: Learning Vision-Language-Action Policy with 3D Scene Flow as Latent Motion Prior

    cs.CV 2026-03 conditional novelty 6.0 of 10

    Dense 3D scene flow as a one-step latent motion prior, fused by gated cross-attention, yields higher VLA success rates and OOD robustness than baselines under matched training budgets.

  6. 3PoinTr: 3D Point Tracks for Learning Manipulation from Unconstrained Human Videos

    cs.RO 2026-03 conditional novelty 6.0 of 10

    Dense 3D point-track prediction from unconstrained human videos plus a track-conditioned closed-loop policy yields large sample-efficiency gains over BC and video-pretraining baselines.

  7. A Comprehensive Survey on World Models for Embodied AI

    cs.CV 2025-10 conditional novelty 6.0 of 10

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

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

    cs.RO 2026-07 unverdicted novelty 4.0 of 10

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

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

50 extracted references · 13 canonical work pages · cited by 8 Pith papers

  1. [1]

    H. Abdi. Singular value decomposition (svd) and generalized singular value decomposition.Encyclopedia of measurement and statistics, 907(912):44, 2007

    work page 2007

  2. [2]

    A. Bar, G. Zhou, D. Tran, T. Darrell, and Y . LeCun. Navigation world models.arXiv preprint arXiv:2412.03572, 2024

    arXiv 2024

  3. [3]

    Beyer, A

    L. Beyer, A. Steiner, A. S. Pinto, A. Kolesnikov, X. Wang, D. Salz, M. Neumann, I. Alabdulmohsin, M. Tschannen, E. Bugliarello, et al. Paligemma: A versatile 3b vlm for transfer.arXiv preprint arXiv:2407.07726, 2024

    arXiv 2024

  4. [4]

    Bharadhwaj, D

    H. Bharadhwaj, D. Dwibedi, A. Gupta, S. Tulsiani, C. Doersch, T. Xiao, D. Shah, F. Xia, D. Sadigh, and S. Kirmani. Gen2act: Human video generation in novel scenarios enables generalizable robot manipulation. arXiv preprint arXiv:2409.16283, 2024

    arXiv 2024

  5. [5]

    Bharadhwaj, R

    H. Bharadhwaj, R. Mottaghi, A. Gupta, and S. Tulsiani. Track2act: Predicting point tracks from internet videos enables generalizable robot manipulation. InEuropean Conference on Computer Vision, pages 306–324. Springer, 2024

    2024

  6. [6]

    Black, N

    K. Black, N. Brown, D. Driess, A. Esmail, M. Equi, C. Finn, N. Fusai, L. Groom, K. Hausman, B. Ichter, et al. A vision-languageaction flow model for general robot control.arXiv preprint arXiv:2410.24164, 2(3):5, 2024

    arXiv 2024

  7. [7]

    Q. Bu, J. Cai, L. Chen, X. Cui, Y . Ding, S. Feng, S. Gao, X. He, X. Huang, S. Jiang, et al. Agibot world colosseo: A large-scale manipulation platform for scalable and intelligent embodied systems.arXiv preprint arXiv:2503.06669, 2025

    arXiv 2025

  8. [8]

    Cheng, L

    T. Cheng, L. Song, Y . Ge, W. Liu, X. Wang, and Y . Shan. Yolo-world: Real-time open-vocabulary object detection. InProceedings of the IEEE/CVF Conference on Computer Vision and Pattern Recognition, pages 16901–16911, 2024

    work page 2024

Show all 50 references
  1. [9]

    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

  2. [10]

    X. Chi, H. Zhang, C.-K. Fan, X. Qi, R. Zhang, A. Chen, C.-m. Chan, W. Xue, W. Luo, S. Zhang, et al. Eva: An embodied world model for future video anticipation.arXiv preprint arXiv:2410.15461, 2024

    2024 arXiv

  3. [11]

    Y . Du, S. Yang, B. Dai, H. Dai, O. Nachum, J. Tenenbaum, D. Schuurmans, and P. Abbeel. Learning universal policies via text-guided video generation.Advances in neural information processing systems, 36:9156–9172, 2023

    2023

  4. [12]

    H.-S. Fang, H. Fang, Z. Tang, J. Liu, C. Wang, J. Wang, H. Zhu, and C. Lu. Rh20t: A comprehensive robotic dataset for learning diverse skills in one-shot.arXiv preprint arXiv:2307.00595, 2023

    2023 arXiv

  5. [13]

    H.-S. Fang, C. Wang, H. Fang, M. Gou, J. Liu, H. Yan, W. Liu, Y . Xie, and C. Lu. Anygrasp: Robust and efficient grasp perception in spatial and temporal domains.IEEE Transactions on Robotics, 39(5):3929– 3945, 2023

    2023

  6. [14]

    Florence, C

    P. Florence, C. Lynch, A. Zeng, O. A. Ramirez, A. Wahid, L. Downs, A. Wong, J. Lee, I. Mordatch, and J. Tompson. Implicit behavioral cloning. InConference on robot learning, pages 158–168. PMLR, 2022

    2022

  7. [15]

    C. Gao, H. Zhang, Z. Xu, C. Zhehao, and L. Shao. Flip: Flow-centric generative planning as general- purpose manipulation world model. InThe Thirteenth International Conference on Learning Representa- tions

  8. [16]

    Y . Guo, C. Yang, A. Rao, Z. Liang, Y . Wang, Y . Qiao, M. Agrawala, D. Lin, and B. Dai. Animated- iff: Animate your personalized text-to-image diffusion models without specific tuning.arXiv preprint arXiv:2307.04725, 2023

    2023 arXiv

  9. [17]

    Haddadin, S

    S. Haddadin, S. Parusel, L. Johannsmeier, S. Golz, S. Gabl, F. Walch, M. Sabaghian, C. Jähne, L. Haus- perger, and S. Haddadin. The franka emika robot: A reference platform for robotics research and education. IEEE Robotics & Automation Magazine, 29(2):46–64, 2022

    2022

  10. [18]

    Haldar, J

    S. Haldar, J. Pari, A. Rai, and L. Pinto. Teach a robot to fish: Versatile imitation from one minute of demonstrations.arXiv preprint arXiv:2303.01497, 2023

    2023 arXiv

  11. [19]

    C. R. Harris, K. J. Millman, S. J. Van Der Walt, R. Gommers, P. Virtanen, D. Cournapeau, E. Wieser, J. Taylor, S. Berg, N. J. Smith, et al. Array programming with numpy.Nature, 585(7825):357–362, 2020. 11

    2020

  12. [20]

    E. J. Hu, Y . Shen, P. Wallis, Z. Allen-Zhu, Y . Li, S. Wang, L. Wang, W. Chen, et al. Lora: Low-rank adaptation of large language models.ICLR, 1(2):3, 2022

    2022

  13. [21]

    Huang, F

    H. Huang, F. Lin, Y . Hu, S. Wang, and Y . Gao. Copa: General robotic manipulation through spatial constraints of parts with foundation models. In2024 IEEE/RSJ International Conference on Intelligent Robots and Systems (IROS), pages 9488–9495. IEEE, 2024

    2024

  14. [22]

    Huang, C

    W. Huang, C. Wang, Y . Li, R. Zhang, and L. Fei-Fei. Rekep: Spatio-temporal reasoning of relational keypoint constraints for robotic manipulation.arXiv preprint arXiv:2409.01652, 2024

    2024 arXiv

  15. [23]

    Hurst, A

    A. Hurst, A. Lerer, A. P. Goucher, A. Perelman, A. Ramesh, A. Clark, A. Ostrow, A. Welihinda, A. Hayes, A. Radford, et al. Gpt-4o system card.arXiv preprint arXiv:2410.21276, 2024

    2024 arXiv

  16. [24]

    Karaev, I

    N. Karaev, I. Makarov, J. Wang, N. Neverova, A. Vedaldi, and C. Rupprecht. Cotracker3: Simpler and better point tracking by pseudo-labelling real videos.arXiv preprint arXiv:2410.11831, 2024

    2024 arXiv

  17. [25]

    Karamcheti, S

    S. Karamcheti, S. Nair, A. Balakrishna, P. Liang, T. Kollar, and D. Sadigh. Prismatic vlms: Investigating the design space of visually-conditioned language models. InForty-first International Conference on Machine Learning, 2024

    2024

  18. [26]

    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

    2024 arXiv

  19. [27]

    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

  20. [28]

    P.-C. Ko, J. Mao, Y . Du, S.-H. Sun, and J. B. Tenenbaum. Learning to act from actionless videos through dense correspondences.arXiv preprint arXiv:2310.08576, 2023

    2023 arXiv

  21. [29]

    D. Kraft. A software package for sequential quadratic programming.Forschungsbericht- Deutsche Forschungs- und Versuchsanstalt fur Luft- und Raumfahrt, 1988

    1988

  22. [30]

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

    2023

  23. [31]

    M. Pan, J. Zhang, T. Wu, Y . Zhao, W. Gao, and H. Dong. Omnimanip: Towards general robotic manipulation via object-centric interaction primitives as spatial constraints.arXiv preprint arXiv:2501.03841, 2025

    2025 arXiv

  24. [32]

    J. Pari, N. M. Shafiullah, S. P. Arunachalam, and L. Pinto. The surprising effectiveness of representation learning for visual imitation.arXiv preprint arXiv:2112.01511, 2021

    2021 arXiv

  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 supervision. InInternational conference on machine learning, pages 8748–8763. PmLR, 2021

    2021

  26. [34]

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

    2024 arXiv

  27. [35]

    T. Ren, Q. Jiang, S. Liu, Z. Zeng, W. Liu, H. Gao, H. Huang, Z. Ma, X. Jiang, Y . Chen, et al. Grounding dino 1.5: Advance the" edge" of open-set object detection.arXiv preprint arXiv:2405.10300, 2024

    2024 arXiv

  28. [36]

    Rombach, A

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

    2022

  29. [37]

    Tang, J.-H

    W. Tang, J.-H. Pan, W. Zhan, J. Zhou, H. Yao, Y .-H. Liu, M. Tomizuka, M. Ding, and C.-W. Fu. Embodiment-agnostic action planning via object-part scene flow.arXiv preprint arXiv:2409.10032, 2024

    2024 arXiv

  30. [38]

    Virtanen, R

    P. Virtanen, R. Gommers, T. E. Oliphant, M. Haberland, T. Reddy, D. Cournapeau, E. Burovski, P. Peterson, W. Weckesser, J. Bright, et al. Scipy 1.0: fundamental algorithms for scientific computing in python. Nature methods, 17(3):261–272, 2020

    2020

  31. [39]

    H. R. Walke, K. Black, T. Z. Zhao, Q. Vuong, C. Zheng, P. Hansen-Estruch, A. W. He, V . Myers, M. J. Kim, M. Du, et al. Bridgedata v2: A dataset for robot learning at scale. InConference on Robot Learning, pages 1723–1736. PMLR, 2023. 12

    2023

  32. [40]

    C. Wen, X. Lin, J. So, K. Chen, Q. Dou, Y . Gao, and P. Abbeel. Any-point trajectory modeling for policy learning.arXiv preprint arXiv:2401.00025, 2023

    2023 arXiv

  33. [41]

    J. Wu, S. Yin, N. Feng, X. He, D. Li, J. Hao, and M. Long. ivideogpt: Interactive videogpts are scalable world models.Advances in Neural Information Processing Systems, 37:68082–68119, 2024

    2024

  34. [42]

    Xiang, D

    Y . Xiang, D. Sun, W. Fan, and X. Gong. Generalized simulated annealing algorithm and its application to the thomson model.Physics Letters A, 233(3):216–220, 1997

    1997

  35. [43]

    M. Xu, Z. Xu, Y . Xu, C. Chi, G. Wetzstein, M. Veloso, and S. Song. Flow as the cross-domain manipulation interface.arXiv preprint arXiv:2407.15208, 2024

    2024 arXiv

  36. [44]

    J. Yang, R. Tan, Q. Wu, R. Zheng, B. Peng, Y . Liang, Y . Gu, M. Cai, S. Ye, J. Jang, et al. Magma: A foundation model for multimodal ai agents.arXiv preprint arXiv:2502.13130, 2025

    2025 arXiv

  37. [45]

    L. Yang, B. Kang, Z. Huang, Z. Zhao, X. Xu, J. Feng, and H. Zhao. Depth anything v2.Advances in Neural Information Processing Systems, 37:21875–21911, 2024

    2024

  38. [46]

    M. Yang, Y . Du, K. Ghasemipour, J. Tompson, D. Schuurmans, and P. Abbeel. Learning interactive real-world simulators.arXiv preprint arXiv:2310.06114, 1(2):6, 2023

    2023 arXiv

  39. [47]

    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

  40. [48]

    C. Yuan, C. Wen, T. Zhang, and Y . Gao. General flow as foundation affordance for scalable robot learning. arXiv preprint arXiv:2401.11439, 2024

    2024 arXiv

  41. [49]

    H. Zhen, Q. Sun, H. Zhang, J. Li, S. Zhou, Y . Du, and C. Gan. Tesseract: Learning 4d embodied world models.arXiv preprint arXiv:2504.20995, 2025

    2025 arXiv

  42. [50]

    S. Zhou, Y . Du, J. Chen, Y . Li, D.-Y . Yeung, and C. Gan. Robodreamer: Learning compositional world models for robot imagination.arXiv preprint arXiv:2404.12377, 2024. 13 A Baselines A VDC [28]utilizes a video diffusion model to predict future scene state changes based on th...

    2024 arXiv

Pith tools

Reviewed August 7, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.