Pith. sign in

REVIEW 4 major objections 5 minor 60 references

A world model's future-generating computation can be folded into a representation read from the present alone, making action prediction up to ten times faster without sacrificing task success.

Reviewed by Pith at T0; open to challenge. T0 means a machine referee read the full paper against a public rubric. the ladder, T0–T4 →

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

T0 review · deepseek-v4-flash

2026-08-04 03:15 UTC pith:V4PR57ZV

load-bearing objection Solid empirical paper; the core efficiency claim holds, but the mechanism claim is under-tested because no controlled alternative future-predictive target is compared. the 4 major comments →

arxiv 2607.26657 v2 pith:V4PR57ZV submitted 2026-07-29 cs.RO

Enfold: Folding World Model Imagination into Predictive Representations for Ultra-Efficient Embodied Control

Weili Zeng , Yitong Xing , Fulong Liu , Chengqun Yang , Antao Xiang , Feng Tian , Jingnan Gao , Jisong Cai
show 5 more authors
Xin Wang Xiaomin Wu Yao Mu Xiaokang Yang Yichao Yan
This is my paper
classification cs.RO
keywords world modelspredictive representation learningrobotic manipulationvisuomotor controlgenerative model distillationaction latencyflow matchingfuture prediction
verification ladder T0 review T1 audit T2 compute T3 formal T4 reserved

The pith

A machine-rendered reading of the paper's core claim, the machinery that carries it, and where it could break.

The paper's central claim is that the most reusable asset of a generative world model is not the future video it renders but the internal computation that constructs that future, and that this computation can be transferred into a representation predicted from the current observation and instruction alone. Enfold does this by training a current-only encoder to predict the multi-level hidden states of a teacher-forced generator as it transforms a corrupted observed future into a coherent trajectory, then reading actions from a detached copy of the resulting representation. At deployment the generator is not executed for action prediction; the paper reports that this preserves or improves control accuracy on standard simulated manipulation benchmarks while cutting action latency by 3.7x, and by 10.1x with operator-level acceleration. If correct, the result changes what a world model is for: a training-time source of structured predictive supervision rather than a mandatory component of the control loop.

Core claim

Enfold claims that future-conditioned generative computation can be internalized in a current-only representation. During training, a video generator processes the observed future under corruption and exposes states at several depths; a timestep-conditioned head predicts these states from the current context and instruction, and a detached copy of the representation also conditions future generation and task readouts. At deployment, action prediction runs only the encoder and action head. The paper reports 97.8% and 91.77% average success on its two simulated suites, a 3.7x latency reduction (10.1x with operator-level acceleration) against the strongest world-action baseline considered, impr

What carries the argument

The load-bearing object is the multi-level generator-state target: internal features exposed at selected depths and corruption levels as a teacher-forced generator converts a corrupted latent of the real future into a coherent trajectory. These states are concatenated and layer-normalized, and a timestep-conditioned prediction head maps the current-only representation onto them (G2R). The representation is detached before conditioning future generation (R2G) and before task readouts, so task gradients cannot reshape the encoder. The mechanism makes the generator a training-time supervisor and optional decoder rather than an action-time component.

Load-bearing premise

The central premise is that the fixed set of generator depths chosen as supervision targets is both predictable from the current context and sufficient for control; the paper's own small probe shows no universally best layer, so the multi-level target could be mis-specified for tasks or corruption levels outside the probe.

What would settle it

Train the identical model with the multi-level generator-state target replaced by random, noise-matched vectors of the same shape while keeping all other losses and the downstream protocol fixed. If average success stays near 97.8%, the specific generator computation is not load-bearing; if it falls toward the action-only level (~94.9%), the generator-state target is what carries the claim.

Watch this falsifier. Get emailed when new claim-graph text bears on it.

If this is right

  • At control time, action prediction needs only the encoder and an action head, so world-model reasoning costs one forward pass instead of a full generative rollout.
  • The same representation is a functional input to future generation, so a robot can imagine a rollout only when needed while keeping the control loop cheap.
  • Supervision from multi-level generator states beats future-pixel and action-only supervision, and multi-level concatenation adds the largest gains on goal-directed and multi-stage tasks.
  • The representation suppresses nuisance variation from the generator (lighting sensitivity roughly 8-10x lower than raw generator features) while retaining more feature diversity, consistent with predictive filtering rather than feature collapse.
  • When the current scene is perturbed, both the imagined continuation and the executed actions redirect, indicating the policy is not replaying a fixed trajectory.

Where Pith is reading between the lines

These are editorial extensions of the paper, not claims the author makes directly.

  • A direct extension the paper does not pursue is learned selection of which generator depths supervise the encoder; its own probe shows the most informative layer shifts with corruption level, so a per-input or per-task routing could strengthen the G2R target.
  • The paper's projection interpretation suggests the G2R objective is an amortized conditional expectation; if so, the same scheme could be applied to any predictive teacher, not just a video generator, by exposing intermediate states of other future-constructing computations.
  • The token-geometry results point toward a testable hypothesis: the representation learns interaction relations (gripper-object) rather than object categories; one could probe this with a decodability experiment on relational predicates.
  • The 10.1x latency number includes operator-level acceleration, so the architectural contribution to speed is the 3.7x; separating the two matters when porting the method to a different runtime.

Editorial analysis

A structured set of objections, weighed in public.

Desk editor's note, referee report, simulated authors' rebuttal, and a circularity audit.

Referee Report

4 major / 5 minor

Summary. The paper proposes Enfold, a method for transferring the internal computation of a video world generator into a current-only representation. During training, multi-level generator states obtained from a teacher-forced pass over the observed future supervise a current-only predictive encoder (G2R), the learned representation conditions future generation (R2G), and task heads read the representation with stop-gradient. At deployment, the generator is not executed for action prediction. The authors report strong control results on LIBERO (97.8% average success), RoboTwin2.0 (91.77%), and real bimanual tasks, with 3.7x lower latency than Fast-WAM and 10.1x for a TensorRT-accelerated variant. Additional analyses probe layer selection, future-prediction improvements from R2G, representation statistics, and human-intervention behavior.

Significance. If the central claim holds, the paper makes a useful conceptual and practical contribution: world models can serve as training-time sources of structured predictive supervision rather than as mandatory inference-time simulators. The latency gains are concrete, and the detached task-readout design cleanly separates representation learning from policy optimization. The paper is commendably transparent about several limitations, including the small layer-selection probe, the qualitative nature of the intervention evidence, and the need for uncertainty estimates on close benchmark margins. However, the mechanism claim — that the specific generator-state target, rather than future-predictive supervision in general, drives the gains — is not yet isolated by the reported experiments.

major comments (4)
  1. [Section 5.2, Tables 1-2] No uncertainty intervals are reported for any success rate, and several headline margins are very small: Enfold is 0.2 points above Fast-WAM on LIBERO average and 0.19 points above on RoboTwin2.0. The text itself states that these margins are too small to support a ranking claim without uncertainty estimates. Please report standard errors, confidence intervals, or multiple-seed evaluations, and adjust the strength of the comparative claims accordingly. This is essential for the central efficiency-accuracy trade-off claim.
  2. [Section 5.4, Table 4; Section 4.2, Eqs. (3)-(4)] The G2R ablation does not isolate the causal role of generator states as the supervision target. Future-pixel prediction is a much harder reconstruction objective, and action-only training changes the gradient protocol by letting task gradients shape the encoder. Neither is a controlled substitute for a future-predictive feature target. The paper should include a baseline in which the current-only encoder predicts future features from a frozen visual encoder (e.g., DINOv3 or V-JEPA) under the same architecture, loss, stop-gradient task head, and compute. In addition, the paper never reports how well the current-only encoder actually predicts the multi-level generator target on held-out clips. Reporting G2R loss or cosine similarity would directly substantiate the claim that the generator's internal computation is 'internalized' rather than only weakly correlated with a strong auxiliary o
  3. [Section 3, Appendix C] The supervision layers L={7,15,23,27} are a load-bearing design choice, but the selection is post hoc on a 20-video probe. The appendix explicitly cautions that this probe is insufficient to establish a precise layer ranking, and Figure 2 shows no universally best layer. Because the G2R target and all downstream results depend on this fixed set, the paper should provide additional evidence that the choice is stable: e.g., a sensitivity analysis over alternative layer sets, a cross-task layer-selection experiment, or a validation-set criterion that does not reuse the final test set. Without this, the target specification remains an unexplained empirical choice.
  4. [Section 5.3, Appendix B.5] The human-intervention evidence is qualitative only, and the appendix states that no matched frozen-representation or no-intervention rollout is reported. The claim that the method 'adapts' rather than replays is central to the paper's narrative, but the current evidence is a few hand-picked rollouts. Please either add quantitative intervention experiments with multiple seeds and a recovery-rate metric, or clearly demote this claim to a qualitative illustration and remove it from the abstract-level conclusions about counterfactual consistency.
minor comments (5)
  1. [Section 4.2, Eq. (3)] The symbol LN is used without definition. Presumably layer normalization; please define it at first use.
  2. [Section 5.4, Table 4] The first row label 'F uture pixels' contains a spacing artifact; should be 'Future pixels'. Similar spacing artifacts appear in Section 5.5 headings and elsewhere, e.g., 'F rom', 'T oken'. A careful proofread is needed.
  3. [Table 3 and Table 7] Several table cells appear to be improperly typeset (e.g., '92.293.3' and '86.183.3'). Please check all numerical entries for formatting and column alignment.
  4. [Appendix B.4] The effective-rank comparison uses different sample sizes (20 clips in Appendix C, 100 clips in Figure 6). The text says raw values are not compared across sets, which is appropriate, but the caption of Figure 6 should state this explicitly to avoid reader confusion.
  5. [Appendix A, Eq. (14)] The information-theoretic statement I(Y;Z|X)=0 is correct for deterministic U_phi but may be surprising to readers because Z is a function of X. Please add one sentence clarifying that this is a statement about the learned encoder at a fixed time, and that R2G gains reflect reorganization, not additional information about Y.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged

No significant circularity: the central distillation scheme is assessed against external benchmarks with controlled ablations.

full rationale

The paper's central mechanism is a training-time distillation (G2R) from a fixed external generator (Cosmos-Predict 2.5 2B) into a current-only encoder, with stopped gradients, plus a functional test (R2G) that conditions the same generator on the learned representation. The target in Eq. 3 is defined by the teacher-forced generator processing the observed future, not by the student's output; the student is trained to predict that target through a timestep-conditioned head (Eq. 4). This is a genuine prediction task rather than a tautology. The choice of generator layers L={7,15,23,27} is explicitly empirical, based on a 20-video probe (Section 3, Appendix C), and is not presented as a derived first-principles result; that is a design choice and an overfitting risk, not circularity. Table 4 compares generator-state supervision against future-pixel and action-only targets under an unchanged downstream protocol, which isolates the supervision target. The R2G result (Table 5) compares Enfold to a matched video-only Cosmos baseline; although z is computed from the same context and supplies no new observation, the improvement is an empirical demonstration that the representation reorganizes available context, not an identity forced by construction. The paper's own Appendix A explicitly acknowledges the moving-target nature of the G2R objective and provides only an idealized projection interpretation, not a convergence claim. Self-citations, such as the staged real-robot evaluation protocol from Aha-WAM, are evaluation details and not load-bearing for the main derivation. Overall, the control results are grounded in external benchmarks and the core claim does not reduce to its inputs.

Axiom & Free-Parameter Ledger

3 free parameters · 5 axioms · 0 invented entities

The central method rests on several design choices and empirical assumptions rather than a mathematical derivation. The most consequential free parameter is the set of generator supervision layers, chosen from the authors' own probe. The G2R/R2G loop also has a self-referential component, since the same generator supplies the teacher targets and is later conditioned on the student representation.

free parameters (3)
  • Generator supervision layers L={7,15,23,27} = {7,15,23,27}
    Selected based on the authors' own 20-video probe (Appendix C) which shows no universally best layer; this choice is load-bearing for the G2R objective.
  • Loss coefficients λ_R2G=1, λ_task=1 = 1, 1
    Set to unit values without reported sensitivity analysis (Appendix B.1).
  • Action sampling hyperparameters = 10 Euler steps, noise shift 5.0, guidance 1.0, replan cadence 10/24 actions
    Chosen hyperparameters; no ablation is reported for these settings.
axioms (5)
  • standard math L2 conditional-expectation decomposition of the G2R objective (Appendix A, Eqs. 10–12) is valid and justifies the predictive-projection interpretation.
    Used to argue that G2R learns the predictable component of generator states; a standard Hilbert-space projection result, assuming a fixed target distribution.
  • domain assumption Intermediate states of a video generator organize appearance, spatial layout, and interaction across levels of abstraction, and these states can be predicted from current context plus instruction.
    Core motivation in Section 3; tested only through a small, confounded probe, not independently established.
  • ad hoc to paper The fixed layer set L={7,15,23,27} and timestep-conditioned head suffice to capture complementary transition structure.
    The paper acknowledges no universally best layer and selects these layers post hoc on a 20-video probe.
  • domain assumption Stop-gradient task readouts do not meaningfully degrade control relative to allowing task gradients to shape the encoder.
    Method choice in Section 4.4; compared against action-only and pixel baselines, but not against a task-gradient variant.
  • domain assumption Pretrained Cosmos and DINOv3 backbones are suitable fixed feature sources for the generative teacher and predictive encoder.
    The method treats these backbones as given and assumes their feature spaces are compatible with the distillation objective.

pith-pipeline@v1.3.0-alltime-deepseek · 22550 in / 13736 out tokens · 627348 ms · 2026-08-04T03:15:42.384902+00:00 · methodology

0 comments
read the original abstract

World generative models are typically used through what they produce: a rendered future, a video-conditioned action, or latent context computed by a costly generative branch. We argue that their more reusable asset is the computation that constructs a future. As a generator transforms a corrupted future into a coherent trajectory, its intermediate states organize appearance, spatial layout, and interaction across levels of abstraction. Can this future-generative computation be internalized in a representation inferred from the present alone? We present Enfold, which transfers this computation into a representation predicted from the current visual context and language instruction. During training, multi-level states exposed as the generator processes the observed future supervise a current-only encoder. The learned representation is fed back to condition future generation and is read by task heads without allowing task gradients to reshape the encoder. At deployment, action prediction no longer executes the generator. Across LIBERO, RoboTwin2.0, and real-robot tasks, Enfold supports strong control while reducing action latency by $3.7\times$ relative to Fast--WAM, Enfold-Flash reaches $10.1\times$. Representation analyses show that it suppresses nuisance variation and preferentially captures changes that emerge over longer horizons. When the current scene is altered by human intervention, both the generated continuation and the executed actions adapt, which is inconsistent with fixed trajectory replay. These results recast a world generator as a source of predictive control representations: its future need not be materialized at every step if its internal structure can be enfolded into the present.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2607.26657 by Antao Xiang, Chengqun Yang, Feng Tian, Fulong Liu, Jingnan Gao, Jisong Cai, Weili Zeng, Xiaokang Yang, Xiaomin Wu, Xin Wang, Yao Mu, Yichao Yan, Yitong Xing.

Figure 1
Figure 1. Figure 1: Different interfaces between future modeling and action prediction. (a) VLA methods augment a vision–language representation with future prediction while an action expert pro￾duces controls, (b) unified WAMs jointly predict future observations and actions, (c) imagine-then-act methods generate a visual future with a world generative model (WGM) and recover actions through inverse dynamics (IDM), and (d) En… view at source ↗
Figure 1
Figure 1. Figure 1: Different interfaces between future modeling and action prediction. (a) VLA methods augment a vision–language representation with future prediction while an action expert pro￾duces controls, (b) unified WAMs jointly predict future observations and actions, (c) imagine-then-act methods generate a visual future with a world generative model (WGM) and recover actions through inverse dynamics (IDM), and (d) En… view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. Figure 2: Predictive utility and stability of generator states. (a) Task/scene retrieval across generator blocks and corruption timesteps. The trajectory marks the best-performing block, and dotted lines indicate the selected supervision layers. (b) Sensitivity to generation noise relative to input variation. (c) Utility–stability trade-off at t = 600; marker size denotes effective rank and the curve marks the Paret… view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. Figure 3: Depth-dependent selective invariance of generator states. (a) Illumination and layout sensitivity across blocks, summarized over t ∈ {300, 600, 800, 900}. (b) Sensitivity to noise, illumination, and layout across depth. Curves and bands denote the median and interquartile range; dotted lines mark the selected supervision layers [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p005_3.png] view at source ↗
Figure 4
Figure 4. Figure 4: Overview of Enfold. The predictive encoder Uϕ maps the observed context and instruc￾tion to z. In G2R, the generator Gθ processes the corrupted real future. selected hidden states form a multi-level target predicted from z by the timestep-conditioned head Fω. In R2G, a detached copy of z conditions future generation. Task heads also read a detached z, so task supervision does not directly shape the encoder… view at source ↗
Figure 4
Figure 4. Figure 4: Overview of Enfold. The predictive encoder Uϕ maps the observed context and instruc￾tion to z. In G2R, the generator Gθ processes the corrupted real future. selected hidden states form a multi-level target predicted from z by the timestep-conditioned head Fω. In R2G, a detached copy of z conditions future generation. Task heads also read a detached z, so task supervision does not directly shape the encoder… view at source ↗
Figure 5
Figure 5. Figure 5: Reimagining and recovery under human intervention. Red marks the intervention at t2. Green shows future frames decoded from the updated representation for Store Plate (left) and Fold Towel (right). The subsequent rollouts adapt to the modified scene and complete the original instruction. The generator is used only for visualization. Actions are predicted directly from the representation. In Store Plate, th… view at source ↗
Figure 6
Figure 6. Figure 6: Comparison between Cosmos internal states (t = 600) and the Enfold predictive encoder on a separate 100-clip set. Lower lighting sensitivity is preferred. Task mAP and effective rank report task selectivity and feature diversity, respectively. From stochastic teacher features to a sta￾ble predictive representation. Raw gen￾erator states vary with both scene content and generation noise (Section 3). We comp… view at source ↗
Figure 7
Figure 7. Figure 7: Future-observation prediction probe and changed-token localization. Left: Vi￾sualization of the selected most-changing tokens for two future horizons. The selected locations con￾centrate on the moving robot arms and the manipulated cloth, rather than the static tabletop or background. Right: Compared with frozen DINO, Enfold’s advantage on the changed-token subset grows with future time and remains strong … view at source ↗
Figure 8
Figure 8. Figure 8: Query-point similarity overlays. The left four columns show a rollout of the real-world fold-towel task, while the right three columns show LIBERO trajectories. White dots mark manually selected query points on the robot gripper. The middle row shows cosine-similarity overlays from frozen DINO patch tokens, while the bottom row shows overlays from the Enfold predictive encoder. Whereas frozen DINO mainly r… view at source ↗
Figure 9
Figure 9. Figure 9: Real-robot rollouts under in-distribution and OOD conditions. Each panel shows representative Enfold executions for one task, with an in-distribution rollout on top and a matched OOD rollout below. The OOD setting changes the environment for Store Plate, towel material for Fold Towel, available object set for Organize Desktop, and object instance for Spoon Powder, while keeping the instruction and task-com… view at source ↗
Figure 10
Figure 10. Figure 10: PCA visualization of frozen DINO and Enfold token geometry. The top row shows rollout observations. The middle and bottom rows visualize the corresponding spatial patch tokens from frozen DINO and the Enfold predictive encoder, respectively, by mapping their first three principal components to RGB. Frozen DINO separates the robot arm and task objects into visually distinct feature regions. Enfold makes th… view at source ↗
Figure 11
Figure 11. Figure 11: Future alignment with teacher representations and prediction at most-changed tokens. Rows show future horizons t = 16 and t = 32. From left to right: current and future observations, Cosmos teacher-target PCA, prediction-head output PCA, and the future-prediction gain ∆sh = s S h − s D h on most-changed tokens. Qualitative comparison of future-video artifacts [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p023_11.png] view at source ↗
Figure 12
Figure 12. Figure 12: Qualitative comparison of future-video predictions. The left group shows a LIBERO task. The center and right groups show the real-robot Fold Towel and Store Plate tasks, respectively. The top two rows show FastWAM and the bottom two rows show Enfold. Within each method, the upper row contains rollout observations and the lower row contains predicted future frames. Red boxes mark mismatches in FastWAM pred… view at source ↗

Review history (2 revisions) →

discussion (0)

Sign in with ORCID, Apple, or X to comment. Anyone can read and Pith papers without signing in.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

60 extracted references · 34 linked inside Pith

  1. [1]

    Cosmos world foundation model platform for physical AI.arXiv preprint arXiv:2501.03575, 2025

    Niket Agarwal, Arslan Ali, Maciej Bala, Yogesh Balaji, Erik Barker, Tiffany Cai, Prithvijit Chat- topadhyay, Yongxin Chen, Yin Cui, Yifan Ding, et al. Cosmos world foundation model platform for physical AI.arXiv preprint arXiv:2501.03575, 2025

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2025

  2. [2]

    Cosmos 3: Omnimodal world models for physical AI.arXiv preprint arXiv:2606.02800, 2026

    Niket Agarwal, Arslan Ali, Jon Allen, Martin Antolini, Adeline Aubame, Alisson Azzolini, Junjie Bai, Maciej Bala, Yogesh Balaji, Josh Bapst, et al. Cosmos 3: Omnimodal world models for physical AI.arXiv preprint arXiv:2606.02800, 2026

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2026

  3. [3]

    Video language planning

    Yilun Du, Sherry Yang, Pete Florence, Fei Xia, Ayzaan Wahid, Pierre Sermanet, Tianhe Yu, Pieter Abbeel, Joshua B Tenenbaum, Leslie Kaelbling, et al. Video language planning. InInternational Conference on Learning Representations, volume 2024, pages 31138–31155, 2024

    2024

  4. [4]

    F1: A vision-language-action model bridging understanding and generation to actions.arXiv preprint arXiv:2509.06951, 2025

    Qi Lv, Weijie Kong, Hao Li, Jia Zeng, Zherui Qiu, Delin Qu, Haoming Song, Qizhi Chen, Xiang Deng, and Jiangmiao Pang. F1: A vision-language-action model bridging understanding and generation to actions.arXiv preprint arXiv:2509.06951, 2025. 12

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2025

  5. [5]

    Motus: A unified latent action world model

    Hongzhe Bi, Hengkai Tan, Shenghao Xie, Zeyuan Wang, Shuhe Huang, Haitian Liu, Ruowen Zhao, Yao Feng, Chendong Xiang, Yinze Rong, et al. Motus: A unified latent action world model. In Proceedings of the IEEE/CVF Conference on Computer Vision and Pattern Recognition, pages 35101–35113, 2026

    2026

  6. [6]

    Cosmos policy: Fine-tuning video models for visuomotor control and planning.arXiv preprint arXiv:2601.16163, 2026

    Moo Jin Kim, Yihuai Gao, Tsung-Yi Lin, Yen-Chen Lin, Yunhao Ge, Grace Lam, Percy Liang, Shuran Song, Ming-Yu Liu, Chelsea Finn, et al. Cosmos policy: Fine-tuning video models for visuomotor control and planning.arXiv preprint arXiv:2601.16163, 2026

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2026

  7. [7]

    Fast-W AM: Do world action models need test-time future imagination?arXiv preprint arXiv:2603.16666, 2026

    Tianyuan Yuan, Zibin Dong, Yicheng Liu, and Hang Zhao. Fast-W AM: Do world action models need test-time future imagination?arXiv preprint arXiv:2603.16666, 2026

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2026

  8. [8]

    Video prediction policy: A generalist robot policy with predictive visual representations.arXiv preprint arXiv:2412.14803, 2024

    Yucheng Hu, Yanjiang Guo, Pengchao Wang, Xiaoyu Chen, Yen-Jen Wang, Jianke Zhang, Koushil Sreenath, Chaochao Lu, and Jianyu Chen. Video prediction policy: A generalist robot policy with predictive visual representations.arXiv preprint arXiv:2412.14803, 2024

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2024

  9. [9]

    Aha-wam:asynchronous horizon-adaptive world- action modeling with observation-guided context routing.arXiv preprint arXiv:2606.09811, 2026

    Jisong Cai, Long Ling, Shiwei Chu, Zhongshan Liu, Jiayue Kang, Zhixuan Liang, Wenjie Xu, Yinan Mao, Weinan Zhang, Xiaokang Yang, et al. Aha-wam:asynchronous horizon-adaptive world- action modeling with observation-guided context routing.arXiv preprint arXiv:2606.09811, 2026

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2026

  10. [10]

    Imagewam: Do world action models really need video generation, or just image editing?arXiv preprint arXiv:2606.19531, 2026

    Yuyang Zhang, Wenyao Zhang, Zekun Qi, He Zhang, Haitao Lin, Jingbo Zhang, Yao Mu, Xi- aokang Yang, Wenjun Zeng, and Xin Jin. Imagewam: Do world action models really need video generation, or just image editing?arXiv preprint arXiv:2606.19531, 2026

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2026

  11. [11]

    Vla-jepa: Enhancing vision-language-action model with latent world model.arXiv preprint arXiv:2602.10098, 2026

    Jingwen Sun, Wenyao Zhang, Zekun Qi, Shaojie Ren, Zezhi Liu, Hanxin Zhu, Guangzhong Sun, Xin Jin, and Zhibo Chen. Vla-jepa: Enhancing vision-language-action model with latent world model.arXiv preprint arXiv:2602.10098, 2026

    arXiv 2026

  12. [12]

    RT-1: Robotics transformer for real-world control at scale

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

    2022

  13. [13]

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

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

    2023

  14. [14]

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

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

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2024

  15. [15]

    Kevin Black, Noah Brown, Danny Driess, Adnan Esmail, Michael Equi, Chelsea Finn, Niccolo Fusai, Lachy Groom, Karol Hausman, Brian Ichter, et al.π 0: A vision-language-action flow model for general robot control.arXiv preprint arXiv:2410.24164, 2024

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2024

  16. [16]

    Physical Intelligence, Kevin Black, Noah Brown, James Darpinian, Karan Dhabalia, Danny Driess, Adnan Esmail, Michael Equi, Chelsea Finn, Niccolo Fusai, et al.\pi {0.5}: a vision-language- action model with open-world generalization.arXiv preprint arXiv:2504.16054, 2025

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2025

  17. [17]

    Fine-tuning vision-language-action models: Opti- mizing speed and success.arXiv preprint arXiv:2502.19645, 2025

    Moo Jin Kim, Chelsea Finn, and Percy Liang. Fine-tuning vision-language-action models: Opti- mizing speed and success.arXiv preprint arXiv:2502.19645, 2025

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2025

  18. [18]

    Rdt-1b: a diffusion foundation model for bimanual manipulation

    Songming Liu, Lingxuan Wu, Bangguo Li, Hengkai Tan, Huayu Chen, Zhengyi Wang, Ke Xu, Hang Su, and Jun Zhu. Rdt-1b: a diffusion foundation model for bimanual manipulation. In International Conference on Learning Representations, volume 2025, pages 29982–30009, 2025

    2025

  19. [19]

    X-vla: Soft-prompted transformer as scalable cross-embodiment vision-language-action model.arXiv preprint arXiv:2510.10274, 2025

    Jinliang Zheng, Jianxiong Li, Zhihao Wang, Dongxiu Liu, Xirui Kang, Yuchun Feng, Yinan Zheng, Jiayin Zou, Yilun Chen, Jia Zeng, et al. X-vla: Soft-prompted transformer as scalable cross-embodiment vision-language-action model.arXiv preprint arXiv:2510.10274, 2025

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2025

  20. [20]

    Hybridvla: Collaborative diffusion and autoregression in a unified vision-language-action model.arXiv preprint arXiv:2503.10631, 2025

    Jiaming Liu, Hao Chen, Pengju An, Zhuoyang Liu, Renrui Zhang, Chenyang Gu, Xiaoqi Li, Ziyu Guo, Sixiang Chen, Mengzhen Liu, et al. Hybridvla: Collaborative diffusion and autoregression in a unified vision-language-action model.arXiv preprint arXiv:2503.10631, 2025. 13

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2025

  21. [21]

    Unified diffusion vla: Vision-language-action model via joint discrete denoising diffusion process.arXiv preprint arXiv:2511.01718, 2025

    Jiayi Chen, Wenxuan Song, Pengxiang Ding, Ziyang Zhou, Han Zhao, Feilong Tang, Donglin Wang, and Haoang Li. Unified diffusion vla: Vision-language-action model via joint discrete denoising diffusion process.arXiv preprint arXiv:2511.01718, 2025

    arXiv 2025

  22. [22]

    Discrete diffusion vla: Bringing discrete diffusion to action decoding in vision-language-action policies.arXiv preprint arXiv:2508.20072, 2025

    Zhixuan Liang, Yizhuo Li, Tianshuo Yang, Chengyue Wu, Sitong Mao, Liuao Pei, Tian Nian, Shunbo Zhou, Xiaokang Yang, Jiangmiao Pang, et al. Discrete diffusion vla: Bringing discrete diffusion to action decoding in vision-language-action policies.arXiv preprint arXiv:2508.20072, 2025

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2025

  23. [23]

    TraceVLA: Visual trace prompting enhances spatial-temporal awareness for generalist robotic policies

    Ruijie Zheng, Yongyuan Liang, Shuaiyi Huang, Jianfeng Gao, Hal Daum´ e III, Andrey Kolobov, Furong Huang, and Jianwei Yang. TraceVLA: Visual trace prompting enhances spatial-temporal awareness for generalist robotic policies. InInternational Conference on Learning Representations, volume 2025, pages 54277–54296, 2025

    2025

  24. [24]

    A pragmatic vla foundation model.arXiv preprint arXiv:2601.18692, 2026

    Wei Wu, Fan Lu, Yunnan Wang, Shuai Yang, Shi Liu, Fangjing Wang, Qian Zhu, He Sun, Yong Wang, Shuailei Ma, et al. A pragmatic vla foundation model.arXiv preprint arXiv:2601.18692, 2026

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2026

  25. [25]

    Univla: Learning to act anywhere with task-centric latent actions.arXiv preprint arXiv:2505.06111, 2025

    Qingwen Bu, Yanting Yang, Jisong Cai, Shenyuan Gao, Guanghui Ren, Maoqing Yao, Ping Luo, and Hongyang Li. Univla: Learning to act anywhere with task-centric latent actions.arXiv preprint arXiv:2505.06111, 2025

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2025

  26. [26]

    Predictive inverse dynamics models are scalable learners for robotic manipulation

    Yang Tian, Sizhe Yang, Jia Zeng, Ping Wang, Dahua Lin, Hao Dong, and Jiangmiao Pang. Predictive inverse dynamics models are scalable learners for robotic manipulation. InInternational Conference on Learning Representations, volume 2025, pages 92033–92052, 2025

    2025

  27. [27]

    Mantis: A versatile vision-language-action model with disentangled visual foresight

    Yi Yang, Xueqi Li, Yiyang Chen, Jin Song, Yihan Wang, Zipeng Xiao, Jiadi Su, You Qiaoben, Pengfei Liu, and Zhijie Deng. Mantis: A versatile vision-language-action model with disentangled visual foresight. InProceedings of the IEEE/CVF Conference on Computer Vision and Pattern Recognition, pages 42505–42515, 2026

    2026

  28. [28]

    Latent bridge: Feature delta prediction for efficient dual-system vision-language-action model inference.arXiv preprint arXiv:2605.02739, 2026

    Yudong Liu, Yuan Li, Zijia Tang, Yuxi Zheng, Yueqian Lin, Qinsi Wang, Yi Li, Shuangjun Liu, Shuai Zhang, Taotao Jing, et al. Latent bridge: Feature delta prediction for efficient dual-system vision-language-action model inference.arXiv preprint arXiv:2605.02739, 2026

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2026

  29. [29]

    Learning universal policies via text-guided video generation.Advances in neural information processing systems, 36:9156–9172, 2023

    Yilun Du, Sherry Yang, Bo Dai, Hanjun Dai, Ofir Nachum, Josh Tenenbaum, Dale Schuurmans, and Pieter Abbeel. Learning universal policies via text-guided video generation.Advances in neural information processing systems, 36:9156–9172, 2023

    2023

  30. [30]

    Zero-shot robotic manipulation with pre-trained image-editing diffusion mod- els

    Kevin Black, Mitsuhiko Nakamoto, Pranav Atreya, Homer Walke, Chelsea Finn, Aviral Kumar, and Sergey Levine. Zero-shot robotic manipulation with pre-trained image-editing diffusion mod- els. InInternational Conference on Learning Representations, volume 2024, pages 33431–33452, 2024

    2024

  31. [31]

    GHIL-Glue: Hierarchical control with filtered subgoal images

    Kyle B Hatch, Ashwin Balakrishna, Oier Mees, Suraj Nair, Seohong Park, Blake Wulfe, Masha Itkina, Benjamin Eysenbach, Sergey Levine, Thomas Kollar, et al. GHIL-Glue: Hierarchical control with filtered subgoal images. In2025 IEEE International Conference on Robotics and Automation (ICRA), pages 9516–9524. IEEE, 2025

    2025

  32. [32]

    Closed-loop visuomotor control with generative expectation for robotic manipulation.Advances in Neural Information Processing Systems, 37:139002–139029, 2024

    Qingwen Bu, Jia Zeng, Li Chen, Yanchao Yang, Guyue Zhou, Junchi Yan, Ping Luo, Heming Cui, Yi Ma, and Hongyang Li. Closed-loop visuomotor control with generative expectation for robotic manipulation.Advances in Neural Information Processing Systems, 37:139002–139029, 2024

    2024

  33. [33]

    Causal world modeling for robot control.arXiv preprint arXiv:2601.21998, 2026

    Lin Li, Qihang Zhang, Yiming Luo, Shuai Yang, Ruilin Wang, Fei Han, Mingrui Yu, Zelin Gao, Nan Xue, Xing Zhu, et al. Causal world modeling for robot control.arXiv preprint arXiv:2601.21998, 2026

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2026

  34. [34]

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

    Seonghyeon Ye, Yunhao Ge, Kaiyuan Zheng, Shenyuan Gao, Sihyun Yu, George Kurian, Suneel Indupuru, You Liang Tan, Chuning Zhu, Jiannan Xiang, et al. World action models are zero-shot policies.arXiv preprint arXiv:2602.15922, 2026. 14

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2026

  35. [35]

    Being-H0.7: A latent world-action model from egocentric videos

    Hao Luo, Wanpeng Zhang, Yicheng Feng, Sipeng Zheng, Haiweng Xu, Chaoyi Xu, Ziheng Xi, Yuhui Fu, and Zongqing Lu. Being-H0.7: A latent world-action model from egocentric videos. arXiv preprint arXiv:2605.00078, 2026

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2026

  36. [36]

    Native video-action pretraining for generalizable robot control.arXiv preprint arXiv:2607.08639, 2026

    Qihang Zhang, Lin Li, Luyao Zhang, Shuai Yang, Yiming Luo, Shuaiting Li, Ruilin Wang, Junke Wang, Jiahao Shao, Gangwei Xu, et al. Native video-action pretraining for generalizable robot control.arXiv preprint arXiv:2607.08639, 2026

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2026

  37. [37]

    AdaWorld: Learning adaptable world models with latent actions.arXiv preprint arXiv:2503.18938, 2025

    Shenyuan Gao, Siyuan Zhou, Yilun Du, Jun Zhang, and Chuang Gan. AdaWorld: Learning adaptable world models with latent actions.arXiv preprint arXiv:2503.18938, 2025

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2025

  38. [38]

    Maskwam: Unifying mask prompting and prediction for world-action models.arXiv preprint arXiv:2606.13515, 2026

    Hanyang Yu, Haitao Lin, Jingbo Zhang, Wenyao Zhang, Chenghao Gu, Heng Li, and Ping Tan. Maskwam: Unifying mask prompting and prediction for world-action models.arXiv preprint arXiv:2606.13515, 2026

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2026

  39. [39]

    R3dp: Real-time 3d-aware policy for embodied manipulation.arXiv preprint arXiv:2603.14498, 2026

    Yuhao Zhang, Wanxi Dong, Yue Shi, Yi Liang, Jingnan Gao, Qiaochu Yang, Yaxing Lyu, Zhix- uan Liang, Yibin Liu, Congsheng Xu, et al. R3dp: Real-time 3d-aware policy for embodied manipulation.arXiv preprint arXiv:2603.14498, 2026

    arXiv 2026

  40. [40]

    Self-supervised learning from images with a joint-embedding predictive architecture

    Mahmoud Assran, Quentin Duval, Ishan Misra, Piotr Bojanowski, Pascal Vincent, Michael Rab- bat, Yann LeCun, and Nicolas Ballas. Self-supervised learning from images with a joint-embedding predictive architecture. InProceedings of the IEEE/CVF conference on computer vision and pat- tern recognition, pages 15619–15629, 2023

    2023

  41. [41]

    Revisiting feature prediction for learning visual representations from video.arXiv preprint arXiv:2404.08471, 2024

    Adrien Bardes, Quentin Garrido, Jean Ponce, Xinlei Chen, Michael Rabbat, Yann LeCun, Mah- moud Assran, and Nicolas Ballas. Revisiting feature prediction for learning visual representations from video.arXiv preprint arXiv:2404.08471, 2024

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2024

  42. [42]

    V-jepa 2: Self-supervised video models enable understanding, prediction and planning.arXiv preprint arXiv:2506.09985, 2025

    Mido Assran, Adrien Bardes, David Fan, Quentin Garrido, Russell Howes, Matthew Muckley, Ammar Rizvi, Claire Roberts, Koustuv Sinha, Artem Zholus, et al. V-jepa 2: Self-supervised video models enable understanding, prediction and planning.arXiv preprint arXiv:2506.09985, 2025

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2025

  43. [43]

    Learning to act without actions

    Dominik Schmidt and Minqi Jiang. Learning to act without actions. InInternational Conference on Learning Representations, volume 2024, pages 9379–9395, 2024

    2024

  44. [44]

    Genie: Generative inter- active environments

    Jake Bruce, Michael D Dennis, Ashley Edwards, Jack Parker-Holder, Yuge Shi, Edward Hughes, Matthew Lai, Aditi Mavalankar, Richie Steigerwald, Chris Apps, et al. Genie: Generative inter- active environments. InForty-first International Conference on Machine Learning, 2024

    2024

  45. [45]

    Latent action pretraining from videos

    Seonghyeon Ye, Joel Jang, Byeongguk Jeon, Se June Joo, Jianwei Yang, Baolin Peng, Ajay Mandlekar, Reuben Tan, Yu-Wei Chao, Bill Yuchen Lin, et al. Latent action pretraining from videos. InInternational Conference on Learning Representations, volume 2025, pages 28213– 28239, 2025

    2025

  46. [46]

    DINO-WM: World models on pre- trained visual features enable zero-shot planning.arXiv preprint arXiv:2411.04983, 2024

    Gaoyue Zhou, Hengkai Pan, Yann LeCun, and Lerrel Pinto. DINO-WM: World models on pre- trained visual features enable zero-shot planning.arXiv preprint arXiv:2411.04983, 2024

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2024

  47. [47]

    IGOR: Image-goal representations are the atomic control units for foundation models in embodied ai.arXiv preprint arXiv:2411.00785, 2024

    Xiaoyu Chen, Junliang Guo, Tianyu He, Chuheng Zhang, Pushi Zhang, Derek Cathera Yang, Li Zhao, and Jiang Bian. IGOR: Image-goal representations are the atomic control units for foundation models in embodied ai.arXiv preprint arXiv:2411.00785, 2024

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2024

  48. [48]

    Moto: Latent motion token as the bridging language for learning robot manipulation from videos

    Yi Chen, Yuying Ge, Weiliang Tang, Yizhuo Li, Yixiao Ge, Mingyu Ding, Ying Shan, and Xihui Liu. Moto: Latent motion token as the bridging language for learning robot manipulation from videos. InProceedings of the IEEE/CVF International Conference on Computer Vision, pages 19752–19763, 2025

    2025

  49. [49]

    Villa-x: enhancing latent action modeling in vision-language-action models.arXiv preprint arXiv:2507.23682, 2025

    Xiaoyu Chen, Hangxing Wei, Pushi Zhang, Chuheng Zhang, Kaixin Wang, Yanjiang Guo, Rushuai Yang, Yucen Wang, Xinquan Xiao, Li Zhao, et al. Villa-x: enhancing latent action modeling in vision-language-action models.arXiv preprint arXiv:2507.23682, 2025. 15

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2025

  50. [50]

    Flow matching for generative modeling.arXiv preprint arXiv:2210.02747, 2022

    Yaron Lipman, Ricky TQ Chen, Heli Ben-Hamu, Maximilian Nickel, and Matt Le. Flow matching for generative modeling.arXiv preprint arXiv:2210.02747, 2022

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2022

  51. [51]

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

    Bo Liu, Yifeng Zhu, Chongkai Gao, Yihao Feng, Qiang Liu, Yuke Zhu, and Peter Stone. LIBERO: Benchmarking knowledge transfer for lifelong robot learning.Advances in Neural Information Processing Systems, 36:44776–44791, 2023

    2023

  52. [52]

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

    Tianxing Chen, Zanxin Chen, Baijun Chen, Zijian Cai, Yibin Liu, Zixuan Li, Qiwei Liang, Xian- liang Lin, Yiheng Ge, Zhenyu Gu, et al. RoboTwin 2.0: A scalable data generator and benchmark with strong domain randomization for robust bimanual robotic manipulation.arXiv preprint arXiv:2506.18088, 2025

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2025

  53. [53]

    DINOv3.arXiv preprint arXiv:2508.10104, 2025

    Oriane Sim´ eoni, Huy V Vo, Maximilian Seitzer, Federico Baldassarre, Maxime Oquab, Cijo Jose, Vasil Khalidov, Marc Szafraniec, Seungeun Yi, Micha¨ el Ramamonjisoa, et al. DINOv3.arXiv preprint arXiv:2508.10104, 2025

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2025

  54. [54]

    Image quality assessment: From error visibility to structural similarity.IEEE transactions on image processing, 13(4):600– 612, 2004

    Zhou Wang, Alan C Bovik, Hamid R Sheikh, and Eero P Simoncelli. Image quality assessment: From error visibility to structural similarity.IEEE transactions on image processing, 13(4):600– 612, 2004

    2004

  55. [55]

    The unreasonable effectiveness of deep features as a perceptual metric

    Richard Zhang, Phillip Isola, Alexei A Efros, Eli Shechtman, and Oliver Wang. The unreasonable effectiveness of deep features as a perceptual metric. InProceedings of the IEEE conference on computer vision and pattern recognition, pages 586–595, 2018

    2018

  56. [56]

    NVIDIA TensorRT: An sdk for high-performance deep learning inference

    NVIDIA TensorRT. NVIDIA TensorRT: An sdk for high-performance deep learning inference

  57. [57]

    GR00T N1.6: An improved open foundation model for generalist humanoid robots

    NVIDIA GEAR Team. GR00T N1.6: An improved open foundation model for generalist humanoid robots. NVIDIA Research, 2025

    2025

  58. [58]

    ABot-M0: Vla foundation model for robotic manipulation with action manifold learning.arXiv preprint arXiv:2602.11236, 2026

    Yandan Yang, Shuang Zeng, Tong Lin, Xinyuan Chang, Dekang Qi, Junjin Xiao, Haoyun Liu, Ronghan Chen, Yuzhi Chen, Dongjie Huo, et al. ABot-M0: Vla foundation model for robotic manipulation with action manifold learning.arXiv preprint arXiv:2602.11236, 2026

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2026

  59. [59]

    Cosmos-Reason1: From physical common sense to embodied reasoning.arXiv preprint arXiv:2503.15558, 2025

    Alisson Azzolini, Junjie Bai, Hannah Brandon, Jiaxin Cao, Prithvijit Chattopadhyay, Huayu Chen, Jinju Chu, Yin Cui, Jenna Diamond, Yifan Ding, et al. Cosmos-Reason1: From physical common sense to embodied reasoning.arXiv preprint arXiv:2503.15558, 2025. 16 A A Predictive-Projection Interpretation of G2R G2R uses future-conditioned generator states as supe...

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2025

  60. [60]

    Features from blocks {7,15,23,31}are instead concatenated only for the predictive head and its multi-level supervision

    The action head reads projected patch tokens from the final DINO block. Features from blocks {7,15,23,31}are instead concatenated only for the predictive head and its multi-level supervision. Detached features from Cosmos blocks{7,15,23,27}provide the G2R targets [1], and the predicted representation is fed back to the same generator through R2G. Predicti...

    2048