Pith. sign in

REVIEW 4 major objections 4 minor 50 references

ERMV: Editing 4D Robotic Multi-view images to enhance embodied agents

T0 review · 4 major / 4 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 ERMV edits an entire 4D multi-view manipulation sequence from a single edited first frame, and the paper shows that policies trained on this augmented data succeed more in original, unseen-cluttered, and real-robot tests.

desk verdict A practical 4D editing system with consistent downstream gains, but the unchanged-action assumption is unverified and the evaluation needs stronger controls. read the letter →

arxiv 2507.17462 v1 pith:XZQVIYSF submitted 2025-07-23 cs.CV

Chang Nie , Guangming Wang , Zhe Lie , Hesheng Wang This is my paper · ORCID
classification cs.CV
keywords roboticdataaugmentation4Dmulti-viewimageeditingvision-language-actionmodelsimitationlearningdiffusionepipolarattentionspatio-temporalconsistencysim-to-realtransfer
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

ERMV proposes a way to edit an entire 4D multi-view robot-manipulation sequence from a single user-edited guide frame, propagating the edit across cameras and timesteps while preserving geometry, motion blur, and the identity of the robot arm. The motivation is that vision-language-action (VLA) policies need large amounts of diverse demonstration data, and real collection is expensive; if one edited frame can yield a full edited trajectory whose original action labels remain valid, then data scarcity can be attacked without new robot runs. The paper reports that training on ERMV-augmented data lifts average success rates in simulation from 0.40 to 0.48, and from 0.19 to 0.37 in unseen cluttered scenes for one policy family, while a real-robot transformer policy rises from 0.52 to 0.91 and from 0.02 to 0.89 when tested in unseen cluttered scenes. The paper further claims ERMV can serve as a world model and can restyle simulated trajectories as realistic-looking real-world data.

What carries the argument

The load-bearing object is a conditional latent-diffusion generator that edits a sparse sample of views and timesteps in a single diffusion pass rather than editing frames independently. A user-edited first frame is encoded into a visual-guidance embedding; per-image camera pose, robot state, and their temporal deltas are encoded into state tokens; and the sampled frames retain their original view and timestep indices as conditions. Inside the generator, the Epipolar Motion-Aware Attention (EMA-Attn) predicts a motion-induced pixel offset before applying epipolar geometry, so feature aggregation runs along shifted epipolar lines and preserves realistic motion blur; the Sparse Spatio-Temporal (SST) module randomly samples K frames from a wide history-and-future window, reframing video editing as a single-frame multi-view problem that trains on one consumer GPU; and the feedback intervention mechanism uses a multimodal large language model to compare core objects in original versus edited images, triggering an expert-mask correction only when degradation is flagged.

What would settle it

Replay an original recorded action trajectory inside one of ERMV's edited scenes where a distractor object was added or the table changed, and check whether the gripper still reaches the target without collision or missing contact; if any edit changes grasp semantics or the collision-free path, the augmented action labels are wrong and the policy gains would not be attributable to valid data.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

The central claim is that a complete 4D multi-view manipulation sequence can be re-rendered consistently from one edited image, with the original actions unchanged, and that this edited data is a directly usable augmentation for imitation-learning policies. The paper argues that three obstacles have blocked this task: motion blur breaks rigid epipolar correspondence, dense video attention limits the temporal window on available GPUs, and autoregressive editing accumulates errors that corrupt the robot arm and manipulated objects. ERMV's claim is that these are all tractable with a motion-aware epipolar attention that learns pixel offsets before applying geometry, a sparse spatio-temporal sampling that turns long video editing into a low-cost single-frame multi-view problem, and an MLLM-based feedback loop that requests expert masks only when core-object consistency fails. The evidence for the claim is behavioral: policies trained on ERMV-edited data succeed more often in the original scenes, much more often in unseen cluttered scenes, and on a physical robot, while a single-image editing baseline collapses under the same test.

Load-bearing premise

The load-bearing premise is that the edits are task-irrelevant, so the original recorded action sequence remains a valid label for the edited images; the paper states this consistency is essential but does not measure it directly.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • Training on ERMV-augmented data raises the simulated policy average success rate from 0.40 to 0.48 in the original test scenes and from 0.19 to 0.37 in unseen cluttered scenes for one policy family, with a second policy family moving from 0.37 to 0.41 and 0.15 to 0.32.
  • On a real dual-arm robot, an action-chunking transformer policy improves from 0.52 to 0.91 average success in the original scene and from 0.02 to 0.89 in an unseen cluttered scene after ERMV augmentation.
  • The sparse spatio-temporal sampling strategy outperforms dense sampling on downstream success (0.37 versus 0.32 average) while using about half the GPU memory for the same working window, so the method is trainable on a single consumer GPU.
  • Conditioned on one initial frame plus a robot action sequence, ERMV generates future multi-view frames consistent with ground truth, making it usable as a world model for offline policy validation.
  • ERMV can transfer simulated trajectories into realistic-style pseudo-real data, and the paper reports that a policy trained on this pseudo-real data completes tasks on a real robot, narrowing the sim-to-real gap.

Reading between the lines

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

  • An extension the paper does not test is to use ERMV as a closed-loop augmentation validator: after editing, replay the recorded action in the edited scene and detect collisions or missed grasps, which would make the augmented pairs trustworthy by construction.
  • Because the method only needs camera pose, state deltas, and a sparse set of views, the same machinery should apply to any dynamic agent-centric multi-view video, such as head-mounted or vehicle-mounted cameras, not only robot arms.
  • The MLLM feedback loop is currently an intervention point requiring an expert; a natural automated version would distill the MLLM's consistency decisions into a small classifier, allowing ERMV to run end-to-end without human masks.
  • Whether the gains persist for larger, pre-trained VLA foundation models is not tested; if augmentation matters less as the base dataset grows, ERMV's practical value may concentrate in small-data and sim-to-real settings.
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 / 4 minor

Summary. This paper proposes ERMV, a latent-diffusion framework for editing 4D multi-view robotic manipulation sequences. Given a single user-edited first frame as visual guidance, ERMV propagates the edit across views and time using (i) explicit robot and camera state injection, (ii) a Sparse Spatio-Temporal (SST) module that reframes video editing as single-frame multi-view editing to enlarge the working window under GPU constraints, (iii) an Epipolar Motion-Aware Attention (EMA-Attn) that predicts motion-induced pixel offsets before applying epipolar constraints, and (iv) an MLLM-based feedback intervention mechanism that triggers expert mask correction when core objects degrade. The authors evaluate editing quality on RoboTwin simulations and a real-world RDT dataset, and train downstream policies (RDT, Diffusion Policy, ACT) on ERMV-augmented data, reporting higher success rates in both original and unseen cluttered scenes, including real-robot ACT experiments. They also demonstrate qualitative world-model generation and sim-to-real style transfer.

Significance. The paper addresses an important and timely problem: low-cost augmentation of 4D robot demonstration data for VLA training. The proposed pipeline is technically sensible, with a clear motivation for each component and a practical single-GPU training regime. The real-robot experiments are a notable strength, as are the consistent improvements across two simulation benchmarks and one physical platform. The authors are transparent about the method's limitations in the Discussion. However, the central claim that ERMV produces valid augmented data rests on the unverified assumption that edited images preserve action semantics, and several quantitative claims lack error bars or strong baselines. The manuscript is promising but needs a direct validation of action validity and more complete ablations before the contributions can be accepted.

major comments (4)
  1. [Section III-A, III-B, Fig. 7] The augmented pair T' = (X'_t, a_t) defined in Section III-A keeps the original action sequence unchanged, and Section III-B states that 'consistency between edited images and actions is essential' without ever measuring that consistency. The editing protocol actively encourages scene changes that can break action validity: the Fig. 7 prompt for bottle adjust adds 'an apple and a white bowl on the table', the shoe-place prompt adds a shoe, and Section V claims the method can change 'object layout'. If a newly added object occupies a position on the robot's planned path or alters the grasp target, the original action is no longer a valid demonstration for the edited images, so the augmented labels are wrong. The downstream gains in Tables III-V do not resolve this issue because a policy can improve on distractor robustness even when some labels are noisy; success-rate improvements are compatible with invalid labels. Please add a direct validation of action validity, for example by replaying the original action sequence in a simulator whose scene is modified to match each edited visual (including added objects), and reporting task success, or by measuring the task-relevant state change (e.g., whether the manipulated object's pose or the reachable workspace is altered by the edit).
  2. [Tables III-V] All success rates are reported for 100 trials with no error bars, confidence intervals, or multiple training seeds. For the statistical small differences (e.g., Table III RDT 'diverse bottles pick' 0.11 vs 0.13, and 'empty cup place' 0.13 vs 0.19) the reader cannot tell whether the improvement is real. The paper should report mean and standard deviation over at least three independent training runs per condition, or at least binomial confidence intervals, so that the headline claim of 'significantly boosts' is supported.
  3. [Section IV-B and Table II] The only comparison method is Step1X-Edit, a single-image editor applied with text prompts. This does not establish that the proposed spatio-temporal modules outperform existing alternatives; for example, a per-frame application of CACTI/ROSIE/GenAug, a dense video-diffusion editing baseline, or a recent action-conditioned generative model such as EVAC would be more informative. The claim that existing methods are 'fundamentally insufficient' for 4D data requires a stronger empirical baseline set. At minimum, include an ablation that applies the same single-frame editor per frame with the same visual guidance to isolate the contribution of the spatio-temporal modules.
  4. [Section IV-E] The ablation study is incomplete for two of the three core contributions. Motion conditioning and EMA-Attn are evaluated only qualitatively (Fig. 13), and the feedback intervention mechanism is evaluated only qualitatively (Fig. 14); only the SST module receives a quantitative table (Table VI). The paper should provide quantitative editing-quality scores (SSIM/PSNR/LPIPS) or downstream policy success for these ablations, and should report the accuracy/agreement of the MLLM consistency checker on a labeled subset. Without these numbers, the contributions claimed in the abstract are not fully substantiated.
minor comments (4)
  1. [Table II] The header 'SSIM ↓' is inconsistent with the standard interpretation: SSIM is a similarity metric where higher values are better, and the reported numbers (0.83 vs 0.19) are consistent with higher-better. The arrow should be '↑'.
  2. [Tables III and IV] The row label 'A VG:' should read 'AVG:' throughout, and the paper contains several small spacing and hyphenation errors (e.g., 'Step1X-Edit' is occasionally written as 'Step1XEdit' in captions and references).
  3. [Section IV-D] The sim-to-real claim is supported only by a qualitative figure (Fig. 12); please either report quantitative success rates for the ACT policy trained on 'pseudo-real' data or soften the claim in the abstract that ERMV 'effectively bridges the sim-to-real gap'.
  4. [Section III-A and Eq. (2)] Equation (2) uses z_t for the noisy latent while z0 is defined earlier, and t is also used as the trajectory time index; this dual use of t is confusing. Use a separate diffusion timestep variable (e.g., s) in the loss notation.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 0.0 of 10

No significant circularity: the editing-augmentation chain is evaluated on external benchmarks and no prediction reduces to a fitted input or self-citation.

full rationale

The paper's central claim—that editing 4D multi-view manipulation sequences with ERMV produces usable augmented data—is supported by an independent chain: the augmented pair T'=(X'_t,a_t) is generated by a conditional latent diffusion model trained with the standard denoising loss of Eq. (2); downstream policies are then trained on the augmented data and evaluated on external benchmarks (RoboTwin, RDT-ft-data) and on a held-out real Franka platform. No equation in the paper reduces a predicted quantity to a fitted parameter or to the target result: the EMA-Attn offset in Eq. (6) is a learned intermediate, and the MLLM consistency check in Eq. (8) uses an external Qwen2.5-VL model rather than a self-citation. The references to prior work (Stable Diffusion, Epidiff, Step1X-Edit, RDT) are background or baselines, not load-bearing justifications. The main non-circular concerns are the unverified assumption that edited visual changes leave original actions valid (Sec. III-A) and the fact that the 'unseen clutter' test scenes are built from the same visual factors ERMV edits; these are validity and evaluation weaknesses, not derivation-level circularity. The paper's stated limitations in Sec. V (no depth/3D data, manual annotation) also do not indicate circularity. Therefore, no circular step is present and the score is 0.

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

The central claim rests on four domain assumptions rather than on fitted constants. The only explicit hand-set numbers are the MLLM threshold and SST sampling choices. No new physical entities are introduced.

free parameters (2)
  • MLLM consistency score threshold = 5 on a 0 to 10 degradation scale
    Section III-F and Table I: if the Qwen2.5-VL checker rates degradation above 5, the image is flagged for expert mask intervention. The threshold is chosen by hand without a calibration plot.
  • SST sampling window and view counts = history: 4 views over past 8 frames; future: 6 views over future 8 frames
    Section IV-A: these counts define the fixed computational budget K and the working window; no sensitivity analysis is reported.
assumptions (4)
  • domain assumption Camera poses P and robot states q are available and accurate for every frame and view, and the fundamental matrix Fij can be formed for each camera pair.
    Section III-C and III-E: state conditioning and EMA-Attn rely on per-image camera pose and robot state to compute epipolar lines and motion deltas; if poses are noisy or uncalibrated, the geometric constraints are wrong.
  • domain assumption The visual edits are task-irrelevant: changing background, table texture, lighting, and adding objects does not change the correct action sequence.
    Section III-A defines augmented pairs T' = (X'_t, a_t) using the original actions unchanged; no measurement verifies that edited scenes preserve the task state.
  • domain assumption Pretrained Stable Diffusion 2.1, CLIP, and Qwen2.5-VL transfer their image-editing, semantic, and consistency-judgment abilities to robotic multi-view images.
    Section IV-A: ERMV is built on Stable Diffusion 2.1 U-Net, CLIP encoder, and MLLM checker; the paper does not retrain or validate these components against robotic distribution shifts.
  • domain assumption Robotic manipulation scenes change slowly with largely static backgrounds, so sparse random sampling of views and timesteps retains enough information for consistent editing.
    Section III-D motivates the SST module with this observation; no quantitative analysis of scene change rate is given.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of ERMV: Editing 4D Robotic Multi-view images to enhance embodied agents." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/XZQVIYSF

@misc{pith2026250717462,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: ERMV: Editing 4D Robotic Multi-view images to enhance embodied agents},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/XZQVIYSF}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2507.17462}
}
read the original abstract

Robot imitation learning relies on 4D multi-view sequential images. However, the high cost of data collection and the scarcity of high-quality data severely constrain the generalization and application of embodied intelligence policies like Vision-Language-Action (VLA) models. Data augmentation is a powerful strategy to overcome data scarcity, but methods for editing 4D multi-view sequential images for manipulation tasks are currently lacking. Thus, we propose ERMV (Editing Robotic Multi-View 4D data), a novel data augmentation framework that efficiently edits an entire multi-view sequence based on single-frame editing and robot state conditions. This task presents three core challenges: (1) maintaining geometric and appearance consistency across dynamic views and long time horizons; (2) expanding the working window with low computational costs; and (3) ensuring the semantic integrity of critical objects like the robot arm. ERMV addresses these challenges through a series of innovations. First, to ensure spatio-temporal consistency in motion blur, we introduce a novel Epipolar Motion-Aware Attention (EMA-Attn) mechanism that learns pixel shift caused by movement before applying geometric constraints. Second, to maximize the editing working window, ERMV pioneers a Sparse Spatio-Temporal (STT) module, which decouples the temporal and spatial views and remodels a single-frame multi-view problem through sparse sampling of the views to reduce computational demands. Third, to alleviate error accumulation, we incorporate a feedback intervention Mechanism, which uses a Multimodal Large Language Model (MLLM) to check editing inconsistencies and request targeted expert guidance only when necessary. Extensive experiments demonstrate that ERMV-augmented data significantly boosts the robustness and generalization of VLA models in both simulated and real-world environments.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2507.17462 by the authors.

Figure 1
Figure 1. The challenges of editing 4D robotic multi-view images. ERMV incorporates a series of innovative approaches to address the challenges faced by existing methods, enabling accurate and convenient 4D sequence editing. high-quality expert demonstrations lead to a significant data bottleneck. This scarcity severely limits the generalization and robustness of VLAs in open-world scenarios. While data augmentation is a prom… view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. The pipeline of the proposed ERMV. 1. Conditioning: The model takes a user-edited single frame as visual guidance and incorporates robotic & camera state as physical conditions (Sec. III-B). 2. Sparse Spatio-Temporal (SST) module: It employs sparse sampling to extract history frames and select the future frames to be edited in a large working window (Sec. III-C). 3. Diffusion model: Within the generative model, our … view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. Comparative Effects of Sparse Spatio-Temporal Module. General methods (left) merge 4D multi-view temporal images into a single-view video, employing dense video techniques for spatio-temporal sequence. This results in working in small windows under limited GPU memory. We propose a SST module (right) that randomly samples views and reconstructs them into a single-frame multi-view problem, significantly reducing compu… view at source ↗
Figures from the paper (9 more)
Figure 5
Figure 5. Figure 5: Multi-View Feature Aggregation via EMA-Attn. This block projects a query pixel from the source view to a shifted epipolar line in the target view. The attention mechanism is then constrained to the key/value pixels along this line, enabling efficient aggregation of mul…
Figure 6
Figure 6. Figure 6: MLLM-driven Feedback Correction for Editing Consistency. To prevent content drift during iterative image editing, ERMV introduces a feedback intervention mechanism. A Multimodal Large Language Model (MLLM) is used as a consistency checker. When the MLLM identifies a si…
Figure 7
Figure 7. Figure 7: Qualitative comparison of editing 4D multi-view sequential images in simulation environments. ERMV is guided by the edited first frame head image. Step1X-Edit is guided by a text prompt. TABLE III QUANTITATIVE RESULTS OF TRAINING VLA MODELS ON DATA AUGMENTED BY EDITING…
Figure 8
Figure 8. Figure 8: Qualitative comparison of editing 4D multi-view sequential images in real-world environments. ERMV is guided by the edited first frame front image. Step1X-Edit is guided by the text prompt. TABLE V QUANTITATIVE RESULTS OF TRAINING ACT ON DATA AUGMENTED BY EDITING METHO…
Figure 9
Figure 9. Figure 9: Qualitative comparison of editing 4D multi-view sequential images in real robot experiments. ERMV is guided by the edited first frame front image. scenes. The quantitative experimental results in TABLE V demon￾strate that in the original scenes, the average success rat…
Figure 10
Figure 10. Figure 10 [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p011_10.png]
Figure 13
Figure 13. Figure 13: The effect of Motion Conditioning in ERMV. Benefiting from the multi-layer injection of motion information, ERMV can effectively edit images with motion blur. action sequence from the simulation, ERMV edits a complete “pseudo-real” 4D multi-view trajectory that is rea…
Figure 12
Figure 12. Figure 12: ERMV edits virtual images as real scene style images. Conditioned on an edited image and simulation actions, ERMV can convert the data collected in the simulation environment to real-world style data. This can make up for the sim-to-real gap and quickly expand real da…
Figure 14
Figure 14. Figure 14: Comparison of correcting cumulative errors using feedback intervention mechanism. As the editing sequence increases, ERMV can effectively alleviate the problem of image degradation caused by cumulative error. In contrast, the image degradation is severe without feedba…

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

50 extracted references · 28 canonical work pages

  1. [1]

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

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

    arXiv 2022

  2. [2]

    Scaling Robot Learning with Semantically Imagined Experience,

    T. Yu, T. Xiao, J. Tompson, A. Stone, S. Wang, A. Brohan, J. Singh, C. Tan, D. M, J. Peralta, K. Hausman, B. Ichter, and F. Xia, “Scaling Robot Learning with Semantically Imagined Experience,” in Robotics: Science and Systems XIX, Daegu, Republic of Korea, July 10-14, 2023 , 2023

    work page 2023

  3. [3]

    Rdt-1b: a diffusion foundation model for bimanual manipula- tion,

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

    arXiv 2024

  4. [4]

    Openvla: An open- source vision-language-action model,

    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

  5. [5]

    MagicDrive: Street view generation with diverse 3d geometry control,

    R. Gao, K. Chen, E. Xie, L. Hong, Z. Li, D.-Y . Yeung, and Q. Xu, “MagicDrive: Street view generation with diverse 3d geometry control,” in International Conference on Learning Representations , 2024

    work page 2024

  6. [6]

    Bevcontrol: Accurately controlling street-view elements with multi-perspective con- sistency via bev sketch layout,

    K. Yang, E. Ma, J. Peng, Q. Guo, D. Lin, and K. Yu, “Bevcontrol: Accurately controlling street-view elements with multi-perspective con- sistency via bev sketch layout,” arXiv preprint arXiv:2308.01661 , 2023

    arXiv 2023

  7. [7]

    Street-view image generation from a bird’s-eye view layout,

    A. Swerdlow, R. Xu, and B. Zhou, “Street-view image generation from a bird’s-eye view layout,” IEEE Robotics Autom. Lett. , vol. 9, no. 4, pp. 3578–3585, 2024

    work page 2024

  8. [8]

    Dragvideo: Interactive drag-style video editing,

    Y . Deng, R. Wang, Y . Zhang, Y .-W. Tai, and C.-K. Tang, “Dragvideo: Interactive drag-style video editing,” in European Conference on Com- puter Vision. Springer, 2024, pp. 183–199

    work page 2024

Show all 50 references
  1. [9]

    Video-p2p: Video editing with cross-attention control,

    S. Liu, Y . Zhang, W. Li, Z. Lin, and J. Jia, “Video-p2p: Video editing with cross-attention control,” in Proceedings of the IEEE/CVF Conference on Computer Vision and Pattern Recognition , 2024, pp. 8599–8608

    2024

  2. [10]

    Visual commonsense-aware representation network for video captioning,

    P. Zeng, H. Zhang, L. Gao, X. Li, J. Qian, and H. T. Shen, “Visual commonsense-aware representation network for video captioning,” IEEE Transactions on Neural Networks and Learning Systems , 2023

    2023

  3. [11]

    Diffusion model-based image editing: A survey,

    Y . Huang, J. Huang, Y . Liu, M. Yan, J. Lv, J. Liu, W. Xiong, H. Zhang, L. Cao, and S. Chen, “Diffusion model-based image editing: A survey,” IEEE Transactions on Pattern Analysis and Machine Intelligence , 2025

    2025

  4. [12]

    Feditnet++: Few- shot editing of latent semantics in gan spaces with correlated attribute disentanglement,

    R. Yi, T. Hu, M. Xia, Y . Tang, and Y .-J. Liu, “Feditnet++: Few- shot editing of latent semantics in gan spaces with correlated attribute disentanglement,” IEEE Transactions on Pattern Analysis and Machine Intelligence, 2024

    2024

  5. [13]

    Gaussctrl: Multi-view consistent text-driven 3d gaussian splatting edit- ing,

    J. Wu, J.-W. Bian, X. Li, G. Wang, I. Reid, P. Torr, and V . A. Prisacariu, “Gaussctrl: Multi-view consistent text-driven 3d gaussian splatting edit- ing,” in European Conference on Computer Vision . Springer, 2024, pp. 55–71

    2024

  6. [14]

    Efficient dynamic scene editing via 4d gaussian-based static-dynamic separation,

    J. Kwon, H. Cho, and J. Kim, “Efficient dynamic scene editing via 4d gaussian-based static-dynamic separation,” in Proceedings of the Computer Vision and Pattern Recognition Conference, 2025, pp. 26 855– 26 865

    2025

  7. [15]

    Generating long videos of dynamic scenes,

    T. Brooks, J. Hellsten, M. Aittala, T.-C. Wang, T. Aila, J. Lehtinen, M.- Y . Liu, A. Efros, and T. Karras, “Generating long videos of dynamic scenes,” Advances in Neural Information Processing Systems , vol. 35, pp. 31 769–31 781, 2022

    2022

  8. [16]

    Storydiffusion: Consistent self-attention for long-range image and video generation,

    Y . Zhou, D. Zhou, M.-M. Cheng, J. Feng, and Q. Hou, “Storydiffusion: Consistent self-attention for long-range image and video generation,” Advances in Neural Information Processing Systems , vol. 37, pp. 110 315–110 340, 2024

    2024

  9. [17]

    Evalcrafter: Benchmarking and evaluating large video generation models,

    Y . Liu, X. Cun, X. Liu, X. Wang, Y . Zhang, H. Chen, Y . Liu, T. Zeng, R. Chan, and Y . Shan, “Evalcrafter: Benchmarking and evaluating large video generation models,” in Proceedings of the IEEE/CVF Conference on Computer Vision and Pattern Recognition , 2024, pp. 22 139–22 149

    2024

  10. [18]

    Towards long video understanding via fine-detailed video story generation,

    Z. You, Z. Wen, Y . Chen, X. Li, R. Zeng, Y . Wang, and M. Tan, “Towards long video understanding via fine-detailed video story generation,” IEEE Transactions on Circuits and Systems for Video Technology , 2024

    2024

  11. [19]

    Maskgwm: A generalizable driving world model with video mask reconstruction,

    J. Ni, Y . Guo, Y . Liu, R. Chen, L. Lu, and Z. Wu, “Maskgwm: A generalizable driving world model with video mask reconstruction,” in Proceedings of the Computer Vision and Pattern Recognition Confer- ence, 2025, pp. 22 381–22 391

    2025

  12. [20]

    A survey on long video generation: Challenges, methods, and prospects,

    C. Li, D. Huang, Z. Lu, Y . Xiao, Q. Pei, and L. Bai, “A survey on long video generation: Challenges, methods, and prospects,” arXiv preprint arXiv:2403.16407, 2024

    2024 arXiv

  13. [21]

    Dall-e-bot: Introducing web- scale diffusion models to robotics,

    I. Kapelyukh, V . V osylius, and E. Johns, “Dall-e-bot: Introducing web- scale diffusion models to robotics,” IEEE Robotics and Automation Letters, vol. 8, no. 7, pp. 3956–3963, 2023

    2023

  14. [22]

    Zero-shot robotic manipulation with pretrained image- editing diffusion models,

    K. Black, M. Nakamoto, P. Atreya, H. Walke, C. Finn, A. Kumar, and S. Levine, “Zero-shot robotic manipulation with pretrained image- editing diffusion models,” arXiv preprint arXiv:2310.10639 , 2023

    2023 arXiv

  15. [23]

    Genaug: Retargeting behaviors to unseen situations via generative augmentation,

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

    2023 arXiv

  16. [24]

    Semantically controllable augmentations for generalizable robot learning,

    Z. Chen, Z. Mandi, H. Bharadhwaj, M. Sharma, S. Song, A. Gupta, and V . Kumar, “Semantically controllable augmentations for generalizable robot learning,” The International Journal of Robotics Research , p. 02783649241273686, 2024

    2024

  17. [25]

    Roboagent: Generalization and efficiency in robot manipu- lation via semantic augmentations and action chunking,

    H. Bharadhwaj, J. Vakil, M. Sharma, A. Gupta, S. Tulsiani, and V . Kumar, “Roboagent: Generalization and efficiency in robot manipu- lation via semantic augmentations and action chunking,” in 2024 IEEE International Conference on Robotics and Automation (ICRA) . IEEE, 2024, pp...

    2024

  18. [26]

    Segment anything,

    A. Kirillov, E. Mintun, N. Ravi, H. Mao, C. Rolland, L. Gustafson, T. Xiao, S. Whitehead, A. C. Berg, W.-Y . Loet al., “Segment anything,” in Proceedings of the IEEE/CVF international conference on computer vision, 2023, pp. 4015–4026

    2023

  19. [27]

    Enerverse-ac: Envisioning embodied environments with action condition,

    Y . Jiang, S. Chen, S. Huang, L. Chen, P. Zhou, Y . Liao, X. He, C. Liu, H. Li, M. Yao et al., “Enerverse-ac: Envisioning embodied environments with action condition,” arXiv preprint arXiv:2505.09723 , 2025

    2025 arXiv

  20. [28]

    Zero-1-to-3: Zero-shot one image to 3d object,

    R. Liu, R. Wu, B. Van Hoorick, P. Tokmakov, S. Zakharov, and C. V on- drick, “Zero-1-to-3: Zero-shot one image to 3d object,” in Proceedings of the IEEE/CVF international conference on computer vision , 2023, pp. 9298–9309

    2023

  21. [29]

    Instantmesh: Efficient 3d mesh generation from a single image with sparse-view large reconstruction models,

    J. Xu, W. Cheng, Y . Gao, X. Wang, S. Gao, and Y . Shan, “Instantmesh: Efficient 3d mesh generation from a single image with sparse-view large reconstruction models,” arXiv preprint arXiv:2404.07191 , 2024

    2024 arXiv

  22. [30]

    3d-adapter: Geometry-consistent multi-view diffusion for high-quality 3d generation,

    H. Chen, B. Shen, Y . Liu, R. Shi, L. Zhou, C. Z. Lin, J. Gu, H. Su, G. Wetzstein, and L. Guibas, “3d-adapter: Geometry-consistent multi-view diffusion for high-quality 3d generation,” arXiv preprint arXiv:2410.18974, 2024

    2024 arXiv

  23. [31]

    Dge: Direct gaussian 3d editing by consistent multi-view editing,

    M. Chen, I. Laina, and A. Vedaldi, “Dge: Direct gaussian 3d editing by consistent multi-view editing,” in European Conference on Computer Vision. Springer, 2024, pp. 74–92

    2024

  24. [32]

    Imfine: 3d inpainting via geometry-guided multi-view refinement,

    Z. Shi, D. Huo, Y . Zhou, Y . Min, J. Lu, and X. Zuo, “Imfine: 3d inpainting via geometry-guided multi-view refinement,” in Proceedings of the Computer Vision and Pattern Recognition Conference , 2025, pp. 26 694–26 703. JOURNAL OF LATEX CLASS FILES, VOL. 14, NO. 8, AUGUST 2021 14

    2025

  25. [33]

    High- resolution image synthesis with latent diffusion models,

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

    2022

  26. [34]

    Towards language-driven video inpainting via multimodal large language models,

    J. Wu, X. Li, C. Si, S. Zhou, J. Yang, J. Zhang, Y . Li, K. Chen, Y . Tong, Z. Liu et al., “Towards language-driven video inpainting via multimodal large language models,” in Proceedings of the IEEE/CVF Conference on Computer Vision and Pattern Recognition , 2024, pp. 12 501–12 511

    2024

  27. [35]

    Brush2prompt: Contextual prompt generator for object inpainting,

    M. T. Chiu, Y . Zhou, L. Zhang, Z. Lin, C. Barnes, S. Amirghodsi, E. Shechtman, and H. Shi, “Brush2prompt: Contextual prompt generator for object inpainting,” in Proceedings of the IEEE/CVF Conference on Computer Vision and Pattern Recognition , 2024, pp. 12 636–12 645

    2024

  28. [36]

    Sketch- guided image inpainting with partial discrete diffusion process,

    N. Sharma, A. Tripathi, A. Chakraborty, and A. Mishra, “Sketch- guided image inpainting with partial discrete diffusion process,” in Proceedings of the IEEE/CVF Conference on Computer Vision and Pattern Recognition, 2024, pp. 6024–6034

    2024

  29. [37]

    Few-shot image generation via style adaptation and content preservation,

    X. He, F. Yang, F. Liu, and G. Lin, “Few-shot image generation via style adaptation and content preservation,” IEEE Transactions on Neural Networks and Learning Systems , 2024

    2024

  30. [38]

    Learning transferable visual models from natural language supervision,

    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,” in International conference on machine learning . PmLR, 2021, pp. 8748–8763

    2021

  31. [39]

    Video diffusion models,

    J. Ho, T. Salimans, A. Gritsenko, W. Chan, M. Norouzi, and D. J. Fleet, “Video diffusion models,” Advances in Neural Information Processing Systems, vol. 35, pp. 8633–8646, 2022

    2022

  32. [40]

    Enerverse: Envisioning embodied future space for robotics manipulation,

    S. Huang, L. Chen, P. Zhou, S. Chen, Z. Jiang, Y . Hu, Y . Liao, P. Gao, H. Li, M. Yao et al., “Enerverse: Envisioning embodied future space for robotics manipulation,” arXiv preprint arXiv:2501.01895 , 2025

    2025

  33. [41]

    Epidiff: Enhancing multi-view synthesis via localized epipolar-constrained diffusion,

    Z. Huang, H. Wen, J. Dong, Y . Wang, Y . Li, X. Chen, Y .-P. Cao, D. Liang, Y . Qiao, B. Dai et al. , “Epidiff: Enhancing multi-view synthesis via localized epipolar-constrained diffusion,” in Proceedings of the IEEE/CVF Conference on Computer Vision and Pattern Recognition , ...

    2024

  34. [42]

    Ar-diffusion: Asynchronous video generation with auto-regressive diffusion,

    M. Sun, W. Wang, G. Li, J. Liu, J. Sun, W. Feng, S. Lao, S. Zhou, Q. He, and J. Liu, “Ar-diffusion: Asynchronous video generation with auto-regressive diffusion,” in Proceedings of the Computer Vision and Pattern Recognition Conference , 2025, pp. 7364–7373

    2025

  35. [43]

    Progressive autoregressive video diffusion models,

    D. Xie, Z. Xu, Y . Hong, H. Tan, D. Liu, F. Liu, A. Kaufman, and Y . Zhou, “Progressive autoregressive video diffusion models,” in Pro- ceedings of the Computer Vision and Pattern Recognition Conference , 2025, pp. 6322–6332

    2025

  36. [44]

    From slow bidirectional to fast autoregressive video diffusion models,

    T. Yin, Q. Zhang, R. Zhang, W. T. Freeman, F. Durand, E. Shechtman, and X. Huang, “From slow bidirectional to fast autoregressive video diffusion models,” in Proceedings of the Computer Vision and Pattern Recognition Conference, 2025, pp. 22 963–22 974

    2025

  37. [45]

    Qwen2. 5-vl technical report,

    S. Bai, K. Chen, X. Liu, J. Wang, W. Ge, S. Song, K. Dang, P. Wang, S. Wang, J. Tang et al. , “Qwen2. 5-vl technical report,” arXiv preprint arXiv:2502.13923, 2025

    2025 arXiv

  38. [46]

    Step1x-edit: A practical framework for general image editing,

    S. Liu, Y . Han, P. Xing, F. Yin, R. Wang, W. Cheng, J. Liao, Y . Wang, H. Fu, C. Han et al. , “Step1x-edit: A practical framework for general image editing,” arXiv preprint arXiv:2504.17761 , 2025

    2025 arXiv

  39. [47]

    Robotwin: Dual-arm robot benchmark with generative digital twins (early version),

    Y . Mu, T. Chen, S. Peng, Z. Chen, Z. Gao, Y . Zou, L. Lin, Z. Xie, and P. Luo, “Robotwin: Dual-arm robot benchmark with generative digital twins (early version),” in European Conference on Computer Vision . Springer, 2025, pp. 264–273

    2025

  40. [48]

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

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

    2023

  41. [49]

    Schedule your edit: A simple yet effective diffu- sion noise schedule for image editing,

    H. Lin, Y . Chen, J. Wang, W. An, M. Wang, F. Tian, Y . Liu, G. Dai, J. Wang, and Q. Wang, “Schedule your edit: A simple yet effective diffu- sion noise schedule for image editing,” Advances in Neural Information Processing Systems, vol. 37, pp. 115 712–115 756, 2024

    2024

  42. [50]

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

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

    2023 arXiv

Pith tools

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