Pith. sign in

REVIEW 4 major objections 5 minor 33 references

MTDP: A Modulated Transformer based Diffusion Policy Model

T0 review · 4 major / 5 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 A modulated attention module that fuses guiding conditions into every decoder sublayer lets Transformer-based diffusion policies beat existing baselines on robot manipulation tasks, with a 12-percentage-point gain on Toolhang.

desk verdict Plausible decoder tweak for diffusion policies, but the reported gains are not supported by the statistics or the selection procedure. read the letter →

arxiv 2502.09029 v2 pith:ZP3IQZQP submitted 2025-02-13 cs.RO

Qianhao Wang , Yinqian Sun , Enmeng Lu , Qian Zhang , Yi Zeng This is my paper · ORCID
classification cs.RO
keywords diffusionpolicybehaviorcloningmodulatedattentionTransformerrobotmanipulationDDIMUNetnoisepredictionnetwork
verification ladder T0 review T1 audit T2 compute T3 formal

The pith

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

The reading

This paper argues that Transformer-based diffusion policies underperform on robot manipulation because the guiding conditions (image observations and timestep) enter the decoder only through cross-attention, which the authors claim is insufficient. To fix this, they introduce Modulated Attention, a decoder module that converts encoder outputs into scale-and-shift parameters applied to both self-attention and feedforward layers while keeping cross-attention. On six behavior-cloning manipulation tasks, the resulting MTDP model outperforms the existing Transformer-based diffusion policy and a DiT-based variant, with the largest reported gain being a 12 percentage-point improvement on Toolhang. The same module applied to a UNet backbone (MUDP) also matches or exceeds the UNet baseline, supporting the claim that the mechanism is general rather than Transformer-specific.

What carries the argument

The load-bearing object is the Modulated Attention module in its M-SelfAttention configuration: the encoder output is passed through an MLP to produce per-token scale and shift parameters that modulate the LayerNorm outputs inside the self-attention and feedforward blocks, while a cross-attention layer still receives the encoder outputs directly. This lets guiding conditions influence every decoder sublayer rather than only the cross-attention step. The module does the work of more fully injecting the image and timestep conditions into the noise-prediction network; the ablation in Table III is what justifies choosing this configuration over three alternatives.

What would settle it

Run the same six tasks with at least ten seeds under identical hyperparameters and compare the full distributions. If the one-point differences on Can, Square, and Lift vanish or reverse, and the 12-point Toolhang gap does not reproduce, the claim that Modulated Attention is responsible for the success-rate gains would be falsified.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

The central claim is that a simple architectural change to the decoder of a Transformer-based diffusion policy improves behavior-cloning success rates: instead of letting the encoder's guiding conditions enter only through cross-attention, the encoder outputs are mapped by an MLP into modulation parameters (scale and shift) applied to the self-attention and feedforward sublayers, while cross-attention remains. The paper calls the best-performing configuration M-SelfAttention, selected from an ablation of four variants on PushT, Square, and Toolhang. With this module, MTDP reports success rates of 0.74 (PushT), 0.97 (Can), 1.0 (Lift), 0.93 (Square), 0.72 (Toolhang), and 0.92 (Transport), beating DP-Transformer and DP-DIT on nearly all tasks, with the Toolhang gain as the headline 12 percentage points. Generalization is tested by porting the same modulation to a UNet, giving MUDP, which matches or exceeds DP-UNet on all six tasks. A secondary claim is that swapping DDPM for DDIM (MTDP-I, MUDP-I) keeps performance nearly intact while reducing sampling timesteps from 100 to 60.

Load-bearing premise

The reported gains rest on three-seed averaged success rates where differences as small as one percentage point are treated as meaningful, and on the choice of the M-SelfAttention configuration from three tasks transferring to all six tasks without inflating the headline results.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • If the mechanism works as described, Transformer-based diffusion policies can be improved by modulating self-attention with guiding conditions, without changing the diffusion objective or the training loss.
  • The reported gains imply that condition-fusion, not model capacity, is a primary bottleneck for Transformer diffusion policies in behavior cloning.
  • Because the same module lifts UNet performance slightly, the benefit is not tied to the Transformer's self-attention specifically but to the modulation pathway.
  • Using DDIM at 60 timesteps instead of DDPM at 100 gives nearly the same success rates, so deployment latencies can be roughly halved without retraining a new architecture.

Reading between the lines

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

  • One implication the authors leave implicit is that the 1-percentage-point gains on several tasks are likely within seed noise; the architecture's real advantage may be concentrated in harder tasks like Toolhang where the gap is 12 points, so a fair test should report variance or interquartile ranges.
  • The modulation mechanism resembles adaptive normalization used in image diffusion transformers; extending it to vision-language-action models may help fuse language instructions into action generation the way image features are fused here.
  • A testable extension would be to keep M-SelfAttention fixed but vary the number of decoder layers to see whether the gains saturate, and to run the same ablation on longer-horizon tasks to check if the condition-fusion bottleneck grows with task complexity.
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 / 5 minor

Summary. The paper proposes MTDP, a Transformer-based diffusion policy for robot behavior cloning, whose key contribution is a 'Modulated Attention' decoder module that fuses guiding conditions (image observations and diffusion timestep) into both self-attention and cross-attention. The same module is transplanted into a UNet architecture (MUDP), and DDIM is used as a faster alternative to DDPM (MTDP-I, MUDP-I). The central empirical claim is that MTDP raises task success rates relative to DP-Transformer and DP-DIT baselines across six manipulation benchmarks, with a flagship 12-percentage-point improvement on Toolhang, while MUDP matches or slightly exceeds DP-UNet. The evidence is entirely empirical and based on three-seed averages reported to two decimal places, without variance or significance testing.

Significance. If the reported gains are reproducible, the paper makes a useful architectural contribution: it gives a clean taxonomy of four decoder-level attention configurations and demonstrates that modulating self-attention in addition to cross-attention can help a Transformer-based diffusion policy. The transfer of the module to UNet is a sensible generality check, and the DDIM timestep ablation addresses a practical speed/quality tradeoff. However, the load-bearing evidence is thin: no code or data are released, no per-seed numbers or confidence intervals are given, and the winning configuration is selected on the same tasks used for the headline results. The central claim is therefore plausible but not established at the reported precision.

major comments (4)
  1. [IV-B, Tables I and II] The central empirical claim rests on three-seed averages, but no per-seed values, standard deviations, confidence intervals, or significance tests are reported. Most comparisons differ by 0.01 to 0.02 (e.g., PushT 0.74 vs. 0.72, Square 0.93 vs. 0.95), and the flagship Toolhang gain is 0.72 vs. 0.60; without information on per-seed variance and the number of evaluation episodes per seed, these differences are consistent with sampling noise. The statement that MTDP 'outperformed existing Transformer model architectures' is not supported to the precision claimed.
  2. [IV-C, Table III] The M-SelfAttention configuration was selected by comparing four decoder variants on PushT, Square, and Toolhang, the same three tasks that later appear in the headline comparisons. On Toolhang, DIT-CrossAttention reports 0.73 versus 0.72 for M-SelfAttention and is rejected because of 'extremely low success rates and high variance' that are not shown numerically. Because the selection criterion is not quantified and the variance is not reported for any entry in Table III, the superiority of M-SelfAttention in Tables I and II may be a selection effect rather than an intrinsic property of the Modulated Attention module.
  3. [Abstract; Section I; Table I] The paper claims that MTDP outperformed baselines across six experimental tasks, but Table I shows a tie on Lift and Square and a 0.97 result on Can versus 0.98 for one baseline, which is a negative result on that task. The contributions section says 'almost all experiments,' but the abstract does not qualify the claim in the same way. The summary should be corrected to match what the table actually shows.
  4. [IV-C; Figure 5; Abstract] The DDIM sampling timestep T=60 is chosen from an ablation on only PushT and Square and then applied to all six tasks, and the 'nearly doubled generation speed' claim is inferred from the reduction from 100 to 60 timesteps rather than measured wall-clock time. A reduction from 100 to 60 steps corresponds to a 1.67x decrease in the number of steps, not a doubling of speed, and the per-step cost of DDIM may differ from DDPM. Please report actual inference latency or limit the claim to a reduction in sampling timesteps.
minor comments (5)
  1. [V-A] The 'Data Avaliable' section points only to the BrainCog Embot platform and does not describe how to obtain the code, model checkpoints, datasets, or training configurations needed to reproduce Tables I-III; the section title also contains a typo.
  2. [III-C, Eqs. (1)-(2)] The notation in Equations (1) and (2) is unclear: the text writes 'αt, αt, σ' with the same symbol repeated, and the DDIM update in Equation (2) does not define ᾱ_t or σ; please define all coefficients and check that the formula matches the standard DDIM update.
  3. [Figure 4; Section IV-B] Figure 4 appears to be a radar-style chart but has no axis labels, legend, or explanation of what quantity is plotted; please label the axes and add a legend, or replace the figure with a table.
  4. [Throughout] Please correct the typographical errors: 'Attenttion' in Figure 1, 'M-CrossAttension' and 'DIT-CrossAttension' in Section III-B, 'Pusht' in Section IV-C, and 'Data Avaliable' in Section V-A.
  5. [Table II] The caption of Table II says MUDP 'outperforms DP-UNet across all experimental tasks,' but the PushT, Can, Lift, and Transport entries are equal to those of DP-UNet; please reword the caption to 'matches or exceeds.'

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 0.0 of 10

No circular derivation: the central success-rate claims rest on external empirical baselines, not on fitted inputs or load-bearing self-citations.

full rationale

The paper makes no derivation claim whose conclusion is identical to an input: MTDP and MUDP are evaluated against external baselines (DP-Transformer, DP-DIT from [10]/[26], DP-UNet) in Tables I and II, so the reported success-rate differences are fresh measurements, not algebraic consequences of the method. The Modulated Attention module is described architecturally in Section III-B as modulating self-/cross-attention with encoder outputs; the paper does not define 'better condition integration' in terms of the measured success rate, so the improvement claim has independent empirical content. The main validity threat is selection on the benchmark: Section IV-C chooses M-SelfAttention after testing on PushT, Square, and Toolhang, the same tasks used in the headline Table I, and the DDIM T=60 is chosen after testing on PushT/Square in Figure 5. That is a statistical/selection-bias concern, not constructional circularity—and notably the selected configuration was not even the top Toolhang scorer in Table III (DIT-CrossAttention scored 0.73 vs 0.72), so the 12% gain is not a max-selection artifact. Self-citations [29] and [33] are contextual (a related-work spiking diffusion model and the BrainCog platform pointer) and are not load-bearing premises. The abstract's claim that MTDP outperformed baselines on all six tasks is contradicted by ties/negative cells in Table I, but that is an evidence/accuracy issue, not circularity. No circular step is present.

Assumptions & free parameters 2 free parameters · 5 assumptions · 1 invented entities

The central claim rests on standard diffusion equations, an untested assumption that default Diffusion Policy hyperparameters transfer, the stability of three-seed success rates, and the transferability of the ablation-selected architecture. There are no fitted model parameters beyond network weights, but the DDIM timestep T=60 is chosen from data.

free parameters (2)
  • DDIM sampling timestep T = 60
    Selected from Figure 5 ablation on PushT and Square as the lowest timestep that preserves success rate; used for MTDP-I and MUDP-I in Tables I and II.
  • Evaluation seed count = 3
    Chosen by hand in Section IV-A; all success-rate claims depend on this choice because no variance is reported.
assumptions (5)
  • standard math DDPM and DDIM update equations (Eq. 1 and Eq. 2) correctly model the diffusion and denoising process for action sequences.
    Taken without modification from [27] and [28]; the paper does not verify the assumptions for continuous actions beyond standard practice.
  • domain assumption Default training hyperparameters from Diffusion Policy [10] work for all six tasks and for the proposed architectures.
    Section IV-A says parameters match [10], but dataset construction, demonstration counts, learning rate, and training steps are not listed.
  • domain assumption Success rates averaged over three random seeds are sufficient to distinguish the compared architectures.
    Section IV-A reports three-seed averages; no standard deviation, confidence interval, or significance test is provided, while many reported differences are one or two percentage points.
  • ad hoc to paper The M-SelfAttention configuration selected in the ablation generalizes to all six tasks.
    Section IV-C selects this configuration after testing four variants on PushT, Square, and Toolhang, then uses it for the final tables on the same benchmarks; no held-out validation is described.
  • domain assumption The self-constructed DP-DIT baseline faithfully represents the DiT architecture under the same training protocol.
    DP-DIT is built by the authors (Section IV-B) without code or detailed configuration, so an unfair baseline could inflate MTDP's relative gains.
invented entities (1)
  • Modulated Attention module (M-SelfAttention configuration)
    purpose: To condition self-attention, cross-attention, and feed-forward layers with scale and shift parameters derived from encoder outputs, and to let cross-attention directly receive encoder outputs, with the goal of improving diffusion policy conditioning.
    The module is introduced and evaluated only in this paper; no separate implementation, code release, or external benchmark verifies it independently of the authors' own experiments.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of MTDP: A Modulated Transformer based Diffusion Policy Model." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/ZP3IQZQP

@misc{pith2026250209029,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: MTDP: A Modulated Transformer based Diffusion Policy Model},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/ZP3IQZQP}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2502.09029}
}
read the original abstract

Recent research on robot manipulation based on Behavior Cloning (BC) has made significant progress. By combining diffusion models with BC, diffusion policiy has been proposed, enabling robots to quickly learn manipulation tasks with high success rates. However, integrating diffusion policy with high-capacity Transformer presents challenges, traditional Transformer architectures struggle to effectively integrate guiding conditions, resulting in poor performance in manipulation tasks when using Transformer-based models. In this paper, we investigate key architectural designs of Transformers and improve the traditional Transformer architecture by proposing the Modulated Transformer Diffusion Policy (MTDP) model for diffusion policy. The core of this model is the Modulated Attention module we proposed, which more effectively integrates the guiding conditions with the main input, improving the generative model's output quality and, consequently, increasing the robot's task success rate. In six experimental tasks, MTDP outperformed existing Transformer model architectures, particularly in the Toolhang experiment, where the success rate increased by 12\%. To verify the generality of Modulated Attention, we applied it to the UNet architecture to construct Modulated UNet Diffusion Policy model (MUDP), which also achieved higher success rates than existing UNet architectures across all six experiments. The Diffusion Policy uses Denoising Diffusion Probabilistic Models (DDPM) as the diffusion model. Building on this, we also explored Denoising Diffusion Implicit Models (DDIM) as the diffusion model, constructing the MTDP-I and MUDP-I model, which nearly doubled the generation speed while maintaining performance.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2502.09029 by the authors.

Figure 1
Figure 1. The architecture of MTDP. Both the timestep and image features serve as guiding conditions and are input into the encoder. During the training [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p002_1.png] view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. We experimented with four different structures for Modulated Attention. (a) M-SelfAttention represents a model with both modulated self-attention [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p003_2.png] view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. Tasks used for the experiment. makes fuller use of the guiding conditions. • Modulated Cross-Attention (M-CrossAttension): This structure utilizes modulated parameters to modulate the cross-attention layers and the feedforward neural network layers. Additionally, the cross-attention layers receive direct guidance from the guiding conditions. But the self-attention layers remain unchanged and does not integrate guidi… view at source ↗
Figures from the paper (2 more)
Figure 4
Figure 4. Figure 4: Comparison of task execution performance between existing [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p005_4.png]
Figure 5
Figure 5. Figure 5: Average success rates of the MUDP-I model on the PushT and [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p006_5.png]

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

33 extracted references · 7 canonical work pages

  1. [1]

    Alvinn: An autonomous land vehicle in a neural network,

    D. A. Pomerleau, “Alvinn: An autonomous land vehicle in a neural network,” Advances in neural information processing systems , vol. 1, 1988

    1988

  2. [2]

    Algorithms for inverse reinforcement learning

    A. Y . Ng, S. Russell, et al. , “Algorithms for inverse reinforcement learning.” in Icml, vol. 1, no. 2, 2000, p. 2

    work page 2000

  3. [3]

    Learning human behaviors from motion capture by adversarial imitation,

    J. Merel, Y . Tassa, D. TB, S. Srinivasan, J. Lemmon, Z. Wang, G. Wayne, and N. Heess, “Learning human behaviors from motion capture by adversarial imitation,” arXiv preprint arXiv:1707.02201 , 2017

    arXiv 2017

  4. [4]

    Third-person imitation learning,

    B. C. Stadie, P. Abbeel, and I. Sutskever, “Third-person imitation learning,” arXiv preprint arXiv:1703.01703 , 2017

    arXiv 2017

  5. [5]

    Playing atari with deep reinforcement learning,

    V . Mnih, “Playing atari with deep reinforcement learning,” arXiv preprint arXiv:1312.5602, 2013

    arXiv 2013

  6. [6]

    Continuous control with deep reinforcement learning,

    T. Lillicrap, “Continuous control with deep reinforcement learning,” arXiv preprint arXiv:1509.02971 , 2015

    arXiv 2015

  7. [7]

    Proximal policy optimization algorithms,

    J. Schulman, F. Wolski, P. Dhariwal, A. Radford, and O. Klimov, “Proximal policy optimization algorithms,” arXiv preprint arXiv:1707.06347, 2017

    arXiv 2017

  8. [8]

    A reduction of imitation learning and structured prediction to no-regret online learning,

    S. Ross, G. Gordon, and D. Bagnell, “A reduction of imitation learning and structured prediction to no-regret online learning,” in Proceedings of the fourteenth international conference on artificial intelligence and statistics. JMLR Workshop and Conference Proceedings, 2011, pp. 627–635

    2011

Show all 33 references
  1. [9]

    Imitation learning: A survey of learning methods,

    A. Hussein, M. M. Gaber, E. Elyan, and C. Jayne, “Imitation learning: A survey of learning methods,” ACM Computing Surveys (CSUR) , vol. 50, no. 2, pp. 1–35, 2017

    2017

  2. [10]

    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

  3. [11]

    Attention is all you need,

    A. Vaswani, “Attention is all you need,” Advances in Neural Informa- tion Processing Systems , 2017

    2017

  4. [12]

    U-net: Convolutional networks for biomedical image segmentation,

    O. Ronneberger, P. Fischer, and T. Brox, “U-net: Convolutional networks for biomedical image segmentation,” in Medical image computing and computer-assisted intervention–MICCAI 2015: 18th international conference, Munich, Germany, October 5-9, 2015, pro- ceedings, part III 18 ...

    2015

  5. [13]

    Language models are unsupervised multitask learners,

    A. Radford, J. Wu, R. Child, D. Luan, D. Amodei, I. Sutskever, et al., “Language models are unsupervised multitask learners,” OpenAI blog, vol. 1, no. 8, p. 9, 2019

    2019

  6. [14]

    Bert: A sentiment analysis odyssey,

    S. Alaparthi and M. Mishra, “Bert: A sentiment analysis odyssey,” Journal of Marketing Analytics , vol. 9, no. 2, pp. 118–126, 2021

    2021

  7. [15]

    An image is worth 16x16 words: Transformers for image recognition at scale,

    D. Alexey, “An image is worth 16x16 words: Transformers for image recognition at scale,” arXiv preprint arXiv: 2010.11929 , 2020

    2010 arXiv

  8. [16]

    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

  9. [17]

    Gpt-4 technical report,

    J. Achiam, S. Adler, S. Agarwal, L. Ahmad, I. Akkaya, F. L. Aleman, D. Almeida, J. Altenschmidt, S. Altman, S. Anadkat, et al. , “Gpt-4 technical report,” arXiv preprint arXiv:2303.08774 , 2023

    2023 arXiv

  10. [18]

    Llama: Open and efficient foundation language models,

    H. Touvron, T. Lavril, G. Izacard, X. Martinet, M.-A. Lachaux, T. Lacroix, B. Rozi`ere, N. Goyal, E. Hambro, F. Azhar, et al., “Llama: Open and efficient foundation language models,” arXiv preprint arXiv:2302.13971, 2023

    2023 arXiv

  11. [19]

    Dinov2: Learning robust visual features without supervision,

    M. Oquab, T. Darcet, T. Moutakanni, H. V o, M. Szafraniec, V . Khali- dov, P. Fernandez, D. Haziza, F. Massa, A. El-Nouby, et al., “Dinov2: Learning robust visual features without supervision,” arXiv preprint arXiv:2304.07193, 2023

    2023 arXiv

  12. [20]

    Sigmoid loss for language image pre-training,

    X. Zhai, B. Mustafa, A. Kolesnikov, and L. Beyer, “Sigmoid loss for language image pre-training,” in Proceedings of the IEEE/CVF International Conference on Computer Vision , 2023, pp. 11 975– 11 986

    2023

  13. [21]

    Segment anything,

    A. Kirillov, E. Mintun, N. Ravi, H. Mao, C. Rolland, L. Gustafson, T. Xiao, S. Whitehead, A. C. Berg, W.-Y . Lo, et al. , “Segment anything,” in Proceedings of the IEEE/CVF International Conference on Computer Vision , 2023, pp. 4015–4026

    2023

  14. [22]

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

    B. Zitkovich, T. Yu, S. Xu, P. Xu, T. Xiao, F. Xia, J. Wu, P. Wohlhart, S. Welker, A. Wahid, et al. , “Rt-2: Vision-language-action models transfer web knowledge to robotic control,” in Conference on Robot Learning. PMLR, 2023, pp. 2165–2183

    2023

  15. [23]

    Open x-embodiment: Robotic learning datasets and rt-x models,

    Q. Vuong, S. Levine, H. R. Walke, K. Pertsch, A. Singh, R. Doshi, C. Xu, J. Luo, L. Tan, D. Shah, et al., “Open x-embodiment: Robotic learning datasets and rt-x models,” in Towards Generalist Robots: Learning Paradigms for Scalable Skill Acquisition@ CoRL2023, 2023

    2023

  16. [24]

    Open- vla: 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. , “Open- vla: An open-source vision-language-action model,” arXiv preprint arXiv:2406.09246, 2024

    2024 arXiv

  17. [25]

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

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

    2022 arXiv

  18. [26]

    Scalable diffusion models with transform- ers,

    W. Peebles and S. Xie, “Scalable diffusion models with transform- ers,” in Proceedings of the IEEE/CVF International Conference on Computer Vision, 2023, pp. 4195–4205

    2023

  19. [27]

    Denoising diffusion probabilistic models,

    J. Ho, A. Jain, and P. Abbeel, “Denoising diffusion probabilistic models,” Advances in neural information processing systems , vol. 33, pp. 6840–6851, 2020

    2020

  20. [28]

    Denoising diffusion implicit models,

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

    2010 arXiv

  21. [29]

    Brain-inspired action generation with spiking transformer diffusion policy model,

    Q. Wang, Y . Sun, E. Lu, Q. Zhang, and Y . Zeng, “Brain-inspired action generation with spiking transformer diffusion policy model,” arXiv preprint arXiv:2411.09953 , 2024

    2024 arXiv

  22. [30]

    Octo: An open-source generalist robot policy,

    O. M. Team, D. Ghosh, H. Walke, K. Pertsch, K. Black, O. Mees, S. Dasari, J. Hejna, T. Kreiman, C. Xu, et al., “Octo: An open-source generalist robot policy,” arXiv preprint arXiv:2405.12213 , 2024

    2024 arXiv

  23. [31]

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

    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 manipulation,” arXiv preprint arXiv:2410.07864 , 2024

    2024 arXiv

  24. [32]

    Diffusion transformer policy,

    Z. Hou, T. Zhang, Y . Xiong, H. Pu, C. Zhao, R. Tong, Y . Qiao, J. Dai, and Y . Chen, “Diffusion transformer policy,” arXiv preprint arXiv:2410.15959, 2024

    2024 arXiv

  25. [33]

    The braincog embot engine,

    “The braincog embot engine,” https://www.brain-cog.network/embot

Pith tools

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