Pith. sign in

REVIEW 3 major objections 6 minor 2 cited by

RoboBERT: An End-to-end Multimodal Robotic Manipulation Model

T0 review · 3 major / 6 minor · reviewed 2026-08-08 · deepseek-v4-flash

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

Pith's one-line read RoboBERT claims a new CALVIN state of the art with a 208M-parameter model trained only on language-labeled demonstrations.

desk verdict The two-stage training recipe is genuinely interesting, but the headline CALVIN numbers are selected from a test-benchmark sweep and need a fixed protocol plus code before they can be trusted. read the letter →

arxiv 2502.07837 v2 pith:YXPHDCXB submitted 2025-02-11 cs.RO cs.LG

Sicheng Wang , Sheng Liu , Weiheng Wang , Jianhua Shan , Bin Fang This is my paper · ORCID
classification cs.ROcs.LG
keywords RoboBERTvision-language-actiontwo-stagetrainingdiffusionpolicydataaugmentationCALVINbenchmarkroboticmanipulationimitationlearning
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

The paper claims that freezing most of the vision encoder and training with a single fixed instruction phrasing first, then unfreezing everything and training on varied natural language, lets a comparatively lightweight vision-language-action model reach state-of-the-art scores on the CALVIN benchmark without any auxiliary robot data. It reports mean episode lengths of 4.52 on ABCD→D and 3.79 on ABC→D, exceeding much larger models such as MoDE, GR-1, and RoboFlamingo. The same recipe, combined with visual augmentations and a CNN diffusion action head, transfers to a real 6-DOF arm with higher success rates than RT-1 and MT-ACT trained on identical demonstrations. If the results hold, efficient training on limited language-labeled expert data is enough to compete with internet-scale pretraining.

What carries the argument

The carrying device is a two-stage training curriculum. Stage one freezes all but the last layer of the CLIP vision transformer and uses one fixed instruction template to train a CNN-based diffusion action head that denoises actions conditioned on fused language-image tokens; stage two unfreezes all modules and injects diverse natural-language labels. The modality fusion uses a perceiver-resampler language connector and a cross-attention transformer decoder in the style of the OpenFlamingo architecture, and systematic augmentations—salt-and-pepper noise, random translation, HSV color jitter, and a robotic mixup that interpolates RGB frames, language tokens, and action vectors—are applied to the training data.

What would settle it

Rerun the CALVIN ABCD→D and ABC→D evaluations with augmentation hyperparameters fixed before observing any test results, or selected only on a held-out validation split, and check whether mean episode lengths still exceed the baselines; a drop below the reported 4.52 and 3.79 would show that part of the gain came from tuning on the test benchmark.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

On the paper's own terms, the central discovery is that instruction diversity does not have to be learned at the same time as the policy. By first mapping a single standard instruction to actions with a mostly frozen vision encoder, the model learns a stable behavior-cloning policy; the second stage then aligns natural-language variation to that already-learned policy with minimal loss, avoiding the instability of joint training. Combined with a careful selection of augmentations, this two-stage curriculum produces state-of-the-art CALVIN numbers and better real-robot success rates than methods trained on the same data.

Load-bearing premise

The reported CALVIN scores are unbiased estimates of policy quality, meaning the augmentation hyperparameters (SNR=0.95, translation amplitude 15%, HSV jitter 0.4, mixup α=0.4) were fixed without peeking at the benchmark results; the paper states these were empirically tuned based on trial results.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • If the results hold, the two-stage curriculum means large-scale vision-language pretraining can be reused without end-to-end fine-tuning of the entire stack, cutting GPU hours and data requirements for robotic manipulation.
  • The large gain from color jitter (0.65 over no augmentation) suggests that visual augmentation, rather than model scale, is a primary driver of robustness on CALVIN.
  • Because the model uses only RGB images and language and runs on two 24GB RTX 3090s, the approach is accessible to labs without large clusters.
  • The transfer to a real RM65B arm with higher success than RT-1 and MT-ACT suggests the paradigm is not confined to simulation, provided the real-robot comparisons are reproduced on a shared evaluation protocol.
  • The study implies that instruction following can be decoupled from policy learning, which may generalize to other vision-language-action designs that currently struggle with instruction diversity.

Reading between the lines

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

  • The paper's negative result for affine transformations is based on a single hyperparameter choice (translation amplitude 15%); other amplitudes or transformations might reverse that conclusion, so the finding is not necessarily a property of translation augmentation in general.
  • The two-stage benefit could come from the curriculum itself or from the early freeze of the vision encoder; a one-stage run with the same augmentations and a frozen encoder would separate these effects.
  • Because augmentation hyperparameters were empirically tuned based on trial results on the same benchmark, the reported state-of-the-art numbers may shrink under a protocol where hyperparameters are fixed before seeing test outcomes; the qualitative advantage of two-stage training might survive even if the exact 4.52 and 3.79 figures do not.
  • A natural extension not explored in the paper is to apply the two-stage recipe to other multimodal backbones and to measure whether the second stage can be made much shorter, since it is designed to only nudge the language alignment.
Share X Bluesky LinkedIn Reddit HN

Editorial analysis

A structured set of objections, weighed in public.

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

Referee Report

3 major / 6 minor

Summary. The paper proposes RoboBERT, an end-to-end vision-language-action model for robotic manipulation, built from a CLIP vision encoder, a BERT language encoder, a perceiver-resampler-based language connector, a transformer-decoder fusion layer, and a CNN-based diffusion action head. The central methodological claims are (i) a two-stage training paradigm in which the vision encoder is mostly frozen and a single standard instruction phrasing is used in stage one, followed by unfreezing all modules and injecting diverse natural language variants in stage two, and (ii) a systematic data augmentation strategy (salt-and-pepper noise, affine transformation, HSV color jitter, and robotic mixup). The paper reports state-of-the-art mean episode lengths of 4.52 on CALVIN ABCD→D and 3.79 on ABC→D using only language-labeled expert demonstrations and a 208M-parameter model. The authors also report real-robot experiments on a 6-DOF arm showing higher success rates than RT-1 and MT-ACT on sequential and individual tasks.

Significance. If the reported results are unbiased, the paper makes a useful contribution: it demonstrates that a relatively compact VLA model, without pretraining on auxiliary robotic datasets, can outperform much larger baselines on CALVIN, and that a two-stage training scheme plus augmentation can improve both simulation and real-robot performance. The paper provides ablations for the training method and each augmentation, and reports standard errors on the main CALVIN results, which is good empirical practice. However, the headline SOTA claim rests on an augmentation configuration that was selected after observing results on the same evaluation benchmark, which undermines the unbiasedness of the reported numbers; additionally, the ABCD→D comparison omits the fair (no-extra-data) version of MoDE, making the 'without auxiliary datasets' claim less direct than it appears.

major comments (3)
  1. [§5.1, Table 3 (b) caption and accompanying text] The paper states that augmentation parameters 'such as SNR and amplitude, were empirically tuned based on trial results,' and the reported ABC→D score of 3.79 is the result of 'Combining All w/o Aff.,' which was selected after observing the performance of seven augmentation settings (No Augmentation, Salt-and-Pepper, Affine Transformation, Color Jitter, Robotic Mixup, Combining All, Combining All w/o Aff.) on the same ABC→D evaluation benchmark. The spread of these settings is 2.75–3.79, which is comparable to the margin over the strongest baseline (MoDE at 3.39). Selecting the best of several noisy test-benchmark evaluations biases the reported mean upward, so the SOTA claim is not established as an unbiased estimate. The authors should either fix the augmentation configuration before test rollouts (e.g., by tuning on a held-out validation split) or report all augmentation settings with appropriate multiple-comparison awareness, and temper the SOTA claim accordingly.
  2. [§5.1, Tables 1 and 2] In Table 1 (ABCD→D), RoboBERT is compared against MoDE(w. per.), which uses additional pretraining data, but MoDE(w/o per.) is not reported, even though Table 2 (ABC→D) includes MoDE(w/o per.). Since RoboBERT claims to not rely on auxiliary datasets, the absence of MoDE(w/o per.) in Table 1 makes the 'without auxiliary datasets' comparison incomplete and potentially unfair; without the no-extra-data baseline on the same split, the reader cannot verify that the improvement over MoDE on ABCD→D is not entirely due to MoDE's use of extra data. The authors should add the MoDE(w/o per.) result on ABCD→D.
  3. [§5.2, Table 4] The real-robot experiments use only 25–30 trajectories per task and report no standard errors or statistical significance tests. While this is a common limitation in real-robot evaluation, the claim that RoboBERT 'outperforms' RT-1 and MT-ACT is based on differences that could be within noise given the small sample sizes. The authors should either provide confidence intervals, run more trials, or soften the comparison claim.
minor comments (6)
  1. [Title page / affiliations] The affiliation for Beijing University of Posts and Telecommunications is misspelled as 'Beijing Universuty of Post and Telecommunicate'; please correct.
  2. [§5.1, Table 3 (b)] The phrase 'all augmentations expelling the Affine Transformation' should be 'excluding' rather than 'expelling.'
  3. [§4.3] The description of robotic mixup states 'λ ∼ Beta(0.4, 0.4)' but the formula uses λ and 1−λ; the text should clarify whether λ is sampled once per pair or per sample, since the current wording is ambiguous.
  4. [§5.1, 'Training Configuration'] The text says 'ten training cycles' and 'five training cycles' without defining what a cycle is (epoch, iteration, or something else); please define the term.
  5. [General] The claim in the abstract and introduction that RoboBERT is 'comparatively lightweight' would be clearer if the parameter count were compared not only to billion-parameter models but also to the HULC baseline (100M) and MoDE variants (307M/436M).
  6. [§5.1, Table 1] The baseline numbers are reported with ±0.00 for several methods (HULC, RoboFlamingo, DeeR, GR-1), which is suspiciously precise; the authors should either report the actual standard errors or explain why they are zero.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 0.0 of 10

No circular derivation: RoboBERT is an empirical benchmark evaluation; the augmentation tuning admission is a protocol concern, not a circular step.

full rationale

This paper contains no derivation chain that reduces to its own inputs. The method sections define a standard behavior-cloning objective with a diffusion policy head (Eqs. 3-4), and the reported CALVIN episode lengths are external benchmark measurements, not quantities defined in terms of the model's parameters. There are no load-bearing self-citations: the authors cite prior baselines (HULC, GR-1, DeeR, MoDE, RoboFlamingo, etc.) and standard components (BERT, CLIP, OpenFlamingo, Diffusion Policy, mixup), but none of these citations is invoked to forbid alternatives or to justify a conclusion solely by the authors' own prior authority. The one passage that could appear circular is Section 5.1, where the augmentation parameters 'were empirically tuned based on trial results' and the final ABC->D score of 3.79 is the 'Combining All w/o Aff.' row of that same augmentation sweep. That is a genuine risk of selection bias: the headline SOTA may partly reflect choosing the best configuration on the evaluation benchmark rather than a fixed protocol. However, this is a statistical validity and reporting-transparency concern, not a formal circularity: the measured episode length is not defined in terms of the selected augmentation parameters, no fitted parameter is renamed as a prediction, and no equation reduces to itself. Per the hard rules, benchmark tuning without a held-out protocol belongs under correctness risk rather than a circularity finding. The paper is therefore assessed as having no significant circularity, and the score is 0.

Assumptions & free parameters 5 free parameters · 4 assumptions · 0 invented entities

The paper introduces no new physical entities; it combines existing components. Its free parameters are augmentation hyperparameters and the composition choice, all fitted to the benchmark.

free parameters (5)
  • Salt-and-pepper noise SNR = 0.95
    Chosen by trial-and-error on CALVIN evaluation; affects robustness results.
  • Translation amplitude = 15%
    Tuned on trial results; affine transform actually hurt performance.
  • Color jitter HSV = 0.4
    Tuned empirically; gave the largest augmentation boost.
  • Mixup alpha = 0.4
    Tuned empirically; interpolation weight for robotic mixup.
  • Augmentation composition = Combining All w/o Aff
    Selected after observing ablation results; not a fixed a priori choice.
assumptions (4)
  • domain assumption Behavioral cloning from expert demonstrations yields a valid policy for language-conditioned manipulation.
    Section 4.2 defines the training target as minimizing action prediction error against expert actions.
  • domain assumption The CALVIN benchmark's evaluation protocol measures the intended language-conditioned manipulation capability.
    Section 5.1 uses CALVIN ABCD->D and ABC->D as the primary evidence for SOTA.
  • domain assumption Pretrained CLIP and BERT representations transfer to robotic manipulation domains.
    Sections 4.1 and 4.2 rely on CLIP ViT and BERT weights initialized from internet-scale corpora.
  • standard math The diffusion policy formulation is a sound action generation model.
    Section 4.1 and 4.2 adopt the CNN-based diffusion policy from Chi et al. 2023.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of RoboBERT: An End-to-end Multimodal Robotic Manipulation Model." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/YXPHDCXB

@misc{pith2026250207837,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: RoboBERT: An End-to-end Multimodal Robotic Manipulation Model},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/YXPHDCXB}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2502.07837}
}
read the original abstract

Embodied intelligence seamlessly integrates vision, language, and action.~However, most multimodal robotic models rely on massive fine-tuning, incurring high time and hardware costs.~To address this, we introduce RoboBERT, an end-to-end multimodal manipulation model built around a novel two-stage training paradigm.~In the first stage, we freeze most of the vision encoder and train with a single "standard" instruction phrasing, allowing the model to focus on stable policy learning via a CNN-based diffusion policy.~In the second stage, we unfreeze all modules and inject diverse natural language variants, rapidly aligning varied instructions to the already-learned policy without destabilizing performance.~We further employ systematic data augmentations to enhance robustness against visual perturbations.~Without relying on auxiliary datasets, RoboBERT achieves new state-of-the-art (SOTA) mean episode lengths of 4.52 on the CALVIN ABCD-D benchmark and 3.79 on the ABC-D benchmark using only language-labeled expert demonstrations and a comparatively lightweight architecture.Real-robot trials on a 6-DOF manipulator confirm higher success rates than comparable methods trained on identical data.These results demonstrate that our data-augmentation-enhanced two-stage training paradigm delivers efficient, scalable, and broadly applicable performance for multimodal robotic systems.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2502.07837 by the authors.

Figure 1
Figure 1. (a) The RoboBERT architecture consists of language connectors, a modality fusion layer, [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p003_1.png] view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. The illustration of two-stage training. Red and blue blocks represent the activate and [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p004_2.png] view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. The illustration of data augmentations. (a) From left to right, it shows the original, polluted [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p005_3.png] view at source ↗
Figures from the paper (1 more)
Figure 4
Figure 4. Figure 4: Some examples for real robot experiments. From left to right, sequential table tasks, [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p008_4.png]

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Forward citations

Cited by 2 Pith papers

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

  1. CogVLA: Cognition-Aligned Vision-Language-Action Model via Instruction-Driven Routing & Sparsification

    cs.CV 2025-08 conditional novelty 6.0 of 10

    CogVLA pairs instruction-conditioned visual-token aggregation (EFA-Routing) with transformer-layer pruning (LFP-Routing) and bidirectional action decoding (CAtten), reporting LIBERO 97.4%, real-world 70.0%, 2.5x less ...

  2. OpenTie: Open-vocabulary Sequential Rebar Tying System

    cs.RO 2025-08 reject novelty 4.0 of 10

    A claimed training-free rebar tying pipeline based on point clouds and open-vocabulary detection, but the reported evaluation is too vague to verify the claimed 90% success.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

33 extracted references · 9 canonical work pages · cited by 2 Pith papers

  1. [1]

    Firoozi, J

    R. Firoozi, J. Tucker, S. Tian, A. Majumdar, J. Sun, W. Liu, Y . Zhu, S. Song, A. Kapoor, K. Hausman, B. Ichter, D. Driess, J. Wu, C. Lu, and M. Schwager. Foundation models in robotics: Applications, challenges, and the future, 2023. URL https://arxiv.org/abs/ 2312.07843

    arXiv 2023

  2. [2]

    X. Li, M. Liu, H. Zhang, C. Yu, J. Xu, H. Wu, C. Cheang, Y . Jing, W. Zhang, H. Liu, et al. Vision-language foundation models as effective robot imitators. arXiv preprint arXiv:2311.01378, 2023

    arXiv 2023

  3. [5]

    Cheang, G

    C.-L. Cheang, G. Chen, Y . Jing, T. Kong, H. Li, Y . Li, Y . Liu, H. Wu, J. Xu, Y . Yang, H. Zhang, and M. Zhu. Gr-2: A generative video-language-action model with web-scale knowledge for robot manipulation, 2024. URL https://arxiv.org/abs/2410.06158

    arXiv 2024

  4. [6]

    P. Ding, H. Zhao, W. Zhang, W. Song, M. Zhang, S. Huang, N. Yang, and D. Wang. Quar-vla: Vision-language-action model for quadruped robots, 2025. URL https://arxiv.org/abs/ 2312.14457

    arXiv 2025

  5. [7]

    Black, N

    K. Black, N. Brown, D. Driess, A. Esmail, M. Equi, C. Finn, N. Fusai, L. Groom, K. Haus- man, B. Ichter, S. Jakubczak, T. Jones, L. Ke, S. Levine, A. Li-Bell, M. Mothukuri, S. Nair, K. Pertsch, L. X. Shi, J. Tanner, Q. Vuong, A. Walling, H. Wang, and U. Zhilinsky. π0: A vision-language-action flow model for general robot control, 2024. URL https://arxiv. ...

    arXiv 2024

  6. [8]

    H. Zhen, X. Qiu, P. Chen, J. Yang, X. Yan, Y . Du, Y . Hong, and C. Gan. 3d-vla: A 3d vision-language-action generative world model, 2024. URL https://arxiv.org/abs/ 2403.09631

    arXiv 2024

  7. [9]

    Q. Li, Y . Liang, Z. Wang, L. Luo, X. Chen, M. Liao, F. Wei, Y . Deng, S. Xu, Y . Zhang, X. Wang, B. Liu, J. Fu, J. Bao, D. Chen, Y . Shi, J. Yang, and B. Guo. Cogact: A foundational vision-language-action model for synergizing cognition and action in robotic manipulation,

    work page

  8. [10]

    Intelligence, K

    P. Intelligence, K. Black, N. Brown, J. Darpinian, K. Dhabalia, D. Driess, A. Esmail, M. Equi, C. Finn, N. Fusai, M. Y . Galliker, D. Ghosh, L. Groom, K. Hausman, B. Ichter, S. Jakubczak, T. Jones, L. Ke, D. LeBlanc, S. Levine, A. Li-Bell, M. Mothukuri, S. Nair, K. Pertsch, A. Z. Ren, L. X. Shi, L. Smith, J. T. Springenberg, K. Stachowicz, J. Tanner, Q. V...

    arXiv 2025

Show all 33 references
  1. [11]

    Zheng, Y

    R. Zheng, Y . Liang, S. Huang, J. Gao, H. D. III, A. Kolobov, F. Huang, and J. Yang. Tracevla: Visual trace prompting enhances spatial-temporal awareness for generalist robotic policies,

  2. [12]

    Brohan, N

    A. Brohan, N. Brown, J. Carbajal, Y . Chebotar, X. Chen, K. Choromanski, T. Ding, D. Driess, A. Dubey, C. Finn, P. Florence, C. Fu, M. G. Arenas, K. Gopalakrishnan, K. Han, K. Hausman, A. Herzog, J. Hsu, B. Ichter, A. Irpan, N. Joshi, R. Julian, D. Kalashnikov, Y . Kuang, I. L...

    2023 arXiv

  3. [13]

    URL https://arxiv.org/abs/2412.10345

    arXiv

  4. [14]

    M. J. Kim, K. Pertsch, S. Karamcheti, T. Xiao, A. Balakrishna, S. Nair, R. Rafailov, E. Foster, G. Lam, P. Sanketi, Q. Vuong, T. Kollar, B. Burchfiel, R. Tedrake, D. Sadigh, S. Levine, P. Liang, and C. Finn. Openvla: An open-source vision-language-action model, 2024. URL https...

    2024 arXiv

  5. [15]

    Collaboration, A

    E. Collaboration, A. O’Neill, A. Rehman, A. Gupta, A. Maddukuri, A. Gupta, A. Padalkar, A. Lee, A. Pooley, A. Gupta, A. Mandlekar, A. Jain, A. Tung, A. Bewley, A. Herzog, A. Ir- pan, A. Khazatsky, A. Rai, A. Gupta, A. Wang, A. Kolobov, A. Singh, A. Garg, A. Kembhavi, A. Xie, A...

    2024 arXiv

  6. [16]

    Parekh, N

    A. Parekh, N. Vitsakis, A. Suglia, and I. Konstas. Investigating the role of instruction variety and task difficulty in robotic manipulation tasks, 2024. URL https://arxiv.org/abs/ 2407.03967. 10

    2024 arXiv

  7. [17]

    H. Geng, F. Wang, S. Wei, Y . Li, B. Wang, B. An, C. T. Cheng, H. Lou, P. Li, Y .-J. Wang, Y . Liang, D. Goetting, C. Xu, H. Chen, Y . Qian, Y . Geng, J. Mao, W. Wan, M. Zhang, J. Lyu, S. Zhao, J. Zhang, J. Zhang, C. Zhao, H. Lu, Y . Ding, R. Gong, Y . Wang, Y . Kuang, R. Wu, ...

  8. [18]

    Devlin, M.-W

    J. Devlin, M.-W. Chang, K. Lee, and K. Toutanova. Bert: Pre-training of deep bidirectional transformers for language understanding, 2019. URL https://arxiv.org/abs/1810. 04805

    2019

  9. [19]

    Dosovitskiy, L

    A. Dosovitskiy, L. Beyer, A. Kolesnikov, D. Weissenborn, X. Zhai, T. Unterthiner, M. De- hghani, M. Minderer, G. Heigold, S. Gelly, et al. An image is worth 16x16 words: Transform- ers for image recognition at scale. arXiv preprint arXiv:2010.11929, 2020

    2010 arXiv

  10. [20]

    T. Xiao, I. Radosavovic, T. Darrell, and J. Malik. Masked visual pre-training for motor control. arXiv preprint arXiv:2203.06173, 2022

    2022 arXiv

  11. [21]

    C. Chi, S. Feng, Y . Du, Z. Xu, E. Cousineau, B. Burchfiel, and S. Song. Diffusion policy: Visuomotor policy learning via action diffusion. arXiv preprint arXiv:2303.04137, 2023

    2023 arXiv

  12. [22]

    Redmon, S

    J. Redmon, S. Divvala, R. Girshick, and A. Farhadi. You only look once: Unified, real- time object detection. In Proceedings of the IEEE conference on computer vision and pattern recognition, pages 779–788, 2016

    2016

  13. [23]

    Awadalla, I

    A. Awadalla, I. Gao, J. Gardner, J. Hessel, Y . Hanafy, W. Zhu, K. Marathe, Y . Bitton, S. Gadre, S. Sagawa, J. Jitsev, S. Kornblith, P. W. Koh, G. Ilharco, M. Wortsman, and L. Schmidt. Open- flamingo: An open-source framework for training large autoregressive vision-language ...

    2023 arXiv

  14. [24]

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

    2022

  15. [25]

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

    2022

  16. [26]

    Zhang, M

    H. Zhang, M. Cisse, Y . N. Dauphin, and D. Lopez-Paz. mixup: Beyond empirical risk mini- mization. 2018. URL https://arxiv.org/abs/1710.09412

    2018 arXiv

  17. [27]

    Y . Yue, Y . Wang, B. Kang, Y . Han, S. Wang, S. Song, J. Feng, and G. Huang. Deer-vla: Dynamic inference of multimodal large language models for efficient robot execution. 2024. URL https://arxiv.org/abs/2411.02359

    2024 arXiv

  18. [28]

    Reuss, J

    M. Reuss, J. Pari, P. Agrawal, and R. Lioutikov. Efficient diffusion transformer policies with mixture of expert denoisers for multitask learning. 2024. URL https://arxiv.org/abs/ 2412.12953

    2024 arXiv

  19. [29]

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

    2023 arXiv

  20. [30]

    Brohan, N

    A. Brohan, N. Brown, J. Carbajal, Y . Chebotar, J. Dabis, C. Finn, K. Gopalakrishnan, K. Haus- man, A. Herzog, J. Hsu, J. Ibarz, B. Ichter, A. Irpan, T. Jackson, S. Jesmonth, N. J. Joshi, R. Julian, D. Kalashnikov, Y . Kuang, I. Leal, K.-H. Lee, S. Levine, Y . Lu, U. Malla, D....

    2023 arXiv

  21. [31]

    Bharadhwaj, J

    H. Bharadhwaj, J. Vakil, M. Sharma, A. Gupta, S. Tulsiani, and V . Kumar. Roboagent: Gener- alization and efficiency in robot manipulation via semantic augmentations and action chunking

  22. [32]

    T.-W. Ke, N. Gkanatsios, and K. Fragkiadaki. 3d diffuser actor: Policy diffusion with 3d scene representations. 2024. URL https://arxiv.org/abs/2402.10885

    2024 arXiv

  23. [2023]

    URL https://arxiv.org/abs/2309.01918. 11

    arXiv

  24. [2024]

    URL https://arxiv.org/abs/2411.19650

    arXiv

  25. [2025]

    URL https://github.com/RoboVerseOrg/RoboVerse

Pith tools

Reviewed August 8, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.