Pith. sign in

REVIEW 6 major objections 5 minor 10 cited by

VTLA: Vision-Tactile-Language-Action Model with Preference Learning for Insertion Manipulation

T0 review · 6 major / 5 minor · reviewed 2026-08-15 · deepseek-v4-flash

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

Pith's one-line read A model trained on purely simulated vision-tactile data reaches 95% real-world insertion success and generalizes to unseen peg shapes.

desk verdict Sim-to-real insertion works, but the tactile fusion claim is not backed by the real-world numbers; the abstract overstates results. read the letter →

arxiv 2505.09577 v1 pith:FEAOCOWR submitted 2025-05-14 cs.RO

Chaofan Zhang , Peng Hao , Xiaoge Cao , Xiaoshuai Hao , Shaowei Cui , Shuo Wang This is my paper · ORCID
classification cs.RO
keywords vision-tactile-language-actionmodelpeg-in-holeinsertiondirectpreferenceoptimizationsimulation-to-realtransfertactilesensingcontact-richmanipulationlanguage-conditionedroboticdomainrandomization
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 introduces VTLA, a model that combines a wrist-camera image, sequences from two fingertip tactile sensors, and a text instruction to predict a small corrective action ($\Delta x$, $\Delta y$, $\Delta r_z$) for peg-in-hole insertion. The central claim is that this policy, trained entirely on 28,000 simulated samples with domain randomization and then refined by direct preference optimization, transfers to a real robot: 95% success at 0.6 mm clearance on a square peg, 100% on unseen round and pentagon pegs, and higher insertion efficiency than a vision-only baseline. The work argues that tactile input adds a real margin over vision alone in contact-rich assembly, and that preference learning gives a regression-like training signal that better matches continuous control than plain next-token prediction.

What carries the argument

The load-bearing mechanism is the Vision-Tactile-Language-Action token stream. Tactile frames from both fingertips are arranged in a $2\times2$ grid and encoded by a vision transformer; the wrist camera image is placed after the tactile tokens, closer to the action output, to counter the recency bias of language models and emphasize visual cues. These tokens, together with the text instruction, are fed into a pretrained vision-language model that predicts the action tokens. The second mechanism is Direct Preference Optimization (DPO): candidate actions are generated by sampling from the fine-tuned model, labeled chosen or rejected by their closeness to the ground-truth action, and the model is optimized to prefer the closer one, giving a regression-like supervision signal.

What would settle it

Run the tactile-only TLA model on the same real 0.6 mm square-peg setup used in Table 7: if its real-world success rate stays near the reported 30-40% while simulation success is 80-90%, the tactile sim-to-real transfer is the weak link. Alternatively, compare VTLA with a vision-only VLA on the real 0.6 mm task under normal lighting; if the vision-only model matches VTLA's 95%, the tactile modality is not load-bearing.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

On its own terms, the paper claims that a single autoregressive model can serve as a contact-rich manipulation policy: given a language instruction, a wrist image, and tactile frame sequences, it emits the next corrective action for insertion. The discovery is that this works when trained only in simulation. In the toughest real-world test, a square peg with 0.6 mm clearance, the model trained solely on simulated data succeeds 95% of the time across 20 trials, requires on average 4.31 attempts, and reaches 95-100% success on unseen peg shapes at the same clearance. The authors attribute the margin over vision-only and tactile-only alternatives to the specific token ordering and temporal encoding of tactile frames, and to direct preference optimization as a preference-based, regression-like loss.

Load-bearing premise

The unstated premise carrying the whole result is that the simulated tactile images are close enough to real sensor output that a policy trained only on simulated touch still behaves correctly on real hardware; if that gap is large, the tactile channel may be contributing little and the reported success could come mostly from vision.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • Contact-rich assembly policies can be learned from simulation alone, avoiding expensive real demonstration collection.
  • Adding a tactile channel to a vision-language-action model improves both success rate and efficiency at tight clearances.
  • Preference learning with DPO improves out-of-distribution generalization over plain next-token supervision.
  • Language-conditioned action prediction works for continuous low-level control when actions are framed as corrective deltas.
  • Assembly success holds across multiple peg shapes and clearances, suggesting the learned skill is not memorized for one geometry.

Reading between the lines

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

  • The paper's tactile augmentation is limited to color jittering; a learned or physics-based sim-to-real tactile translation could make the tactile channel more informative and is a natural next step.
  • Because the vision-only baseline also achieves over 90% success in several settings, the specific value added by touch is most visible in tight-clearance and poor-lighting cases; quantifying that margin would be valuable.
  • The reported DPO saturation with preference dataset size hints that diversity of preference pairs matters more than quantity.
  • The same instruction-tuned delta-action framework may extend to other contact-rich tasks such as screwing, connector mating, and cable insertion without architectural changes.
Share X Bluesky LinkedIn Reddit HN

Signed reviews

No signed human review yet.

Editorial analysis

A structured set of objections, weighed in public.

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

Referee Report

6 major / 5 minor

Summary. The paper introduces VTLA, a vision-tactile-language-action model for peg-in-hole insertion, trained exclusively on simulated data from a self-built visuotactile simulator in Isaac Gym. The contributions are a 28,000-sample vision-tactile-action-instruction dataset, a Vision-Guided Temporally Enhanced Tokens (VGTE) design for temporal fusion, and a Direct Preference Optimization (DPO) stage intended to provide regression-like supervision. The authors evaluate in simulation against a diffusion policy, VLA, and TLA baselines, and report real-world experiments on a UR3 robot with GelStereo 2.0 sensors, claiming 95% real-world success and over 90% success on unseen peg shapes. The central claim is that a policy trained only on simulated data can achieve this performance through effective integration of visual and tactile inputs via language grounding.

Significance. If the claims are substantiated, the paper would be a valuable demonstration of sim-to-real transfer for multimodal insertion policies and would support the case for tactile-language grounding in VLA models. The authors have made a serious effort: the simulation dataset is large, the real-world setup mirrors the simulation, and the evaluations cover multiple peg shapes and clearances. The DPO ablation and domain randomization details are useful. However, the central claim requires better evidence; in particular, the tactile channel's contribution is not isolated, the TLA baseline's sim-to-real collapse suggests the simulated tactile images are not validated, and the reported real-world differences are within sampling noise. The contribution is therefore conditionally significant: it would be strong after additional experiments and analysis.

major comments (6)
  1. [§3.1, Appendix A, Table 7] The simulated tactile channel is never quantitatively validated against real GelStereo 2.0 outputs, yet the central claim that VTLA 'effectively integrates visual and tactile inputs' depends on the tactile channel being informative in the real world. The paper's own TLA baseline, trained on the same simulated tactile data, achieves 80–92% success in simulation (Tables 2 and 3) but only 30–40% in the real world (Table 7). This sim-to-real collapse is direct evidence that the simulated tactile images are not faithful. The authors should provide a quantitative comparison of simulated and real tactile images (e.g., image statistics or a sensor transfer evaluation) or a real-world ablation in which the tactile stream is removed from VTLA under identical conditions. Without this, the 95% real-world success rate can be explained by the wrist-camera vision stream alone, and the paper does not support its central fusion claim.
  2. [§4.4, Table 7, Appendix C] The real-world comparison between VTLA and VLA does not establish a tactile benefit. With 20 trials per condition, the success-rate differences are 95 vs 90 on the triangle and 100 vs 100 on the pentagon, and the mean step differences are 0.12 and 0.45 steps. No confidence intervals, standard deviations, or significance tests are reported. The claim that VTLA achieves 'better insertion efficiency' is therefore not supported by the data. The qualitative poor-lighting demonstration in Appendix C reports no success rates or trial counts and cannot substitute for a quantitative comparison. Additional trials or a paired statistical test are needed, or the manuscript should be revised to state the evidence as suggestive rather than conclusive.
  3. [§4.3, Table 4] The DPO ablation does not show improvement on in-distribution data: ID GCR is 47.5 both with and without DPO, and the L1 differences are at the third decimal. The OOD GCR gain is 4.4 percentage points (from 27.0 to 31.4). The statement that 'preference learning with DPO significantly improves performance on both ID and OOD data' is therefore overstated, and the conclusion that DPO 'mitigates overfitting to ground-truth actions' is not directly evidenced. Moreover, the preference labels are generated by ranking the SFT model's own outputs by distance to the ground-truth action, so the DPO stage is essentially a ranking loss on regression residuals; the paper should acknowledge this and show that the improvement is not simply due to additional training iterations on the same data.
  4. [§4.1, Tables 1 and 4] The Goal Convergence Rate (GCR) is defined as 'the percentage of actions that are all correct in the x, y, and rz directions,' but no tolerance for 'correct' is specified. GCR is the primary metric in Tables 1 and 4 and underpins the comparison of VTLA with baselines and ablations, so an unspecified tolerance makes the metric uninterpretable. Please specify the exact tolerance(s) used and report sensitivity of GCR to the tolerance value.
  5. [§3.2, Tables 1 and 4] Vision-Guided Temporally Enhanced Tokens (VGTE) are presented as the first technical contribution, but they are never isolated in the experiments. The only ablation is for DPO (Table 4); the comparison of VTLA versus VLA in Table 1 conflates the addition of tactile input with the VGTE token design. An ablation of VTLA with tactile tokens fed without the proposed temporal enhancement and without the vision-guided ordering is needed to support the claim that VGTE improves performance. Without this, the contribution of VGTE is not demonstrated.
  6. [Abstract, §4.2, Table 3] The abstract claims 'over 90% success rates on unseen peg shapes.' In simulation, the OOD triangle peg achieves 88% success (Table 3), so the claim is inaccurate for the simulation results. If the claim is intended to refer only to the real-world experiments, the abstract should make that explicit, since the simulation results are the primary quantitative evaluation of generalization.
minor comments (5)
  1. [Appendix B] The text says the tactile sensing program runs at '20 PFS'; this should be '20 FPS' (frames per second).
  2. [§3.2] The VGTE description is high-level; please provide a precise definition or pseudocode for how temporal fusion is applied before the ViT and how the vision-guided ordering is realized.
  3. [§4.1 and §4.4] For the real-world evaluation, the reported success rates and mean steps are percentages and averages over 20 trials; please report per-trial variance or standard error, and consider binomial confidence intervals for success rates.
  4. [Figure 2] The tactile image sequence is described as 'arranged in a 2×2 grid,' but the temporal order is not explained; clarify whether the grid is a 2×2 spatial arrangement of the four frames or a 2×2 tiling for input.
  5. [Related Work [36]] Since TLA is the authors' prior work and serves as a baseline, the paper should explicitly state the architectural differences between VTLA and TLA (e.g., addition of vision, VGTE, DPO) and what new evidence is provided beyond that prior work.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 0.0 of 10

No significant circularity: the VTLA training pipeline and evaluations are self-contained, with only minor self-citations that are not load-bearing.

full rationale

The claimed derivation chain is not circular. VTLA is trained on simulated vision-tactile-action-instruction data using an NTP loss (Eq. 1) and a DPO loss (Eq. 2). The DPO preference pairs are constructed from the fine-tuned model's own sampled actions ranked by L2 distance to the ground-truth action labels; this is a self-referential training-signal construction, but it is not used as the evaluation target. Evaluation is performed on held-out ID/OOD simulation subsets (Tables 1-4) and on 20-trial real-world insertions with independent hardware (Tables 5-7), so the central Sim2Real claim does not reduce to the training inputs. The TLA baseline [36] and GelStereo 2.0 sensor [59] are prior works by overlapping authors, but they serve as baselines/tools rather than as justification for VTLA's effectiveness; the paper does not invoke a self-citation as a uniqueness theorem or ansatz. The unvalidated tactile simulator is a correctness/generalization risk, not a circularity, because it concerns the faithfulness of the input modality rather than the derivation logic.

Assumptions & free parameters 2 free parameters · 3 assumptions · 0 invented entities

The central claim rests on the fidelity of the simulated tactile sensor, the quality of the action labels, and the suitability of Qwen2-VL; these are domain assumptions the paper does not independently validate.

free parameters (2)
  • DPO temperature beta = not reported
    Controls the sharpness of the preference signal in Eq. 2; value not given in the paper.
  • GCR 'correct' tolerance = not reported
    Goal Convergence Rate requires all of x, y, rz to be correct, but the tolerance threshold is not defined in Section 4.1.
assumptions (3)
  • domain assumption Simulated tactile images faithfully represent GelStereo 2.0 sensor output
    The policy is trained entirely in Isaac Gym with a self-built visuotactile simulator; only color jittering is applied to tactile images in Appendix A.
  • domain assumption Ground-truth actions from the randomized insertion strategy are a good target distribution
    Section 3.1 describes a randomized insertion strategy generating action labels, but does not specify whether these are expert, scripted, or random actions.
  • domain assumption Qwen2-VL pretrained representations benefit short-horizon low-level robotic control
    The model relies on Qwen2-VL as base without validating that pretraining improves insertion action prediction over a randomly initialized or smaller model.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of VTLA: Vision-Tactile-Language-Action Model with Preference Learning for Insertion Manipulation." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/FEAOCOWR

@misc{pith2026250509577,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: VTLA: Vision-Tactile-Language-Action Model with Preference Learning for Insertion Manipulation},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/FEAOCOWR}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2505.09577}
}
read the original abstract

While vision-language models have advanced significantly, their application in language-conditioned robotic manipulation is still underexplored, especially for contact-rich tasks that extend beyond visually dominant pick-and-place scenarios. To bridge this gap, we introduce Vision-Tactile-Language-Action model, a novel framework that enables robust policy generation in contact-intensive scenarios by effectively integrating visual and tactile inputs through cross-modal language grounding. A low-cost, multi-modal dataset has been constructed in a simulation environment, containing vision-tactile-action-instruction pairs specifically designed for the fingertip insertion task. Furthermore, we introduce Direct Preference Optimization (DPO) to offer regression-like supervision for the VTLA model, effectively bridging the gap between classification-based next token prediction loss and continuous robotic tasks. Experimental results show that the VTLA model outperforms traditional imitation learning methods (e.g., diffusion policies) and existing multi-modal baselines (TLA/VLA), achieving over 90% success rates on unseen peg shapes. Finally, we conduct real-world peg-in-hole experiments to demonstrate the exceptional Sim2Real performance of the proposed VTLA model. For supplementary videos and results, please visit our project website: https://sites.google.com/view/vtla

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2505.09577 by the authors.

Figure 1
Figure 1. Overview of VTLA. The VTLA model learns a robotic manipulation policy integrated with vision, tactile, and language inputs from domain-randomized simulation data, enabling it to perform a variety of peg-in-hole tasks in the real world. Abstract: While vision-language models have advanced significantly, their ap￾plication in language-conditioned robotic manipulation is still underexplored, es￾pecially for contact-ric… view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. The data collection diagram and data examples of the VTLA dataset. [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p003_2.png] view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. The pipeline of VTLA. In stage 1, the instruction dataset is created from simulation data using a vision-guided temporal enhancement, and the VTLA model is optimized with NTP loss. In stage 2, DPO is introduced to provide regression-like supervision, bridging the gap between VLM training and robotic continuous control, thereby enhancing performance. vision tokens. Meanwhile, the textual instruction is tokenized to o… view at source ↗
Figures from the paper (4 more)
Figure 4
Figure 4. Figure 4: Snapshots of real-world insertion using the proposed VTLA model and baseline methods [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p008_4.png]
Figure 5
Figure 5. Figure 5: The insertion task setup in the real world. The left part shows the robot platform, and the [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p014_5.png]
Figure 6
Figure 6. Figure 6: Snapshots of real-world insertion using the proposed [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p015_6.png]
Figure 7
Figure 7. Figure 7: Snapshots of real-world insertion using the [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p015_7.png]

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Forward citations

Cited by 10 Pith papers

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

  1. FM-VLA: Force-based Memory for Vision-Language-Action Models in Contact-Rich Manipulation

    cs.RO 2026-07 conditional novelty 7.0 of 10

    A vision-language-action robot policy that stores compressed wrist-force histories as memory tokens can count contact events that are visually ambiguous, achieving 83.3% average success across three tasks.

  2. Feeling the Unexpected: ResTacVLA for Contact-Rich Manipulation via Residual Tactile Representation

    cs.RO 2026-07 conditional novelty 6.5 of 10

    Residual tactile representations plus surprise-aware gating let VLA policies master contact-rich robot tasks that vision-only models fail.

  3. Representation-Aligned Tactile Grounding for Contact-Rich Robotic Manipulation

    cs.RO 2026-07 conditional novelty 6.0 of 10

    Future tactile prediction applied to intermediate action-expert features, rather than visual-language or final-action features, improves contact-rich manipulation in SmolVLA and π0.

  4. SoftVTBench: A Safety-Aware Visuo-Tactile Benchmark for Physically Constrained Robotic Manipulation of Deformable Objects (Early Version)

    cs.RO 2026-07 conditional novelty 6.0 of 10

    Success-only metrics overstate deformable-manipulation performance; tactile sensing raises Safety Success (e.g. 21.4%→35.6% on Object-Soft) while Goal Success stays comparable.

  5. Tactile Modality Fusion for Vision-Language-Action Models

    cs.RO 2026-03 conditional novelty 6.0 of 10

    A FiLM-based tactile fusion method that conditions VLA visual features on frozen pretrained touch embeddings improves real-robot insertion success, speed, and force control relative to vision-only and concatenation baselines.

  6. EquiBim: Learning Symmetry-Equivariant Policy for Bimanual Manipulation

    cs.RO 2026-03 conditional novelty 6.0 of 10

    Adding a loss that enforces left-right equivariance between observations and actions improves average bimanual imitation policy success by +2.7 to +9.5 points across four observation/action settings.

  7. Force-Aware Residual DAgger via Trajectory Editing for Precision Insertion with Impedance Control

    cs.RO 2026-03 conditional novelty 6.0 of 10

    TER-DAgger uses force-prediction mismatches to trigger human corrections and residual-policy training, lifting precision-insertion success from 40.0% to 77.2% on average.

  8. DECO: Decoupled Multimodal Diffusion Transformer for Bimanual Dexterous Manipulation with a Plugin Tactile Adapter

    cs.RO 2026-02 conditional novelty 6.0 of 10

    A decoupled multimodal diffusion transformer with a LoRA tactile adapter improves real-world bimanual manipulation success by 21 percentage points over a diffusion-policy baseline; a new 50-hour tactile bimanual datas...

  9. TacWAM: Anchor-Guided World Action Model with Mechanics-Aware Tactile Prediction

    cs.RO 2026-07 conditional novelty 5.0 of 10

    Mechanics-aware future tactile prediction plus history and train-time isolation of future tokens raises real-robot contact-rich success from ~37.5% to 75% average.

  10. HapticVLA: Contact-Rich Manipulation via Vision-Language-Action Model without Inference-Time Tactile Sensing

    cs.RO 2026-03 conditional novelty 5.0 of 10

    A vision-language-action robot policy that claims tactile-aware manipulation without tactile sensors at inference via reward-weighted flow matching and action distillation.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

60 extracted references · 19 canonical work pages · cited by 10 Pith papers

  1. [1]

    Hansen, F

    J. Hansen, F. Hogan, D. Rivkin, D. Meger, M. Jenkin, and G. Dudek. Visuotactile-rl: Learning multimodal manipulation policies with deep reinforcement learning. In2022 International Conference on Robotics and Automation (ICRA), pages 8298–8304. IEEE, 2022

    2022

  2. [2]

    M. A. Lee, Y . Zhu, P. Zachares, M. Tan, K. Srinivasan, S. Savarese, L. Fei-Fei, A. Garg, and J. Bohg. Making sense of vision and touch: Learning multimodal representations for contact- rich tasks.IEEE Transactions on Robotics, 36(3):582–596, 2020

    work page 2020

  3. [3]

    F. R. Hogan, J. Ballester, S. Dong, and A. Rodriguez. Tactile dexterity: Manipulation primi- tives with tactile feedback. In2020 IEEE international conference on robotics and automation (ICRA), pages 8863–8869. IEEE, 2020

    work page 2020

  4. [4]

    Y . Wu, Z. Chen, F. Wu, L. Chen, L. Zhang, Z. Bing, A. Swikir, S. Haddadin, and A. Knoll. Tacdiffusion: Force-domain diffusion policy for precise tactile manipulation.arXiv preprint arXiv:2409.11047, 2024

    arXiv 2024

  5. [5]

    Visual-tactile manipulation to collect household waste in outdoor

    J. Casta ˜no-Amor´os, I. d. L. P ´aez-Ubieta, P. Gil, and S. T. Puente. Visual-tactile manipulation to collect household waste in outdoor.arXiv preprint arXiv:2407.10606, 2024

    work page Pith review arXiv 2024

  6. [6]

    J. Wang, W. Ouyang, S. Fang, Y . Zhang, X. Wu, and Z. Yi. Temptrans-mil: A general approach to enhancing multimodal tactile-driven robotic manipulation classification tasks.IEEE/ASME Transactions on Mechatronics, 2025

    work page 2025

  7. [7]

    George, S

    A. George, S. Gano, P. Katragadda, and A. B. Farimani. Vital pretraining: Visuo-tactile pre- training for tactile and non-tactile manipulation policies.arXiv preprint arXiv:2403.11898, 2024

    arXiv 2024

  8. [8]

    Billard and D

    A. Billard and D. Kragic. Trends and challenges in robot manipulation.Science, 364(6446): eaat8414, 2019

    work page 2019

Show all 60 references
  1. [9]

    Cui and J

    J. Cui and J. Trinkle. Toward next-generation learned robot manipulation.Science robotics, 6 (54):eabd9461, 2021

    2021

  2. [10]

    Calandra, A

    R. Calandra, A. Owens, D. Jayaraman, J. Lin, W. Yuan, J. Malik, E. H. Adelson, and S. Levine. More than a feeling: Learning to grasp and regrasp using vision and touch.IEEE Robotics and Automation Letters, 3(4):3300–3307, 2018

    2018

  3. [11]

    S. Cui, R. Wang, J. Wei, J. Hu, and S. Wang. Self-attention based visual-tactile fusion learning for predicting grasp outcomes.IEEE Robotics and Automation Letters, 5(4):5827–5834, 2020

    2020

  4. [12]

    R. Feng, D. Hu, W. Ma, and X. Li. Play to the score: Stage-guided dynamic multi-sensory fusion for robotic manipulation.arXiv preprint arXiv:2408.01366, 2024

    2024 arXiv

  5. [13]

    X. Xiao, J. Liu, Z. Wang, Y . Zhou, Y . Qi, S. Jiang, B. He, and Q. Cheng. Robot learning in the era of foundation models: A survey.Neurocomputing, page 129963, 2025. 9

    2025

  6. [14]

    Z. Xu, K. Wu, J. Wen, J. Li, N. Liu, Z. Che, and J. Tang. A survey on robotics with foundation models: toward embodied ai.arXiv preprint arXiv:2402.02385, 2024

    2024 arXiv

  7. [15]

    Brohan, N

    A. Brohan, N. Brown, J. Carbajal, Y . Chebotar, X. Chen, K. Choromanski, T. Ding, D. Driess, A. Dubey, C. Finn, et al. Rt-2: Vision-language-action models transfer web knowledge to robotic control.arXiv preprint arXiv:2307.15818, 2023

    2023 arXiv

  8. [16]

    Chang, X

    Y . Chang, X. Wang, J. Wang, Y . Wu, L. Yang, K. Zhu, H. Chen, X. Yi, C. Wang, Y . Wang, et al. A survey on evaluation of large language models.ACM transactions on intelligent systems and technology, 15(3):1–45, 2024

    2024

  9. [17]

    M. J. Kim, K. Pertsch, S. Karamcheti, T. Xiao, A. Balakrishna, S. Nair, R. Rafailov, E. Foster, G. Lam, P. Sanketi, et al. Openvla: An open-source vision-language-action model.arXiv preprint arXiv:2406.09246, 2024

    2024 arXiv

  10. [18]

    J. Wen, Y . Zhu, J. Li, M. Zhu, Z. Tang, K. Wu, Z. Xu, N. Liu, R. Cheng, C. Shen, et al. Tinyvla: Towards fast, data-efficient vision-language-action models for robotic manipulation. IEEE Robotics and Automation Letters, 2025

    2025

  11. [19]

    Y . Tang, S. Zhang, X. Hao, P. Wang, J. Wu, Z. Wang, and S. Zhang. Affordgrasp: In-context affordance reasoning for open-vocabulary task-oriented grasping in clutter.arXiv preprint arXiv:2503.00778, 2025

    2025 arXiv

  12. [20]

    D. Li, Y . Jin, Y . Sun, H. Yu, J. Shi, X. Hao, P. Hao, H. Liu, F. Sun, J. Zhang, et al. What foundation models can bring for robot learning in manipulation: A survey.arXiv preprint arXiv:2404.18201, 2024

    2024

  13. [21]

    P. Ding, J. Ma, X. Tong, B. Zou, X. Luo, Y . Fan, T. Wang, H. Lu, P. Mo, J. Liu, et al. Humanoid-vla: Towards universal humanoid control with visual integration.arXiv preprint arXiv:2502.14795, 2025

    2025 arXiv

  14. [22]

    Y . Ji, H. Tan, J. Shi, X. Hao, Y . Zhang, H. Zhang, P. Wang, M. Zhao, Y . Mu, P. An, et al. Robobrain: A unified brain model for robotic manipulation from abstract to concrete.arXiv preprint arXiv:2502.21257, 2025

    2025 arXiv

  15. [23]

    H. Tan, Y . Ji, X. Hao, M. Lin, P. Wang, Z. Wang, and S. Zhang. Reason-rft: Reinforcement fine-tuning for visual reasoning.arXiv preprint arXiv:2503.20752, 2025

    2025

  16. [24]

    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.arXiv preprint arXiv:2403.09631, 2024

    2024 arXiv

  17. [25]

    X. Ma, S. Patidar, I. Haughton, and S. James. Hierarchical diffusion policy for kinematics- aware multi-task robotic manipulation. InProceedings of the IEEE/CVF Conference on Com- puter Vision and Pattern Recognition, pages 18081–18090, 2024

    2024

  18. [26]

    S. Li, R. Krohn, T. Chen, A. Ajay, P. Agrawal, and G. Chalvatzaki. Learning multimodal behaviors from scratch with diffusion policy gradient.Advances in Neural Information Pro- cessing Systems, 37:38456–38479, 2024

    2024

  19. [27]

    K. F. Gbagbe, M. A. Cabrera, A. Alabbas, O. Alyunes, A. Lykov, and D. Tsetserukou. Bi-vla: Vision-language-action model-based system for bimanual robotic dexterous manipulations. In 2024 IEEE International Conference on Systems, Man, and Cybernetics (SMC), pages 2864–

    2024

  20. [28]

    M. Zhu, Y . Zhu, J. Li, Z. Zhou, J. Wen, X. Liu, C. Shen, Y . Peng, and F. Feng. Ob- jectvla: End-to-end open-world object manipulation without demonstration.arXiv preprint arXiv:2502.19250, 2025. 10

    2025 arXiv

  21. [29]

    X. Han, S. Chen, Z. Fu, Z. Feng, L. Fan, D. An, C. Wang, L. Guo, W. Meng, X. Zhang, et al. Multimodal fusion and vision-language models: A survey for robot vision.arXiv preprint arXiv:2504.02477, 2025

    2025

  22. [30]

    J. Tu, H. Fu, F. Yang, H. Zhao, C. Zhang, and H. Qian. Texttoucher: Fine-grained text-to-touch generation. InProceedings of the AAAI Conference on Artificial Intelligence, volume 39, pages 7455–7463, 2025

    2025

  23. [31]

    Cheng, C

    N. Cheng, C. Guan, J. Gao, W. Wang, Y . Li, F. Meng, J. Zhou, B. Fang, J. Xu, and W. Han. Touch100k: A large-scale touch-language-vision dataset for touch-centric multimodal repre- sentation.arXiv preprint arXiv:2406.03813, 2024

    2024 arXiv

  24. [32]

    R. Feng, J. Hu, W. Xia, T. Gao, A. Shen, Y . Sun, B. Fang, and D. Hu. Anytouch: Learn- ing unified static-dynamic representation across multiple visuo-tactile sensors.arXiv preprint arXiv:2502.12191, 2025

    2025 arXiv

  25. [33]

    F. Yang, C. Feng, Z. Chen, H. Park, D. Wang, Y . Dou, Z. Zeng, X. Chen, R. Gangopadhyay, A. Owens, et al. Binding touch to everything: Learning unified multimodal tactile repre- sentations. InProceedings of the IEEE/CVF Conference on Computer Vision and Pattern Recognition, pa...

    2024

  26. [34]

    S. Yu, K. Lin, A. Xiao, J. Duan, and H. Soh. Octopi: Object property reasoning with large tactile-language models.arXiv preprint arXiv:2405.02794, 2024

    2024 arXiv

  27. [35]

    Jones, O

    J. Jones, O. Mees, C. Sferrazza, K. Stachowicz, P. Abbeel, and S. Levine. Beyond sight: Finetuning generalist robot policies with heterogeneous sensors via language grounding.arXiv preprint arXiv:2501.04693, 2025

    2025 arXiv

  28. [36]

    P. Hao, C. Zhang, D. Li, X. Cao, X. Hao, S. Cui, and S. Wang. Tla: Tactile-language-action model for contact-rich manipulation.arXiv preprint arXiv:2503.08548, 2025

    2025 arXiv

  29. [37]

    Rafailov, A

    R. Rafailov, A. Sharma, E. Mitchell, C. D. Manning, S. Ermon, and C. Finn. Direct pref- erence optimization: Your language model is secretly a reward model.Advances in Neural Information Processing Systems, 36:53728–53741, 2023

    2023

  30. [38]

    H. Liu, Y . Yu, F. Sun, and J. Gu. Visual–tactile fusion for object recognition.IEEE Transac- tions on Automation Science and Engineering, 14(2):996–1008, 2016

    2016

  31. [39]

    S. Cui, R. Wang, J. Wei, F. Li, and S. Wang. Grasp state assessment of deformable objects using visual-tactile fusion perception. In2020 IEEE International Conference on Robotics and Automation (ICRA), pages 538–544. IEEE, 2020

    2020

  32. [40]

    J. Li, S. Dong, and E. Adelson. Slip detection with combined tactile and visual information. In 2018 IEEE International Conference on Robotics and Automation (ICRA), pages 7772–7777. IEEE, 2018

    2018

  33. [41]

    F. Liu, C. Li, Y . Qin, A. Shaw, J. Xu, P. Abbeel, and R. Chen. Vitamin: Learning contact-rich tasks through robot-free visuo-tactile manipulation interface.arXiv preprint arXiv:2504.06156, 2025

    2025 arXiv

  34. [42]

    H. Xue, J. Ren, W. Chen, G. Zhang, Y . Fang, G. Gu, H. Xu, and C. Lu. Reactive diffusion policy: Slow-fast visual-tactile policy learning for contact-rich manipulation.arXiv preprint arXiv:2503.02881, 2025

    2025 arXiv

  35. [43]

    Zhang, X

    L. Zhang, X. Hao, Q. Xu, Q. Zhang, X. Zhang, P. Wang, J. Zhang, Z. Wang, S. Zhang, and R. Xu. Mapnav: A novel memory representation via annotated semantic maps for vlm-based vision-and-language navigation.arXiv preprint arXiv:2502.13451, 2025

    2025 arXiv

  36. [44]

    Huang, Y

    B. Huang, Y . Wang, X. Yang, Y . Luo, and Y . Li. 3d-vitac: Learning fine-grained manipulation with visuo-tactile sensing.arXiv preprint arXiv:2410.24091, 2024. 11

    2024 arXiv

  37. [45]

    Y . Wu, H. Lyu, Y . Tang, L. Zhang, Z. Zhang, W. Zhou, and S. Hao. Evaluating gpt-4o’s embodied intelligence: A comprehensive empirical study.TechRxiv preprint techrxiv.174495686.69962588/v1, 2025

    2025

  38. [46]

    Y . Hong, Z. Zheng, P. Chen, Y . Wang, J. Li, and C. Gan. Multiply: A multisensory object- centric embodied large language model in 3d world. InProceedings of the IEEE/CVF Confer- ence on Computer Vision and Pattern Recognition, pages 26406–26416, 2024

    2024

  39. [47]

    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

    2023 arXiv

  40. [48]

    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

  41. [49]

    Cheang, G

    C.-L. Cheang, G. Chen, Y . Jing, T. Kong, H. Li, Y . Li, Y . Liu, H. Wu, J. Xu, Y . Yang, et al. Gr-2: A generative video-language-action model with web-scale knowledge for robot manipulation. arXiv preprint arXiv:2410.06158, 2024

    arXiv

  42. [50]

    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

  43. [51]

    Black, N

    K. Black, N. Brown, D. Driess, A. Esmail, M. Equi, C. Finn, N. Fusai, L. Groom, K. Hausman, B. Ichter, et al.\pi 0: A vision-language-action flow model for general robot control.arXiv preprint arXiv:2410.24164, 2024

    2024 arXiv

  44. [52]

    L. Fu, G. Datta, H. Huang, W. C.-H. Panitch, J. Drake, J. Ortiz, M. Mukadam, M. Lambeta, R. Calandra, and K. Goldberg. A touch, vision, and language dataset for multimodal alignment. arXiv preprint arXiv:2402.13232, 2024

    2024 arXiv

  45. [53]

    Peysakhovich and A

    A. Peysakhovich and A. Lerer. Attention sorting combats recency bias in long context language models.arXiv preprint arXiv:2310.01427, 2023

    2023 arXiv

  46. [54]

    H. Fei, S. Wu, M. Zhang, M. Zhang, T.-S. Chua, and S. Yan. Enhancing video-language repre- sentations with structural spatio-temporal alignment.IEEE Transactions on Pattern Analysis and Machine Intelligence, 2024

    2024

  47. [55]

    P. Wang, S. Bai, S. Tan, S. Wang, Z. Fan, J. Bai, K. Chen, X. Liu, J. Wang, W. Ge, et al. Qwen2-vl: Enhancing vision-language model’s perception of the world at any resolution.arXiv preprint arXiv:2409.12191, 2024

    2024 arXiv

  48. [56]

    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

  49. [57]

    Karamcheti, S

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

    2024

  50. [58]

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

    2023

  51. [59]

    Zhang, S

    C. Zhang, S. Cui, S. Wang, J. Hu, Y . Cai, R. Wang, and Y . Wang. Gelstereo 2.0: An im- proved gelstereo sensor with multimedium refractive stereo calibration.IEEE Transactions on Industrial Electronics, 71(7):7452–7462, 2023

    2023

  52. [60]

    Zheng, R

    Y . Zheng, R. Zhang, J. Zhang, Y . Ye, Z. Luo, Z. Feng, and Y . Ma. Llamafactory: Unified efficient fine-tuning of 100+ language models.arXiv preprint arXiv:2403.13372, 2024. 12 Appendix This supplementary material provides additional details on the proposed method and experim...

    2024 arXiv

Pith tools

Reviewed August 15, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.