Pith. sign in

REVIEW 4 major objections 5 minor 41 references

Phoenix: A Motion-based Self-Reflection Framework for Fine-grained Robotic Action Correction

T0 review · 4 major / 5 minor · reviewed 2026-08-16 · deepseek-v4-flash

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

Pith's one-line read A discrete vocabulary of 37 motion instructions bridges MLLM semantic reflection and high-frequency robot action, enabling self-correction and lifelong improvement.

desk verdict A coherent motion-instruction bridge, but the unmeasured out-of-vocabulary correction problem and missing error bars keep the claims from fully landing. read the letter →

arxiv 2504.14588 v1 pith:Z2SS463I submitted 2025-04-20 cs.RO cs.AIcs.CV

Wenke Xia , Ruoxuan Feng , Dong Wang , Di Hu This is my paper · ORCID
classification cs.ROcs.AIcs.CV
keywords roboticself-reflectionmotioninstructionmultimodallargelanguagemodelsdiffusionpolicyfine-grainedactioncorrectionlifelonglearningimitationRoboMimic
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 argues that the gap between what a multimodal large language model can say about a failure and what a robot should physically do can be closed by inserting an intermediate layer of coarse motion instructions. It proposes Phoenix, a framework in which one module predicts a motion instruction, a second module corrects that instruction after a failure, and a low-level diffusion policy turns the corrected instruction into high-frequency robot actions. The authors claim this shifts the generalization burden from the low-level policy to the MLLM-driven correction module, and report higher success rates across nine RoboMimic tasks plus real-world drawer opening compared with task-, subgoal-, and motion-conditioned baselines. If the claim holds, robot self-correction no longer needs a hand-built skill library for every failure mode, and the same reflection loop can improve itself from interaction data without human intervention.

What carries the argument

The load-bearing mechanism is the motion instruction: a coarse, low-frequency verbal command such as "move arm right with gripper closed" that sits between semantic reflection and action. To make the bridge work, the paper builds (a) a 37-entry motion instruction vocabulary derived from expert demonstrations, (b) a dual-process module pairing a fast motion prediction module with a slower chain-of-thought motion correction module, and (c) a motion-conditioned diffusion policy that takes the motion instruction and image observations as separate conditioning streams, using a learnable motion codebook to give each instruction a discriminative embedding. The codebook matters because pre-trained text encoders produce near-identical features for different motion phrases; a learned codebook gives the policy features it can actually follow. The paper's ablations show the full combination, codebook plus self-reflection, raises mean success from 44.4% to 57.8%.

What would settle it

Construct a held-out set of failure states whose successful recovery requires a motion outside the 37-instruction vocabulary, such as rolling the wrist while sliding; if the CLIP-based retrieval fallback maps these instructions to the wrong codebook entry and success rates drop measurably, the claim that the vocabulary is sufficient for fine-grained correction is falsified.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

The paper's central claim is that a discrete vocabulary of 37 motion instructions, automatically extracted from expert demonstrations by thresholding action vectors at 0.3, can serve as a sufficient bridge from semantic reflection to fine-grained correction. Phoenix uses a dual-process mechanism: a motion prediction module generates an initial instruction, and a motion correction module, fine-tuned on human intervention and annotation data, detects failure and produces an adjusted instruction through chain-of-thought reasoning. A multi-task diffusion policy conditioned on both visual observations and a learnable motion codebook then converts each instruction into 20 Hz action sequences. The authors report that this design lets the MLLM absorb most of the generalization burden, enabling the robot to recover from failures in contact-rich tasks and to generalize to color-disrupted and position-disrupted variants, with success rates rising from 46.9% for a motion-conditioned policy without reflection to 57.8% for Phoenix on the nine-task RoboMimic suite.

Load-bearing premise

The framework assumes that every correction the robot needs can be expressed as one of 37 predefined motion phrases; if a failure needs a movement outside that vocabulary, the correction loop has no reliable way to express it.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • Robots can be corrected without retraining the low-level policy: a new failure mode only requires the motion correction module to output an in-vocabulary instruction, and the same diffusion policy executes it.
  • The dual-process split makes the system efficient in normal operation (fast prediction module) and robust at failures (slow correction module), so the latency cost of chain-of-thought reasoning is paid only when needed.
  • Lifelong learning from refined interaction trajectories is possible: co-fine-tuning the motion prediction module with expert demonstrations improves success rates as rollouts increase, without catastrophic forgetting.
  • The framework generalizes to visual and positional shifts, such as a blue block or a randomly placed coffee machine, and to real-world drawer opening, suggesting the motion bridge transfers across distribution changes.

Reading between the lines

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

  • We infer that the 37-instruction vocabulary is the true capacity bottleneck: if a failure needs a movement outside it, the retrieval fallback can silently map the intended instruction to a semantically different entry, and the correction loop would fail; a continuous motion-conditioning space would remove that ceiling.
  • We infer that the dual-process split could be updated online: because only the motion prediction module is re-fine-tuned during lifelong learning, the expensive correction module can stay fixed while the fast module absorbs corrected behavior, reducing the cost of self-improvement.
  • We infer that the same architecture could be applied to other embodiment outputs, such as leg gaits or multi-arm coordination, wherever a coarse symbolic command can be grounded in a learned low-level policy.
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

4 major / 5 minor

Summary. The paper introduces Phoenix, a robotic self-correction framework that uses coarse-grained motion instructions as an intermediate representation between MLLM-based semantic reflection and a low-level diffusion policy. A dual-process mechanism (motion prediction module and motion correction module) generates and adjusts 37 discrete motion instructions, which condition a multi-task diffusion policy that outputs high-frequency actions. The authors evaluate on nine RoboMimic tasks and real-world drawer opening, reporting success rates exceeding subgoal self-reflection baselines, and also propose a lifelong learning procedure that fine-tunes the motion prediction module on refined interaction trajectories.

Significance. If the reported results are robust, the motion-instruction bridge is a practical way to inject MLLM knowledge into fine-grained action correction without a large action vocabulary or expensive data collection. The paper includes automatic annotation of motion instructions from expert demonstrations, a code release, and comparisons against task-, subgoal-, and motion-conditioned baselines. These are genuine strengths. However, the central claim of superiority over subgoal self-reflection currently rests on small mean-difference tables without variance or significance information, and the out-of-vocabulary handling relies on a CLIP retrieval step that the paper itself shows to be non-discriminative. The framework is plausible, but the evidence as presented is not yet sufficient to establish the claimed advantage.

major comments (4)
  1. [Sec. 4.2.1, Table 1] The main comparative claim is not supported by the reported statistics. Table 1 lists success rates averaged over 50 trials per task but provides no confidence intervals, standard errors, or significance tests. On Threading_D0, Phoenix (68%) is below the Subgoal Self-reflection baseline (80%), which is a fine-grained task where the framework should help most. Without variance or a per-task statistical test, the mean gap (57.8% vs 48.0%) could be driven by a few favorable tasks. Please report binomial confidence intervals (or trial-level data) and, for the paired comparison across tasks, a suitable test (e.g., bootstrap or McNemar-type).
  2. [Supp. 1.2 and Supp. 2 (Fig. 6a)] The out-of-vocabulary fallback is load-bearing but not validated. Algorithm 1 and Section 3.2 do not restrict the Motion Correction Module's output to the 37-entry codebook, and the stated purpose of the MCM is to propose corrections beyond the MPM's training distribution. Supp. 1.2 says that an instruction not in the dictionary is handled by selecting the nearest codebook entry using CLIP text-encoder similarity. However, Supp. 2 (Fig. 6a) reports pairwise CLIP feature similarity above 90% for distinct motion instructions, so this retrieval cannot reliably distinguish, for example, 'move arm left' from 'move arm right.' The paper gives no measurement of how often MCM outputs are out-of-vocabulary, no evaluation of the fallback's semantic accuracy, and no evidence that the diffusion policy receives a correctly aligned conditioning signal in this case. Please either constrain MCM outputs to the closed vocabulary (with a rejection or re-generation step) or provide data on OOV frequency and fallback accuracy, together with an error analysis.
  3. [Sec. 3.2 / Supp. 1.1, vocabulary construction] The sufficiency of the 37-type vocabulary for fine-grained correction is asserted rather than demonstrated. The automatic annotation thresholds temporal actions at 0.3 and assigns sub-threshold actions to the catch-all 'make slight adjustments to gripper position,' which discards directional and rotational information. Since the paper's main claim is fine-grained correction, the reader needs to know the frequency of sub-threshold actions in expert data and in MCM-proposed corrections, and whether the diffusion policy can still execute the correct direction from this generic instruction. Without this, the vocabulary may be a poor bridge for precisely the tasks (e.g., Threading) where the framework is claimed to help.
  4. [Sec. 4.5, Tables 3 and 4] The real-world results and lifelong-learning claims lack statistical support. Table 3 reports success rates for four settings but does not state the number of trials or any variance; Table 4 reports 60% -> 65% -> 75% over rollouts without error bars. With the small number of refined trajectories (20 per task in Supp. 3) the improvements may not be significant. Please report trial counts, confidence intervals, and ideally repeated-seed or multiple-evaluation statistics for the real-world and lifelong-learning experiments.
minor comments (5)
  1. [Sec. 3.1] The section title 'Robotic Self-Corrction Model' contains a typo; it should read 'Robotic Self-Correction Model.'
  2. [Algorithm 1] Line 4 contains a typo, 'semanic info' should be 'semantic info.'
  3. [Supp. 1] There are unresolved citation placeholders (e.g., '[?]' after LLaVA1.5, CLIP, Vicuna, LoRA, and TinyLLaVA) that should be filled in before publication.
  4. [Supp. 2, Fig. 6] The similarity matrices in Fig. 6 are informative but would be clearer with a color scale and axis labels identifying the 37 instructions; it is otherwise hard to verify the >90% claim quantitatively.
  5. [Sec. 4.1] The text says 'More implementation details could refer to Supp.A,' but the supplementary material numbers its sections as 1, 2, and 3; please align the cross-reference.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 0.0 of 10

No significant circularity: Phoenix's motion-instruction bridge is trained supervision, not a test-time identity.

full rationale

The Phoenix derivation chain is not circular. The motion instruction vocabulary is constructed offline from expert demonstrations (Sec. 3.2 and Supp. 1.1: "we filter the robotic action to get dominant motion from expert demonstration with a threshold, generating a set of motion instructions"), and the motion prediction module is trained on those (observation, instruction) pairs. At inference, the instruction is produced by the MPM/MCM from the current observation and task description, not from the ground-truth action used to score success (Algorithm 1: mi <- MPM(O_k,T); md <- ma or mi; a <- pi(O,md)). The diffusion policy is trained with the standard MSE denoising loss in Eq. (1), conditioned on the instruction feature and observation; the instruction is not a fitted parameter that later reappears as the evaluation target. The MCM is fine-tuned on human-annotated correction data, and its outputs are evaluated only indirectly through task success, so there is no self-definitional equivalence. The only CLIP fallback for out-of-vocabulary instructions (Supp. 1.2) is a practical robustness concern, not a circular reduction: the fallback selects a codebook index by similarity, and the paper's own Supp. Fig. 6 shows CLIP features are poorly discriminative, which may hurt performance but does not make the claimed result true by construction. Self-citations in the references are background citations to the authors' prior work and are not load-bearing for the framework's derivation.

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

The framework's central claim rests on learned modules and hand-designed intermediate representations. The main free parameters are the threshold used to convert expert actions into motion instructions and the resulting vocabulary size. The axioms above are domain assumptions about data coverage and representation sufficiency rather than formal mathematical postulates.

free parameters (2)
  • dominant action threshold = 0.3
    Used in Section 3.2 and Supp. 1.1 to filter robotic actions into dominant directions; chosen by hand, affects the motion instruction vocabulary.
  • motion instruction vocabulary size = 37 types
    Result of applying the threshold to the demonstration dataset; the choice of threshold determines the vocabulary, and the paper assumes this vocabulary is sufficient for all corrective actions.
assumptions (4)
  • domain assumption Expert demonstrations used to train the motion prediction and diffusion policy are representative of the task distribution at test time.
    Required for the learned modules to generalize; invoked throughout Section 4 when evaluating on held-out tasks.
  • domain assumption The 37-type motion instruction vocabulary is sufficient to express the corrective actions required in failure situations.
    The diffusion policy is conditioned on these instructions; if MCM produces out-of-vocabulary instructions, the policy must rely on CLIP retrieval (Supp. 1.2), which may be inaccurate.
  • domain assumption Human interventions and annotations in the correction dataset accurately reflect the failure modes encountered at test time.
    The MCM is fine-tuned on this data; biased or incomplete annotations would limit correction ability.
  • standard math Standard diffusion policy training assumptions, such as the denoising objective and sufficient data, hold for the low-level policy.
    The diffusion loss in Eq. 1 follows established practice.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Phoenix: A Motion-based Self-Reflection Framework for Fine-grained Robotic Action Correction." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/Z2SS463I

@misc{pith2026250414588,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Phoenix: A Motion-based Self-Reflection Framework for Fine-grained Robotic Action Correction},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/Z2SS463I}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2504.14588}
}
read the original abstract

Building a generalizable self-correction system is crucial for robots to recover from failures. Despite advancements in Multimodal Large Language Models (MLLMs) that empower robots with semantic reflection ability for failure, translating semantic reflection into how to correct fine-grained robotic actions remains a significant challenge. To address this gap, we build the Phoenix framework, which leverages motion instruction as a bridge to connect high-level semantic reflection with low-level robotic action correction. In this motion-based self-reflection framework, we start with a dual-process motion adjustment mechanism with MLLMs to translate the semantic reflection into coarse-grained motion instruction adjustment. To leverage this motion instruction for guiding how to correct fine-grained robotic actions, a multi-task motion-conditioned diffusion policy is proposed to integrate visual observations for high-frequency robotic action correction. By combining these two models, we could shift the demand for generalization capability from the low-level manipulation policy to the MLLMs-driven motion adjustment model and facilitate precise, fine-grained robotic action correction. Utilizing this framework, we further develop a lifelong learning method to automatically improve the model's capability from interactions with dynamic environments. The experiments conducted in both the RoboMimic simulation and real-world scenarios prove the superior generalization and robustness of our framework across a variety of manipulation tasks. Our code is released at \href{https://github.com/GeWu-Lab/Motion-based-Self-Reflection-Framework}{https://github.com/GeWu-Lab/Motion-based-Self-Reflection-Framework}.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2504.14588 by the authors.

Figure 1
Figure 1. Our motion-based self-reflection framework utilizes [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p001_1.png] view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. The pipeline of our motion-based self-reflection framework. (a) demonstrates the dual-process motion refinement mechanism [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p003_2.png] view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. Illustrations of our correction data: online human inter [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p004_3.png] view at source ↗
Figures from the paper (9 more)
Figure 4
Figure 4. Figure 4: The lifelong learning results. The results prove that our motion-based self-reflection method could iteratively improve perfor [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p007_4.png]
Figure 5
Figure 5. Figure 5: In the color disruption setting, we replace the [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p008_5.png]
Figure 6
Figure 6. Figure 6: The real-world experiments with different variations. [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p008_6.png]
Figure 1
Figure 1. Figure 1: The motion instruction dataset annotation process. [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p011_1.png]
Figure 2
Figure 2. Figure 2: The demonstration of online human intervention data [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p011_2.png]
Figure 3
Figure 3. Figure 3: The demonstration of offline human annotation data col [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p012_3.png]
Figure 4
Figure 4. Figure 4: The real-world experiments. The results prove the generalization ability of our framework in real-world scenarios. [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p013_4.png]
Figure 5
Figure 5. Figure 5: The motion instruction dataset annotation. [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p014_5.png]
Figure 6
Figure 6. Figure 6: The similarity matrix of different motion instruction feature. [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p015_6.png]

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

41 extracted references · 16 canonical work pages

  1. [1]

    Recent advances in hierarchical reinforcement learning

    Andrew G Barto and Sridhar Mahadevan. Recent advances in hierarchical reinforcement learning. Discrete event dy- namic systems, 13:341–379, 2003. 2

    work page 2003

  2. [2]

    Rt-h: Action hierarchies using language

    Suneel Belkhale, Tianli Ding, Ted Xiao, Pierre Sermanet, Quon Vuong, Jonathan Tompson, Yevgen Chebotar, De- bidatta Dwibedi, and Dorsa Sadigh. Rt-h: Action hierarchies using language. arXiv preprint arXiv:2403.01823, 2024. 3, 6

    arXiv 2024

  3. [3]

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

    Anthony Brohan, Noah Brown, Justice Carbajal, Yevgen Chebotar, Joseph Dabis, Chelsea Finn, Keerthana Gopalakr- ishnan, Karol Hausman, Alex Herzog, Jasmine Hsu, et al. Rt-1: Robotics transformer for real-world control at scale. arXiv preprint arXiv:2212.06817, 2022. 3, 6

    arXiv 2022

  4. [4]

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

    Anthony Brohan, Noah Brown, Justice Carbajal, Yevgen Chebotar, Xi Chen, Krzysztof Choromanski, Tianli Ding, Danny Driess, Avinava Dubey, Chelsea Finn, et al. Rt-2: Vision-language-action models transfer web knowledge to robotic control. arXiv preprint arXiv:2307.15818, 2023. 3

    arXiv 2023

  5. [5]

    Diffu- sion policy: Visuomotor policy learning via action diffusion

    Cheng Chi, Siyuan Feng, Yilun Du, Zhenjia Xu, Eric Cousineau, Benjamin Burchfiel, and Shuran Song. Diffu- sion policy: Visuomotor policy learning via action diffusion. arXiv preprint arXiv:2303.04137, 2023. 3

    arXiv 2023

  6. [6]

    Racer: Rich language-guided failure recovery policies for imitation learning, 2024

    Yinpei Dai, Jayjun Lee, Nima Fazeli, and Joyce Chai. Racer: Rich language-guided failure recovery policies for imitation learning, 2024. 2

    work page 2024

  7. [7]

    Palm- e: An embodied multimodal language model

    Danny Driess, Fei Xia, Mehdi SM Sajjadi, Corey Lynch, Aakanksha Chowdhery, Brian Ichter, Ayzaan Wahid, Jonathan Tompson, Quan Vuong, Tianhe Yu, et al. Palm- e: An embodied multimodal language model. arXiv preprint arXiv:2303.03378, 2023. 3, 6

    arXiv 2023

  8. [8]

    Metacognition and cognitive monitoring: A new area of cognitive–developmental inquiry

    John H Flavell. Metacognition and cognitive monitoring: A new area of cognitive–developmental inquiry. American psychologist, 34(10):906, 1979. 1

    work page 1979

Show all 41 references
  1. [9]

    Maniskill2: A unified benchmark for generalizable manipulation skills

    Jiayuan Gu, Fanbo Xiang, Xuanlin Li, Zhan Ling, Xiqiang Liu, Tongzhou Mu, Yihe Tang, Stone Tao, Xinyue Wei, Yun- chao Yao, Xiaodi Yuan, Pengwei Xie, Zhiao Huang, Rui Chen, and Hao Su. Maniskill2: A unified benchmark for generalizable manipulation skills. In International Confe...

    2023

  2. [10]

    Distributed prioritized experience replay

    Dan Horgan, John Quan, David Budden, Gabriel Barth- Maron, Matteo Hessel, Hado Van Hasselt, and David Sil- ver. Distributed prioritized experience replay. arXiv preprint arXiv:1803.00933, 2018. 2

    2018 arXiv

  3. [11]

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

    Moo Jin Kim, Karl Pertsch, Siddharth Karamcheti, Ted Xiao, Ashwin Balakrishna, Suraj Nair, Rafael Rafailov, Ethan Foster, Grace Lam, Pannag Sanketi, et al. Openvla: An open-source vision-language-action model. arXiv preprint arXiv:2406.09246, 2024. 3, 6

    2024 arXiv

  4. [12]

    Neural basis of reinforcement learning and decision making.Annual review of neuroscience, 35(1):287–308, 2012

    Daeyeol Lee, Hyojung Seo, and Min Whan Jung. Neural basis of reinforcement learning and decision making.Annual review of neuroscience, 35(1):287–308, 2012. 1

    2012

  5. [13]

    Llava-onevision: Easy visual task transfer

    Bo Li, Yuanhan Zhang, Dong Guo, Renrui Zhang, Feng Li, Hao Zhang, Kaichen Zhang, Yanwei Li, Ziwei Liu, and Chunyuan Li. Llava-onevision: Easy visual task transfer. arXiv preprint arXiv:2408.03326, 2024. 3

    2024 arXiv

  6. [14]

    Code as policies: Language model programs for embodied control

    Jacky Liang, Wenlong Huang, Fei Xia, Peng Xu, Karol Hausman, Brian Ichter, Pete Florence, and Andy Zeng. Code as policies: Language model programs for embodied control. In 2023 IEEE International Conference on Robotics and Au- tomation (ICRA), pages 9493–9500. IEEE, 2023. 2, 3

    2023

  7. [15]

    Visual instruction tuning, 2023

    Haotian Liu, Chunyuan Li, Qingyang Wu, and Yong Jae Lee. Visual instruction tuning, 2023. 5

    2023

  8. [16]

    Self-corrected mul- timodal large language model for end-to-end robot manipu- lation

    Jiaming Liu, Chenxuan Li, Guanqun Wang, Lily Lee, Kaichen Zhou, Sixiang Chen, Chuyan Xiong, Jiaxin Ge, Renrui Zhang, and Shanghang Zhang. Self-corrected mul- timodal large language model for end-to-end robot manipu- lation. arXiv preprint arXiv:2405.17418, 2024. 2

    2024 arXiv

  9. [17]

    Coherent: Collaboration of heteroge- neous multi-robot system with large language models

    Kehui Liu, Zixin Tang, Dong Wang, Zhigang Wang, Bin Zhao, and Xuelong Li. Coherent: Collaboration of heteroge- neous multi-robot system with large language models. arXiv preprint arXiv:2409.15146, 2024. 2

    2024 arXiv

  10. [18]

    Regmix: Data mixture as regression for language model pre- training

    Qian Liu, Xiaosen Zheng, Niklas Muennighoff, Guangtao Zeng, Longxu Dou, Tianyu Pang, Jing Jiang, and Min Lin. Regmix: Data mixture as regression for language model pre- training. arXiv preprint arXiv:2407.01492, 2024. 7

    2024 arXiv

  11. [19]

    Koi: Accelerating online imi- tation learning via hybrid key-state guidance

    Jingxian Lu, Wenke Xia, Dong Wang, Zhigang Wang, Bin Zhao, Di Hu, and Xuelong Li. Koi: Accelerating online imi- tation learning via hybrid key-state guidance. arXiv preprint arXiv:2408.02912, 2024. 1

    2024 arXiv

  12. [20]

    What mat- ters in learning from offline human demonstrations for robot manipulation

    Ajay Mandlekar, Danfei Xu, Josiah Wong, Soroush Nasiri- any, Chen Wang, Rohun Kulkarni, Li Fei-Fei, Silvio Savarese, Yuke Zhu, and Roberto Mart´ın-Mart´ın. What mat- ters in learning from offline human demonstrations for robot manipulation. In Conference on Robot Learning (CoRL) ,

  13. [21]

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

    Abhishek Padalkar, Acorn Pooley, Ajinkya Jain, Alex Bew- ley, Alex Herzog, Alex Irpan, Alexander Khazatsky, Anant Rai, Anikait Singh, Anthony Brohan, et al. Open x- embodiment: Robotic learning datasets and rt-x models. arXiv preprint arXiv:2310.08864, 2023. 3

    arXiv

  14. [22]

    Depth helps: Improving pre-trained rgb-based policy with depth information injec- tion

    Xincheng Pang, Wenke Xia, Zhigang Wang, Bin Zhao, Di Hu, Dong Wang, and Xuelong Li. Depth helps: Improving pre-trained rgb-based policy with depth information injec- tion. In 2024 IEEE/RSJ International Conference on Intel- ligent Robots and Systems (IROS), pages 7251–7256. IEEE,

    2024

  15. [23]

    Hierarchical reinforcement learning: A com- prehensive survey

    Shubham Pateria, Budhitama Subagdja, Ah-hwee Tan, and Chai Quek. Hierarchical reinforcement learning: A com- prehensive survey. ACM Computing Surveys (CSUR), 54(5): 1–35, 2021. 2

    2021

  16. [24]

    Planning with large language models via corrective re-prompting

    Shreyas Sundara Raman, Vanya Cohen, Eric Rosen, Ifrah Idrees, David Paulius, and Stefanie Tellex. Planning with large language models via corrective re-prompting. In NeurIPS 2022 Foundation Models for Decision Making Workshop, 2022. 2

    2022

  17. [25]

    What we learn when we learn by doing

    Roger C Schank. What we learn when we learn by doing. Technical report, Technical report, 1995. 1

    1995

  18. [26]

    Proximal policy optimization algo- rithms

    John Schulman, Filip Wolski, Prafulla Dhariwal, Alec Rad- ford, and Oleg Klimov. Proximal policy optimization algo- rithms. arXiv preprint arXiv:1707.06347, 2017. 1, 2

    2017 arXiv

  19. [27]

    Octo: An open-source generalist robot policy

    Octo Model Team, Dibya Ghosh, Homer Walke, Karl Pertsch, Kevin Black, Oier Mees, Sudeep Dasari, Joey Hejna, Tobias Kreiman, Charles Xu, et al. Octo: An open-source generalist robot policy. arXiv preprint arXiv:2405.12213, 2024. 3, 6

    2024 arXiv

  20. [28]

    Llama: Open and efficient foundation language models

    Hugo Touvron, Thibaut Lavril, Gautier Izacard, Xavier Martinet, Marie-Anne Lachaux, Timoth´ee Lacroix, Baptiste Rozi`ere, Naman Goyal, Eric Hambro, Faisal Azhar, et al. Llama: Open and efficient foundation language models. arXiv preprint arXiv:2302.13971, 2023. 3

    2023 arXiv

  21. [29]

    V oyager: An open-ended embodied agent with large language models

    Guanzhi Wang, Yuqi Xie, Yunfan Jiang, Ajay Mandlekar, Chaowei Xiao, Yuke Zhu, Linxi Fan, and Anima Anandku- mar. V oyager: An open-ended embodied agent with large language models. arXiv preprint arXiv:2305.16291, 2023. 2

    2023 arXiv

  22. [30]

    Describe, explain, plan and select: Interactive planning with large language mod- els enables open-world multi-task agents

    Zihao Wang, Shaofei Cai, Guanzhou Chen, Anji Liu, Xi- aojian Ma, and Yitao Liang. Describe, explain, plan and select: Interactive planning with large language mod- els enables open-world multi-task agents. arXiv preprint arXiv:2302.01560, 2023. 1, 2

    2023 arXiv

  23. [31]

    Kinematic-aware prompt- ing for generalizable articulated object manipulation with llms

    Wenke Xia, Dong Wang, Xincheng Pang, Zhigang Wang, Bin Zhao, Di Hu, and Xuelong Li. Kinematic-aware prompt- ing for generalizable articulated object manipulation with llms. In 2024 IEEE International Conference on Robotics and Automation (ICRA), pages 2073–2080, 2024. 2

    2024

  24. [32]

    Aic mllm: Au- tonomous interactive correction mllm for robust robotic ma- nipulation

    Chuyan Xiong, Chengyu Shen, Xiaoqi Li, Kaichen Zhou, Jiaming Liu, Ruiping Wang, and Hao Dong. Aic mllm: Au- tonomous interactive correction mllm for robust robotic ma- nipulation. arXiv preprint arXiv:2406.11548, 2024. 2

    2024 arXiv

  25. [33]

    Data mixing laws: Optimizing data mixtures by predicting language modeling performance

    Jiasheng Ye, Peiju Liu, Tianxiang Sun, Yunhua Zhou, Jun Zhan, and Xipeng Qiu. Data mixing laws: Optimizing data mixtures by predicting language modeling performance. arXiv preprint arXiv:2403.16952, 2024. 7

    2024 arXiv

  26. [34]

    Asc: Adaptive skill coordination for robotic mobile manipulation

    Naoki Yokoyama, Alex Clegg, Joanne Truong, Eric Under- sander, Tsung-Yen Yang, Sergio Arnaud, Sehoon Ha, Dhruv Batra, and Akshara Rai. Asc: Adaptive skill coordination for robotic mobile manipulation. IEEE Robotics and Automa- tion Letters, 9(1):779–786, 2023. 2

    2023

  27. [35]

    Meta- world: A benchmark and evaluation for multi-task and meta reinforcement learning

    Tianhe Yu, Deirdre Quillen, Zhanpeng He, Ryan Julian, Karol Hausman, Chelsea Finn, and Sergey Levine. Meta- world: A benchmark and evaluation for multi-task and meta reinforcement learning. In Conference on robot learning , pages 1094–1100. PMLR, 2020. 1, 2

    2020

  28. [36]

    Learning manipulation by predicting interaction

    Jia Zeng, Qingwen Bu, Bangjun Wang, Wenke Xia, Li Chen, Hao Dong, Haoming Song, Dong Wang, Di Hu, Ping Luo, et al. Learning manipulation by predicting interaction. arXiv preprint arXiv:2406.00439, 2024. 3

    2024 arXiv

  29. [37]

    Sam-e: leveraging visual foundation model with sequence imitation for embod- ied manipulation

    Junjie Zhang, Chenjia Bai, Haoran He, Wenke Xia, Zhigang Wang, Bin Zhao, Xiu Li, and Xuelong Li. Sam-e: leveraging visual foundation model with sequence imitation for embod- ied manipulation. arXiv preprint arXiv:2405.19586 , 2024. 3

    2024 arXiv

  30. [38]

    Learning fine-grained bimanual manipulation with low-cost hardware

    Tony Z Zhao, Vikash Kumar, Sergey Levine, and Chelsea Finn. Learning fine-grained bimanual manipulation with low-cost hardware. arXiv preprint arXiv:2304.13705, 2023. 2 Phoenix: A Motion-based Self-Reflection Framework for Fine-grained Robotic Action Correction (Supplementary ...

    2023 arXiv

  31. [39]

    Coffee” and “ThreePieceAssembly

    Implementation Details 1.1. Dual-process Motion Adjustment Mechanism Training Details. In this mechanism, we construct a mo- tion prediction module to efficiently obtain the initial mo- tion prediction and a motion correction module to provide comprehensive motion adjustment. ...

    2025 arXiv

  32. [40]

    As demonstrated in Table 1, the pol- icy guided by the motion codebook can better adhere to motion instructions, thus achieving better performance in manipulation tasks (44.4% v.s

    Ablation Results of Motion Codebook In this work, we train a motion codebook to provide discriminative motion instruction features for motion- conditioned policy. As demonstrated in Table 1, the pol- icy guided by the motion codebook can better adhere to motion instructions, t...

  33. [41]

    move arm upward

    More Real-world Experiments Results We also prove the effectiveness of our method in rule-based manipulation policy with an xArm robot arm. As shown in Figure 4(a), we conduct experiments on three tasks: putting the cube on the scale, taking the rag off, and pressing the butto...

Pith tools

Reviewed August 16, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.