Pith. sign in

REVIEW 3 major objections 6 minor 2 cited by

CrayonRobo: Object-Centric Prompt-Driven Vision-Language-Action Model for Robotic Manipulation

T0 review · 3 major / 6 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 Color-coded crayon prompts on an image let a vision-language-action model predict $SE(3)$ contact poses and post-contact motion, chaining key-frames into long-horizon tasks.

desk verdict A genuinely new prompt interface for specifying grasp orientation and post-contact motion, but the success metric is under-specified and the closest visual-prompt baselines are missing. read the letter →

arxiv 2505.02166 v1 pith:DCRPXDKD submitted 2025-05-04 cs.RO

Xiaoqi Li , Lingyun Xu , Mingxu Zhang , Jiaming Liu , Yan Shen , Iaroslav Ponomarenko , Jiahui Xu , Liang Heng
show 3 more authors
Siyuan Huang Shanghang Zhang Hao Dong
This is my paper · ORCID
classification cs.RO
keywords vision-language-actionmodelvisualpromptingroboticmanipulationSE(3)posepredictionkeyframeplanningarticulatedobjectssim-to-realtransferpromptnoisetolerance
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

Manipulation instructions are usually given as language, goal images, or videos, but language is ambiguous and images or videos carry irrelevant detail. CrayonRobo's proposal is to overlay simple 2D crayon-style marks — a blue dot for the contact point, red and green lines for the gripper's approach axes, and a yellow line for the movement after contact — on an RGB image of the object. A vision-language-action model is trained to read these prompts, together with text giving their numeric 2D coordinates, and to output the corresponding $SE(3)$ contact pose plus an optional 3D moving direction. A sequence of prompted key-frames then specifies the whole plan, so long-horizon tasks are completed step by step. The paper reports higher success than prior prompting, language, and goal-image baselines in simulation, and workable zero-shot performance on five real-world tasks.

What carries the argument

The core mechanism is the crayon prompt language: four colored geometric marks overlaid on the object image (blue contact dot, red gripper z-axis, green gripper y-axis, yellow post-contact moving direction), each mirrored numerically in the text prompt to remove overlap ambiguity. The training strategy progressively teaches the model to exploit more prompt components, and three losses pin the predictions to geometry: a cross-entropy text-supervision loss over discretized direction bins, a Gram-Schmidt orthogonality loss between the two gripper axes, and a projection loss that unprojects the predicted 3D directions back to 2D and checks them against the input 2D prompts with cosine similarity. At inference the prompts can be drawn by a person or generated automatically by an object detector plus a language model selecting among candidate direction lines.

What would settle it

Score the same trained model on held-out objects while measuring object-part motion with an external encoder or motion capture, and require the articulated joint to reach at least half of its full range; if success collapses relative to the paper's binary movement threshold, then the threshold, not the predicted $SE(3)$ poses, is carrying the result. As a second check, compare the predicted contact points and gripper axes against manually annotated ground truth on real objects.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

The paper claims that a 2D visual-language prompt pair — an image overlaid with colored marks plus a text string containing the same 2D values — is enough for a vision-language-action model to predict an accurate six-degree-of-freedom contact pose and a next-moving direction, and that chaining key-frame prompts completes long-horizon manipulation. The model predicts the contact position in 3D by unprojecting the 2D point with depth and camera parameters, and predicts the gripper's z-axis and y-axis as 3D unit vectors whose orthogonality is enforced, plus an optional post-contact translation direction. The reported experiments show that progressively adding directional prompts raises success rates, that the model tolerates noise in the drawn prompts, and that the same prompted policy transfers to real objects without additional sim-to-real fine-tuning.

Load-bearing premise

The load-bearing premise is that the rule-based simulator heuristics produce correct ground-truth contact poses and that moving an object part past the scoring threshold really means the task was accomplished; if either is too permissive, the reported success rates overstate the robot's skill.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • A user can specify a manipulation goal by drawing marks on a photo, with no need to write a detailed language instruction or supply a goal image or video.
  • Because each key-frame is a self-contained prompted sub-goal, long-horizon tasks can be composed from reusable primitives, and per-step success rates compound into overall reliability.
  • Prompt noise up to 20 percent of the directional values has little effect on simulator success, so non-expert hand-drawn or automatically generated prompts are usable in practice.
  • The prompted model can be fine-tuned on a specific task and then run without prompts, suggesting a path from prompt-guided training to prompt-free execution.
  • The same policy works on real objects and multi-step tasks without additional sim-to-real fine-tuning.

Reading between the lines

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

  • Beyond the paper, the projection loss couples 2D prompt space to 3D prediction space using only depth and camera intrinsics, so the same consistency check could be applied to other vision-language pose predictors.
  • Beyond the paper, the prompt language could be extended to rotation-rate or velocity prompts for continuous actions, reusing the two-keyframe trick the paper uses for rotations.
  • Beyond the paper, the noise tolerance suggests an interactive correction loop: a user sketches a coarse goal, the robot executes, and the user adjusts only the wrong mark, which may be cheaper than redrawing or re-prompting.
  • Beyond the paper, automatic prompt generation is the noisiest link; feeding the model's own predicted poses back to refine the automatically selected lines could close the loop and reduce the need for manual drawing.
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

3 major / 6 minor

Summary. The paper proposes CrayonRobo, a vision-language-action (VLA) model that takes RGB images overlaid with color-coded 2D 'crayon' prompts (blue contact point, red z-axis, green y-axis, yellow post-contact moving direction), together with corresponding numerical text prompts, and outputs an SE(3) contact pose and a 3D moving direction. A progressive training scheme supervises the model with text, orthogonality, and projection losses, and long-horizon tasks are decomposed into key-frame prompts executed sequentially. The authors evaluate on SAPIEN/PartNet-Mobility articulated-object tasks with seen/unseen splits against Flowbot3D, ManipLLM, Implicit3D, and a replicated RT-Trajectory baseline, plus real-world Franka experiments with manually drawn and automatically generated prompts, and report favorable success rates.

Significance. If the central claim is supported, CrayonRobo would be a practically useful interface for specifying robotic manipulation goals: it adds explicit directional and contact information to visual prompting, addressing ambiguities of language and over-specification of goal images or videos, and the key-frame decomposition is a sensible way to handle long-horizon tasks. The paper's strengths include the progressive input-pair training strategy, the simple four-color prompt semantics, the automatic (Grounded-DINO plus GPT-4) and manual prompt pipelines, and the breadth of simulator comparisons across many articulated-object categories together with zero-shot real-world transfer. However, the paper does not ship code, and the quantitative claims rest on an underspecified success criterion; until the metric is tightened and direct pose-accuracy numbers are reported, the margin over baselines is difficult to interpret.

major comments (3)
  1. [§4.1 and §3.2] The load-bearing evidence for 'accurate SE(3) contact poses and movement directions' is the binary success rate, defined in §4.1 only as 'thresholding the distance that the object part moves.' The threshold value and the reference distance per task are never reported. Since §3.2 generates the training labels with the same rule-based heuristics that define success, a permissive threshold would let any contact that nudges the part count as success even if the predicted pose is off by centimeters or tens of degrees and the post-contact direction is wrong. Please report the threshold in physical units per task or per part, report a success-versus-threshold sweep, and add direct metrics: predicted-versus-GT contact-point position error, orientation error, and moving-direction angular error. These direct metrics are necessary to separate the model's SE(3) accuracy from the heuristic's ease of producing any motion.
  2. [§4.4 and Table 3] The real-world evaluation does not give an independently checkable success definition: §4.4 states only that a trial is successful 'If the task has been completed,' with five trials per task, author-drawn prompts, and no quantitative criterion such as a required joint angle or part displacement. In the 'w/o P.' rows, the model is fine-tuned on the model's own predicted poses from successful trials as 'ground truth,' so these numbers (5/10 and 6/10) measure self-distillation rather than prompt-free generalization with independent labels. Please specify a per-task success criterion, report per-trial outcomes, and use independently measured ground-truth actions (e.g., recorded robot states or human-specified keyframes) for the w/o P. experiment.
  3. [§3.4.2 vs §3.1] There is a contradiction about which point is unprojected to produce the 3D contact location: §3.1 says the model predicts ap'_0 and that this predicted point is mapped to aP0, while §3.4.2 says 'ap0 is projected into 3D space' (the input prompt point). If execution uses the input point, the model's position prediction and the claimed noise-correction behavior in §4.2 are not exercised; if it uses the predicted point, the text is wrong. Clarify this, because it determines whether the model actually outputs an SE(3) contact pose or only a rotation and direction.
minor comments (6)
  1. [§3.3.2] The loss weights λ1, λ2, and λ3 are never specified; include their values or a sensitivity study for reproducibility.
  2. [§3.3.2] The discretization description '100 discrete bins [-50,50], with each bin spanning 0.02' is internally inconsistent (a 100-unit range at 0.02 width gives 5,000 bins); clarify the binning of the normalized direction vector.
  3. [§3.3.2] The projection loss compares 2D projections of predicted 3D directions with the input 2D directions, so it enforces 2D–3D projection consistency rather than independently determining the 3D direction; state explicitly that LP is a regularizer and that LT carries the main 3D supervision.
  4. [Table 1] The 16 seen-task and 16 unseen-task columns are unlabeled, so it is impossible to see per-task performance; add a task list or column headers.
  5. [§3.4.1] The statement that adding 'slight noise' to directions perpendicular to the camera improves visibility should be described with a concrete procedure (e.g., noise distribution and magnitude) for reproducibility.
  6. [Appendix A] The ground-truth text says 'The contact point is at ap0,' but the contact point in ground truth should presumably be a 3D coordinate, not the 2D input prompt; align the notation with §3.1.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 2.0 of 10

No circular derivation; the central claim is a supervised 3D-from-2D regression, and the only self-citation (ManipLLM backbone) is not load-bearing.

full rationale

The claimed prediction chain is supervised imitation rather than circular inference. Section 3.2 records ground-truth contact poses and directions by rule-based interaction in SAPIEN, and Section 3.3.2 trains the model to output those 3D quantities from 2D prompts that are themselves unprojections of the same quantities; this is a standard 2D-to-3D regression task, and the projection loss LP is a consistency regularizer, not an input that defines the output. The evaluation metric of Section 4.1 ('success determined by thresholding the distance that the object part moves') is under-specified and may overstate accuracy, but that is a measurement-validity concern, not circularity: the metric does not define the predicted pose, and a model that predicts poor poses would still fail when the part does not move. The only self-citation that appears is [32] (ManipLLM), whose backbone architecture and rule-based data-collection approach are adopted; this is architectural inheritance and a baseline, not a load-bearing premise for the paper's prompt-conditioning claim. Hence there are no circular steps; the score of 2 reflects one minor, non-load-bearing self-citation rather than any reduction of the result to its inputs.

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

The supervised training and evaluation rest on simulator heuristics (ManipLLM/Where2Act) to define ground-truth poses and on an unreported displacement threshold to define success. The method itself introduces no physical entities; its free parameters are design choices (loss weights, quantization bins, candidate line count) plus the undisclosed success threshold. The key-frame decomposition assumption limits the expressible task space.

free parameters (4)
  • loss weights lambda1, lambda2, lambda3 = not reported
    Total loss L = lambda1*LT + lambda2*LO + lambda3*LP (Section 3.3.2); values are chosen by hand and not stated, and the ablation in Appendix E shows the losses matter.
  • direction quantization bins = 100 bins spanning [-50,50], width 0.02
    SE(3) direction prediction is discretized into 100 bins (Section 3.3.2); the bin width is a design choice affecting prediction resolution.
  • success distance threshold = not reported
    A successful sample is determined by thresholding the distance the object part moves (Section 4.1); the threshold is not specified, and all success rates depend on it.
  • automatic prompt candidate lines = 32
    32 direction lines are uniformly sampled around the object for GPT-4 selection (Section 3.4.1); the number of candidates is ad hoc but test-time only.
assumptions (5)
  • domain assumption Known depth map and camera intrinsics allow exact unprojection of 2D prompts to 3D rays and positions.
    Used throughout Section 3.1 and 3.2 to convert 2D prompts (ap0, az0, ay0, am0) into 3D supervision. In real-world experiments, camera intrinsics are assumed known for the RealSense 415.
  • domain assumption The rule-based heuristics from ManipLLM/Where2Act provide correct 'success contact pose' and movement directions in simulation.
    Section 3.2: training labels (3D contact point, z/y axes, moving direction) come from these heuristics; if these are biased, the learned policy inherits the bias.
  • domain assumption Task success can be validly measured by thresholding the distance the object part moves.
    Section 4.1 defines the evaluation metric this way; it does not check functional completion such as the drawer actually opening enough for use.
  • domain assumption Long-horizon tasks decompose into the chosen set of key-frame primitives (pick, push, pull, rotate, place, move).
    Section 3.4.1 and Appendix D rely on this decomposition to chain steps; if a task needs a primitive outside this set, the method cannot express it.
  • domain assumption GPT-4 can correctly select the arrow lines that represent gripper axes and movement direction given the task description.
    Automatic prompt generation in Section 3.4.1 uses GPT-4 to pick from 32 candidates; errors here propagate into the input prompt.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of CrayonRobo: Object-Centric Prompt-Driven Vision-Language-Action Model for Robotic Manipulation." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/DCRPXDKD

@misc{pith2026250502166,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: CrayonRobo: Object-Centric Prompt-Driven Vision-Language-Action Model for Robotic Manipulation},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/DCRPXDKD}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2505.02166}
}
read the original abstract

In robotic, task goals can be conveyed through various modalities, such as language, goal images, and goal videos. However, natural language can be ambiguous, while images or videos may offer overly detailed specifications. To tackle these challenges, we introduce CrayonRobo that leverages comprehensive multi-modal prompts that explicitly convey both low-level actions and high-level planning in a simple manner. Specifically, for each key-frame in the task sequence, our method allows for manual or automatic generation of simple and expressive 2D visual prompts overlaid on RGB images. These prompts represent the required task goals, such as the end-effector pose and the desired movement direction after contact. We develop a training strategy that enables the model to interpret these visual-language prompts and predict the corresponding contact poses and movement directions in SE(3) space. Furthermore, by sequentially executing all key-frame steps, the model can complete long-horizon tasks. This approach not only helps the model explicitly understand the task objectives but also enhances its robustness on unseen tasks by providing easily interpretable prompts. We evaluate our method in both simulated and real-world environments, demonstrating its robust manipulation capabilities.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2505.02166 by the authors.

Figure 1
Figure 1. (a) shows our expression of different color prompts. (b) shows that we utilize a sequence of images with crayon visual prompts to [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p002_1.png] view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. We design training pairs that convey varying levels of information to enable the model to comprehend each type of prompt and [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p004_2.png] view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. Illustration of model inference with input generated in different ways. [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p005_3.png] view at source ↗
Figures from the paper (3 more)
Figure 4
Figure 4. Figure 4: Visualization results in SAPIEN simulator and real world. [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p007_4.png]
Figure 5
Figure 5. Figure 5: Robustness analysis on the noise in prompts. [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p008_5.png]
Figure 6
Figure 6. Figure 6: The completion of tyical key-frame tasks. [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p012_6.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. RwoR: Generating Robot Demonstrations from Human Hand Collection for Policy Learning without Robot

    cs.RO 2025-07 conditional novelty 6.0 of 10

    A generative model and wrist camera turn human hand videos into robot gripper demonstrations that train manipulation policies at success rates close to those trained on real gripper data.

  2. EnerVerse-AC: Envisioning Embodied Environments with Action Condition

    cs.RO 2025-05 conditional novelty 5.0 of 10

    EnerVerse-AC generates realistic multi-view robot videos conditioned on action sequences and shows early evidence it can augment training data and rank policy performance like a real robot.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

64 extracted references · 20 canonical work pages · cited by 2 Pith papers

  1. [1]

    Gpt-4 technical report

    Josh Achiam, Steven Adler, Sandhini Agarwal, Lama Ahmad, Ilge Akkaya, Florencia Leoni Aleman, Diogo Almeida, Janko Altenschmidt, Sam Altman, Shyamal Anadkat, et al. Gpt-4 technical report. arXiv preprint arXiv:2303.08774, 2023. 4

    arXiv 2023

  2. [2]

    Do as i can, not as i say: Grounding language in robotic affordances

    Michael Ahn, Anthony Brohan, Noah Brown, Yevgen Chebo- tar, Omar Cortes, Byron David, Chelsea Finn, Chuyuan Fu, Keerthana Gopalakrishnan, Karol Hausman, et al. Do as i can, not as i say: Grounding language in robotic affordances. arXiv preprint arXiv:2204.01691, 2022. 1, 2

    arXiv 2022

  3. [3]

    Rgbmanip: Monocular image-based robotic ma- nipulation through active object pose estimation

    Boshi An, Yiran Geng, Kai Chen, Xiaoqi Li, Qi Dou, and Hao Dong. Rgbmanip: Monocular image-based robotic ma- nipulation through active object pose estimation. In 2024 IEEE International Conference on Robotics and Automation (ICRA), pages 7748–7755. IEEE, 2024. 2

    work page 2024

  4. [4]

    Affordances from human videos as a versatile representation for robotics

    Shikhar Bahl, Russell Mendonca, Lili Chen, Unnat Jain, and Deepak Pathak. Affordances from human videos as a versatile representation for robotics. In Proceedings of the IEEE/CVF Conference on Computer Vision and Pattern Recognition , pages 13778–13790, 2023. 2

    work page 2023

  5. [5]

    Rt-h: Action hierarchies using language

    Suneel Belkhale, Tianli Ding, Ted Xiao, Pierre Sermanet, Quon Vuong, Jonathan Tompson, Yevgen Chebotar, Debidatta Dwibedi, and Dorsa Sadigh. Rt-h: Action hierarchies using language. arXiv preprint arXiv:2403.01823, 2024. 2

    arXiv 2024

  6. [6]

    Zero- shot robotic manipulation with pretrained image-editing dif- fusion models

    Kevin Black, Mitsuhiko Nakamoto, Pranav Atreya, Homer Walke, Chelsea Finn, Aviral Kumar, and Sergey Levine. Zero- shot robotic manipulation with pretrained image-editing dif- fusion models. arXiv preprint arXiv:2310.10639, 2023. 1, 2, 3

    arXiv

  7. [7]

    Robocat: A self-improving foundation agent for robotic manipulation

    Konstantinos Bousmalis, Giulia Vezzani, Dushyant Rao, Col- ine Devin, Alex X Lee, Maria Bauza, Todor Davchev, Yux- iang Zhou, Agrim Gupta, Akhil Raju, et al. Robocat: A self-improving foundation agent for robotic manipulation. arXiv preprint arXiv:2306.11706, 2023. 1, 2

    arXiv 2023

  8. [8]

    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. 2

    arXiv 2022

Show all 64 references
  1. [9]

    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. 2

    2023 arXiv

  2. [10]

    Learn- ing video-conditioned policies for unseen manipulation tasks

    Elliot Chane-Sane, Cordelia Schmid, and Ivan Laptev. Learn- ing video-conditioned policies for unseen manipulation tasks. In 2023 IEEE International Conference on Robotics and Au- tomation (ICRA), pages 909–916. IEEE, 2023. 1

    2023

  3. [11]

    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. 2

    2023 arXiv

  4. [12]

    Safe rlhf: Safe reinforcement learning from human feedback

    Josef Dai, Xuehai Pan, Ruiyang Sun, Jiaming Ji, Xinbo Xu, Mickel Liu, Yizhou Wang, and Yaodong Yang. Safe rlhf: Safe reinforcement learning from human feedback. arXiv preprint arXiv:2310.12773, 2023. 2

    2023 arXiv

  5. [13]

    Video language planning

    Yilun Du, Mengjiao Yang, Pete Florence, Fei Xia, Ayzaan Wahid, Brian Ichter, Pierre Sermanet, Tianhe Yu, Pieter Abbeel, Joshua B Tenenbaum, et al. Video language planning. arXiv preprint arXiv:2310.10625, 2023. 1, 3

    2023 arXiv

  6. [14]

    Learn- ing universal policies via text-guided video generation

    Yilun Du, Sherry Yang, Bo Dai, Hanjun Dai, Ofir Nachum, Josh Tenenbaum, Dale Schuurmans, and Pieter Abbeel. Learn- ing universal policies via text-guided video generation. Ad- vances in Neural Information Processing Systems, 36, 2024. 1, 3

    2024

  7. [15]

    Flowbot3d: Learn- ing 3d articulation flow to manipulate articulated objects

    Ben Eisner, Harry Zhang, and David Held. Flowbot3d: Learn- ing 3d articulation flow to manipulate articulated objects. arXiv preprint arXiv:2205.04382, 2022. 2, 6

    2022 arXiv

  8. [16]

    Anygrasp: Robust and efficient grasp perception in spatial and temporal domains

    Hao-Shu Fang, Chenxi Wang, Hongjie Fang, Minghao Gou, Jirong Liu, Hengxu Yan, Wenhai Liu, Yichen Xie, and Cewu Lu. Anygrasp: Robust and efficient grasp perception in spatial and temporal domains. IEEE Transactions on Robotics, 2023. 6

    2023

  9. [17]

    The loss of orthogonality in the gram-schmidt orthogonalization process

    Luc Giraud, Julien Langou, and Miroslav Rozloznik. The loss of orthogonality in the gram-schmidt orthogonalization process. Computers & Mathematics with Applications, 50(7): 1069–1075, 2005. 4

    2005

  10. [18]

    Rvt: Robotic view transformer for 3d object manipulation

    Ankit Goyal, Jie Xu, Yijie Guo, Valts Blukis, Yu-Wei Chao, and Dieter Fox. Rvt: Robotic view transformer for 3d object manipulation. In Conference on Robot Learning, pages 694–

  11. [19]

    Rvt-2: Learning precise manipulation from few demonstrations

    Ankit Goyal, Valts Blukis, Jie Xu, Yijie Guo, Yu-Wei Chao, and Dieter Fox. Rvt-2: Learning precise manipulation from few demonstrations. arXiv preprint arXiv:2406.08545, 2024. 1, 5

    2024 arXiv

  12. [20]

    Rt-trajectory: Robotic task generalization via hindsight trajectory sketches

    Jiayuan Gu, Sean Kirmani, Paul Wohlhart, Yao Lu, Montser- rat Gonzalez Arenas, Kanishka Rao, Wenhao Yu, Chuyuan Fu, Keerthana Gopalakrishnan, Zhuo Xu, et al. Rt-trajectory: Robotic task generalization via hindsight trajectory sketches. arXiv preprint arXiv:2311.01977, 2023. 1, 3, 6

    2023 arXiv

  13. [21]

    Lora: Low-rank adaptation of large language models.arXiv preprint arXiv:2106.09685, 2021

    Edward J Hu, Yelong Shen, Phillip Wallis, Zeyuan Allen-Zhu, Yuanzhi Li, Shean Wang, Lu Wang, and Weizhu Chen. Lora: Low-rank adaptation of large language models.arXiv preprint arXiv:2106.09685, 2021. 3

    2021 arXiv

  14. [22]

    A3vlm: Actionable articulation-aware vision language model

    Siyuan Huang, Haonan Chang, Yuhan Liu, Yimeng Zhu, Hao Dong, Peng Gao, Abdeslam Boularias, and Hongsheng Li. A3vlm: Actionable articulation-aware vision language model. arXiv preprint arXiv:2406.07549, 2024. 5

    2024 arXiv

  15. [23]

    Manipvqa: Injecting robotic affordance and physi- cally grounded information into multi-modal large language models

    Siyuan Huang, Iaroslav Ponomarenko, Zhengkai Jiang, Xi- aoqi Li, Xiaobin Hu, Peng Gao, Hongsheng Li, and Hao Dong. Manipvqa: Injecting robotic affordance and physi- cally grounded information into multi-modal large language models. arXiv preprint arXiv:2403.11289, 2024. 2

    2024 arXiv

  16. [24]

    V oxposer: Composable 3d value maps for robotic manipulation with language models

    Wenlong Huang, Chen Wang, Ruohan Zhang, Yunzhu Li, Jiajun Wu, and Li Fei-Fei. V oxposer: Composable 3d value maps for robotic manipulation with language models. arXiv preprint arXiv:2307.05973, 2023. 1, 2

    2023 arXiv

  17. [25]

    Lift3d foundation policy: Lift- ing 2d large-scale pretrained models for robust 3d robotic manipulation

    Yueru Jia, Jiaming Liu, Sixiang Chen, Chenyang Gu, Zhilue Wang, Longzan Luo, Lily Lee, Pengwei Wang, Zhongyuan Wang, Renrui Zhang, et al. Lift3d foundation policy: Lift- ing 2d large-scale pretrained models for robust 3d robotic manipulation. arXiv preprint arXiv:2411.18623, 2024. 1 9

    2024 arXiv

  18. [26]

    Vima: General robot manipulation with multimodal prompts

    Yunfan Jiang, Agrim Gupta, Zichen Zhang, Guanzhi Wang, Yongqiang Dou, Yanjun Chen, Li Fei-Fei, Anima Anand- kumar, Yuke Zhu, and Linxi Fan. Vima: General robot manipulation with multimodal prompts. arXiv preprint arXiv:2210.03094, 2(3):6, 2022. 1, 2

    arXiv

  19. [27]

    Coarse-to-fine imitation learning: Robot ma- nipulation from a single demonstration

    Edward Johns. Coarse-to-fine imitation learning: Robot ma- nipulation from a single demonstration. In 2021 IEEE in- ternational conference on robotics and automation (ICRA), pages 4613–4619. IEEE, 2021. 1, 5

    2021

  20. [28]

    Robo-abc: Affordance generalization beyond categories via semantic correspondence for robot ma- nipulation

    Yuanchen Ju, Kaizhe Hu, Guowei Zhang, Gu Zhang, Mingrun Jiang, and Huazhe Xu. Robo-abc: Affordance generalization beyond categories via semantic correspondence for robot ma- nipulation. arXiv preprint arXiv:2401.07487, 2024. 2

    2024 arXiv

  21. [29]

    3d diffuser actor: Policy diffusion with 3d scene representations

    Tsung-Wei Ke, Nikolaos Gkanatsios, and Katerina Fragki- adaki. 3d diffuser actor: Policy diffusion with 3d scene representations. arXiv preprint arXiv:2402.10885, 2024. 2

    2024 arXiv

  22. [30]

    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

    2024 arXiv

  23. [31]

    Vision-language foundation models as effective robot imitators

    Xinghang Li, Minghuan Liu, Hanbo Zhang, Cunjun Yu, Jie Xu, Hongtao Wu, Chilam Cheang, Ya Jing, Weinan Zhang, Huaping Liu, et al. Vision-language foundation models as effective robot imitators. arXiv preprint arXiv:2311.01378, 2023

    2023 arXiv

  24. [32]

    Manipllm: Embodied multimodal large language model for object-centric robotic manipulation

    Xiaoqi Li, Mingxu Zhang, Yiran Geng, Haoran Geng, Yux- ing Long, Yan Shen, Renrui Zhang, Jiaming Liu, and Hao Dong. Manipllm: Embodied multimodal large language model for object-centric robotic manipulation. In Proceed- ings of the IEEE/CVF Conference on Computer Vision and Pa...

    2024

  25. [33]

    Hamster: Hierarchical action models for open- world robot manipulation

    Yi Li, Yuquan Deng, Jesse Zhang, Joel Jang, Marius Memme, Raymond Yu, Caelan Reed Garrett, Fabio Ramos, Dieter Fox, Anqi Li, et al. Hamster: Hierarchical action models for open- world robot manipulation. arXiv preprint arXiv:2502.05485,

    arXiv

  26. [34]

    Code as policies: Language model programs for embodied con- trol

    Jacky Liang, Wenlong Huang, Fei Xia, Peng Xu, Karol Haus- man, Brian Ichter, Pete Florence, and Andy Zeng. Code as policies: Language model programs for embodied con- trol. In 2023 IEEE International Conference on Robotics and Automation (ICRA), pages 9493–9500. IEEE, 2023. 1, 2

    2023

  27. [35]

    Moka: Open-vocabulary robotic manipulation through mark- based visual prompting

    Fangchen Liu, Kuan Fang, Pieter Abbeel, and Sergey Levine. Moka: Open-vocabulary robotic manipulation through mark- based visual prompting. arXiv preprint arXiv:2403.03174,

    arXiv

  28. [36]

    Robomamba: Multimodal state space model for efficient robot reasoning and manipulation

    Jiaming Liu, Mengzhen Liu, Zhenyu Wang, Lily Lee, Kaichen Zhou, Pengju An, Senqiao Yang, Renrui Zhang, Yandong Guo, and Shanghang Zhang. Robomamba: Multimodal state space model for efficient robot reasoning and manipulation. arXiv preprint arXiv:2406.04339, 2024. 1, 3, 5

    2024 arXiv

  29. [37]

    Hybridvla: Collaborative diffusion and autoregression in a unified vision-language-action model

    Jiaming Liu, Hao Chen, Pengju An, Zhuoyang Liu, Renrui Zhang, Chenyang Gu, Xiaoqi Li, Ziyu Guo, Sixiang Chen, Mengzhen Liu, et al. Hybridvla: Collaborative diffusion and autoregression in a unified vision-language-action model. arXiv preprint arXiv:2503.10631, 2025. 2

    2025 arXiv

  30. [38]

    Grounding dino: Marrying dino with grounded pre-training for open-set object detection

    Shilong Liu, Zhaoyang Zeng, Tianhe Ren, Feng Li, Hao Zhang, Jie Yang, Chunyuan Li, Jianwei Yang, Hang Su, Jun Zhu, et al. Grounding dino: Marrying dino with grounded pre-training for open-set object detection. arXiv preprint arXiv:2303.05499, 2023. 4

    2023 arXiv

  31. [39]

    Serl: A software suite for sample-efficient robotic reinforcement learning

    Jianlan Luo, Zheyuan Hu, Charles Xu, You Liang Tan, Ja- cob Berg, Archit Sharma, Stefan Schaal, Chelsea Finn, Ab- hishek Gupta, and Sergey Levine. Serl: A software suite for sample-efficient robotic reinforcement learning. arXiv preprint arXiv:2401.16013, 2024. 2

    2024 arXiv

  32. [40]

    Language conditioned imitation learning over unstructured data

    Corey Lynch and Pierre Sermanet. Language conditioned imitation learning over unstructured data. arXiv preprint arXiv:2005.07648, 2020. 1, 2

    2005 arXiv

  33. [41]

    Learning latent plans from play

    Corey Lynch, Mohi Khansari, Ted Xiao, Vikash Kumar, Jonathan Tompson, Sergey Levine, and Pierre Sermanet. Learning latent plans from play. In Conference on robot learning, pages 1113–1132. PMLR, 2020. 1, 2

    2020

  34. [42]

    Where2act: From pixels to actions for articulated 3d objects

    Kaichun Mo, Leonidas J Guibas, Mustafa Mukadam, Abhinav Gupta, and Shubham Tulsiani. Where2act: From pixels to actions for articulated 3d objects. In Proceedings of the IEEE/CVF International Conference on Computer Vision , pages 6813–6823, 2021. 2, 3, 6

    2021

  35. [43]

    Learning language-conditioned robot behavior from offline data and crowd-sourced annotation

    Suraj Nair, Eric Mitchell, Kevin Chen, Silvio Savarese, Chelsea Finn, et al. Learning language-conditioned robot behavior from offline data and crowd-sourced annotation. In Conference on Robot Learning , pages 1303–1315. PMLR,

  36. [44]

    Pivot: Iterative visual prompt- ing elicits actionable knowledge for vlms

    Soroush Nasiriany, Fei Xia, Wenhao Yu, Ted Xiao, Jacky Liang, Ishita Dasgupta, Annie Xie, Danny Driess, Ayzaan Wahid, Zhuo Xu, et al. Pivot: Iterative visual prompt- ing elicits actionable knowledge for vlms. arXiv preprint arXiv:2402.07872, 2024. 1, 3

    2024 arXiv

  37. [45]

    Review of deep reinforcement learning for robot manipulation

    Hai Nguyen and Hung La. Review of deep reinforcement learning for robot manipulation. In 2019 Third IEEE interna- tional conference on robotic computing (IRC), pages 590–595. IEEE, 2019. 2

    2019

  38. [46]

    Learning transferable visual models from natural language supervi- sion

    Alec Radford, Jong Wook Kim, Chris Hallacy, Aditya Ramesh, Gabriel Goh, Sandhini Agarwal, Girish Sastry, Amanda Askell, Pamela Mishkin, Jack Clark, et al. Learning transferable visual models from natural language supervi- sion. In International conference on machine learning, ...

    2021

  39. [47]

    Cliport: What and where pathways for robotic manipulation

    Mohit Shridhar, Lucas Manuelli, and Dieter Fox. Cliport: What and where pathways for robotic manipulation. In Con- ference on robot learning, pages 894–906. PMLR, 2022. 1, 2

    2022

  40. [48]

    Perceiver- actor: A multi-task transformer for robotic manipulation

    Mohit Shridhar, Lucas Manuelli, and Dieter Fox. Perceiver- actor: A multi-task transformer for robotic manipulation. In Conference on Robot Learning, pages 785–799. PMLR, 2023. 1, 2, 5

    2023

  41. [49]

    Open-world object ma- nipulation using pre-trained vision-language models

    Austin Stone, Ted Xiao, Yao Lu, Keerthana Gopalakrishnan, Kuang-Huei Lee, Quan Vuong, Paul Wohlhart, Sean Kirmani, Brianna Zitkovich, Fei Xia, et al. Open-world object ma- nipulation using pre-trained vision-language models. arXiv preprint arXiv:2303.00905, 2023. 1, 3

    2023 arXiv

  42. [50]

    Curobo: Parallelized collision-free robot motion gener- 10 ation

    Balakumar Sundaralingam, Siva Kumar Sastry Hari, Adam Fishman, Caelan Garrett, Karl Van Wyk, Valts Blukis, Alexan- der Millane, Helen Oleynikova, Ankur Handa, Fabio Ramos, et al. Curobo: Parallelized collision-free robot motion gener- 10 ation. In 2023 IEEE International Confe...

    2023

  43. [51]

    Rt-sketch: Goal-conditioned imitation learning from hand-drawn sketches

    Priya Sundaresan, Quan Vuong, Jiayuan Gu, Peng Xu, Ted Xiao, Sean Kirmani, Tianhe Yu, Michael Stark, Ajinkya Jain, Karol Hausman, et al. Rt-sketch: Goal-conditioned imitation learning from hand-drawn sketches. 2023. 1, 3

    2023

  44. [52]

    Gemini: a family of highly capable multimodal models

    Gemini Team, Rohan Anil, Sebastian Borgeaud, Yonghui Wu, Jean-Baptiste Alayrac, Jiahui Yu, Radu Soricut, Johan Schalkwyk, Andrew M Dai, Anja Hauth, et al. Gemini: a family of highly capable multimodal models. arXiv preprint arXiv:2312.11805, 2023. 6

    2023 arXiv

  45. [53]

    Llama: Open and efficient foundation language models.arXiv preprint arXiv:2302.13971, 2023

    Hugo Touvron, Thibaut Lavril, Gautier Izacard, Xavier Mar- tinet, 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

  46. [54]

    Any-point trajectory modeling for policy learning

    Chuan Wen, Xingyu Lin, John So, Kai Chen, Qi Dou, Yang Gao, and Pieter Abbeel. Any-point trajectory modeling for policy learning. arXiv preprint arXiv:2401.00025, 2023. 2

    2023 arXiv

  47. [55]

    Chang, Leonidas J

    Fanbo Xiang, Yuzhe Qin, Kaichun Mo, Yikuan Xia, Hao Zhu, Fangchen Liu, Minghua Liu, Hanxiao Jiang, Yifu Yuan, He Wang, Li Yi, Angel X. Chang, Leonidas J. Guibas, and Hao Su. SAPIEN: A simulated part-based interactive environment. In The IEEE Conference on Computer Vision and P...

    2020

  48. [56]

    Robotic skill acquisition via instruction aug- mentation with vision-language models

    Ted Xiao, Harris Chan, Pierre Sermanet, Ayzaan Wahid, An- thony Brohan, Karol Hausman, Sergey Levine, and Jonathan Tompson. Robotic skill acquisition via instruction aug- mentation with vision-language models. arXiv preprint arXiv:2211.11736, 2022. 2

    2022 arXiv

  49. [57]

    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. 1

    2024 arXiv

  50. [58]

    Universal manipulation policy network for articulated objects

    Zhenjia Xu, Zhanpeng He, and Shuran Song. Universal manipulation policy network for articulated objects. IEEE Robotics and Automation Letters, 7(2):2447–2454, 2022. 2

    2022

  51. [59]

    Pave the way to grasp anything: Transferring foundation models for universal pick- place robots

    Jiange Yang, Wenhui Tan, Chuhao Jin, Bei Liu, Jianlong Fu, Ruihua Song, and Limin Wang. Pave the way to grasp anything: Transferring foundation models for universal pick- place robots. arXiv preprint arXiv:2306.05716, 2023. 1, 2, 3

    2023 arXiv

  52. [60]

    Learn- ing interactive real-world simulators

    Mengjiao Yang, Yilun Du, Kamyar Ghasemipour, Jonathan Tompson, Dale Schuurmans, and Pieter Abbeel. Learn- ing interactive real-world simulators. arXiv preprint arXiv:2310.06114, 2023. 1, 3, 6

    2023 arXiv

  53. [61]

    M2t2: Multi-task masked transformer for object-centric pick and place

    Wentao Yuan, Adithyavairavan Murali, Arsalan Mousavian, and Dieter Fox. M2t2: Multi-task masked transformer for object-centric pick and place. In 7th Annual Conference on Robot Learning, 2023. 1, 5

    2023

  54. [62]

    Robopoint: A vision-language model for spatial affordance prediction for robotics

    Wentao Yuan, Jiafei Duan, Valts Blukis, Wilbert Pumacay, Ranjay Krishna, Adithyavairavan Murali, Arsalan Mousavian, and Dieter Fox. Robopoint: A vision-language model for spatial affordance prediction for robotics. arXiv preprint arXiv:2406.10721, 2024. 1

    2024 arXiv

  55. [63]

    3d diffusion policy

    Yanjie Ze, Gu Zhang, Kangning Zhang, Chenyuan Hu, Muhan Wang, and Huazhe Xu. 3d diffusion policy. arXiv preprint arXiv:2403.03954, 2024. 2

    2024 arXiv

  56. [64]

    Predict the contact point and orientation for manipulating the object. The hints in the image include the contact point with a blue dot. Specifically, the contact point is atap 0

    Chengliang Zhong, Yuhang Zheng, Yupeng Zheng, Hao Zhao, Li Yi, Xiaodong Mu, Ling Wang, Pengfei Li, Guyue Zhou, Chao Yang, et al. 3d implicit transporter for temporally con- sistent keypoint discovery. In Proceedings of the IEEE/CVF International Conference on Computer Vision, ...

    2023

Pith tools

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