Pith. sign in

REVIEW 5 major objections 6 minor 2 cited by

Unveiling the Potential of Vision-Language-Action Models with Open-Ended Multimodal Instructions

T0 review · 5 major / 6 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 single vision-language-action model can follow instructions given as images, whiteboard text, goal pictures, and video clips, not just typed language.

desk verdict A practical data-recipe contribution that shows a VLA can handle several visual instruction formats, but the 'open-ended' claim is stronger than the evidence because the benchmarks are built by the same transformation pipeline as the training data. read the letter →

arxiv 2505.11214 v1 pith:5Z7SS22Y submitted 2025-05-16 cs.RO

Wei Zhao , Gongsheng Li , Zhefei Gong , Pengxiang Ding , Han Zhao , Donglin Wang This is my paper · ORCID
classification cs.RO
keywords vision-language-actionmodelmultimodalinstructionsrobotmanipulationopen-endedinstructionfollowingCALVINbenchmarkvisualgoalreachingvideodemonstrationlearningcurriculum
verification ladder T0 review T1 audit T2 compute T3 formal

The pith

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

The reading

This paper tries to establish that one vision-language-action policy can obey instructions that are not written as sentences: a photo of an object to grasp, a command rendered as text inside an image, a goal picture of the desired state, and a short video demonstration. The proposed model, OE-VLA, is fine-tuned from a multimodal language model that accepts interleaved images and text, with actions discretized into language-like tokens so no separate policy head is needed. On the CALVIN benchmark with ordinary text instructions, the 7-billion-parameter version completes an average of 2.99 consecutive subtasks, matching or exceeding strong language-conditioned baselines; on the authors' new OE-CALVINbase benchmark it reaches 3.48, and on the harder OE-CALVINhard benchmark 2.68. The paper also contributes two benchmarks and a general recipe for converting language-annotated manipulation datasets into multimodal-instruction data.

What carries the argument

The central mechanism is a unified token sequence: the robot observation, the text parts of the instruction, and every instruction image are each encoded and concatenated in their original order, and the action chunk is discretized into 256 bins drawn from rare language tokens so the whole problem becomes next-token prediction. This lets one architecture handle four instruction modalities without object detectors, separate action heads, or task-specific modules. The supporting machinery is the data recipe: a pipeline that turns any language-annotated robot dataset into multimodal instruction data, plus a two-stage fine-tuning schedule that starts from a multi-image grounding dataset before training on robot data.

What would settle it

Run OE-VLA7b on a held-out set of instructions written by humans who never saw the training recipe, including object photos from unseen scenes, handwritten notes, goal images from different robots, and videos of tasks absent from CALVIN. If the average successful sequence length drops below the language-only baseline of 2.99, or near the 1.25 score seen for hard visual goal reaching, then the open-ended gains are artifacts of the synthetic instruction distribution rather than evidence of general multimodal instruction understanding.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

OE-VLA is built on a large multimodal model that ingests a robot observation, with static and wrist camera views concatenated into one image, together with a prompt that can interleave text and any number of images. All inputs are tokenized into one sequence, and robot actions are discretized into 256 bins that reuse rare language tokens, so the model predicts an action chunk autoregressively. Four open-ended instruction types are supported: visual object specification, optical instruction following, visual goal reaching, and video demo learning. To train this, the authors convert CALVIN's language annotations into these forms with an automatic pipeline using object crops, rendered text with varied fonts and backgrounds, goal frames, and uniformly sampled video frames, then fine-tune in two stages. The paper reports that with text-only input OE-VLA7b reaches an average successful sequence length of 2.99 on CALVIN ABC to D, the best among the compared models without a separate action head, while with open-ended instructions it averages 3.48 on OE-CALVINbase and 2.68 on OE-CALVINhard, with visual goal reaching consistently the weakest category.

Load-bearing premise

The load-bearing assumption is that the open-ended evaluation benchmarks measure real instruction following, when in fact they are generated by the same automatic transformation pipeline, object crops, rendered text, goal frames, and video frames, applied to the same CALVIN environment used for training.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • Because the same architecture handles text, object images, rendered commands, goal images, and demo videos, human-robot interaction can use whatever modality is most natural in the moment, such as pointing at an object, drawing an arrow, or showing a phone video, without adding a new model per modality.
  • Language ability does not have to be traded away: with text-only input OE-VLA7b reaches 2.99 average successful sequence length on CALVIN ABC to D, and a text-only fine-tuned version reaches 3.49, so conventional language control remains alongside the new instruction forms.
  • The two new benchmarks, OE-CALVINbase and OE-CALVINhard, give later work a fixed target for open-ended instructions, with the hard version using web-sourced object images, handwritten-style commands, and out-of-environment goal images and videos.
  • The data-recipe claim implies that other language-annotated manipulation datasets can be converted to multimodal-instruction form, so the approach may scale to real-robot data beyond CALVIN.
  • Scaling helps open-ended instructions more than language-only instruction: OE-VLA7b's open-ended average of 3.48 exceeds its already strong text average of 2.99 on the base benchmark, whereas visual goal reaching remains the bottleneck in both model sizes.

Reading between the lines

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

  • Editorial inference: because OE-CALVINbase and OE-CALVINhard are generated from the same CALVIN scenes and the same transformation code used to build training data, the open-ended scores are best read as measuring how well the model follows this specific instruction recipe; a set of instructions written by independent human annotators would be a stricter test of true open-endedness.
  • Editorial inference: the fact that OE-VLA7b's visual goal reaching collapses on the hard benchmark to an average length of 1.25 while other modalities stay near 3 suggests the model may rely on low-level appearance matching for goal images; a test that changes object colors, lighting, or camera viewpoint while keeping the semantic goal identical would separate genuine goal understanding from perce
  • Editorial inference: a direct extension would apply the same transformation pipeline to a larger real-robot manipulation dataset and measure whether open-ended multimodal instruction following transfers across embodiments, since the paper demonstrates the recipe only on CALVIN.
  • Editorial inference: the text-only fine-tuned models in Table 4 outperform the mixed-modal models on language, so the recipe's roughly equal per-modality sampling is not yet balanced; a better mixing ratio or a curriculum over modalities could raise both language and open-ended performance.
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

5 major / 6 minor

Summary. The paper proposes OE-VLA, a vision-language-action model built on LLaVA-Next-Interleave that accepts four categories of open-ended multimodal instructions in addition to language: visual object specification (VOS), optical instruction following (OIF), visual goal reaching (VGR), and video demo learning (VDL). The method fine-tunes the foundation model in two stages: a multi-image grounding stage on MGrounding and an open-ended instruction-tuning stage on data automatically transformed from CALVIN with the Section 4.2 pipeline. The authors also introduce two new benchmarks, OE-CALVINbase and OE-CALVINhard, generated from CALVIN by replacing language annotations with multimodal instructions. Experiments report an average successful sequence length of 2.99 on CALVIN ABC to D with text input for OE-VLA7b, 3.48 on OE-CALVINbase, and 2.68 on OE-CALVINhard.

Significance. If the claims were supported, the paper would make a useful contribution: a single VLA that can follow image, optical-text, goal-image, and video-demo instructions would broaden the interaction modes for robot manipulation. The data-construction recipe is simple, general, and potentially reusable, and the introduced benchmarks would provide a common evaluation suite. The paper also avoids a separate policy head, which eases reproducibility. However, the empirical evidence is currently insufficient because both benchmarks are generated by the same automatic pipeline used to produce the training data, no baselines that accept multimodal prompts are evaluated, and results are reported without variance. The central claim of open-ended instruction understanding therefore rests on an in-distribution evaluation; the paper's value as a benchmark contribution will depend on addressing this gap in revision.

major comments (5)
  1. [§5.1 vs §4.2] The two new benchmarks are produced by the same transformation pipeline and from the same CALVIN data distribution used for Stage-2 training. Section 4.2 describes object crops from detections on the raw data, rendered text via Python plotting libraries with sampled fonts and positions, uniform frame sampling for video demos, and 80-frame goal segments. Section 5.1 then defines OE-CALVINbase with object crops from environmental observations, optical instructions with plain backgrounds and regular fonts, and goal images and videos from the same environment and perspective; OE-CALVINhard only varies surface attributes (web images, handwritten fonts, new viewpoints) while keeping the same construction recipe. The success rates in Tables 2 and 3 thus reflect the model's ability to follow instructions generated by the authors' own code, not its ability to handle independently generated open-ended instructions. Since the abstract and Section 1 claim open-ended multimodal instruction understanding, the evaluation set should be independent of the training pipeline, for example human-elicited instructions or a second generator with different object detection, rendering, and sampling code. Without such an evaluation, the 3.48 and 2.68 average sequence lengths cannot be attributed to general open-ended understanding.
  2. [§5.2.2, Tables 2-3] No existing method that accepts multimodal prompts is used as a baseline. Section 2 identifies VIMA and concurrent Interleave-VLA as closest in motivation, but neither is evaluated on OE-CALVINbase or OE-CALVINhard. The paper's claim that no previous VLA models have been capable of handling such open-ended tasks would be better supported by at least one comparative experiment, or by a baseline that decomposes the problem, such as OCR/LLM transcription of optical instructions feeding a language-conditioned policy, or a simple object-image matching policy for VOS. Without such comparisons, the reader cannot determine whether the OE-VLA architecture itself is necessary for the reported performance.
  3. [§5.2.2] The discussion compares the OE-CALVINbase average length (2.75 for OE-VLA1b) with the language-conditioned result on CALVIN (2.70), stating that the multimodal result is even slightly higher than the language-conditioned baseline. This mixes the OE-CALVINbase and CALVIN benchmark distributions: even if the underlying physical tasks are the same, the instruction modality and the instruction-generation process differ, so the comparison is not controlled. A valid comparison would evaluate the same model on the same task sequences with language and multimodal prompts under an identical protocol, or would explicitly frame the numbers as cross-benchmark and avoid claiming that multimodal instructions are handled at least as well as language.
  4. [§5.2.1, Tables 1-4 and Figures 5-6] All reported results are single runs with no error bars, multiple seeds, or significance tests. Differences such as OE-VLA7b's 2.99 versus KosMos Interleave's 2.70 on CALVIN, or the stage-1 ablation improvements in Figures 5 and 6, could be within stochastic training variance. The paper should report the mean and standard deviation over at least three seeds for the main comparisons, and ideally a paired setting for ablations, before claiming the best performance or quantifying the benefit of the two-stage pipeline.
  5. [§4.3, §5.1] The manuscript repeatedly refers to an appendix ('Further details are provided in the Appendix'; 'Additional details regarding these benchmarks and other experiments are provided in the Appendix'), but no appendix is present in the submitted manuscript. Since the paper's contributions include a data-construction recipe and two benchmarks, the missing appendix blocks reproduction and verification of the construction pipeline, including the exact detection model, rendering parameters, frame sampling choices, hyperparameters, and benchmark construction code. This needs to be supplied before the reproducibility claims are supportable.
minor comments (6)
  1. [§4.1] The foundation model name is rendered inconsistently as 'LLaVA-Next-Interleave', 'LLaV A-Next-Interleave', and 'LLaVA-Interleave-next'; please standardize the notation.
  2. [§4.1, Eqs. (1)-(2)] Both 'SigLip' and 'SigLIP' are used; please unify the spelling.
  3. [§5.2] The text says a 0.5B-parameter model was trained, but the tables and discussion use 'OE-VLA1b'; please clarify whether the smaller model is 0.5B or 1B and keep the naming consistent.
  4. [Figures 5-6] The captions describe 'upper row' and 'lower row', but the figures are arranged as panels (a)-(d) with two bar charts per panel; please re-describe the layout to avoid ambiguity.
  5. [§5.2.4] The statement 'we trained all our models for one epoch for a fair comparison' should specify what is being compared and why one epoch is fair, since different models may require different numbers of epochs to converge.
  6. [§4.1, Eq. (5)] Equation (5) defines the action likelihood over n actions, but the text mentions a five-step action chunk; please specify that n=5.

Circularity Check

1 steps flagged · score 4.0 of 10

The headline open-ended results are evaluated on benchmarks generated by the same transformation pipeline that created the Stage-2 training data, making the open-ended generalization claim partially in-distribution; the language-conditioned CALVIN results remain independently meaningful.

  1. other [Section 5.1 (OE-CALVINbase construction) vs Section 4.2 (training data construction)]
    "For the OE-CALVINbase benchmark, the relevant instructions are constructed using object images cropped from raw environmental observations, optical instructions featuring plain backgrounds and regular fonts, and goal images and video demonstrations captured from the same environment without changes in perspective."

    The Section 4.2 training recipe produces object crops from a detection-and-crop pipeline, plot-rendered optical instructions with variable fonts, colors, and backgrounds, uniformly sampled video frames, and fixed-length segments whose last frame is the goal. Section 5.1's OE-CALVINbase applies the same transformation recipe to the same CALVIN visual distribution, so the evaluation distribution is the training recipe's output distribution by construction. A high score therefore demonstrates competence on the authors' own instruction-generation pipeline, such as pixel-level object matching, OCR rendering style, and frame identity, rather than on an independently collected distribution of human open-ended instructions.

full rationale

There is no fitted parameter later renamed as a prediction, no analytical derivation that assumes its own conclusion, and no load-bearing self-citation: the cited foundation models, MGrounding data, and CALVIN suite are external, reproducible resources. The text-conditioned claim is anchored to the external CALVIN ABC-to-D split, where OE-VLA's 2.99 average sequence length is an independent empirical result. The circularity is confined to the open-ended evaluation: the two new benchmarks are constructed with the same automatic transformation pipeline used to build the Stage-2 training set, so the headline open-ended success rates partly reflect in-distribution performance on the authors' own data recipe rather than independent evidence of general open-ended instruction understanding. The hard benchmark mitigates but does not remove this issue. Overall score 4 reflects partial, evidence-level circularity while recognizing that the central language-conditioned result and the hard-benchmark out-of-distribution variants retain independent content.

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

The central claims rest on the validity of the CALVIN simulator as a proxy for real manipulation, on the assumption that the automatic transformation pipeline preserves task semantics, and on the assumption that the authors' benchmarks fairly represent open-ended instruction following. All of these are reasonable domain assumptions, but none are independently tested in the paper. The free parameters are standard training design choices (action bins, chunk length, sampling ratios, frame counts), not fitted constants.

free parameters (5)
  • Action discretization bin count = 256
    Continuous robot actions are discretized into 256 bins using the least frequently used Qwen tokens; chosen by hand (Section 4.1).
  • Action chunk length = 5 steps
    The model predicts five action steps per output chunk; chosen by hand (Section 4.1).
  • Per-task training data sampling ratio = about 40% per task type
    For each open-ended task type, roughly 40% of the raw data is selected, yielding a training set twice the original size; chosen to control compute (Section 5.2.4).
  • Video demo frame count = 4 frames
    Video demonstrations in the VDL task use four uniformly sampled frames; chosen by hand (Section 3, VDL; Section 4.2).
  • Goal-reaching segment length = 80 frames
    Segments of 80 consecutive frames are extracted for VGR training with the last frame as goal image; chosen by hand (Section 4.2).
assumptions (5)
  • domain assumption CALVIN simulation success rate is a valid proxy for real-world robot manipulation ability.
    All experiments are conducted in the CALVIN simulator; no real-robot evaluation is present (Section 5.1).
  • domain assumption Replacing language annotations with cropped object images, rendered text images, goal frames, and video frames preserves the semantic content of the original task.
    The data construction in Section 4.2 assumes these transformations do not change the intended manipulation task.
  • domain assumption The authored OE-CALVIN benchmarks fairly measure open-ended instruction following.
    The benchmarks are generated by the same transformation pipeline and from the same data distribution as the training set (Sections 4.2 and 5.1).
  • domain assumption Stage-1 multi-image grounding on the MGrounding dataset improves spatial perception needed for robot manipulation.
    This is a stated hypothesis motivating the curriculum; no independent evidence isolates the mechanism (Section 4.3, Stage 1).
  • domain assumption Fine-tuning from the pretrained LLaVA-Next-Interleave model provides a sufficient vision-language foundation for action generation.
    The choice of foundation model is based on its multi-image capability and benchmark performance, not on an analysis specific to robot control (Section 4.1).

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Unveiling the Potential of Vision-Language-Action Models with Open-Ended Multimodal Instructions." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/5Z7SS22Y

@misc{pith2026250511214,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Unveiling the Potential of Vision-Language-Action Models with Open-Ended Multimodal Instructions},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/5Z7SS22Y}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2505.11214}
}
read the original abstract

Vision-Language-Action (VLA) models have recently become highly prominent in the field of robotics. Leveraging vision-language foundation models trained on large-scale internet data, the VLA model can generate robotic actions directly from visual observations and human instructions through a single end-to-end neural network. Despite their effectiveness, current VLA models usually accept only one form of human prompting, language instructions, which may constrain their applicability in open-ended human-robot interactions. For example, a user might expect the robot to retrieve an object shown in an image, follow an instruction written on the whiteboard, or imitate a behavior demonstrated in a video, rather than relying solely on language-based descriptions. To address this gap, we introduce OE-VLA, which explores the potential of VLA models for open-ended multimodal instructions. Extensive results demonstrate that our OE-VLA not only achieves comparable performance to traditional VLA models with linguistic input but also delivers impressive results across four additional categories of open-ended tasks. The proposed methodology could significantly expand the applications of VLA models across various everyday scenarios and facilitate human-robot interaction.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2505.11214 by the authors.

Figure 1
Figure 1. The introduced OE-VLA with four open-ended robot manipulation tasks. [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p002_1.png] view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. The comprehensive architecture of our OE-VLA model. [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p004_2.png] view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. The data construction method for transforming traditional dataset into the target dataset [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p005_3.png] view at source ↗
Figures from the paper (3 more)
Figure 4
Figure 4. Figure 4: The introduced two new benchmarks with diverse open-ended task instructions. [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p006_4.png]
Figure 5
Figure 5. Figure 5: Performance of our method on the OE-CALVIN [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p009_5.png]
Figure 6
Figure 6. Figure 6: Performance of our method on the OE-CALVIN [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p009_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. UAOR: Uncertainty-aware Observation Reinjection for Vision-Language-Action Models

    cs.CV 2026-02 conditional novelty 6.0 of 10

    Uncertainty-aware observation reinjection into FFN layers improves VLA manipulation success rates across LIBERO, SIMPLER, CALVIN, and real-robot tasks with no training.

  2. CLAW: A Vision-Language-Action Framework for Weight-Aware Robotic Grasping

    cs.RO 2025-09 conditional novelty 4.0 of 10

    CLAW adds a lightweight CLIP-based scale reader to the pi0 robot policy, letting the robot stop a grasp-and-place task at the target weight.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

36 extracted references · 13 canonical work pages · cited by 2 Pith papers

  1. [1]

    Long Ouyang, Jeff Wu, Xu Jiang, Diogo Almeida, Carroll L. Wainwright, Pamela Mishkin, Chong Zhang, Sandhini Agarwal, Katarina Slama, Alex Ray, John Schulman, Jacob Hilton, Fraser Kelton, Luke Miller, Maddie Simens, Amanda Askell, Peter Welinder, Paul Christiano, Jan Leike, and Ryan Lowe. Training language models to follow instructions with human feedback,...

    arXiv 2022

  2. [2]

    Llama: Open and efficient foundation language models, 2023

    Hugo Touvron, Thibaut Lavril, Gautier Izacard, Xavier Martinet, Marie-Anne Lachaux, Timothée Lacroix, Baptiste Rozière, Naman Goyal, Eric Hambro, Faisal Azhar, Aurelien Rodriguez, Armand Joulin, Edouard Grave, and Guillaume Lample. Llama: Open and efficient foundation language models, 2023. URL https://arxiv.org/abs/2302.13971

    arXiv 2023

  3. [3]

    Gemini: A Family of Highly Capable Multimodal Models , June 2024

    Gemini Team, Rohan Anil, Sebastian Borgeaud, and Alayrac. Gemini: A Family of Highly Capable Multimodal Models , June 2024. URL http://arxiv.org/abs/2312.11805. arXiv:2312.11805

    arXiv 2024

  4. [4]

    Visual Instruction Tuning

    Haotian Liu, Chunyuan Li, Qingyang Wu, and Yong Jae Lee. Visual Instruction Tuning . In Advances in Neural Information Processing Systems , volume 36, pages 34892--34916, December 2023. URL https://papers.nips.cc/paper_files/paper/2023/hash/6dcf277ea32ce3288914faf369fe6de0-Abstract-Conference.html

    work page 2023

  5. [5]

    BLIP -2: Bootstrapping Language - Image Pre -training with Frozen Image Encoders and Large Language Models

    Junnan Li, Dongxu Li, Silvio Savarese, and Steven Hoi. BLIP -2: Bootstrapping Language - Image Pre -training with Frozen Image Encoders and Large Language Models . In Proceedings of the 40th International Conference on Machine Learning , pages 19730--19742. PMLR, July 2023 a . URL https://proceedings.mlr.press/v202/li23q.html. ISSN: 2640-3498

    work page 2023

  6. [6]

    Openflamingo: An open-source framework for training large autoregressive vision-language models

    Anas Awadalla, Irena Gao, Josh Gardner, Jack Hessel, Yusuf Hanafy, Wanrong Zhu, Kalyani Marathe, Yonatan Bitton, Samir Gadre, Shiori Sagawa, Jenia Jitsev, Simon Kornblith, Pang Wei Koh, Gabriel Ilharco, Mitchell Wortsman, and Ludwig Schmidt. Openflamingo: An open-source framework for training large autoregressive vision-language models. arXiv preprint arX...

    arXiv 2023

  7. [7]

    Prismatic VLMs : Investigating the Design Space of Visually - Conditioned Language Models

    Siddharth Karamcheti, Suraj Nair, Ashwin Balakrishna, Percy Liang, Thomas Kollar, and Dorsa Sadigh. Prismatic VLMs : Investigating the Design Space of Visually - Conditioned Language Models . In Proceedings of the 41st International Conference on Machine Learning , pages 23123--23144. PMLR, July 2024. URL https://proceedings.mlr.press/v235/karamcheti24a.h...

    work page 2024

  8. [8]

    LL a MA -adapter: Efficient fine-tuning of large language models with zero-initialized attention

    Renrui Zhang, Jiaming Han, Chris Liu, Aojun Zhou, Pan Lu, Yu Qiao, Hongsheng Li, and Peng Gao. LL a MA -adapter: Efficient fine-tuning of large language models with zero-initialized attention. In The Twelfth International Conference on Learning Representations, 2024. URL https://openreview.net/forum?id=d4UiXAHN2W

    work page 2024

Show all 36 references
  1. [9]

    Sanketi, Grecia Salazar, Michael S

    Brianna Zitkovich, Tianhe Yu, Sichun Xu, Peng Xu, Ted Xiao, Fei Xia, Jialin Wu, Paul Wohlhart, Stefan Welker, Ayzaan Wahid, Quan Vuong, Vincent Vanhoucke, Huong Tran, Radu Soricut, Anikait Singh, Jaspiar Singh, Pierre Sermanet, Pannag R. Sanketi, Grecia Salazar, Michael S. Ryo...

    2023

  2. [10]

    Sukhatme, Gautam Salhotra, Ge Yan, Giulio Schiavi, Gregory Kahn, Hao Su, Hao-Shu Fang, Haochen Shi, Heni Ben Amor, Henrik I

    Embodiment Collaboration, Abhishek Padalkar, Acorn Pooley, Ajay Mandlekar, Ajinkya Jain, Albert Tung, Alex Bewley, Alex Herzog, Alex Irpan, Alexander Khazatsky, Anant Rai, Anikait Singh, Animesh Garg, Anthony Brohan, Antonin Raffin, Ayzaan Wahid, Ben Burgess-Limerick, Beomjoon...

    2023 arXiv

  3. [11]

    OpenVLA : An Open - Source Vision - Language - Action Model , June 2024

    Moo Jin Kim, Karl Pertsch, Siddharth Karamcheti, Ted Xiao, Ashwin Balakrishna, Suraj Nair, Rafael Rafailov, Ethan Foster, Grace Lam, Pannag Sanketi, Quan Vuong, Thomas Kollar, Benjamin Burchfiel, Russ Tedrake, Dorsa Sadigh, Sergey Levine, Percy Liang, and Chelsea Finn. OpenVLA...

    2024 arXiv

  4. [12]

    RT -1: Robotics Transformer for Real - World Control at Scale

    Anthony Brohan, Noah Brown, Justice Carbajal, Yevgen Chebotar, Joseph Dabis, Chelsea Finn, Keerthana Gopalakrishnan, Karol Hausman, Alexander Herzog, Jasmine Hsu, Julian Ibarz, Brian Ichter, Alex Irpan, Tomas Jackson, Sally Jesmonth, Nikhil Joshi, Ryan Julian, Dmitry Kalashnik...

    2023

  5. [13]

    Language Conditioned Imitation Learning Over Unstructured Data

    Corey Lynch* and Pierre Sermanet*. Language Conditioned Imitation Learning Over Unstructured Data . In Robotics: Science and Systems XVII . Robotics: Science and Systems Foundation, July 2021. ISBN 978-0-9923747-7-8. doi:10.15607/RSS.2021.XVII.047. URL http://www.roboticsproce...

    2021 doi

  6. [14]

    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, Hang Li, and Tao Kong. Vision- Language Foundation Models as Effective Robot Imitators . In The Twelfth International Conference on Learning Representation...

    2023

  7. [15]

    CogACT : A Foundational Vision - Language - Action Model for Synergizing Cognition and Action in Robotic Manipulation , November 2024 a

    Qixiu Li, Yaobo Liang, Zeyu Wang, Lin Luo, Xi Chen, Mozheng Liao, Fangyun Wei, Yu Deng, Sicheng Xu, Yizhong Zhang, Xiaofan Wang, Bei Liu, Jianlong Fu, Jianmin Bao, Dong Chen, Yuanchun Shi, Jiaolong Yang, and Baining Guo. CogACT : A Foundational Vision - Language - Action Model...

    2024 arXiv

  8. [16]

    RDT -1b: a diffusion foundation model for bimanual manipulation

    Songming Liu, Lingxuan Wu, Bangguo Li, Hengkai Tan, Huayu Chen, Zhengyi Wang, Ke Xu, Hang Su, and Jun Zhu. RDT -1b: a diffusion foundation model for bimanual manipulation. In The Thirteenth International Conference on Learning Representations, 2025. URL https://openreview.net/...

    2025

  9. [17]

    Towards Generalist Robot Policies : What Matters in Building Vision - Language - Action Models , December 2024 b

    Xinghang Li, Peiyan Li, Minghuan Liu, Dong Wang, Jirong Liu, Bingyi Kang, Xiao Ma, Tao Kong, Hanbo Zhang, and Huaping Liu. Towards Generalist Robot Policies : What Matters in Building Vision - Language - Action Models , December 2024 b . URL http://arxiv.org/abs/2412.14058. ar...

    2024 arXiv

  10. [18]

    TinyVLA : Towards Fast , Data - Efficient Vision - Language - Action Models for Robotic Manipulation , May 2025 a

    Junjie Wen, Yichen Zhu, Jinming Li, Minjie Zhu, Kun Wu, Zhiyuan Xu, Ning Liu, Ran Cheng, Chaomin Shen, Yaxin Peng, Feifei Feng, and Jian Tang. TinyVLA : Towards Fast , Data - Efficient Vision - Language - Action Models for Robotic Manipulation , May 2025 a . URL http://arxiv.o...

    2025 arXiv

  11. [19]

    Diffusion- VLA : Scaling Robot Foundation Models via Unified Diffusion and Autoregression , May 2025 b

    Junjie Wen, Minjie Zhu, Yichen Zhu, Zhibin Tang, Jinming Li, Zhongyi Zhou, Chengmeng Li, Xiaoyu Liu, Yaxin Peng, Chaomin Shen, and Feifei Feng. Diffusion- VLA : Scaling Robot Foundation Models via Unified Diffusion and Autoregression , May 2025 b . URL http://arxiv.org/abs/241...

    2025 arXiv

  12. [20]

    Gomez, Łukasz Kaiser, and Illia Polosukhin

    Ashish Vaswani, Noam Shazeer, Niki Parmar, Jakob Uszkoreit, Llion Jones, Aidan N. Gomez, Łukasz Kaiser, and Illia Polosukhin. Attention is All you Need . In Advances in Neural Information Processing Systems , volume 30, Long Beach, CA, 2017. URL https://papers.nips.cc/paper/20...

    2017

  13. [21]

    Diffusion Policy : Visuomotor Policy Learning via Action Diffusion

    Cheng Chi, Siyuan Feng, Yilun Du, Zhenjia Xu, Eric Cousineau, Benjamin Burchfiel, and Shuran Song. Diffusion Policy : Visuomotor Policy Learning via Action Diffusion . In Robotics: Science and Systems XIX . Robotics: Science and Systems Foundation, July 2023. ISBN 978-0-992374...

    2023 doi

  14. [22]

    \ pi\_0\ : A Vision - Language - Action Flow Model for General Robot Control , November 2024

    Kevin Black, Noah Brown, Danny Driess, Adnan Esmail, Michael Equi, Chelsea Finn, Niccolo Fusai, Lachy Groom, Karol Hausman, Brian Ichter, Szymon Jakubczak, Tim Jones, Liyiming Ke, Sergey Levine, Adrian Li-Bell, Mohith Mothukuri, Suraj Nair, Karl Pertsch, Lucy Xiaoyang Shi, Jam...

    2024 arXiv

  15. [23]

    3D - VLA : A 3D Vision - Language - Action Generative World Model

    Haoyu Zhen, Xiaowen Qiu, Peihao Chen, Jincheng Yang, Xin Yan, Yilun Du, Yining Hong, and Chuang Gan. 3D - VLA : A 3D Vision - Language - Action Generative World Model . In Proceedings of the 41st International Conference on Machine Learning , pages 61229--61245. PMLR, July 202...

    2024

  16. [24]

    Dream to manipulate: Compositional world models empowering robot imitation learning with imagination

    Leonardo Barcellona, Andrii Zadaianchuk, Davide Allegro, Samuele Papa, Stefano Ghidoni, and Efstratios Gavves. Dream to manipulate: Compositional world models empowering robot imitation learning with imagination. In The Thirteenth International Conference on Learning Represent...

    2025

  17. [25]

    GR00T N1 : An Open Foundation Model for Generalist Humanoid Robots , March 2025

    NVIDIA, Johan Bjorck, Fernando Castañeda, Nikita Cherniadev, Xingye Da, Runyu Ding, Linxi "Jim" Fan, Yu Fang, Dieter Fox, Fengyuan Hu, Spencer Huang, Joel Jang, Zhenyu Jiang, Jan Kautz, Kaushil Kundalia, Lawrence Lao, Zhiqi Li, Zongyu Lin, Kevin Lin, Guilin Liu, Edith Llontop,...

    2025 arXiv

  18. [26]

    RT - H : Action Hierarchies Using Language , May 2024

    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 , May 2024. URL http://arxiv.org/abs/2403.01823. arXiv:2403.01823 [cs]

    2024 arXiv

  19. [27]

    Robotic control via embodied chain-of-thought reasoning

    Micha Zawalski, William Chen, Karl Pertsch, Oier Mees, Chelsea Finn, and Sergey Levine. Robotic control via embodied chain-of-thought reasoning. In 8th Annual Conference on Robot Learning, 2024. URL https://openreview.net/forum?id=S70MgnIA0v

    2024

  20. [28]

    DayDreamer : World Models for Physical Robot Learning

    Philipp Wu, Alejandro Escontrela, Danijar Hafner, Pieter Abbeel, and Ken Goldberg. DayDreamer : World Models for Physical Robot Learning . In Proceedings of The 6th Conference on Robot Learning , pages 2226--2240. PMLR, March 2023. URL https://proceedings.mlr.press/v205/wu23c....

    2023

  21. [29]

    VIMA : Robot Manipulation with Multimodal Prompts

    Yunfan Jiang, Agrim Gupta, Zichen Zhang, Guanzhi Wang, Yongqiang Dou, Yanjun Chen, Li Fei-Fei, Anima Anandkumar, Yuke Zhu, and Linxi Fan. VIMA : Robot Manipulation with Multimodal Prompts . In Proceedings of the 40th International Conference on Machine Learning , pages 14975--...

    2023

  22. [30]

    Interleave- VLA : Enhancing Robot Manipulation with Interleaved Image - Text Instructions , May 2025

    Cunxin Fan, Xiaosong Jia, Yihang Sun, Yixiao Wang, Jianglan Wei, Ziyang Gong, Xiangyu Zhao, Masayoshi Tomizuka, Xue Yang, Junchi Yan, and Mingyu Ding. Interleave- VLA : Enhancing Robot Manipulation with Interleaved Image - Text Instructions , May 2025. URL http://arxiv.org/abs...

    2025

  23. [31]

    LLaVA - NeXT - Interleave : Tackling Multi -image, Video , and 3D in Large Multimodal Models , July 2024 c

    Feng Li, Renrui Zhang, Hao Zhang, Yuanhan Zhang, Bo Li, Wei Li, Zejun Ma, and Chunyuan Li. LLaVA - NeXT - Interleave : Tackling Multi -image, Video , and 3D in Large Multimodal Models , July 2024 c . URL http://arxiv.org/abs/2407.07895. arXiv:2407.07895

    2024 arXiv

  24. [32]

    Sigmoid Loss for Language Image Pre - Training

    Xiaohua Zhai, Basil Mustafa, Alexander Kolesnikov, and Lucas Beyer. Sigmoid Loss for Language Image Pre - Training . In 2023 IEEE / CVF International Conference on Computer Vision ( ICCV ) , pages 11941--11952, Paris, France, October 2023. IEEE. ISBN 979-8-3503-0718-4. doi:10....

    2023

  25. [33]

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

    Alexey Dosovitskiy, Lucas Beyer, Alexander Kolesnikov, Dirk Weissenborn, Xiaohua Zhai, Thomas Unterthiner, Mostafa Dehghani, Matthias Minderer, Georg Heigold, Sylvain Gelly, Jakob Uszkoreit, and Neil Houlsby. An image is worth 16x16 words: Transformers for image recognition at...

    2021

  26. [34]

    Qwen Technical Report , September 2023

    Jinze Bai, Shuai Bai, Yunfei Chu, Zeyu Cui, Kai Dang, Xiaodong Deng, Yang Fan, Wenbin Ge, Yu Han, Fei Huang, Binyuan Hui, Luo Ji, Mei Li, Junyang Lin, Runji Lin, Dayiheng Liu, Gao Liu, Chengqiang Lu, Keming Lu, Jianxin Ma, Rui Men, Xingzhang Ren, Xuancheng Ren, Chuanqi Tan, Si...

    2023 arXiv

  27. [35]

    Migician: Revealing the Magic of Free - Form Multi - Image Grounding in Multimodal Large Language Models , January 2025

    You Li, Heyu Huang, Chi Chen, Kaiyu Huang, Chao Huang, Zonghao Guo, Zhiyuan Liu, Jinan Xu, Yuhua Li, Ruixuan Li, and Maosong Sun. Migician: Revealing the Magic of Free - Form Multi - Image Grounding in Multimodal Large Language Models , January 2025. URL http://arxiv.org/abs/2...

    2025 arXiv

  28. [36]

    CALVIN : A Benchmark for Language - Conditioned Policy Learning for Long - Horizon Robot Manipulation Tasks , July 2022

    Oier Mees, Lukas Hermann, Erick Rosete-Beas, and Wolfram Burgard. CALVIN : A Benchmark for Language - Conditioned Policy Learning for Long - Horizon Robot Manipulation Tasks , July 2022. URL http://arxiv.org/abs/2112.03227. arXiv:2112.03227 [cs]

    2022 arXiv

Pith tools

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