Pith. sign in

REVIEW 4 major objections 4 minor 42 references

DA-SIP shows that a generative robot policy can pick, from each observation, how much computation to spend generating the next action—choosing the solver, step count, and ODE/SDE mode on the fly—and in doing so cuts compute 2.6–4.4x while m

Reviewed by Pith at T0; open to challenge. T0 means a machine referee read the full paper against a public rubric. the ladder, T0–T4 →

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

T0 review · deepseek-v4-flash

2026-08-03 20:07 UTC pith:XQXERBKP

load-bearing objection Plausible adaptive-compute idea for robot policies, but the numbers don't hold together; the headline 2.6–4.4x claim rests on inconsistent tables. the 4 major comments →

arxiv 2511.20906 v2 pith:XQXERBKP submitted 2025-11-25 cs.RO cs.AI

DASIP: Dynamic Test-Time Compute Scaling for Robot Control with Stochastic Interpolant Policies

Inkook Chun , Seungjae Lee , Michael S. Albergo , Saining Xie , Eric Vanden-Eijnden This is my paper
classification cs.RO cs.AI
keywords adaptive computationstochastic interpolantsdiffusion policiesflow matchingrobot manipulationtest-time computedifficulty classificationimitation learning
verification ladder T0 review T1 audit T2 compute T3 formal T4 reserved

The pith

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

The paper claims that diffusion- and flow-based robot policies waste computation by using a fixed inference budget at every control step, regardless of task difficulty. It introduces DA-SIP, which adds a difficulty classifier that reads the current observation, assigns a state category, and selects the number of integration steps, the numerical solver, and whether to run an ODE or SDE. Because the policy is built on the stochastic interpolant framework, the same trained network can run under many solver configurations at test time without retraining. Across six simulated manipulation tasks, DA-SIP reports a 2.6–4.4x reduction in total computation while keeping success rates within a few points of the uniform maximum-compute baseline. The central idea is that compute should be allocated by task difficulty rather than spent uniformly, the way language models think longer on harder queries.

Core claim

The paper argues that generative robot policies should not spend a uniform inference budget at every control step. Using the stochastic interpolant framework, a single trained policy can be run with any combination of step count, numerical solver (Euler/Heun/RK4), and integration mode (ODE/SDE); this makes the solver configuration a test-time dial. DA-SIP attaches a difficulty classifier to that dial: given the current observation, it predicts one of six human-annotated state categories (Initial, Near, Grabbing, Stochastic, Continuous, End), each mapped to a specific configuration triple by an empirically fitted mapping M. Evaluated on six manipulation tasks, the adaptive controller reports

What carries the argument

The stochastic interpolant (SI) is the central object: a continuous-time mixture It = αt x* + σt ε between the action sequence x* and Gaussian noise ε, whose conditional velocity field v(x,t,o) and score s(x,t,o) can be learned from data, and whose reverse-time SDE dXt = [v − ½ wt s] dt + √wt dW̄t generates actions from noise. Because the same interpolant can be integrated as an ODE or SDE, with any solver and step count, it gives the policy a test-time compute dial. The second piece is the difficulty classifier—a lightweight CNN (about 20 ms per inference) or a few-shot/fine-tuned VLM—that maps observations to one of six difficulty labels, and an empirically fitted mapping M from those labe

Load-bearing premise

The load-bearing premise is that the empirically fitted difficulty-to-configuration mapping M and the difficulty labels it relies on transfer beyond the six tasks on which they were tuned—and that the difficulty signal can be reliably predicted; the paper's own appendix reports a conflicting accuracy estimate for the Tool Hang classifier (roughly 19% at 300 training images versus 81.3% in the main text), so the reliability of the classifier is not firmly established.

What would settle it

Run the full DA-SIP pipeline on a held-out manipulation task (or the same tasks with the classifier accuracy degraded to the level reported in the data-efficiency appendix). For Tool Hang, the appendix reports roughly 19% CNN accuracy at 300 training images while the main text reports 81.3%; if success retention disappears when the lower-accuracy classifier is used end-to-end, the central claim collapses. Alternatively, check whether the fixed mapping M preserves success when transferred to a new task where the phase-to-compute relationship differs (e.g., a task requiring precision during the

Watch this falsifier — get emailed when new claim-graph text bears on it.

If this is right

  • On six simulated manipulation tasks, a difficulty-aware controller matches the success rate of fixed maximum-compute policies while cutting total compute 2.6–4.4x.
  • The same trained stochastic interpolant policy can be evaluated with Euler/Heun/RK4, ODE or SDE, and 1–100 steps, so test-time compute selection requires no retraining.
  • Simple phases such as free-space approach and initial positioning need as few as 1–5 integration steps without hurting task success, while precision or exploratory phases need 50–100 steps with higher-order solvers or SDE integration.
  • The choice of classifier trades overhead against flexibility: the lightweight CNN gives the largest compute savings, the few-shot VLM is slower but requires no training data, and the fine-tuned VLM sits in between with consistent success.
  • The approach is positioned as a building block for larger robotics foundation models and contact-rich deployment, where per-step inference cost is a practical bottleneck.

Where Pith is reading between the lines

These are editorial extensions of the paper, not claims the author makes directly.

  • If the difficulty-to-configuration mapping generalizes, the same compute dial could be applied to other embodied settings—navigation, dexterous manipulation, or humanoid control—where a single observation can signal when closed-loop precision is genuinely needed.
  • Because the stochastic interpolant exposes the diffusion coefficient w_t as a post-training knob, a natural extension is to modulate stochasticity as well as step count, trading exploration for precision on insertion or alignment phases without retraining.
  • The human-annotation pipeline could be replaced by a self-supervised difficulty signal—for example, the estimated variance of sampled actions at a state—which would let the method scale to new tasks without labelers.
  • The reported savings are relative to the paper's own maximum-compute SIP baseline; the appendix notes that a standard diffusion baseline achieves higher success than SIP on Tool Hang, so the practical gain of DA-SIP depends on the underlying policy being made adaptive.

Editorial analysis

A structured set of objections, weighed in public.

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

Referee Report

4 major / 4 minor

Summary. DA-SIP proposes a difficulty-aware adaptive inference scheme for stochastic interpolant policies in robotic manipulation. A lightweight CNN or VLM classifies the current observation into one of six difficulty categories and selects an inference configuration (step count, solver, ODE/SDE mode). The authors report 2.6–4.4× reduction in total computation time with success rates comparable to fixed maximum-computation baselines across six simulated manipulation tasks. The method is framed as a general-purpose adaptive compute mechanism for generative robot policies.

Significance. The underlying idea—using a state-dependent difficulty classifier to modulate the integration budget of a generative policy—is timely and, if validated, would be practically valuable. The stochastic interpolant formulation also provides a clean unification of the ODE/SDE design space. However, the paper's central empirical claim is not supported by its own reported data. Internal inconsistencies in classifier accuracy and in the maximum-computation baseline, combined with the fact that the difficulty-to-configuration mapping is fitted on the very tasks used for evaluation, mean that the headline 2.6–4.4× speedup with comparable success is currently unsubstantiated. The manuscript would need a substantially revised evaluation with consistent numbers, error bars, and a genuine transfer or held-out assessment before the claim can be accepted.

major comments (4)
  1. [Tables 4–5, Table 15, Table 1] The maximum-computation baseline for Tool Hang is internally inconsistent. Table 5 lists Max Compute success as 25%, but Table 15 reports 100-step SDE Heun at 36.8% and 50-step ODE Euler at 38.1%, and Table 1 lists the best Tool Hang configuration at 38.1%. If the true max-compute success is ~37%, then the DA-SIP CNN success of 27% is about 10 points below the baseline it claims to match. If the true max-compute success is 25%, the configuration tables in the appendix contradict the main-text baseline. Either way, the 'comparable success' claim for Tool Hang is not backed by identifiable numbers.
  2. [Table 2(a), Appendix D.1 Table 16, Appendix D.4 Table 19] The difficulty classifier's accuracy, which is the load-bearing component of the method, is reported three mutually inconsistent ways. Table 2(a) reports CNN accuracy of 81.3% for Tool Hang and 91.5% for Transport. Appendix D.1 (Table 16) reports the same CNN trained on 2000 images as 39% for Tool Hang and 37% for Transport, and Appendix D.4 (Table 19) reports clean-condition accuracy of 20.5% and 34.7% for those tasks. These numbers cannot all be correct. Since the entire efficiency gain rests on the classifier selecting the right budget, this discrepancy directly undermines the empirical support for the method.
  3. [Sections 3.3 and 4.5] The category-to-configuration mapping M is determined by evaluating performance-efficiency trade-offs on a validation set (Section 3.3), and Section 4.5 states that the 50-step SDE 'produced optimal performance in the Tool Hang task.' The same six benchmark tasks are then used to evaluate DA-SIP. The reported 2.6–4.4× savings and success retention may therefore be a selection artifact rather than a property of the adaptive controller on new tasks or episodes. No held-out task, cross-task transfer, or robustness experiment is provided to show that M generalizes beyond the exact tasks on which it was chosen.
  4. [Tables 4 and 5] No error bars, confidence intervals, or significance tests are reported for the headline speedups or success rates. Table 5 gives single-point success percentages with no variance across seeds or rollouts, despite Table 1 reporting seed-averaged results elsewhere. Similarly, Table 4 reports timing fold-reductions as point estimates. Given the small number of environments and the known variance in manipulation success rates, the claim of 'maintaining task success rates comparable to fixed maximum-computation baselines' is not statistically supported.
minor comments (4)
  1. [Throughout] The text contains typos and awkward phrasing, e.g., 'TThis' at the start of the paragraph after Eq. (1) in Section 3.1, and the repeated use of 'x' both as action sequence and conditional expectation variable around Eq. (6). A careful proofread is needed.
  2. [Table 4 caption] The caption states 'minimum compute delivering up to 84.6× reduction in the Push T environment,' but the DA-SIP rows for Push T show only 2.69–5.55× reductions. Clarify that 84.6× is for the minimum-compute oracle baseline, not for DA-SIP, to avoid misleading the reader.
  3. [Appendix D.4] The robustness section claims the CNN 'maintains reasonable performance under high noise conditions' but Table 19 reports clean accuracy for Tool Hang and Transport of only 20.5% and 34.7%. These numbers should be reconciled with the main-text accuracy values and the claim should be reworded.
  4. [General] The paper does not provide a link to code or data. Given the inconsistencies between the main text and appendices, releasing the evaluation code and the exact configuration tables would be essential for the claims to be verifiable.

Circularity Check

1 steps flagged

Compute-optimal mapping M is fitted on the same benchmark it is then used to 'predict'; the headline 2.6–4.4x savings/success retention restates that fit.

specific steps
  1. fitted input called prediction [Section 3.3 (Adaptive Computation Allocation) and Section 4.5 (Assigning inference triplets); evaluated in Tables 4-5]
    "The mapping M is determined empirically by evaluating performance-efficiency trade-offs on a validation set. ... Stochastic attempts benefit from controlled variability, so we assign 50 inference steps with SDE integration, which produced optimal performance in the Tool Hang task."

    M is the rule (difficulty label -> number of steps, solver, ODE/SDE) that directly produces the speedups and success rates in Tables 4-5. The paper admits M was chosen empirically for validation performance and, for the Stochastic category, because it 'produced optimal performance in the Tool Hang task' — Tool Hang is one of the benchmark tasks on which the 2.6-4.4x/success-parity claim is made. Thus the headline efficiency/performance result is a restatement of the fitted configuration choices (modulated by classifier accuracy), not an independent prediction of a general adaptive-compute principle. The classifier generalization is independently tested, but the compute-budget mapping itself is not.

full rationale

The stochastic-interpolant equations in Sec. 3.1 are self-contained: velocity and score losses and the reverse SDE are stated directly, with citations only for background (and even those are mostly the authors' prior work, which is not load-bearing here). The circularity is concentrated in the adaptive-compute mapping M: it is 'determined empirically by evaluating performance-efficiency trade-offs on a validation set' (Sec. 3.3) and the Stochastic category is set to 50 SDE steps because this 'produced optimal performance in the Tool Hang task' (Sec. 4.5). The same benchmark suite then provides the reported 2.6-4.4x savings and small success-rate deltas (Tables 4-5), making the headline result partly constructed from the evaluation outcomes. However, the difficulty classifier is a real trained component evaluated on held-out annotations, so the claim is not wholly circular; hence a score of 6 (partial circularity) rather than higher. The paper also contains internal-inconsistency flags that reduce support for the headline even if they are not circularity: CNN accuracy appears as 81.3%/91.5% (Table 2) vs 39%/37% (Appendix D.1, 2000 images) vs 20.5%/34.7% (Appendix D.4, clean), and Tool Hang max-compute success is 25% in Table 5 while Appendix Table 15 reports ~36-38% for 100-step Heun/50-step Euler configurations. Additionally, Table 15's note openly states 'Diffusion Policy methods perform much better on Tool Hang than SI Policy consistently,' undermining the 'comparable success' framing. Appendix D.5 concedes real-robot rollouts were not performed ('Due to time constraints, we were unable to roll out actual robot trajectories'). These are correctness/completeness concerns, not circularity, and are weighed here as additional risk.

Axiom & Free-Parameter Ledger

4 free parameters · 4 axioms · 0 invented entities

The headline efficiency result depends on (i) the SI reverse-time SDE from the authors' prior work, (ii) the assumption that one trained network supports arbitrary test-time integration choices, (iii) the reliability of human difficulty annotations, and (iv) a category-to-configuration mapping M fitted to the same benchmark tasks. The mapping and step counts are hand-selected free parameters; no new physical entities are introduced.

free parameters (4)
  • Difficulty-to-configuration mapping M = I→(1,Euler,ODE), N→(5,Euler,ODE), G→(10,Euler,ODE), S→(50,Euler,SDE), C→(100,Heun,SDE), E→(1,Euler,ODE) (Table 3)
    Chosen empirically from validation/task performance; Section 4.5 explicitly ties the S category to Tool Hang's observed optimum.
  • Step counts per difficulty level = 1,5,10,50,100
    Hand-selected values in the mapping M; not derived from first principles.
  • Near-state distance threshold = ≈10cm in §4.3 and Appendix C.3; 30cm in Table 3
    A hand-chosen category boundary that is inconsistently reported, affecting the difficulty labels used to train classifiers.
  • CNN training set size = 300 images per task
    Selected from ablations as 'near-plateau', but Appendix D.1 shows Tool Hang and Transport still improve substantially at 2000 images and remain below 40% accuracy.
axioms (4)
  • standard math Stochastic interpolant reverse-time SDE (Eq. 7) yields the target action distribution
    Taken from prior work [9, 11]; the paper applies it without re-deriving or independently verifying it.
  • domain assumption A single trained policy network can be evaluated under different step counts, solvers, and ODE/SDE modes without retraining
    Core to the adaptive mechanism; assumed throughout Sections 3.3–4.5 and never stress-tested outside the same benchmark suite.
  • domain assumption Human difficulty annotations are a reliable ground truth for computational difficulty
    Appendix C uses majority voting over eight annotators, but no inter-annotator agreement is reported, and the categories are used to train all classifiers.
  • domain assumption The empirically fitted mapping M transfers to new episodes and tasks
    The paper evaluates only on the same six environments used to fit M; no held-out task or domain shift is tested.

pith-pipeline@v1.3.0-alltime-deepseek · 13590 in / 16214 out tokens · 160412 ms · 2026-08-03T20:07:17.774089+00:00 · methodology

0 comments
read the original abstract

Diffusion- and flow-based policies deliver state-of-the-art performance on long-horizon robotic manipulation and imitation learning tasks. However, these controllers employ a fixed inference budget at every control step, regardless of task complexity, leading to computational inefficiency for simple subtasks while potentially underperforming on challenging ones. To address these issues, we introduce Difficulty-Aware Stochastic Interpolant Policy (DA-SIP), a framework that enables robotic controllers to adaptively adjust their integration horizon in real time based on task difficulty. Our approach employs a difficulty classifier that analyzes observations to dynamically select the step budget, the optimal solver variant, and ODE/SDE integration at each control cycle. DA-SIP builds upon the stochastic interpolant formulation to provide a unified framework that unlocks diverse training and inference configurations for diffusion- and flow-based policies. Through comprehensive benchmarks across diverse manipulation tasks, DA-SIP achieves 2.6-4.4x reduction in total computation time while maintaining task success rates comparable to fixed maximum-computation baselines. By implementing adaptive computation within this framework, DA-SIP transforms generative robot controllers into efficient, task-aware systems that intelligently allocate inference resources where they provide the greatest benefit.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2511.20906 by Eric Vanden-Eijnden, Inkook Chun, Michael S. Albergo, Saining Xie, Seungjae Lee.

Figure 1
Figure 1. Figure 1: Overview of the DA-SIP framework with computational efficiency gains and performance [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p001_1.png] view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. Figure 2: High-level overview of our difficulty-aware stochastic interpolant policy (DA-SIP) frame [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p002_2.png] view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. Figure 3: Robot manipulation tasks across complexity categories. (A-B) Simple manipulation tasks (Can and Lift) require minimal computational steps while maintaining high success rates. (C-D) Transport and placement tasks (Transport and Square) show greater sensitivity to configuration choices, representing medium-complexity challenges. (E-F) Precision manipulation tasks (Push T and Block Push) demonstrate significa… view at source ↗

discussion (0)

Sign in with ORCID, Apple, or X to comment. Anyone can read and Pith papers without signing in.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

42 extracted references · 18 linked inside Pith

  1. [1]

    J. Ho, A. Jain, and P. Abbeel. Denoising diffusion probabilistic models. InAdvances in Neural Information Processing Systems (NeurIPS), pages 6840–6851, 2020. 9

    2020

  2. [2]

    Y . Song, C. Meng, and S. Ermon. Score-based generative modeling through stochastic differen- tial equations. InInternational Conference on Learning Representations (ICLR), 2021

    2021

  3. [3]

    Lipman, R

    Y . Lipman, R. T. Q. Chen, H. Ben-Hamu, M. Nickel, and M. Le. Flow matching for generative modeling.arXiv preprint arXiv:2210.02747, 2022

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2022

  4. [4]

    Albergo and Eric Vanden-Eijnden

    Michael S. Albergo and Eric Vanden-Eijnden. Building normalizing flows with stochastic interpolants. InInternational Conference on Learning Representations (ICLR), 2023

    2023

  5. [5]

    Flow straight and fast: Learning to generate and transfer data with rectified flow.arXiv:2209.03003, 2022

    Xingchao Liu, Chengyue Gong, and Qiang Liu. Flow straight and fast: Learning to generate and transfer data with rectified flow.arXiv:2209.03003, 2022

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2022

  6. [6]

    Gr00t n1: An open foundation model for generalist humanoid robots.arXiv preprint arXiv:2503.14734, 2025

    Johan Bjorck, Fernando Casta neda, Nikita Cherniadev, Xingye Da, Runyu Ding, Linxi Fan, Yu Fang, Dieter Fox, Fengyuan Hu, Spencer Huang, et al. Gr00t n1: An open foundation model for generalist humanoid robots.arXiv preprint arXiv:2503.14734, 2025

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2025

  7. [7]

    Black, N

    K. Black, N. Brown, D. Driess, A. Esmail, M. Equi, C. Finn, et al.π0: A vision–language–action flow model for general robot control.arXiv:2410.24164, 2024. Conference on Robot Learning 2024

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2024

  8. [8]

    Le, Denny Zhou, et al

    Jason Wei, Xuezhi Wang, Dale Schuurmans, Maarten Bosma, Fei Xia, Ed Chi, Quoc V . Le, Denny Zhou, et al. Chain-of-thought prompting elicits reasoning in large language models. In Advances in Neural Information Processing Systems (NeurIPS), volume 35, pages 24824–24837, 2022

    2022

  9. [9]

    M. S. Albergo, N. M. Boffi, and E. Vanden-Eijnden. Stochastic interpolants: A unifying framework for flows and diffusions.arXiv:2303.08797, 2023

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2023

  10. [10]

    Elucidating the design space of diffusion-based generative models

    Tero Karras, Miika Aittala, Timo Aila, et al. Elucidating the design space of diffusion-based generative models. InAdvances in Neural Information Processing Systems (NeurIPS), 2022

    2022

  11. [11]

    Albergo, Nicholas M

    Nanye Ma, Mark Goldstein, Michael S. Albergo, Nicholas M. Boffi, Eric Vanden-Eijnden, and Saining Xie. SiT: Exploring flow and diffusion-based generative models with scalable interpolant transformers. InEuropean Conference on Computer Vision (ECCV), pages 23–40. Springer, 2024

    2024

  12. [12]

    Consistency models

    Yang Song, Prafulla Dhariwal, Mark Chen, and Ilya Sutskever. Consistency models. arXiv:2303.01469, 2023

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2023

  13. [13]

    One step diffusion via shortcut models.arXiv:2410.12557, 2024

    Kevin Frans, Danijar Hafner, Sergey Levine, and Pieter Abbeel. One step diffusion via shortcut models.arXiv:2410.12557, 2024

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2024

  14. [14]

    Boffi, Michael S

    Nicholas M. Boffi, Michael S. Albergo, and Eric Vanden-Eijnden. Flow map matching. arXiv:2406.07507, 2024

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2024

  15. [15]

    Boffi, Michael S

    Nicholas M. Boffi, Michael S. Albergo, and Eric Vanden-Eijnden. How to build a consistency model: Learning flow maps via self-distillation, 2025. URL https://arxiv.org/abs/2505. 18825

    2025

  16. [16]

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

    2023

  17. [17]

    Learning fine-grained bimanual manipulation with low-cost hardware.arXiv:2304.13705, 2023

    Tony Zhao, Vikash Kumar, Sergey Levine, and Chelsea Finn. Learning fine-grained bimanual manipulation with low-cost hardware.arXiv:2304.13705, 2023

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2023

  18. [18]

    Braun, N

    M. Braun, N. Jaquier, L. Rozo, and T. Asfour. Riemannian flow matching policy for robot motion learning. InIEEE/RSJ International Conference on Intelligent Robots and Systems (IROS), pages 5144–5151, 2024

    2024

  19. [19]

    Consistency policy: Accelerated visuomotor policies via consistency distillation.arXiv:2405.07503, 2024

    Aaditya Prasad, Kevin Lin, Jimmy Wu, et al. Consistency policy: Accelerated visuomotor policies via consistency distillation.arXiv:2405.07503, 2024. 10

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2024

  20. [20]

    Foundation Models for Decision Making

    X. Hu, B. Liu, X. Liu, et al. RF-POLICY: Rectified flows are computation-adaptive decision makers. InInternational Conference on Learning Representations (ICLR), 2024. Earlier version: NeurIPS 2023 Workshop “Foundation Models for Decision Making”

    2024

  21. [21]

    X. Hu, Q. Liu, X. Liu, and B. Liu. AdaFlow: Imitation learning with variance-adaptive flow-based policies. InAdvances in Neural Information Processing Systems (NeurIPS), 2024

    2024

  22. [22]

    Rt-2: Vision-language- action models transfer web knowledge to robotic control.arXiv preprint arXiv:2307.15818, 2023

    Anthony Brohan, Noah Brown, Justice Carbajal, Yevgen Chebotar, Xi Chen, Krzysztof Choro- manski, 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

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2023

  23. [23]

    M. J. Kim, K. Pertsch, S. Karamcheti, T. Xiao, A. Balakrishna, S. Nair, et al. OpenVLA: An open-source vision–language–action model.arXiv:2406.09246, 2024. Accepted at NeurIPS 2024

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2024

  24. [24]

    Do as i can, not as i say: Grounding language in robotic affordances.arXiv preprint arXiv:2204.01691, 2022

    Michael Ahn, Anthony Brohan, Noah Brown, Yevgen Chebotar, 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

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2022

  25. [25]

    Inner monologue: Embodied reasoning through planning with language models.arXiv preprint arXiv:2207.05608, 2022

    Wenlong Huang, Fei Xia, Ted Xiao, Harris Chan, Jacky Liang, Pete Florence, Andy Zeng, Jonathan Tompson, Igor Mordatch, Yevgen Chebotar, et al. Inner monologue: Embodied reasoning through planning with language models.arXiv preprint arXiv:2207.05608, 2022

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2022

  26. [26]

    Mandlekar, D

    A. Mandlekar, D. Xu, J. Wong, S. Nasiriany, C. Wang, et al. What matters in learning from offline human demonstrations for robot manipulation. InRobotics: Science and Systems (RSS), 2021

    2021

  27. [27]

    Behavior transformers: Cloning k modes with one stone

    Nur Muhammad Shafiullah, Zichen Cui, Ariuntuya Arty Altanzaya, and Lerrel Pinto. Behavior transformers: Cloning k modes with one stone. InAdvances in Neural Information Processing Systems (NeurIPS), volume 35, pages 22955–22968, 2022

    2022

  28. [28]

    Ramirez, Ayzaan Wahid, Laura Downs, Adrian Wong, Johnny Lee, Igor Mordatch, and Jonathan Tompson

    Pete Florence, Corey Lynch, Andy Zeng, Oscar A. Ramirez, Ayzaan Wahid, Laura Downs, Adrian Wong, Johnny Lee, Igor Mordatch, and Jonathan Tompson. Implicit behavioral cloning. InConference on Robot Learning, pages 158–168, 2022

    2022

  29. [29]

    Relay policy learning: Solving long-horizon tasks via imitation and reinforcement learning.arXiv preprint arXiv:1910.11956, 2019

    Abhishek Gupta, Vikash Kumar, Corey Lynch, Sergey Levine, and Karol Hausman. Relay policy learning: Solving long-horizon tasks via imitation and reinforcement learning.arXiv preprint arXiv:1910.11956, 2019

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 1910

  30. [30]

    OpenAI Gym.arXiv preprint arXiv:1606.01540, 2016

    Greg Brockman, Vicki Cheung, Ludwig Pettersson, Jonas Schneider, John Schulman, Jie Tang, and Wojciech Zaremba. OpenAI Gym.arXiv preprint arXiv:1606.01540, 2016

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2016

  31. [31]

    Structural Priors for Learning Robot Dynamics

    N. Funk, J. Urain, J. Carvalho, V . Prasad, G. Chalvatzaki, and J. Peters. ACTIONFLOW: Efficient, accurate, and fast policies with spatially symmetric flow matching. InRSS Workshop “Structural Priors for Learning Robot Dynamics”, 2024

    2024

  32. [32]

    Zhang, Z

    Q. Zhang, Z. Liu, H. Fan, G. Liu, B. Zeng, and S. Liu. FlowPolicy: Enabling fast and robust 3d flow-based policy via consistency flow matching for robot manipulation. InProceedings of the AAAI Conference on Artificial Intelligence, volume 39, pages 14754–14762, 2025

    2025

  33. [33]

    Zhang and M

    F. Zhang and M. Gienger. Affordance-based robot manipulation with flow matching. arXiv:2409.01083, 2024

    arXiv 2024

  34. [34]

    H. Liu, C. Li, Q. Wu, and Y . J. Lee. Visual instruction tuning. InAdvances in Neural Information Processing Systems (NeurIPS), volume 36, pages 34892–34916, 2023

    2023

  35. [35]

    S. Bai, K. Chen, X. Liu, J. Wang, et al. Qwen 2.5-vl technical report.arXiv:2502.13923, 2025

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2025

  36. [36]

    simply pick the label from the sample images you see in prompt and tell me which one is closest to what you see

    A. Kamath, J. Ferret, S. Pathak, N. Vieillard, and Gemma Team. Gemma 3 technical report. arXiv:2503.19786, 2025. 11 Appendix A Implementation Details This appendix provides key implementation details of our DA-SIP framework. A.1 Stochastic Interpolant Policy Implementation Table 6: Stochastic interpolant policy hyperparameters Parameter Value Parameter Va...

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2025

  37. [37]

    No precise control is needed

    Initial (I): The robot is positioned away from targets and objects, performing gross position- ing movements in free space. No precise control is needed

  38. [38]

    Some care in motion planning is required

    Near (N): The robot is approaching within approximately 10cm of a target object but has not yet initiated contact or grasping. Some care in motion planning is required

  39. [39]

    Moderate precision is required

    Grabbing (G): The robot is in the process of grasping an object, or has grasped an object and is moving it to a new location. Moderate precision is required

  40. [40]

    High precision with some exploration is needed

    Stochastic (S): The robot is attempting a precise placement or alignment task that requires controlled variability (e.g., inserting a tool, threading a needle). High precision with some exploration is needed

  41. [41]

    Continuous (C): The robot is pushing or manipulating an object without grasping, requiring continuous fine control with millimeter precision (e.g., pushing a block along a specific path)

  42. [42]

    C.4 Dataset Finalization To ensure reliability, each state was labeled by multiple annotators

    End (E): Task objectives have been achieved, and the robot is in a terminal state or moving away from completed objectives. C.4 Dataset Finalization To ensure reliability, each state was labeled by multiple annotators. For the final dataset, we assigned category labels using majority voting. The most common boundary cases occurred between Near (N) and Gra...

    2000