Pith. sign in

REVIEW 3 major objections 5 minor 27 references

A frozen robot policy can be steered at deployment by imagining candidate futures with a latent world model and ranking them with a language-conditioned value model—no finetuning required.

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 · grok-4.5

2026-07-12 06:29 UTC pith:YUR6ZPTI

load-bearing objection Training-free VLA steering with real-robot gains that hold up under the ablations; ranking correlation is the softest link, not a contradiction. the 3 major comments →

arxiv 2607.02865 v1 pith:YUR6ZPTI submitted 2026-07-03 cs.RO

DREAMSTEER: Latent World Models Can Steer VLA Policies During Deployment Without Any Finetuning

Hanchen Cui , Sergio Arnaud , Arjun Majumdar , Daniel Dugas , Elie Aljalbout , Karthik Desingh , Krishna Murthy Jatavallabhula , Franziska Meier This is my paper
classification cs.RO
keywords latent world modelsvision-language-action policiesdeployment-time steeringrobot manipulationzero-shot generalizationvalue-guided rankingaction chunks
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.

Pretrained vision-language-action policies often fail when the robot meets new objects, cameras, or scenes at deployment. Collecting target demonstrations and finetuning is the usual fix, but it is expensive and not always allowed. This paper argues that the policy can stay completely frozen: sample several candidate action chunks (plus a few simple motion primitives), predict what each would look like with an action-conditioned latent world model, and execute the chunk that a language-conditioned value model scores highest. On real pick-and-place tasks with unseen objects, success rose from 23.75% to 66.25% and instruction-following accuracy from 38.75% to 56.25% over single-sample execution. The result separates “having a useful action prior” from “choosing the right sample before acting,” and shows that look-ahead ranking can recover reliability without any target-environment data.

Core claim

Deployment-time steering of a frozen VLA is possible by ranking short imagined rollouts: candidate action chunks from the policy and simple Cartesian primitives are rolled out in a multi-embodiment latent world model and scored by a language-conditioned progress value model; the highest-scoring chunk is executed. With no component finetuned on target data, this composition alone lifts real-robot OOD manipulation success from 23.75% to 66.25% and instruction-following accuracy from 38.75% to 56.25% over single-sample policy execution.

What carries the argument

DreamSteer: a training-free selection loop that samples action chunks, predicts their futures with an action-conditioned latent world model (frozen visual latents plus a factorized spatio-temporal transformer), and ranks the decoded rollouts with a language-conditioned value model before execution.

Load-bearing premise

Short imagined futures from the latent world model must keep the same preference order as real futures under the value model well enough that the top-ranked candidate is usually the right one to run.

What would settle it

On the same OOD pick-and-place trials, if ranking candidates by value scores on world-model rollouts no longer beats random selection among the same candidate set—or if value scores on imagined clips systematically reverse the order of matched ground-truth clips—the claimed steering gain collapses.

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

If this is right

  • Useful action chunks often already sit inside a pretrained VLA’s sampling distribution; under distribution shift the bottleneck is selection, not generation.
  • A world model and value model trained on broader interaction data can correct a policy trained only on successful demonstrations.
  • Zero-shot rollout ranking becomes a practical alternative when target-environment finetuning is unwanted or infeasible.
  • Short-horizon latent prediction, rather than pixel video generation, is fast enough for online ranking of many candidates on real hardware.
  • Adding simple fixed Cartesian primitives expands coverage when policy samples alone stall near the object.

Where Pith is reading between the lines

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

  • The same sample–imagine–rank loop could wrap any stochastic generative policy, not only VLAs, wherever a latent dynamics model and a progress critic exist.
  • Multi-view value scoring would cut ranking errors caused by single-camera visual similarity and tighten imagined versus true preference order.
  • Candidate coverage is a hard ceiling: when neither policy samples nor fixed primitives approach the goal, steering cannot invent a solution—latent planning or iterative proposal refinement is the natural next lever.
  • The complementary-data story invites deliberate system-level training splits (policy on demos, world model on mixed play, value on action-free video) rather than only post-hoc assembly of frozen parts.

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

3 major / 5 minor

Summary. The paper proposes DREAMSTEER, a deployment-time steering method that improves a frozen pretrained VLA (π0) without any target-environment finetuning or parameter updates. At each steering step it forms a candidate set of action chunks from stochastic VLA samples plus a small library of Cartesian primitives, rolls each candidate out with a multi-embodiment action-conditioned latent world model (DINOv2 latents, spatio-temporal transformer), decodes the imagined observations, and ranks them with a frozen language-conditioned value model (VLAC). The highest-scoring chunk is executed. Real-robot experiments on a Franka/DROID-style setup under substantial distribution shift report OOD pick-and-place success rising from 23.75% to 66.25% and instruction-following accuracy from 38.75% to 56.25% over single-sample π0, with ablations showing that both candidate diversity and value ranking are necessary.

Significance. If the reported gains hold under broader evaluation, the work offers a practical, training-free route to improve generalist VLAs at deployment—an important operational need given the cost and risk of collecting target-domain demonstrations. Strengths include a clean training-free composition claim, multi-embodiment world-model training, explicit ablations (Table 2) that isolate diversity versus ranking, Wilson confidence intervals on real-robot trials, and a quantified check that imagined rollouts preserve relative value order (Pearson r=0.66, Spearman ρ=0.69). The approach is complementary to finetuning and is immediately usable with existing frozen VLAs, latent world models, and progress estimators.

major comments (3)
  1. §4.2 / Fig. 6: The ranking assumption that H=10 latent rollouts preserve VLAC order is supported only by moderate correlation (Pearson r=0.66, Spearman ρ=0.69) on held-out RoboArena clips. This is the softest load-bearing link for the central claim. The paper should either (i) report ranking accuracy / top-1 selection agreement on the same clips (not only correlation of scalar scores), or (ii) show that the real-robot gains remain when the value model is replaced by an oracle ranking of ground-truth futures, so readers can bound how much of the 23.75%→66.25% lift is limited by ranking error.
  2. §4.3 / Tables 2–3: Evaluation covers only four OOD objects and four IF targets (20 trials each). Aggregate Wilson CIs are reported, but object-level variance is large (e.g., Tape 6/20→16/20 vs. Mustard 3/20→11/20). For a claim of broad OOD robustness under deployment shift, the manuscript needs either more objects/scenes or a clearer statement that the result is a controlled demonstration on this object set rather than a general guarantee. Expanding the object suite or adding a leave-one-object-out style check would strengthen the central numbers.
  3. §3.2 / Eq. (1) and candidate construction: The full method’s gain over π0+DREAMSTEER (42.5%→66.25%) comes largely from the hand-designed Cartesian primitive library. The paper should quantify how sensitive results are to the primitive set (e.g., remove gripper open/close, change step sizes, or replace primitives with pure noise around the current pose). Without that, it remains unclear how much of the reported improvement is portable versus dependent on a carefully chosen C_prim for this workbench.
minor comments (5)
  1. §4.3: Steering latency (~13 s for 13 candidates) is acknowledged but not placed in context of closed-loop control rates; a short note on how often steering is applied relative to the low-level controller would help practitioners.
  2. Fig. 5 / Fig. 10: Rollout visualizations are useful; adding the corresponding VLAC scores next to selected frames would make the ranking story more self-contained.
  3. Table 1: “Training-free composition” is a useful axis; a one-sentence clarification that VLAC and the world model are themselves pretrained (just not on the target lab) would avoid any ambiguity about “zero training.”
  4. Notation: C_t = C_VLA ∪ C_prim is clear; stating the exact |C_prim| and the numerical K used in the main tables once in the main text (not only in the supplement) would improve reproducibility.
  5. Related work: V-GPS, FOREWARN, GPC, VLA-Reasoner, and LaDi-WM are fairly compared; a brief note on whether any of those methods could be run zero-shot with the same frozen π0 would make the novelty claim sharper.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged

No circularity: empirical real-robot gains from frozen composition, not quantities forced by definition or self-citation.

full rationale

DREAMSTEER is a systems/empirical paper whose central claims are measured physical success rates (Table 2: 23.75%→66.25% OOD; Table 3: 38.75%→56.25% IF) under a frozen π0 + multi-embodiment latent world model + off-the-shelf VLAC ranking pipeline with no target-environment data. The selection rule (Eq. 1) simply argmaxes value scores over imagined rollouts; those scores are not fitted to the evaluation tasks, nor is any reported gain algebraically identical to a training objective or a self-cited uniqueness result. World-model training (heterogeneous DROID/EgoDex/RoboMIND/etc. data, latent MSE) and VLAC are independent of the target lab; the Pearson/Spearman consistency check (§4.2) is a post-hoc validation of ranking fidelity, not a circular fit. Ablations (π0 alone, π0+DREAMSTEER, primitives-only, random) further show the gains require both candidate diversity and ranking rather than tautological re-labeling. No self-definitional equation, fitted-input-as-prediction, load-bearing self-citation uniqueness claim, or renamed known result appears in the derivation chain.

Axiom & Free-Parameter Ledger

4 free parameters · 3 axioms · 1 invented entities

The claim rests on empirical composition of three frozen models plus a small hand-designed primitive library. Free parameters are the usual inference knobs (K, H, steering frequency). Domain assumptions concern transfer of latent dynamics and relative value ranking; no new physical entities are postulated.

free parameters (4)
  • number of VLA samples K = 5
    Chosen by ablation (K=5 preferred over 3 or 7); directly affects candidate coverage and compute.
  • action chunk horizon H = 10
    Set to 10 so imagined futures are distinguishable; not derived from first principles.
  • steering frequency = every 5 steps
    Applied once every five control steps for efficiency; arbitrary schedule.
  • Cartesian primitive library = 6 directions + open/close
    Hand-designed short translations and gripper open/close; coverage depends on this ad-hoc set.
axioms (3)
  • domain assumption Latent DINOv2 dynamics trained on multi-embodiment data transfer to the evaluation robot and novel objects sufficiently for relative ranking.
    Invoked throughout §3.1 and §4.2; only partial support via r=0.66 correlation on RoboArena.
  • domain assumption VLAC pairwise progress scores, when summed, produce a ranking that correlates with true task progress under the given language instruction.
    Equation (3) and §3.2; failures from single-view ambiguity are acknowledged in §5.2.
  • domain assumption Useful action chunks exist inside the pretrained VLA distribution or the primitive library for the evaluated tasks.
    Stated as a coverage limitation in §5.2; if false, steering cannot recover.
invented entities (1)
  • DREAMSTEER candidate set C_t = C_VLA ∪ C_prim no independent evidence
    purpose: Defines the finite set of action chunks that are rolled out and ranked at each steering step.
    Compositional construct; not a physical entity, but the operational object the method introduces.

pith-pipeline@v1.1.0-grok45 · 18700 in / 2623 out tokens · 24794 ms · 2026-07-12T06:29:55.368799+00:00 · methodology

0 comments
read the original abstract

Pretrained vision-language-action (VLA) policies show promising zero-shot generalization, but often fail under deployment-time distribution shift, leading to decreased robustness and inconsistent instruction following. While prior work commonly tackles this by finetuning on in-distribution data, it assumes demonstrations collected on tasks in the target environment. In this work, we propose DREAMSTEER, a deployment-time steering framework for pretrained VLAs without any finetuning or parameter modifications. The key insight in DREAMSTEER is to leverage a latent world model and a value model to steer pretrained VLA policies. During deployment, DREAMSTEER samples candidate action chunks from a VLA policy and predefined motion primitives, imagines their outcomes using an action-conditioned latent world model, and ranks the imagined trajectories with a language-conditioned value model. Across four real-world manipulation benchmarks with unseen objects, DREAMSTEER improves task success rate from 23.75% to 66.25% and instruction-following accuracy from 38.75% to 56.25% over the base VLA policy.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2607.02865 by Arjun Majumdar, Daniel Dugas, Elie Aljalbout, Franziska Meier, Hanchen Cui, Karthik Desingh, Krishna Murthy Jatavallabhula, Sergio Arnaud.

Figure 1
Figure 1. Figure 1: DREAMSTEER: deployment-time policy steering. A frozen VLA policy proposes candidate action chunks, which are augmented with a small set of predefined Cartesian action primitives. A latent world model predicts future observations, and a language-conditioned value model ranks the resulting trajectories before execution. All models are trained frozen, and no target-environment data is used during model traini… view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. Figure 2: DREAMSTEER improves deployment-time ro￾bustness of a pretrained, frozen VLA policy. In this paper, we introduce DREAM￾STEER, a deployment-time steering framework for pretrained VLA policies using latent world models with zero finetuning. Given a language instruction and current observation, DREAMSTEER samples multiple candidate action chunks from a pretrained VLA policy and aug￾ments them with predefined m… view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. Figure 3: Heterogeneous action-conditioned world model. The world model is trained on diverse robot and human interaction datasets spanning multiple embodiments. Multi-Embodiment Training. To learn a generalizable world model, we train on heterogeneous datasets [11, 19, 20, 21], spanning single-arm manipulators, bimanual robots, dexterous hands, and human demonstrations. Visual observations are mapped into a shared … view at source ↗
Figure 4
Figure 4. Figure 4: Spatio-temporal cross attention. Spatial cross￾attention attends within each timestep, while temporal cross￾attention applies causal attention across timesteps for each patch. Spatio-Temporal Factorization. To support fast rollout over multiple candidate action chunks, we use a factorized spatio-temporal trans￾former [23]. The model consists of N spatio-temporal blocks operating on visual latent tokens and… view at source ↗
Figure 5
Figure 5. Figure 5: World model rollouts across multiple embodiments. Only a sin￾gle camera view is visualized for clarity. We first evaluate whether latent world model rollouts preserve the relative value trends needed for trajectory ranking. DREAMSTEER does not require calibrated reward prediction or photo￾realistic video generation, only imagined rollouts that preserve relative ranking consistency across candi￾date action … view at source ↗
Figure 6
Figure 6. Figure 6: Evaluative consistency of imagined rollouts. (a) Value-model scores on ground-truth and imagined trajectories. (b) Latent prediction error versus rollout length; shaded area denotes ±1 standard deviation. Phone Mustard Tape Eraser Scene1 Scene2 OOD objects IF scenes [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p007_6.png] view at source ↗
Figure 8
Figure 8. Figure 8: Spatio-temporal world model architecture. 7.2 Spatio-Temporal Transformer Architecture Given the encoded visual and control tokens, the world model predicts future visual latents using a stack of spatio-temporal transformer layers. The transformer operates on two token streams: a grid of visual tokens and a set of per-timestep control tokens, and updates the visual stream through action-conditioned cross-a… view at source ↗
Figure 9
Figure 9. Figure 9: Mask strategy in multi-view data. for every timestep or embodiment, we employ token-level masking to handle missing observations, shown in [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p014_9.png] view at source ↗
Figure 10
Figure 10. Figure 10: World model rollout results. For a candidate rollout, we compute pairwise progress estimates between consecutive observations: st+j = VLAC(ˆot+j−1, oˆt+j , ltask), oˆt = ot, where ltask denotes the language instruction. 17 [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p017_10.png] view at source ↗
Figure 11
Figure 11. Figure 11: Functional interaction prediction. When the robot toggles the light switch in imagination, the world model predicts corresponding changes in scene illumination. Trajectory aggregation The trajectory-level score is obtained by summing progress estimates along the rollout: S = X H j=1 VLAC(ˆot+j−1, oˆt+j , ltask). This score estimates how much the candidate action sequence advances the task specified by the… view at source ↗
Figure 12
Figure 12. Figure 12: Robot platform. – “Pick up the {phone} and place it into the brown box.” – “Pick up the {mustard} and place it into the brown box.” – “Pick up the {whiteboard eraser} and place it into the black bowl.” – “Pick up the {blue tape} and place it into the black bowl.” • Instruction following with distractors. The robot must identify the correct target object in the presence of visually similar distractors. Ins… 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

27 extracted references · 17 linked inside Pith

  1. [1]

    Black, N

    K. Black, N. Brown, D. Driess, A. Esmail, M. Equi, C. Finn, N. Fusai, L. Groom, K. Hausman, B. Ichter, et al.π0: A vision-language-action flow model for general robot control. corr, abs/2410.24164, 2024. doi: 10.48550.arXiv preprint ARXIV .2410.24164

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2024

  2. [2]

    Bjorck, F

    J. Bjorck, F. Casta ˜neda, N. Cherniadev, X. Da, R. Ding, L. Fan, Y . Fang, D. Fox, F. Hu, S. Huang, et al. Gr00t n1: An open foundation model for generalist humanoid robots.arXiv preprint arXiv:2503.14734, 2025

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2025

  3. [3]

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

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2024

  4. [4]

    Zitkovich, T

    B. Zitkovich, T. Yu, S. Xu, P. Xu, T. Xiao, F. Xia, J. Wu, P. Wohlhart, S. Welker, A. Wahid, et al. Rt-2: Vision-language-action models transfer web knowledge to robotic control. In Conference on Robot Learning, pages 2165–2183. PMLR, 2023

    2023

  5. [5]

    Pertsch, K

    K. Pertsch, K. Stachowicz, B. Ichter, D. Driess, S. Nair, Q. Vuong, O. Mees, C. Finn, and S. Levine. Fast: Efficient action tokenization for vision-language-action models.arXiv preprint arXiv:2501.09747, 2025

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2025

  6. [6]

    Z. Kang, X. Zhao, and D. Song. Scalable best-of-n selection for large language models via self-certainty.arXiv preprint arXiv:2502.18581, 2025

    arXiv 2025

  7. [7]

    R. Pi, H. Bai, Q. Chen, X. S. Wang, J. Shan, X. Liu, and M. Cao. Mr. judge: Multimodal reasoner as a judge. InProceedings of the 2025 Conference on Empirical Methods in Natural Language Processing, pages 20192–20216, 2025

    2025

  8. [8]

    Agarwal, A

    N. Agarwal, A. Ali, M. Bala, Y . Balaji, E. Barker, T. Cai, P. Chattopadhyay, Y . Chen, Y . Cui, Y . Ding, et al. Cosmos world foundation model platform for physical ai.arXiv preprint arXiv:2501.03575, 2025

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2025

  9. [9]

    Assran, A

    M. Assran, A. Bardes, D. Fan, Q. Garrido, R. Howes, M. Muckley, A. Rizvi, C. Roberts, K. Sinha, A. Zholus, et al. V-jepa 2: Self-supervised video models enable understanding, prediction and planning.arXiv preprint arXiv:2506.09985, 2025

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2025

  10. [10]

    G. Zhou, H. Pan, Y . LeCun, and L. Pinto. Dino-wm: World models on pre-trained visual features enable zero-shot planning 2024.URL https://arxiv. org/abs/2411, 4983

    2024

  11. [11]

    Khazatsky, K

    A. Khazatsky, K. Pertsch, S. Nair, A. Balakrishna, S. Dasari, S. Karamcheti, S. Nasiriany, M. K. Srirama, L. Y . Chen, K. Ellis, et al. Droid: A large-scale in-the-wild robot manipulation dataset.arXiv preprint arXiv:2403.12945, 2024

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2024

  12. [12]

    Nakamoto, O

    M. Nakamoto, O. Mees, A. Kumar, and S. Levine. Steering your generalists: Improving robotic foundation models via value guidance.arXiv preprint arXiv:2410.13816, 2024

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2024

  13. [13]

    Y . Wu, R. Tian, G. Swamy, and A. Bajcsy. From foresight to forethought: Vlm-in-the-loop policy steering via latent alignment.arXiv preprint arXiv:2502.01828, 2025

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2025

  14. [14]

    H. Qi, H. Yin, Y . Du, and H. Yang. Strengthening generative robot policies through predictive world modeling.arXiv e-prints, pages arXiv–2502, 2025. 10

    2025

  15. [15]

    J. Jang, S. Ye, Z. Lin, J. Xiang, J. Bjorck, Y . Fang, F. Hu, S. Huang, K. Kundalia, Y .-C. Lin, et al. Dreamgen: Unlocking generalization in robot learning through neural trajectories.arXiv e-prints, pages arXiv–2505, 2025

    2025

  16. [16]

    Higuera, S

    C. Higuera, S. Arnaud, B. Boots, M. Mukadam, F. R. Hogan, and F. Meier. Visuo-tactile world models.arXiv preprint arXiv:2602.06001, 2026

    arXiv 2026

  17. [17]

    W. Guo, G. Lu, H. Deng, Z. Wu, Y . Tang, and Z. Wang. Vla-reasoner: Empowering vision- language-action models with reasoning via online monte carlo tree search.arXiv preprint arXiv:2509.22643, 2025

    arXiv 2025

  18. [18]

    Huang, J

    Y . Huang, J. Zhang, S. Zou, X. Liu, R. Hu, and K. Xu. Ladi-wm: A latent diffusion-based world model for predictive manipulation.arXiv preprint arXiv:2505.11528, 2025

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2025

  19. [19]

    Q. Bu, J. Cai, L. Chen, X. Cui, Y . Ding, S. Feng, S. Gao, X. He, X. Hu, X. Huang, et al. Agibot world colosseo: A large-scale manipulation platform for scalable and intelligent embodied systems.arXiv preprint arXiv:2503.06669, 2025

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2025

  20. [20]

    Hoque, P

    R. Hoque, P. Huang, D. J. Yoon, M. Sivapurapu, and J. Zhang. Egodex: Learning dexterous manipulation from large-scale egocentric video.arXiv preprint arXiv:2505.11709, 2025

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2025

  21. [21]

    K. Wu, C. Hou, J. Liu, Z. Che, X. Ju, Z. Yang, M. Li, Y . Zhao, Z. Xu, G. Yang, et al. Robomind: Benchmark on multi-embodiment intelligence normative data for robot manipulation.arXiv preprint arXiv:2412.13877, 2024

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2024

  22. [22]

    Y . Guo, L. X. Shi, J. Chen, and C. Finn. Ctrl-world: A controllable generative world model for robot manipulation.arXiv preprint arXiv:2510.10125, 2025

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2025

  23. [23]

    M. Xu, W. Dai, C. Liu, X. Gao, W. Lin, G.-J. Qi, and H. Xiong. Spatial-temporal transformer networks for traffic flow forecasting.arXiv preprint arXiv:2001.02908, 2020

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2001

  24. [24]

    Oquab, T

    M. Oquab, T. Darcet, T. Moutakanni, H. V o, M. Szafraniec, V . Khalidov, P. Fernandez, D. Haz- iza, F. Massa, A. El-Nouby, et al. Dinov2: Learning robust visual features without supervision. arXiv preprint arXiv:2304.07193, 2023

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2023

  25. [25]

    S. Zhai, Q. Zhang, T. Zhang, F. Huang, H. Zhang, M. Zhou, S. Zhang, L. Liu, S. Lin, and J. Pang. A vision-language-action-critic model for robotic real-world reinforcement learning. arXiv preprint arXiv:2509.15937, 2025

    arXiv 2025

  26. [26]

    Z. Chen, W. Wang, Y . Cao, Y . Liu, Z. Gao, E. Cui, J. Zhu, S. Ye, H. Tian, Z. Liu, et al. Expanding performance boundaries of open-source multimodal models with model, data, and test-time scaling.arXiv preprint arXiv:2412.05271, 2024

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2024

  27. [27]

    Pick up the{phone}and place it into the brown box

    P. Atreya, K. Pertsch, T. Lee, M. J. Kim, A. Jain, A. Kuramshin, C. Eppner, C. Neary, E. Hu, F. Ramos, et al. Roboarena: Distributed real-world evaluation of generalist robot policies. arXiv preprint arXiv:2506.18123, 2025. 11 Supplementary Materials 7 World Model Design and Training The world model is an action-conditioned latent predictor optimized for ...

    arXiv 2025