REVIEW 4 major objections 4 minor 35 references
TFP: Temporally Conditioned Memory-Fusion Policies for Visuomotor Learning
T0 review · 4 major / 4 minor · reviewed 2026-08-02 · deepseek-v4-flash
Pith's one-line read A memory belief whose update is governed by real elapsed time, injected directly into a vision-language-action policy's flow-matching action decoder, raises average success on manipulation benchmarks from 96.9% to 98.75% and on perturbed/oc
desk verdict Solid empirical gains for memory-conditioned VLA, but the continuous-time mechanism is under-identified — the load-bearing control (time-conditioned GRU) is missing. read the letter →
The pith
A machine-rendered reading of the paper's core claim, the machinery that carries it, and where it could break.
The reading
What carries the argument
The carrying mechanism is the elapsed-time-conditioned belief update: an LTC recurrence with retention factor k_t = exp(-Δt_t / τ_t) and adaptive time constant τ_t, followed by AdaLN-style modulation of the flow-matching action decoder. The measured elapsed time Δt_t between policy queries is what makes the memory temporal rather than merely recurrent; the write gain g_t = 1 - k_t decides whether the belief holds or revises. Training uses Episode-Aware Temporal Batching, which preserves episode-local hidden states across gradient-truncated segments, and inference can use an adaptive receding-horizon executor that re-queries after variable executed prefixes.
What would settle it
Train the same VLA backbone with a GRU or S4D memory that receives the same elapsed-time input and uses the same AdaLN injection; if it matches or exceeds TFP on the long-horizon and perturbed splits, then the specific LTC mechanism—not elapsed-time conditioning per se—is not what carries the gains. Alternatively, check whether the learned retention factors in a rollout obey k(Δ1+Δ2)=k(Δ1)k(Δ2) for arbitrary splits; systematic violations would falsify the claimed time-consistency of the adaptive belief.
Extended reading notes
Core claim
The central claim is that memory for task progress should be updated on a physical clock, not a step counter. TFP defines a latent belief h_t that evolves as h_t = k_t ⊙ h_{t-1} + (1 - k_t) ⊙ ĥ_t, with retention k_t = exp(-Δt_t / τ_t) and τ_t a learned vector of input-dependent time constants. This is exactly the discretization of a first-order relaxation toward an evidence-induced candidate, and exponential retention is the unique continuous scalar rule that composes correctly across split time intervals. The updated belief is projected into the decoder conditioning space and applied through adaptive normalization, so the flow-matching action distribution changes when the belief changes eve
Load-bearing premise
The paper's empirical case for elapsed-time conditioning rests on a single ablation that removes the measured Δt, but that ablation does not separate continuous-time LTC memory from any recurrent memory that receives elapsed time as an input, and the paper's time-consistency theorem is proven only for fixed time constants, not for the learned state-dependent τ_t.
Editorial extensions
If this is right
- A VLA policy can act correctly in visually identical states by carrying an internal progress state, so stage-dependent tasks no longer require the scene itself to disambiguate the correct action.
- Varying the time between policy queries—due to contact, instability, or early re-querying—no longer distorts the memory, because the update is calibrated by actual elapsed time rather than step count.
- The belief mechanism adds little inference cost: a 256-dimensional state plus affine modulation, so it can be added to existing flow-matching VLA decoders without replacing the backbone.
- In real-robot trials, TFP's failures shift from stage and repetition errors toward target grounding and execution errors, indicating the memory is handling the task-progress role assigned to it.
Reading between the lines
- The same elapsed-time-conditioned belief could extend beyond manipulation to any partially observable control setting where the controller may be queried irregularly—navigation, human-robot interaction, or teleoperation—and where hidden state must persist across variable silence.
- The paper proves time-consistency for a constant time constant; a direct testable prediction is whether the learned adaptive τ_t satisfies the semigroup property k(Δ1+Δ2) = k(Δ1)k(Δ2) across real rollouts. If it does not, the theoretical justification and the empirical mechanism diverge.
- The ablation that removes Δt does not rule out a time-conditioned GRU or state-space model as the source of the gain; a stronger controlled test would feed the same Δt to those variants and compare on long-horizon and perturbed splits.
- The ShellGameTouch shortfall suggests the belief lacks object-centric discrete binding; combining TFP's continuous belief with a slot or key-value memory could close the gap to the reported 88% reference without losing event-sensitivity.
Editorial analysis
A structured set of objections, weighed in public.
Referee Report
Summary. The paper proposes TFP, a memory-augmented VLA policy that maintains an episode-local latent belief using Liquid Time-Constant (LTC) dynamics over elapsed physical time, and injects this belief into a flow-matching action decoder via AdaLN-style modulation. Training uses Episode-Aware Temporal Batching (EATB) to preserve hidden-state continuity across truncated segments, and inference uses an adaptive receding-horizon executor that produces irregular policy-query intervals. The central empirical claim is that the elapsed-time-conditioned LTC belief improves success on LIBERO (96.9% to 98.75%), LIBERO-plus (91.4% to 93.77%), a MIKASA ShellGameTouch diagnostic (75.0%), and two real-world Galaxea A1 tasks. Controlled same-backbone ablations compare GRU, S4D, TFP without Δt, and full TFP, and mechanistic analyses examine write-gain event sensitivity and hidden-state interventions.
Significance. If the mechanism claim holds, TFP would be a useful and relatively lightweight way to give VLA policies an explicit, physically meaningful task-progress belief in chunked, stage-dependent manipulation. The paper’s strengths include controlled same-backbone comparisons, reported confidence intervals for the reproduced standard LIBERO and real-world results, an honest discussion of the MIKASA gap and object-centric binding limitations, and a plausible ablation showing that removing measured elapsed time substantially reduces performance. However, the load-bearing mechanistic claim — that continuous-time LTC dynamics, rather than generic time-conditioned recurrence, drive the gains — is not isolated by the current baselines, and the theoretical time-consistency result is proved only for a fixed-time-constant scalar case that does not match the implemented adaptive τ_t. These issues need to be addressed before the central contribution is fully established.
major comments (4)
- [§V-C, Table IV] The key ablation isolates elapsed time by comparing TFP with TFP w/o Δt, but the GRU and S4D baselines are evaluated without elapsed-time input. Thus the experiments do not distinguish 'continuous-time LTC' from 'any recurrent/SSM that receives Δt.' Because §IV-C explicitly concedes that continuous-time SSMs can implement elapsed-time-dependent transitions, the claimed functional distinction is not exclusive. Please add GRU+Δt and S4D+Δt baselines under the same adaptive executor and report whether LTC’s closed-form exponential retention outperforms a standard recurrence that is simply given elapsed time as an input feature. This is load-bearing because the paper’s novelty claim is that the mechanism is 'dynamics-aware belief with LTC continuous-time dynamics,' not merely that adding a timing input helps.
- [Appendix C, Eqs. (29)–(30), Prop. 2] The elapsed-time-consistency proof assumes a scalar retention function k(Δ) that is independent of observations and hidden state. In the implemented model (Eq. 2), τ_t = softplus(Wτ[x_t; h_{t-1}] + bτ) + ε, so k_t = exp(−Δt_t/τ_t) depends on the current observation and previous belief. The semigroup property k(Δ1+Δ2) = k(Δ1)k(Δ2) does not follow when τ changes between intervals, and Prop. 2 therefore does not apply to the adaptive model. The manuscript should either restrict the time-consistency claim to the fixed-τ scalar relaxation case and state clearly that the trained network does not inherit it, or provide conditions under which the adaptive update satisfies an analogous consistency property. As written, the theoretical justification overstates what is proven.
- [Table I and Appendix E] The LIBERO-plus improvement (91.4% to 93.77%) is central to the robustness claim, but unlike the standard LIBERO results (Table VI), no confidence intervals or trial counts are reported for LIBERO-plus in Table I or in Appendix E. The same is true for the LIBERO-plus entries in Table IV. Given that some condition-level differences are a few points, the average improvement could be within sampling noise. Please report per-condition rollout counts and Wilson or bootstrap confidence intervals for the reproduced LIBERO-plus results, including the TFP w/o Δt and baseline rows.
- [§V-B, Table III] The event-sensitivity statistic uses the largest within-window value of the write-gain change (Best±6) divided by a far non-event baseline. A max-within-window statistic is biased upward relative to the baseline, so the ~6x ratio likely overstates the true event-window effect. Please report the average or median gain change within the event window against the baseline, with per-event distributions and bootstrap confidence intervals. This matters because the 'event-sensitive belief update' is one of the paper’s principal mechanistic claims.
minor comments (4)
- [Appendix cross-references] The appendix overview refers to 'Appendix IV' and 'Appendix IV-D' when discussing recurrent/state-space comparisons and computational overhead; this should be Section IV or a properly numbered appendix, not a confusing mix.
- [Equation (2)] The notation uses [ht; h_{t-1}] and [xt; h_{t-1}] but h_t appears as the updated state; clarify the argument ordering in the recurrent equations to avoid ambiguity.
- [§V-B-b] The same-observation hidden-state intervention shows that action chunks vary substantially with the hidden state, but no statistical test or rollout-based outcome is reported. A brief significance statement or a trajectory-level evaluation would strengthen the causal interpretation.
- [Table I] The MIKASA ShellGameTouch row is clearly labeled as a diagnostic, and Appendix D-B honestly discusses the gap to MemoryVLA; consider moving the MemoryVLA number to the main table only with a direct caveat to avoid implying a state-of-the-art comparison.
Circularity Check
No significant circularity: the model is defined by explicit equations, trained by imitation loss, and evaluated by rollout; the appendix derivations are self-contained mathematical equivalences.
full rationale
The derivation chain is self-contained. Equations (2)-(3) define the TFP belief update; Appendix C Proposition 1 shows that this update is the exact discretization of a first-order relaxation ODE chosen to match that update, and Proposition 2 establishes the standard characterization of exponential retention under the explicitly stated semigroup assumption k(Δ1+Δ2)=k(Δ1)k(Δ2). These are mathematical equivalences, not empirical predictions and not circular. Training uses the flow-matching imitation loss (Eq. 10) on demonstrations, and all reported success rates come from rollout evaluation rather than from fitted quantities. Event labels are used only post hoc for interpretability (Sec. V-B), not as policy inputs. The ablation TFP w/o Δt is a controlled architectural variant, not a fitted parameter renamed as a prediction. References to LTC and closed-form continuous-time networks [13,14] are external prior work by different authors, and no load-bearing uniqueness theorem is imported from the present authors' own prior work. The main caveat is a soundness gap rather than circularity: the global semigroup property underlying Proposition 2 is proven for constant τ, while the implemented model uses input-dependent τ_t=τ_θ(x_t,h_{t-1}); the paper does not claim the global property holds in the adaptive case, and this does not reduce the empirical results to their inputs.
Assumptions & free parameters
free parameters (5)
- memory dimension d_h =
256
- LTC time-constant offset ε =
not reported
- adaptive executor risk weights λ_j, λ_b, λ_c =
not reported
- action horizon H and prefix bound E_min =
H=10, E_min unspecified
- EATB unroll length K and batch size B =
K=8, B=128
assumptions (6)
- domain assumption Stage-dependent manipulation requires a latent task-progress belief beyond the current observation
- domain assumption Policy-query intervals are physical time and matter for memory updates
- standard math Exponential retention is the unique continuous time-consistent scalar rule
- ad hoc to paper Belief can be represented as a learned embedding h_t updated by first-order relaxation toward a candidate ĥ_t
- standard math Flow-matching imitation loss is a valid training signal for action generation
- domain assumption Published baseline numbers are comparable though not reproduced under the same pipeline
Cite this review
Pith. "Pith review of TFP: Temporally Conditioned Memory-Fusion Policies for Visuomotor Learning." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/JTZXPL3T
@misc{pith2026260708283,
author = {Pith},
title = {Pith review of: TFP: Temporally Conditioned Memory-Fusion Policies for Visuomotor Learning},
year = {2026},
howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/JTZXPL3T}},
note = {Machine review of arXiv:2607.08283}
}
abstract
Vision--Language--Action (VLA) policies such as $\pi_{0.5}$ and OpenVLA perform well on many manipulation tasks, but they are often reactive: the next action is predicted from the current observation, instruction, and proprioceptive state. This assumption breaks down in stage-dependent manipulation, where visually similar states may require different actions depending on latent task progress and previous interaction outcomes. We argue that such tasks require not only memory, but dynamics-aware belief updates: the policy should preserve task progress during stable or occluded phases and revise its belief near contact, release, or subgoal transitions. We introduce Temporally Conditioned Memory-Fusion Policies (TFP), a lightweight memory-action framework for VLA backbones. TFP maintains an episode-local task-progress belief with Liquid Time-Constant dynamics and injects the updated belief directly into the flow-matching action decoder through adaptive modulation. This lets temporally accumulated context shape the generated action chunk, rather than serving only as passive history context. With a 3.3B-parameter model, TFP improves the average success rate from \(96.9\%\) to \(98.75\%\) on LIBERO and from \(91.4\%\) to \(93.77\%\) on LIBERO-plus. On the memory-focused MIKASA ShellGameTouch diagnostic, TFP achieves success up to \(75.0\%\). Mechanistic analyses show that write-gain changes near manipulation events are about \(6\times\) larger than far non-event phases, and hidden-state interventions show that the belief causally modulates generated action chunks. These results suggest that compact, event-sensitive memory dynamics can improve VLA policies under occlusion, visual perturbation, and stage-dependent task structure.
Figures
Figures from the paper (2 more)
Reference graph
Works this paper leans on
-
[1]
Patient subtyping via time-aware lstm networks
Inci M Baytas, Cao Xiao, Xi Zhang, Fei Wang, Anil K Jain, and Jiayu Zhou. Patient subtyping via time-aware lstm networks. InProceedings of the 23rd ACM SIGKDD international conference on knowledge discovery and data mining, pages 65–74, 2017
2017
-
[2]
Kevin Black et al.π 0: A flow-matching policy for generalist robot manipulation.arXiv preprint arXiv:2410.24164, 2024. Physical Intelligence
arXiv 2024
-
[3]
Anthony Brohan, Noah Brown, Justice Carbajal, Yev- gen Chebotar, Joseph Dabis, Chelsea Finn, Keerthana Gopalakrishnan, Karol Hausman, Alexander Herzog, Jas- mine Hsu, et al. RT-2: Vision-language-action models transfer web knowledge to robotic control.arXiv preprint arXiv:2307.15818, 2023
arXiv 2023
-
[4]
Recurrent neural networks for multivariate time series with missing values.Scientific reports, 8(1):6085, 2018
Zhengping Che, Sanjay Purushotham, Kyunghyun Cho, David Sontag, and Yan Liu. Recurrent neural networks for multivariate time series with missing values.Scientific reports, 8(1):6085, 2018
2018
-
[5]
Ricky T. Q. Chen, Yulia Rubanova, Jesse Bettencourt, and David Duvenaud. Neural ordinary differential equa- tions. InAdvances in Neural Information Processing Systems, volume 31, 2018
2018
-
[6]
Cheng Chi, Zhenjia Xu, Siyuan Feng, Eric Cousineau, Yilun Du, Benjamin Burchfiel, Russ Tedrake, and Shuran Song. Diffusion policy: Visuomotor policy learning via action diffusion.arXiv preprint arXiv:2303.04137, 2023
arXiv 2023
-
[7]
Learning phrase representations using rnn encoder–decoder for statistical machine translation
Kyunghyun Cho, Bart Van Merri ¨enboer, C ¸ a˘glar Gulc ¸ehre, Dzmitry Bahdanau, Fethi Bougares, Holger Schwenk, and Yoshua Bengio. Learning phrase representations using rnn encoder–decoder for statistical machine translation. InProceedings of the 2014 conference on empirical methods in natural language processing (EMNLP), pages 1724–1734, 2014
2014
-
[8]
Danny Driess, Fei Xia, Mehdi S. M. Sajjadi, Corey Lynch, Aakanksha Chowdhery, Brian Ichter, Ayzaan Wahid, Jonathan Tompson, Quan Vuong, Tianhe Yu, et al. PaLM-E: An embodied multimodal language model.arXiv preprint arXiv:2303.03378, 2023
arXiv 2023
Show all 35 references
-
[9]
LIBERO- Plus: In-depth robustness analysis of vision-language- action models.arXiv preprint arXiv:2510.13626, 2025
Senyu Fei, Siyin Wang, Junhao Shi, Zihao Dai, Jikun Cai, Pengfang Qian, Ji Li, Xinzhe He, Shiduo Zhang, Zhaoye Fei, Jinlan Fu, Jingjing Gong, and Xipeng Qiu. LIBERO- Plus: In-depth robustness analysis of vision-language- action models.arXiv preprint arXiv:2510.13626, 2025
2025 arXiv
-
[10]
Approxima- tion of dynamical systems by continuous time recurrent neural networks.Neural networks, 6(6):801–806, 1993
Ken-ichi Funahashi and Yuichi Nakamura. Approxima- tion of dynamical systems by continuous time recurrent neural networks.Neural networks, 6(6):801–806, 1993
1993
-
[11]
Mamba: Linear-time sequence modeling with selective state spaces.arXiv preprint arXiv:2312.00752, 2023
Albert Gu and Tri Dao. Mamba: Linear-time sequence modeling with selective state spaces.arXiv preprint arXiv:2312.00752, 2023
2023 arXiv
-
[12]
Efficiently modeling long sequences with structured state spaces
Albert Gu, Karan Goel, and Christopher R ´e. Efficiently modeling long sequences with structured state spaces. In International Conference on Learning Representations, 2022
2022
-
[13]
Liquid time-constant networks
Ramin Hasani, Mathias Lechner, Alexander Amini, Daniela Rus, and Radu Grosu. Liquid time-constant networks. InProceedings of the AAAI Conference on Artificial Intelligence, volume 35, pages 7657–7666, 2021
2021
-
[14]
Closed-form continuous-time neural networks
Ramin Hasani, Mathias Lechner, Alexander Amini, Hongxu Sun, Arash Mehrjou, Radu Grosu, and Daniela Rus. Closed-form continuous-time neural networks. Nature Machine Intelligence, 4(11):992–1003, 2022. doi: 10.1038/s42256-022-00556-7
2022 doi
-
[15]
Long short- term memory.Neural Computation, 9(8):1735–1780,
Sepp Hochreiter and J ¨urgen Schmidhuber. Long short- term memory.Neural Computation, 9(8):1735–1780,
-
[16]
OpenVLA: An open- source vision-language-action model.arXiv preprint arXiv:2406.09246, 2024
Moo Jin Kim et al. OpenVLA: An open- source vision-language-action model.arXiv preprint arXiv:2406.09246, 2024
2024 arXiv
-
[17]
Hamlet: Switch your vision-language-action model into a history-aware policy.arXiv preprint arXiv:2510.00695, 2025
Myungkyu Koo, Daewon Choi, Taeyoung Kim, Kyung- min Lee, Changyeon Kim, Younggyo Seo, and Jin- woo Shin. Hamlet: Switch your vision-language-action model into a history-aware policy.arXiv preprint arXiv:2510.00695, 2025
2025 arXiv
-
[18]
Remem-vla: Empowering vision-language-action model with memory via dual-level recurrent queries
Hang Li, Fengyi Shen, Dong Chen, Liudi Yang, Xudong Wang, Jinkui Shi, Zhenshan Bing, Ziyuan Liu, and Alois Knoll. Remem-vla: Empowering vision-language-action model with memory via dual-level recurrent queries. arXiv preprint arXiv:2603.12942, 2026. doi: 10.48550/ arXiv.2603.12942
2026 doi
-
[19]
LIBERO: Benchmarking knowledge transfer for lifelong robot learning.arXiv preprint arXiv:2306.03310, 2023
Bo Liu, Yifeng Zhu, Chongkai Gao, Yihao Feng, Qiang Liu, Yuke Zhu, and Peter Stone. LIBERO: Benchmarking knowledge transfer for lifelong robot learning.arXiv preprint arXiv:2306.03310, 2023
2023 arXiv
-
[20]
CDP: Towards robust autoregressive visuomotor policy learning via causal diffusion.arXiv preprint arXiv:2506.14769, 2025
Jiahua Ma et al. CDP: Towards robust autoregressive visuomotor policy learning via causal diffusion.arXiv preprint arXiv:2506.14769, 2025
2025 arXiv
-
[21]
Phased lstm: Accelerating recurrent network training for long or event-based sequences.Advances in neural information processing systems, 29, 2016
Daniel Neil, Michael Pfeiffer, and Shih-Chii Liu. Phased lstm: Accelerating recurrent network training for long or event-based sequences.Advances in neural information processing systems, 29, 2016
2016
-
[22]
Octo: An open-source generalist robot policy.arXiv preprint arXiv:2405.12213, 2024
Octo Model Team, Dibya Ghosh, Homer Walke, Karl Pertsch, Kevin Black, Oier Mees, Sudeep Dasari, Joey Hejna, Charles Xu, Jianlan Luo, et al. Octo: An open-source generalist robot policy.arXiv preprint arXiv:2405.12213, 2024
2024 arXiv
-
[23]
Scalable diffu- sion models with transformers
William Peebles and Saining Xie. Scalable diffu- sion models with transformers. InProceedings of the IEEE/CVF International Conference on Computer Vision (ICCV), pages 4195–4205, October 2023
2023
-
[24]
FiLM: Visual reasoning with a general conditioning layer
Ethan Perez, Florian Strub, Harm de Vries, Vincent Dumoulin, and Aaron Courville. FiLM: Visual reasoning with a general conditioning layer. InProceedings of the AAAI Conference on Artificial Intelligence, 2018
2018
-
[25]
Yulia Rubanova, Ricky T. Q. Chen, and David Duvenaud. Latent ordinary differential equations for irregularly- sampled time series. InAdvances in Neural Information Processing Systems, volume 32, 2019
2019
-
[26]
Scaling short- term memory of visuomotor policies for long-horizon tasks, 2026
Rutav Shah, Rajat Kumar Jenamani, Xiaohan Zhang, Lingfeng Sun, Roberto Mart ´ın-Mart´ın, Yuke Zhu, Deva Ramanan, and Karl Schmeckpeper. Scaling short- term memory of visuomotor policies for long-horizon tasks, 2026. URL https://openreview.net/forum?id= 5SMNtmJFGa. Submitted to...
2026
-
[27]
Memoryvla: Perceptual- cognitive memory in vision-language-action models for robotic manipulation.arXiv preprint arXiv:2508.19236, 2025
Hao Shi, Bin Xie, Yingfei Liu, Lin Sun, Fengrong Liu, Tiancai Wang, Erjin Zhou, Haoqiang Fan, Xi- angyu Zhang, and Gao Huang. Memoryvla: Perceptual- cognitive memory in vision-language-action models for robotic manipulation.arXiv preprint arXiv:2508.19236, 2025
2025 arXiv
-
[28]
Perceiver-actor: A multi-task transformer for robotic ma- nipulation
Mohit Shridhar, Lucas Manuelli, and Dieter Fox. Perceiver-actor: A multi-task transformer for robotic ma- nipulation. InConference on Robot Learning, pages 785–
-
[29]
Data-gru: Dual- attention time-aware gated recurrent unit for irregular multivariate time series
Qingxiong Tan, Mang Ye, Baoyao Yang, Siqi Liu, Andy Jinhua Ma, Terry Cheuk-Fung Yip, Grace Lai- Hung Wong, and PongChi Yuen. Data-gru: Dual- attention time-aware gated recurrent unit for irregular multivariate time series. InProceedings of the AAAI conference on artificial int...
2020
-
[30]
Ren, Haohuan Wang, Jiaming Tang, Kyle Stachowicz, Karan Dhabalia, Michael Equi, Quan Vuong, Jost Tobias Springenberg, Sergey Levine, Chelsea Finn, and Danny Driess
Marcel Torne, Karl Pertsch, Homer Walke, Kyle Ved- der, Suraj Nair, Brian Ichter, Allen Z. Ren, Haohuan Wang, Jiaming Tang, Kyle Stachowicz, Karan Dhabalia, Michael Equi, Quan Vuong, Jost Tobias Springenberg, Sergey Levine, Chelsea Finn, and Danny Driess. Mem: Multi-scale embo...
2026 doi
-
[31]
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.Advances in Neural Information Processing Systems, 30, 2017
2017
-
[32]
Measuring interpretability of neural policies of robots with disentangled representation
Tsun-Hsuan Wang, Wei Xiao, Tim Seyde, Ramin Hasani, and Daniela Rus. Measuring interpretability of neural policies of robots with disentangled representation. In 7th Annual Conference on Robot Learning, 2023. URL https://openreview.net/forum?id=6kSohKYYTn0
2023
-
[33]
A V A-VLA: Improving vision-language- action models with active visual attention.arXiv preprint arXiv:2511.18960, 2025
Lei Xiao, Jifeng Li, Juntao Gao, Feiyang Ye, Yan Jin, Jingjing Qian, Jing Zhang, Yong Wu, and Xi- aoyuan Yu. A V A-VLA: Improving vision-language- action models with active visual attention.arXiv preprint arXiv:2511.18960, 2025. doi: 10.48550/arXiv.2511. 18960
-
[34]
Zhao, Vikash Kumar, Sergey Levine, and Chelsea Finn
Tony Z. Zhao, Vikash Kumar, Sergey Levine, and Chelsea Finn. Learning fine-grained bimanual manipu- lation with low-cost hardware. InRobotics: Science and Systems, 2023. The appendix provides additional material omitted from the main paper for space. Appendix A gives a broader...
2023
-
[1997]
doi: 10.1162/neco.1997.9.8.1735
1997 doi
Reviewed August 2, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.
Discussion (0). Sign in to comment.