Pith. sign in

REVIEW 2 major objections 6 minor 73 references

Predicting how the scene evolves, not just what to do, lets robots learn from messy egocentric human video that action cloning cannot use.

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

2026-07-10 18:38 UTC pith:QB3QE52M

load-bearing objection Clean controlled real-robot study: WAM co-training with DINO/3D-flow targets extracts more from wild egocentric human data than strong BC, with a useful ranking of world targets. the 2 major comments →

arxiv 2607.08436 v1 pith:QB3QE52M submitted 2026-07-08 cs.RO cs.AI

EgoWAM: World Action Models Beyond Pixels with In-the-Wild Egocentric Human Data

Baoyu Li , Xinchen Yin , Mengying Lin , Yixin Zhang , Danfei Xu This is my paper
classification cs.RO cs.AI
keywords World Action ModelsLearn from Human DataRobot ManipulationEgocentric VideoCross-Embodiment TransferBehavior Cloning3D Motion FlowDINO Features
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.

Egocentric human video is abundant, but cloning human actions often hurts robot policies because morphology, head motion, and style do not transfer. This paper argues that World Action Models open a second training channel: force a shared backbone to predict future scene state, so human data can shape the representation even when human action labels are inexecutable. EgoWAM freezes the backbone, action head, and data mix and varies only the world target—pixels, DINO features, or camera-stabilized 3D motion flow—on three real bimanual tasks. World-action co-training scales with in-the-wild human data where behavior cloning stalls; DINO drives large gains on unseen objects and scenes, while 3D flow lifts in-domain spatial performance, and the world head is dropped at test time so deployment cost matches ordinary cloning.

Core claim

World Action Model co-training transfers large-scale in-the-wild egocentric human data to robot manipulation more effectively than behavior cloning. Under a matched backbone and data mixture, pixel reconstruction transfers weakly, while DINO features improve out-of-distribution object and scene generalization by up to 4× and camera-stabilized 3D motion flow improves in-domain performance by 20–30%.

What carries the argument

EgoWAM: a single shared transformer trunk with a fixed action head and a swappable world-model head, so only the future-state target (pixel VAE latents, DINO patch features, or ego-motion-factored 3D flow) changes. Joint training supervises the trunk through both action loss and world prediction; at inference only the action head runs.

Load-bearing premise

The claim rests on the idea that predicting how the scene evolves from human video shapes a shared representation that helps robot actions even when human motions themselves cannot be executed.

What would settle it

Hold backbone, action head, and human–robot data mix fixed; compare behavior-cloning co-training against the same setup with DINO or 3D-flow world heads on the three bimanual tasks. If the world-head runs do not beat cloning on the reported in-domain and OOD success and sub-task scores, the transfer claim fails.

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

If this is right

  • Large natural human video can improve robot policies without careful viewpoint, speed, or style alignment when supervision is dynamics-based rather than action-based.
  • Semantic feature targets are the better world choice when the goal is object and scene generalization.
  • Camera-stabilized 3D-flow targets are the better world choice when the goal is precise in-domain spatial control.
  • Deployment cost can stay at ordinary behavior-cloning latency because the world head is training-only.
  • World targets that abstract appearance, keep physical effects agent-invariant, and factor out ego-motion should be preferred over raw pixel reconstruction for cross-embodiment transfer.

Where Pith is reading between the lines

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

  • A hybrid world target that combines DINO-style semantics with 3D-flow geometry could capture the complementary OOD and spatial strengths the paper reports separately.
  • Because world-only supervision on human batches already beat action-only in the ablations, pure human video without hand-action labels may deliver much of the scaling benefit.
  • The same controlled swappable-head design could test object-centric or language-conditioned latents as further world targets under identical co-training.
  • Multi-task policies trained this way on mixed human corpora may inherit the context-level transfer shown here per task, which the authors flag as open.

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

2 major / 6 minor

Summary. The paper studies human-to-robot transfer for bimanual manipulation via World Action Models (WAMs). It argues that behavior cloning co-training entangles transferable scene/task content with non-transferable morphology, head motion, and style, and that an auxiliary future-prediction head can transfer task-relevant dynamics even when human actions do not. EgoWAM freezes the HPT backbone, action head, and data mixture and varies only the world target among pixel VAE latents, DINO features, and camera-stabilized 3D motion flow, motivated by three desiderata (appearance abstraction, cross-embodiment consistency, ego-motion factoring). On three real-world bimanual tasks with in-domain and OOD splits (~1800 rollouts), WAM co-training scales better with in-the-wild EgoVerse human data than BC; pixels transfer weakly, DINO drives the largest OOD object/scene gains (up to ~4×), and 3D flow the largest in-domain spatial gains (20–30%). Ablations cover aligned/unaligned human data, world-only vs action+world human supervision, and a robot-to-robot RoboTwin simulation check.

Significance. If the controlled comparison holds, the paper supplies a concrete, falsifiable design axis for scaling robot learning from large-scale egocentric human video: train with a world target that abstracts appearance, keeps physical effects agent-invariant, and factors ego-motion, then discard the world head at inference. Strengths include a clean isolation of the world representation (fixed backbone/action head/data mixture), substantial real-robot evaluation with ID/OOD splits and confidence intervals, qualitative failure analysis, and ablations showing world-only human supervision already beats action-only human supervision. The complementary DINO vs 3D-flow pattern and the RoboTwin replication make the result useful beyond a single system. Limitations on motion-primitive transfer, multi-task scaling, and absolute success rates are stated and do not erase the comparative claim.

major comments (2)
  1. §5.2 / Fig. 3 and App. A.2: the central claim is comparative (WAM vs BC under matched mixture; DINO/3D-flow vs pixel), but absolute success rates remain modest on several OOD splits and on fine-grained insertion (RoboTwin hanging-mug ≤1%). The manuscript should state more explicitly that the contribution is the controlled transfer comparison, not a new SOTA absolute policy, and report robot-only baselines next to every co-train bar so readers can separate “human data helps WAM” from “WAM is simply a stronger architecture.”
  2. §4.2 and §7: the three desiderata (D1–D3) are treated as the design axis, yet only three discrete targets are compared, and 3D flow depends on Aria VIO plus a pretrained tracker with embodiment-specific movement thresholds. A short sensitivity analysis (e.g., flow without VIO stabilization, or DINO with a different frozen encoder) would strengthen the claim that the desiderata—not the particular tracker/encoder—drive the gains. Without that, the “recipe” in the conclusion is still partly tied to these instantiations.
minor comments (6)
  1. Fig. 3: normalized score and success rate panels are dense; consider a compact table of mean±CI for ID/OOD per task so the 4× and 20–30% claims can be checked without reading bar heights.
  2. Eq. (3) and §4.3: λ=1 is fixed with no sweep; a one-sentence note on sensitivity (or that λ was not tuned per target) would help reproducibility.
  3. §3.1: the embodiment-specific windows TH=1s / TR=1.5s and k=100 are reasonable but should be listed once in the main text or Table 2 with a brief justification that they match task progress rather than wall-clock only.
  4. App. A.3 / Fig. 12: the Pixel-PT bag-opening hallucination is a useful failure mode; a pointer in the main §5.2 would help readers who skip the appendix.
  5. Typos/notation: “W AMs” spacing is inconsistent; “bitter lesson” is informal for a journal abstract; ensure SE(3) and T_device notation are defined before first use in §3.1.
  6. Code/data: the project page is linked; a short statement on what will be released (checkpoints, flow preprocessing, evaluation seeds) would improve long-term value.

Circularity Check

1 steps flagged

Empirical co-training study; world targets and success metrics are independent, with only minor non-load-bearing self-citation of data/backbone infrastructure.

specific steps
  1. self citation load bearing [§3.1, §5.1 Data; citations [7], [16]]
    "EGOWAM builds on a Heterogeneous Pretrained Transformer backbone [16, 7]. ... Human data spans two regimes ... (2) EgoVerse (∼10:1): the full EgoVerse-A flagship split per task [7]"

    Data corpus and HPT backbone are taken from overlapping-author prior work. This is ordinary infrastructure reuse, not a load-bearing uniqueness or derivation step: the paper’s claim is the controlled comparison of world targets under that fixed stack, measured on external robot rollouts. Does not force DINO/3D-flow superiority by construction.

full rationale

EgoWAM’s central claims are experimental comparisons under a fixed backbone, action head, and data mixture, varying only the world prediction target (Pixel VAE, DINO, 3D flow). World targets are defined from external pretrained modules (Wan VAE, DINOv2, Track4World + Aria VIO) and are not functions of the robot success metric. Gains are measured by held-out real-world rollouts (normalized sub-task score and success rate on ID/OOD splits), not by re-reporting the training world loss as a “prediction.” The core hypothesis—that task-relevant dynamics transfer more readily than actions—is tested rather than assumed (BC often degrades under natural/unaligned human data while WAM gains; world-only human supervision beats action-only; UMAP trunk alignment; improved 3D-flow prediction under co-training). Self-citations to EgoVerse and HPT supply the human dataset and transformer backbone infrastructure; they do not force the comparative ranking of world targets by construction, uniqueness theorem, or fitted-input-as-prediction. No self-definitional loop, no uniqueness imported from the authors, and no renaming of a known result as a derivation. Residual limitations (motion-primitive transfer, multi-task scaling) are acknowledged and do not create circularity. Score 1 only for ordinary infrastructure self-citation that is not load-bearing for the result.

Axiom & Free-Parameter Ledger

4 free parameters · 4 axioms · 2 invented entities

The paper is an empirical robotics study. Load-bearing content consists of standard ML/robotics modeling choices, a small set of hand-chosen training hyperparameters, and the three desiderata that organize the world-target comparison. No new physical entities are postulated; EgoWAM is an experimental framework rather than a new ontological claim.

free parameters (4)
  • world-loss weight λ = 1.0
    Set to 1.0 by hand in the joint objective (Eq. 3); balances action vs world supervision and is not derived.
  • embodiment-specific prediction horizons TH, TR = 1.0s / 1.5s
    Chosen as 1.0 s (human) and 1.5 s (robot) to roughly equalize task progress; residual speed mismatch is acknowledged but not optimized.
  • flow-matching τ prior Beta(1.5, 1.0) and sampling steps = Beta(1.5,1.0), 50 steps
    Standard but hand-selected schedule for the action and world heads; affects training dynamics.
  • 3D-flow movement thresholds and anchor grid = 2mm/10mm, 28×40
    2 mm (robot) / 10 mm (human) displacement thresholds and 28×40 anchor grid are chosen to suppress tracker noise; affect the world target itself.
axioms (4)
  • domain assumption Task-relevant scene dynamics transfer across human and robot embodiments more readily than low-level actions.
    Core hypothesis of §1 and §3.2 that justifies adding a world head as a second supervision channel.
  • ad hoc to paper An effective world target should abstract appearance (D1), capture agent-invariant physical effects (D2), and factor ego-motion (D3).
    Organizing principles introduced in §4 to rank Pixel, DINO, and 3D flow; not independently proven.
  • domain assumption Training-time world prediction shapes a useful shared trunk even when the world head is discarded at inference.
    Adopted from cited WAM work (§4.3) and required for the claim that gains come at BC latency.
  • domain assumption Cross-embodiment actions can be sufficiently aligned into a shared 14-D camera-frame end-effector space via FK, VIO poses, and quantile normalization.
    §3.1 baseline construction; residual speed and workspace mismatches remain.
invented entities (2)
  • EgoWAM controlled co-training framework independent evidence
    purpose: Single backbone with swappable world head to isolate world-representation effects under matched action supervision and data mixture.
    Experimental instrument, not a physical entity; independent evidence is the reported ablation suite itself.
  • Three world-representation desiderata (D1–D3) no independent evidence
    purpose: Criteria used to motivate and interpret Pixel vs DINO vs 3D-flow targets.
    Paper-introduced organizing concepts; falsifiable only indirectly via the comparative experiments.

pith-pipeline@v1.1.0-grok45 · 30561 in / 3372 out tokens · 42433 ms · 2026-07-10T18:38:29.015442+00:00 · methodology

0 comments
read the original abstract

Egocentric human data offers scalable supervision for robot manipulation. However, behavior cloning entangles transferable content like objects, scenes, and task semantics, with non-transferable factors like human morphology, head motion, and behavioral style. We study whether World Action Models (WAMs) provide a better training signal by requiring policies to predict not only actions, but also how the scene evolves. The central question is what world representation best enables human-to-robot transfer. We hypothesize that an effective world target should abstract appearance, capture agent-invariant physical effects, and separate camera motion from environment change. We introduce EgoWAM, a controlled human-robot co-training framework that fixes the policy backbone, action head, and data mixture while varying only the world prediction target, comparing Pixel, DINO, and 3D motion flow. Across three real-world bimanual tasks, WAM co-training scales more effectively with in-the-wild egocentric human data than behavior cloning. Pixel-based prediction transfers weakly, while DINO and 3D flow yield substantial gains: DINO improves out-of-distribution object and scene generalization by up to 4x, and 3D flow improves in-domain performance by 20-30%. More details: https://gatech-rl2.github.io/egowam.github.io

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2607.08436 by Baoyu Li, Danfei Xu, Mengying Lin, Xinchen Yin, Yixin Zhang.

Figure 1
Figure 1. Figure 1: EGOWAM co-trains on lab robot data and in-the-wild egocentric human data, separated by an em￾bodiment gap of camera motion, morphology, and behavioral style. (1) BC co-training leaks this gap through the sole action head as inexecutable motions that harm performance; WAM co-training adds a channel predict￾ing scene evolution, transferring human data through dynamics where actions cannot. (2) EGOWAM studies… view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. Figure 2: Model Architecture. (a) EGOWAM builds on a Heterogeneous Pretrained Transformer [16, 7] with modality-specific stems (ego vision, proprioception, wrist vision), learned action and future tokens, a flow-matching action head, and a swappable world-model head supplying dynamics supervision that carries human data where actions cannot. The head supports three world targets: (b) a VAE head decoding pixel latent… view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. Figure 3: Quantitative Comparison on Real-World Rollouts. Normalized score and success rate across three bimanual tasks under ID and OOD evaluation, comparing BC against four WAM variants. WAM co￾training consistently outperforms BC: human data often degrades BC yet yields large WAM gains. Pixel trans￾fers weakly, while DINO drives the strongest OOD generalization and 3D Flow the largest ID spatial gains. Error bars… view at source ↗
Figure 4
Figure 4. Figure 4: UMAP of Trunk Embeddings on Cup-on￾Saucer. BC separates human-robot embeddings; WAM aligns them in a shared latent. We present a systematic study of EGOWAM for human-robot co-training, organized around three main questions: Q1: Does WAM co￾training scale and transfer from large-scale in-the-wild human data better than BC co￾training? Q2: Which world representation best enables transfer from human data to r… view at source ↗
Figure 5
Figure 5. Figure 5: Qualitative Comparison on Real-World Rollouts. WAM variants (3D Flow, DINO) are compared against BC and Pixel baselines under EgoVerse co-training. (a) BC produces human-like motion, Pixel fails at precise cup transport; (b) BC cannot grasp unseen objects, Pixel hallucinates a free-space grasp; (c) BC overfits and fails to reach the cloth, Pixel’s geometric confusion leaves the third fold incomplete. per-a… view at source ↗
Figure 6
Figure 6. Figure 6: Spatial Gains for 3D Flow. 3D Flow succeeds (green) where BC fails (red) at cup posi￾tions across the workspace. Tasks. We evaluate on three bimanual tasks from the EgoVerse flag￾ship set [7], spanning precise rigid-object manipulation, deformable manipulation, and long-horizon sequencing: (1) cup-on-saucer: Reorient a cup from a randomized pose and place it upright on a saucer at a randomized position; (2… view at source ↗
Figure 7
Figure 7. Figure 7: World Prediction Comparison. (a) Co-training im￾proves RAE and 3D Flow predictions, with better object shape and motion; (b) 3D Flow’s gains far exceed Pixel and DINO. (Q2) World Representation Choice for Cross-Embodiment Transfer. The world representation is the next critical axis [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p008_7.png] view at source ↗
Figure 8
Figure 8. Figure 8: Ablation of Unaligned Human Data. Unaligned hu￾man data collapses BC below robot-only; WAM stays robust. (Q3) Ablation: The Role of Un￾aligned Human Data. We further study the hypothesis that unaligned human data degrades BC. Among the three tasks, only bag-grocery benefits from action-level co-training ( [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p008_8.png] view at source ↗
Figure 9
Figure 9. Figure 9: Ablation of Aligned Human Data. Aligning the demonstrator lifts BC above robot-only and gains Pixel/DINO 20– 30 pts, isolating human head motion; 3D￾flow holds at 85% either way. Sec. 5.2(Q3) studied one extreme of action alignment: deliberately misaligned human data collapses BC below its robot-only baseline, while the 3D-flow WAM stays robust. Here we probe the other extreme: does manu￾ally aligning the … view at source ↗
Figure 10
Figure 10. Figure 10: Robot Platform and Data Collection. (a) Our robot platform: two upright-mounted 6-DoF ARX5 arms with two wrist-mounted Intel RealSense D405 cameras and a head-mounted Project Aria headset, teleoperated by a human via a Meta Quest 3 interface. (b) A human wearing Project Aria glasses collects demonstrations naturally. (c) The human deliberately aligns with the robot’s action, height, and viewpoint, produci… view at source ↗
Figure 11
Figure 11. Figure 11: Ablation of Co-Train Human Data Modality. How much of EGOWAM’s gain comes from the action labels on human demonstrations ver￾sus the world-model supervision? We ab￾late three human co-training modalities on cup-on-saucer: Action Only (BC co-train baseline), 3D Flow only (no action supervision on human batches), and Action + 3D Flow (full EGOWAM) [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p016_11.png] view at source ↗
Figure 12
Figure 12. Figure 12: Video Prediction for Failure Analysis on Bag-Grocery. 6-step rollouts from the same initial frame. Pixel + robot only: blurry but faithful, where the bag stays closed until acted on. Pixel-PT + robot only: hallucinates an already-open bag, causing the policy to skip the opening stage. Pixel-PT + Egoverse: sharp and faithful, showing human co-training removes the hallucination. bag-opening stage, and [PIT… view at source ↗
Figure 13
Figure 13. Figure 13: In-Domain and OOD Objects. As shown in [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p020_13.png] 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

73 extracted references · 73 canonical work pages · 39 internal anchors

  1. [1]

    EgoDex: Learning Dexterous Manipulation from Large-Scale Egocentric Video

    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, 2026

    work page internal anchor Pith review Pith/arXiv arXiv 2026

  2. [2]

    Ego-Exo4D: Understanding Skilled Human Activity from First- and Third-Person Perspectives

    K. Grauman, A. Westbury, L. Torresani, K. Kitani, J. Malik, T. Afouras, K. Ashutosh, V . Baiyya, S. Bansal, B. Boote, E. Byrne, Z. Chavis, J. Chen, F. Cheng, F.-J. Chu, S. Crane, A. Dasgupta, J. Dong, M. Escobar, C. Forigua, A. Gebreselasie, S. Haresh, J. Huang, M. M. Islam, S. Jain, R. Khirodkar, D. Kukreja, K. J. Liang, J.-W. Liu, S. Majumder, Y . Mao, ...

    work page internal anchor Pith review Pith/arXiv arXiv 2024

  3. [3]

    Kareer, K

    S. Kareer, K. Pertsch, J. Darpinian, J. Hoffman, D. Xu, S. Levine, C. Finn, and S. Nair. Emergence of Human to Robot Transfer in Vision-Language-Action Models.arXiv preprint arXiv:2512.22414, 2025

    work page arXiv 2025

  4. [4]

    EgoMimic: Scaling Imitation Learning via Egocentric Video

    S. Kareer, D. Patel, R. Punamiya, P. Mathur, S. Cheng, C. Wang, J. Hoffman, and D. Xu. EgoMimic: Scaling Imitation Learning via Egocentric Video.arXiv preprint arXiv:2410.24221, 2024

    work page internal anchor Pith review Pith/arXiv arXiv 2024

  5. [5]

    R.-Z. Qiu, S. Yang, X. Cheng, C. Chawla, J. Li, T. He, G. Yan, D. J. Yoon, R. Hoque, L. Paulsen, G. Yang, J. Zhang, S. Yi, G. Shi, and X. Wang. Humanoid policy ˜ human policy. arXiv preprint arXiv:2503.13441, 2025. 9

    work page arXiv 2025

  6. [6]

    Egoscale: Scaling dexterous manipulation with diverse egocentric human data, 2026

    R. Zheng, D. Niu, Y . Xie, J. Wang, M. Xu, Y . Jiang, F. Casta ˜neda, F. Hu, Y . L. Tan, L. Fu, T. Darrell, F. Huang, Y . Zhu, D. Xu, and L. Fan. EgoScale: Scaling Dexterous Manipulation with Diverse Egocentric Human Data.arXiv preprint arXiv:2602.16710, 2026

    work page arXiv 2026

  7. [7]

    EgoVerse: An Egocentric Human Dataset for Robot Learning from Around the World

    R. Punamiya, S. Kareer, Z. Liu, J. Citron, R.-Z. Qiu, X. Cai, A. Gavryushin, J. Chen, D. Li- conti, L. Y . Zhu, P. Aphiwetsa, B. Li, A. Cheluva, P. Kuppili, Y . Liu, D. Patel, A. Gao, H.-Y . Chung, R. Co, R. Zbizika, J. Liu, X. Xu, H. Xiong, G. Chen, S. Oliani, C. Yang, X. Wang, J. Fort, R. Newcombe, J. Gao, J. Chong, G. Matsuda, A. Doriwala, M. Pollefeys...

    work page internal anchor Pith review Pith/arXiv arXiv 2026

  8. [8]

    S. Ye, Y . Ge, K. Zheng, S. Gao, S. Yu, G. Kurian, S. Indupuru, Y . L. Tan, C. Zhu, J. Xi- ang, A. Malik, K. Lee, W. Liang, N. Ranawaka, J. Gu, Y . Xu, G. Wang, F. Hu, A. Narayan, J. Bjorck, J. Wang, G. Kim, D. Niu, R. Zheng, Y . Xie, J. Wu, Q. Wang, R. Julian, D. Xu, Y . Du, Y . Chebotar, S. Reed, J. Kautz, Y . Zhu, L. J. Fan, and J. Jang. World Action M...

    work page internal anchor Pith review Pith/arXiv arXiv 2026

  9. [9]

    M. J. Kim, Y . Gao, T.-Y . Lin, Y .-C. Lin, Y . Ge, G. Lam, P. Liang, S. Song, M.-Y . Liu, C. Finn, and J. Gu. Cosmos Policy: Fine-Tuning Video Models for Visuomotor Control and Planning. arXiv preprint arXiv:2601.16163, 2026

    work page internal anchor Pith review Pith/arXiv arXiv 2026

  10. [10]

    S. Li, Y . Gao, D. Sadigh, and S. Song. Unified Video Action Model.arXiv preprint arXiv:2503.00200, 2025

    work page internal anchor Pith review Pith/arXiv arXiv 2025

  11. [11]

    C. Zhu, R. Yu, S. Feng, B. Burchfiel, P. Shah, and A. Gupta. Unified World Models: Cou- pling Video and Action Diffusion for Pretraining on Large Robotic Datasets.arXiv preprint arXiv:2504.02792, 2025

    work page internal anchor Pith review Pith/arXiv arXiv 2025

  12. [12]

    Oquab, T

    M. Oquab, T. Darcet, T. Moutakanni, H. V . V o, M. Szafraniec, V . Khalidov, P. Fernandez, D. Haziza, F. Massa, A. El-Nouby, R. Howes, P.-Y . Huang, H. Xu, V . Sharma, S.-W. Li, W. Galuba, M. Rabbat, M. Assran, N. Ballas, G. Synnaeve, I. Misra, H. Jegou, J. Mairal, P. Labatut, A. Joulin, and P. Bojanowski. Dinov2: Learning robust visual features without s...

    work page 2023

  13. [13]

    Diffusion Transformers with Representation Autoencoders

    B. Zheng, N. Ma, S. Tong, and S. Xie. Diffusion Transformers with Representation Autoen- coders.arXiv preprint arXiv:2510.11690, 2025

    work page internal anchor Pith review Pith/arXiv arXiv 2025

  14. [14]

    Y . Xiao, J. Wang, N. Xue, N. Karaev, Y . Makarov, B. Kang, X. Zhu, H. Bao, Y . Shen, and X. Zhou. SpatialTrackerV2: 3D Point Tracking Made Easy.arXiv preprint arXiv:2507.12462, 2025

    work page internal anchor Pith review Pith/arXiv arXiv 2025

  15. [15]

    J. Lu, J. Xu, W. Hu, R. Zhu, C. Zhao, S.-K. Yeung, Y . Shan, and Y . Liu. Track4world: Feed- forward world-centric dense 3d tracking of all pixels.arXiv preprint arXiv:2603.02573, 2026

    work page arXiv 2026

  16. [16]

    L. Wang, X. Chen, J. Zhao, and K. He. Scaling Proprioceptive-Visual Learning with Hetero- geneous Pre-trained Transformers.arXiv preprint arXiv:2409.20537, 2024

    work page internal anchor Pith review Pith/arXiv arXiv 2024

  17. [17]

    S. Nair, A. Rajeswaran, V . Kumar, C. Finn, and A. Gupta. R3M: A Universal Visual Repre- sentation for Robot Manipulation.arXiv preprint arXiv:2203.12601, 2022

    work page internal anchor Pith review Pith/arXiv arXiv 2022

  18. [18]

    V-JEPA 2: Self-Supervised Video Models Enable Understanding, Prediction and Planning

    M. Assran, A. Bardes, D. Fan, Q. Garrido, R. Howes, Mojtaba, Komeili, M. Muckley, A. Rizvi, C. Roberts, K. Sinha, A. Zholus, S. Arnaud, A. Gejji, A. Martin, F. R. Hogan, D. Dugas, P. Bojanowski, V . Khalidov, P. Labatut, F. Massa, M. Szafraniec, K. Krishnakumar, Y . Li, X. Ma, S. Chandar, F. Meier, Y . LeCun, M. Rabbat, and N. Ballas. V-jepa 2: Self-super...

    work page internal anchor Pith review Pith/arXiv arXiv 2025

  19. [19]

    D. Niu, Y . Sharma, H. Xue, G. Biamby, J. Zhang, Z. Ji, T. Darrell, and R. Herzig. Pre-training auto-regressive robotic models with 4d representations.arXiv preprint arXiv:2502.13142, 2025

    work page internal anchor Pith review Pith/arXiv arXiv 2025

  20. [20]

    Y . Bai, D. Tran, A. Bar, Y . LeCun, T. Darrell, and J. Malik. Whole-body conditioned egocentric video prediction, 2025. URLhttps://arxiv.org/abs/2506.21552

    work page internal anchor Pith review Pith/arXiv arXiv 2025

  21. [21]

    R. Yang, Q. Yu, Y . Wu, R. Yan, B. Li, A.-C. Cheng, X. Zou, Y . Fang, X. Cheng, R.-Z. Qiu, H. Yin, S. Liu, S. Han, Y . Lu, and X. Wang. EgoVLA: Learning Vision-Language-Action Models from Egocentric Human Videos.arXiv preprint arXiv:2507.12440, 2025

    work page internal anchor Pith review Pith/arXiv arXiv 2025

  22. [22]

    H. Bi, L. Wu, T. Lin, H. Tan, Z. Su, H. Su, and J. Zhu. H-RDT: Human Manipulation Enhanced Bimanual Robotic Manipulation.arXiv preprint arXiv:2507.23523, 2025

    work page internal anchor Pith review Pith/arXiv arXiv 2025

  23. [23]

    C. Yuan, R. Zhou, M. Liu, Y . Hu, S. Wang, L. Yi, C. Wen, S. Zhang, and Y . Gao. MotionTrans: Human VR Data Enable Motion-Level Learning for Robotic Manipulation Policies.arXiv preprint arXiv:2509.17759, 2025

    work page arXiv 2025

  24. [24]

    Q. Li, Y . Deng, Y . Liang, L. Luo, L. Zhou, C. Yao, L. Zeng, Z. Feng, H. Liang, S. Xu, Y . Zhang, X. Chen, H. Chen, L. Sun, D. Chen, J. Yang, and B. Guo. Scalable Vision-Language-Action Model Pretraining for Robotic Manipulation with Real-Life Human Activity Videos.arXiv preprint arXiv:2510.21571, 2025

    work page arXiv 2025

  25. [25]

    R. G. Goswami, A. Bar, D. Fan, T.-Y . Yang, G. Zhou, P. Krishnamurthy, M. Rabbat, F. Khor- rami, and Y . LeCun. World models for learning dexterous hand-object interactions from human videos, 2026. URLhttps://arxiv.org/abs/2512.13644

    work page arXiv 2026

  26. [26]

    B. Hou, G. Li, J. Jia, T. An, X. Guo, S. Leng, H. Geng, Y . Ze, T. Harada, P. Torr, O. Mees, M. Pollefeys, Z. Liu, J. Wu, P. Abbeel, J. Malik, Y . Du, and J. Yang. World model for robot learning: A comprehensive survey. 2026

    work page 2026

  27. [27]

    Structured World Models from Human Videos

    R. Mendonca, S. Bahl, and D. Pathak. Structured World Models from Human Videos.arXiv preprint arXiv:2308.10901, 2023

    work page internal anchor Pith review Pith/arXiv arXiv 2023

  28. [28]

    G. Li, Y . Lyu, Z. Liu, C. Hou, J. Zhang, and S. Zhang. H2R: A Human-to-Robot Data Aug- mentation for Robot Pre-training from Videos.arXiv preprint arXiv:2505.11920, 2025

    work page arXiv 2025

  29. [29]

    Y . Liu, W. C. Shin, Y . Han, Z. Chen, H. Ravichandar, and D. Xu. ImMimic: Cross-Domain Im- itation from Human Videos via Mapping and Interpolation.arXiv preprint arXiv:2509.10952, 2025

    work page internal anchor Pith review Pith/arXiv arXiv 2025

  30. [30]

    Punamiya, D

    R. Punamiya, D. Patel, P. Aphiwetsa, P. Kuppili, L. Y . Zhu, S. Kareer, J. Hoffman, and D. Xu. EgoBridge: Domain Adaptation for Generalizable Imitation from Egocentric Human Data. In Advances in Neural Information Processing Systems, 2025

    work page 2025

  31. [31]

    Cai, R.-Z

    X. Cai, R.-Z. Qiu, G. Chen, L. Wei, I. Liu, T. Huang, X. Cheng, and X. Wang. In-N- On: Scaling Egocentric Manipulation with in-the-wild and on-task Data.arXiv preprint arXiv:2511.15704, 2025

    work page arXiv 2025

  32. [32]

    C. Wen, X. Lin, J. So, K. Chen, Q. Dou, Y . Gao, and P. Abbeel. Any-point Trajectory Modeling for Policy Learning.arXiv preprint arXiv:2401.00025, 2024

    work page internal anchor Pith review Pith/arXiv arXiv 2024

  33. [33]

    M. Xu, Z. Xu, Y . Xu, C. Chi, G. Wetzstein, M. Veloso, and S. Song. Flow as the Cross-Domain Manipulation Interface.arXiv preprint arXiv:2407.15208, 2024

    work page internal anchor Pith review Pith/arXiv arXiv 2024

  34. [34]

    J. Ren, P. Sundaresan, D. Sadigh, S. Choudhury, and J. Bohg. Motion Tracks: A Unified Representation for Human-Robot Transfer in Few-Shot Imitation Learning.arXiv preprint arXiv:2501.06994, 2025. 11

    work page arXiv 2025

  35. [35]

    Point Policy: Unifying Observations and Actions with Key Points for Robot Manipulation

    S. Haldar and L. Pinto. Point Policy: Unifying Observations and Actions with Key Points for Robot Manipulation.arXiv preprint arXiv:2502.20391, 2025

    work page internal anchor Pith review Pith/arXiv arXiv 2025

  36. [36]

    S. Lee, Y . Jung, I. Chun, Y .-C. Lee, Z. Cai, H. Huang, A. Talreja, T. D. Dao, Y . Liang, J.-B. Huang, and F. Huang. TraceGen: World Modeling in 3D Trace Space Enables Learning from Cross-Embodiment Videos.arXiv preprint arXiv:2511.21690, 2025

    work page arXiv 2025

  37. [37]

    J. A. Collins, L. Cheng, K. Aneja, A. Wilcox, B. Joffe, and A. Garg. Amplify: Actionless motion priors for robot learning from videos, 2025. URLhttps://arxiv.org/abs/2506. 14198

    work page 2025

  38. [38]

    A. Hung, B. P. Duisterhof, and J. Ichnowski. 3PoinTr: 3D Point Tracks for Robot Manipulation Pretraining from Casual Videos.arXiv preprint arXiv:2603.08485, 2026

    work page internal anchor Pith review Pith/arXiv arXiv 2026

  39. [39]

    H. Li, L. Sun, Y . Hu, D. Ta, J. Barry, G. Konidaris, and J. Fu. NovaFlow: Zero-Shot Manipu- lation via Actionable Flow from Generated Videos.arXiv preprint arXiv:2510.08568, 2025

    work page arXiv 2025

  40. [40]

    Z.-H. Yin, S. Yang, and P. Abbeel. Object-centric 3D Motion Field for Robot Learning from Human Videos.arXiv preprint arXiv:2506.04227, 2025

    work page internal anchor Pith review Pith/arXiv arXiv 2025

  41. [41]

    D. Cho, Y . Jang, D. Xu, and S. Ha. EgoA VFlow: Robot Policy Learning with Active Vision from Human Egocentric Videos via 3D Flow.arXiv preprint arXiv:2602.22461, 2026

    work page arXiv 2026

  42. [42]

    Dharmarajan, W

    K. Dharmarajan, W. Huang, J. Wu, L. Fei-Fei, and R. Zhang. Dream2flow: Bridging video gen- eration and open-world manipulation with 3d object flow.arXiv preprint arXiv:2512.24766, 2025

    work page arXiv 2025

  43. [43]

    World Models

    D. Ha and J. Schmidhuber. World models.arXiv preprint arXiv:1803.10122, 2018

    work page internal anchor Pith review Pith/arXiv arXiv 2018

  44. [44]

    Training Agents Inside of Scalable World Models

    D. Hafner, W. Yan, and T. Lillicrap. Training agents inside of scalable world models.arXiv preprint arXiv:2509.24527, 2025

    work page internal anchor Pith review Pith/arXiv arXiv 2025

  45. [45]

    B. Ai, S. Tian, H. Shi, Y . Wang, T. Pfaff, C. Tan, H. I. Christensen, H. Su, J. Wu, and Y . Li. A review of learning-based dynamics models for robotic manipulation.Science Robotics, 10 (106):eadt1497, 2025

    work page 2025

  46. [46]

    A. Bar, G. Zhou, D. Tran, T. Darrell, and Y . LeCun. Navigation world models, 2024. URL https://arxiv.org/abs/2412.03572

    work page internal anchor Pith review Pith/arXiv arXiv 2024

  47. [47]

    J. Pai, L. Achenbach, V . Montesinos, B. Forrai, O. Mees, and E. Nava. mimic-video: Video-Action Models for Generalizable Robot Control Beyond VLAs.arXiv preprint arXiv:2512.15692, 2025

    work page internal anchor Pith review Pith/arXiv arXiv 2025

  48. [48]

    T. Ma, J. Zheng, Z. Wang, C. Jiang, A. Cui, J. Liang, and S. Yang. DiT4DiT: Jointly Modeling Video Dynamics and Actions for Generalizable Robot Control.arXiv preprint arXiv:2603.10448, 2026

    work page arXiv 2026

  49. [49]

    B. Chen, T. Zhang, H. Geng, K. Song, C. Zhang, P. Li, W. T. Freeman, J. Malik, P. Abbeel, R. Tedrake, V . Sitzmann, and Y . Du. Large Video Planner Enables Generalizable Robot Con- trol.arXiv preprint arXiv:2512.15840, 2025

    work page internal anchor Pith review Pith/arXiv arXiv 2025

  50. [50]

    S. Gao, W. Liang, K. Zheng, A. Malik, S. Ye, S. Yu, W.-C. Tseng, Y . Dong, K. Mo, C.-H. Lin, Q. Ma, S. Nah, L. Magne, J. Xiang, Y . Xie, R. Zheng, D. Niu, Y . L. Tan, K. R. Zentner, G. Kurian, S. Indupuru, P. Jannaty, J. Gu, J. Zhang, J. Malik, P. Abbeel, M.-Y . Liu, Y . Zhu, J. Jang, and L. J. Fan. DreamDojo: A Generalist Robot World Model from Large-Sca...

    work page internal anchor Pith review Pith/arXiv arXiv 2026

  51. [51]

    Y . Wang, R. Syed, F. Wu, M. Zhang, A. Onol, J. Barreiros, H. Nayyeri, T. Dear, H. Zhang, and Y . Li. Interactive World Simulator for Robot Policy Training and Evaluation.arXiv preprint arXiv:2603.08546, 2026. 12

    work page arXiv 2026

  52. [52]

    Zhang, S

    K. Zhang, S. Sha, H. Jiang, M. Loper, H. Song, G. Cai, Z. Xu, X. Hu, C. Zheng, and Y . Li. Real- to-sim robot policy evaluation with gaussian splatting simulation of soft-body interactions. arXiv preprint arXiv:2511.04665, 2025

    work page arXiv 2025

  53. [53]

    G. Zhou, H. Pan, Y . LeCun, and L. Pinto. DINO-WM: World Models on Pre-trained Visual Features enable Zero-shot Planning.arXiv preprint arXiv:2411.04983, 2025

    work page internal anchor Pith review Pith/arXiv arXiv 2025

  54. [54]

    Nilaksh, S. Jha, A. Zholus, and S. Chandar. Reconstruction or semantics? what makes a latent space useful for robotic world models. 2026. URLhttps://arxiv.org/abs/2605.06388

    work page internal anchor Pith review Pith/arXiv arXiv 2026

  55. [55]

    Zhang, B

    K. Zhang, B. Li, K. Hauser, and Y . Li. Adaptigraph: Material-adaptive graph-based neural dynamics for robotic manipulation. InProceedings of Robotics: Science and Systems (RSS), 2024

    work page 2024

  56. [56]

    Zhang, B

    K. Zhang, B. Li, K. Hauser, and Y . Li. Particle-grid neural dynamics for learning deformable object models from rgb-d videos. InProceedings of Robotics: Science and Systems (RSS), 2025

    work page 2025

  57. [57]

    Huang, Y .-W

    W. Huang, Y .-W. Chao, A. Mousavian, M.-Y . Liu, D. Fox, K. Mo, and F.-F. Li. Point- world: Scaling 3d world models for in-the-wild robotic manipulation.arXiv preprint arXiv:2601.03782, 2026

    work page arXiv 2026

  58. [58]

    T. Yuan, Z. Dong, Y . Liu, and H. Zhao. Fast-W AM: Do World Action Models Need Test-time Future Imagination?arXiv preprint arXiv:2603.16666, 2026

    work page internal anchor Pith review Pith/arXiv arXiv 2026

  59. [59]

    T. Wan, A. Wang, B. Ai, B. Wen, C. Mao, C.-W. Xie, D. Chen, F. Yu, H. Zhao, J. Yang, J. Zeng, J. Wang, J. Zhang, J. Zhou, J. Wang, J. Chen, K. Zhu, K. Zhao, K. Yan, L. Huang, M. Feng, N. Zhang, P. Li, P. Wu, R. Chu, R. Feng, S. Zhang, S. Sun, T. Fang, T. Wang, T. Gui, T. Weng, T. Shen, W. Lin, W. Wang, W. Wang, W. Zhou, W. Wang, W. Shen, W. Yu, X. Shi, X....

    work page internal anchor Pith review Pith/arXiv arXiv 2025

  60. [60]

    Improved Baselines with Representation Autoencoders

    J. Singh, B. Zheng, Z. Wu, R. Zhang, E. Shechtman, and S. Xie. Improved baselines with representation autoencoders.arXiv preprint arXiv:2605.18324, 2026

    work page internal anchor Pith review Pith/arXiv arXiv 2026

  61. [61]

    DINOv3

    O. Sim ´eoni, H. V . V o, M. Seitzer, F. Baldassarre, M. Oquab, C. Jose, V . Khalidov, M. Szafraniec, S. Yi, M. Ramamonjisoa, F. Massa, D. Haziza, L. Wehrstedt, J. Wang, T. Darcet, T. Moutakanni, L. Sentana, C. Roberts, A. Vedaldi, J. Tolan, J. Brandt, C. Cou- prie, J. Mairal, H. J ´egou, P. Labatut, and P. Bojanowski. DINOv3, 2025. URLhttps: //arxiv.org/...

    work page internal anchor Pith review Pith/arXiv arXiv 2025

  62. [62]

    Project Aria: A New Tool for Egocentric Multi-Modal AI Research

    J. Engel, K. Somasundaram, M. Goesele, A. Sun, A. Gamino, A. Turner, A. Talattof, A. Yuan, B. Souti, B. Meredith, C. Peng, C. Sweeney, C. Wilson, D. Barnes, D. DeTone, D. Caruso, D. Valleroy, D. Ginjupalli, D. Frost, E. Miller, E. Mueggler, E. Oleinik, F. Zhang, G. Soma- sundaram, G. Solaira, H. Lanaras, H. Howard-Jenkins, H. Tang, H. J. Kim, J. Rivera, J...

    work page internal anchor Pith review Pith/arXiv arXiv 2023

  63. [63]

    K. He, X. Zhang, S. Ren, and J. Sun. Deep residual learning for image recognition. InPro- ceedings of the IEEE Conference on Computer Vision and Pattern Recognition (CVPR), pages 770–778, 2016. 13

    work page 2016

  64. [64]

    Lipman, R

    Y . Lipman, R. T. Q. Chen, H. Ben-Hamu, M. Nickel, and M. Le. Flow matching for generative modeling. InInternational Conference on Learning Representations (ICLR), 2023

    work page 2023

  65. [65]

    Jiang, Z

    Z. Jiang, Z. Han, C. Mao, J. Zhang, Y . Pan, and Y . Liu. Vace: All-in-one video creation and editing. InProceedings of the IEEE/CVF International Conference on Computer Vision (ICCV), 2025

    work page 2025

  66. [66]

    J. A. Vincent, H. Nishimura, M. Itkina, P. Shah, M. Schwager, and T. Kollar. How gen- eralizable is my behavior cloning policy? a statistical approach to trustworthy perfor- mance evaluation.IEEE Robotics and Automation Letters, 9(10):8619–8626, 2024. doi: 10.1109/LRA.2024.3445635

    work page doi:10.1109/lra.2024.3445635 2024

  67. [67]

    S. Wang, Z. Tian, W. Huang, and L. Wang. DDT: Decoupled diffusion transformer.arXiv preprint arXiv:2504.05741, 2025

    work page internal anchor Pith review Pith/arXiv arXiv 2025

  68. [68]

    Orbik and F

    J. Orbik and F. Ebert. Oculus reader: Robotic teleoperation interface.https://github.com/ rail-berkeley/oculus_reader, 2021

    work page 2021

  69. [69]

    K. Zakka. Mink: Python inverse kinematics based on MuJoCo.https://github.com/ kevinzakka/mink, 2025

    work page 2025

  70. [70]

    T. Chen, Z. Chen, B. Chen, Z. Cai, Y . Liu, Q. Liang, Z. Li, X. Lin, Y . Ge, Z. Gu, et al. RoboTwin 2.0: A Scalable Data Generator and Benchmark with Strong Domain Randomiza- tion for Robust Bimanual Robotic Manipulation.arXiv preprint arXiv:2506.18088, 2025

    work page internal anchor Pith review Pith/arXiv arXiv 2025

  71. [71]

    Xiang, Y

    F. Xiang, Y . Qin, K. Mo, Y . Xia, H. Zhu, F. Liu, M. Liu, H. Jiang, Y . Yuan, H. Wang, L. Yi, A. X. Chang, L. J. Guibas, and H. Su. SAPIEN: A simulated part-based interactive environ- ment. InProceedings of the IEEE/CVF Conference on Computer Vision and Pattern Recogni- tion (CVPR), 2020

    work page 2020

  72. [72]

    T. Z. Zhao, V . Kumar, S. Levine, and C. Finn. Learning fine-grained bimanual manipulation with low-cost hardware. InRobotics: Science and Systems (RSS), 2023

    work page 2023

  73. [73]

    C. Chi, S. Feng, Y . Du, Z. Xu, E. Cousineau, B. Burchfiel, and S. Song. Diffusion policy: Visuomotor policy learning via action diffusion. InRobotics: Science and Systems (RSS), 2023. 14 Supplementary Materials Contents AAdditional Real-World Experiment Results and Analysis . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .15 A.1 Ablation on...

    work page 2023