Pith. sign in

REVIEW 4 major objections 5 minor 70 references

A robot world model conditioned on rendered nominal robot geometry rather than raw action commands or logged future states learns only scene response and generalizes to unseen robots.

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

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

T0 review · deepseek-v4-flash

2026-08-01 04:23 UTC pith:P7BS6QCP

load-bearing objection A conceptually clean interface for robot video world models—render the deployment-available nominal trajectory as robot geometry—with experiments that support the design trends but don't yet isolate the claimed scene-response gains. the 4 major comments →

arxiv 2607.22535 v1 pith:P7BS6QCP submitted 2026-07-24 cs.RO cs.CV

Robot-Factored World Models via Robot Rendering

Byungjun Kim , Taeksoo Kim , Hyunsoo Cha , Hanbyul Joo This is my paper
classification cs.RO cs.CV
keywords robot world modelsaction-conditioned video generationnominal trajectoryrobot renderingvisual conditioningembodiment generalizationend-effector depthvideo diffusion models
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.

Actions affect a robot's future observations through two steps: the robot's body and controller turn the command into motion, and then the scene responds to that motion. Conditioning a video world model on raw action commands forces it to learn the first step too, while conditioning on logged future states leaks the very interaction outcomes it is supposed to predict. The paper proposes a middle signal—the nominal trajectory, the motion the robot would execute before touching the scene—and renders it as visible robot geometry in the camera frame, alongside end-effector and scene depth and static scene context. The world model then receives the action only as rendered geometry and learns how the scene responds around it. Experiments show this rendered interface follows commanded actions better than numeric state or pose conditioning and works zero-shot for unseen robot bodies and for retargeted human demonstrations.

Core claim

The paper's central claim is that robot world models should be conditioned not on action commands and not on logged robot states, but on a deployment-available nominal trajectory: the controller-realized motion produced from the command before scene interaction. This trajectory is rendered through the robot's geometric description into a camera-aligned RGB mesh video plus an end-effector-only depth channel, and paired with a static stream of scene RGB and depth along the same camera path. The learned model, a latent video diffusion model, is conditioned jointly on these streams and a scene-only text prompt, so its only task is to predict interaction-induced scene changes. On two manipulation

What carries the argument

The load-bearing objects are the nominal-trajectory operator ΦR (maps an action sequence into a robot-only trajectory via the robot's controller and kinematics) and the rendering operator ΠR (projects that trajectory through the robot's URDF geometry into a camera-aligned mesh RGB video and end-effector depth). A static context renderer ΠS supplies scene RGB and depth along the same camera trajectory, constructing the condition c = [E(Brgb), E(Mrgb), E(Dscene), E(Deef)] fed into a latent video diffusion model trained with a flow-matching loss. The pair ΦR and ΠR moves action realization out of the learned network; end-effector depth is what resolves whether an overlapping object is in front

Load-bearing premise

The nominal trajectory, produced by replaying commands in a scene-free robot simulation or collision-free shadow rollout, is assumed to match the controller-realized motion the actual robot would execute in free space before touching anything; if that replay diverges, the rendered interface is not the deployment-available signal it claims to be.

What would settle it

Take a physical robot and a fixed action sequence in free space (no scene objects), record its executed joint or end-effector trajectory, and compare it to the scene-free replayed nominal trajectory from the same start state; if the two differ by more than the robot's tracking error, the nominal trajectory is not deployment-available and the anti-leakage conditioning argument fails.

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

If this is right

  • A world model trained this way no longer needs to learn how a specific robot's controller translates commands into motion; that factor is computed once and rendered.
  • Because conditioning is visual and embodiment-agnostic, the same trained model accepts a new robot at inference simply by rendering its own geometry.
  • Human demonstrations can be converted into robot-interaction rollouts by retargeting hand and arm motion and rendering it as robot geometry, without retraining.
  • The depth pairing of end-effector and scene depth should make predicted contact, proximity, and occlusion ordering more reliable than image-plane overlap alone.
  • Training and inference must both use nominal prompts; the paper's oracle diagnostic shows that training on logged future-state prompts degrades deployment-time performance when swapped for nominal prompts.

Where Pith is reading between the lines

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

  • If this holds, robot world models could be pretrained once on a large corpus of mixed robot data and then applied to new hardware by only swapping the renderer, cutting the cost of embodied model adaptation.
  • The anti-leakage property suggests a stress test: evaluate world models on contact-rich failure clips (missed grasps, slips); a model that leaks logged states would look artificially good on those clips, while the nominal interface reveals its true predictive limit.
  • The interface's reliance on a known static scene suggests a natural extension to partially observed real scenes by coupling the rendered robot stream with online 3D reconstruction, an extension the paper notes is not yet fully closed.
  • One could also render non-robot actors (other arms, tools, or articulated furniture) through the same geometry-plus-depth interface, turning the method into a general visual action prompt for interactive video generation.

Editorial analysis

A structured set of objections, weighed in public.

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

Referee Report

4 major / 5 minor

Summary. The paper proposes robot-factored world models for action-conditioned video prediction. Instead of conditioning a video diffusion model directly on raw action commands or on logged future robot states, it first rolls each action through the robot's controller and kinematics to obtain a deployment-available 'nominal trajectory' q1:F (Eq. 1), and renders this trajectory through the URDF into camera-aligned mesh RGB and end-effector depth (Eq. 2). A static, camera-aware scene context supplies appearance, depth, and viewpoint (Eq. 3). The world model then predicts future video conditioned on this rendered geometry plus static context and a scene-only text prompt (Eq. 4). The authors argue this factorization keeps action realization and robot-geometry rendering outside the learned model, so the model only has to learn how the scene responds to the visible robot motion. Experiments on DROID and RoboCasa-GR1 compare against vector/pose-conditioned baselines, ablate nominal vs. raw-action rendering and depth, and provide qualitative demonstrations of prompt following, unseen embodiments, and human-demo retargeting.

Significance. If the central claim is supported, the paper offers a clean and practical interface idea: represent the action as explicit, camera-aligned robot geometry computed before scene interaction, thereby removing the need for a video model to learn embodiment-specific action realization. The method is concrete, the experiments use held-out clips, and the ablations in Table 2 directly separate nominal-vs-raw rendering and the depth pair. The paper also ships substantial implementation detail and an honest limitations section. However, the quantitative evidence is weakened by a confound: the rendered mesh condition is almost identical to the robot pixels in the target video, so full-frame reconstruction metrics do not isolate scene-response prediction. In addition, no error bars are reported anywhere, and the embodiment-generalization claims rest on qualitative still frames. These issues are fixable and do not invalidate the underlying idea, but they are load-bearing for the paper's strongest conclusions.

major comments (4)
  1. [Tables 1–2, §4.2] The main quantitative comparison is confounded. The conditioning stream contains M^rgb, the rendered robot mesh from the nominal trajectory, which is pixel-aligned with the robot region of the target video (exactly identical in RoboCasa-GR1 and very close in DROID). A model can achieve high full-frame PSNR/SSIM/LPIPS by copying the rendered robot pixels into its output while the AdaLN state-vector baseline must synthesize the entire robot from a low-dimensional state. Thus the reported gains may reflect robot-pixel reconstruction rather than better scene-response prediction. The paper should report metrics that exclude the rendered robot region, or quantitative interaction metrics such as object displacement, contact accuracy, or grasp outcome, before claiming the model 'learns how objects respond' (Eq. 4).
  2. [Tables 1–4, §4.2–4.3] No error bars or repeated-seed results are reported. Evaluation sets are small (256 and 128 clips) and video diffusion sampling is stochastic; some differences in Table 2 are small (e.g., SSIM 0.872 vs. 0.874, LPIPS 0.164 vs. 0.161). The paper should provide confidence intervals, multiple seeds, or a significance test. Without this, the current margins are difficult to interpret, and the claim that the rendered interface 'outperforms' baselines is not yet robust.
  3. [§4.3, Table 2, raw-action mesh row] The raw-action mesh comparison is potentially a strawman. Appendix A states that raw DROID joint targets can 'run ahead' of the physically trackable motion, so directly rendering raw actions produces visually implausible, impossible robot motion. The improvement of nominal mesh over raw-action mesh may then reflect rendering distortion rather than the value of realizing the action through the controller. Please quantify the raw-vs-nominal trajectory gap (e.g., tracking error or per-joint velocity statistics) or add an intermediate baseline that smooths raw actions, so the action-realization claim is isolated.
  4. [§4.4, Fig. 6, Appendix E] The third stated contribution—embodiment generalization to unseen robots—is supported only by qualitative still frames (HRDexDB, DexMimicGen). No quantitative metrics or evaluation protocol are given for these zero-shot settings. Since this is a headline contribution, provide either quantitative results on unseen embodiments or explicitly reframe this section as a qualitative proof-of-concept. The current evidence does not support a strong generalization claim.
minor comments (5)
  1. [§3.1, Eq. 4] The phrase 'learns how objects respond' is causal language. The model is a conditional generative model, not a causal estimator; suggest softening to 'predicts scene response' or adding a caveat that the learned association is observational.
  2. [§4.1] The exact definition of 'raw action mesh' in Table 2 is not stated in Section 4.1; Appendix A clarifies that raw DROID actions are logged joint/gripper targets, but the rendering procedure for raw actions should be described in the main text for reproducibility.
  3. [Figures 3, 5, 6] The qualitative figures are hard to evaluate from static stills. Consider adding video links or a supplementary video, and for Figure 5 report a quantitative prompt-following metric (e.g., trajectory tracking of the predicted robot region) rather than a single example.
  4. [§5] The limitations paragraph is candid, but the static-context assumption and the need for URDF/calibration directly constrain the claimed generality. These caveats should be reflected earlier, in the abstract or introduction, so readers do not overstate the method's applicability.
  5. [Appendix B, Table 3] The training hyperparameters table is useful, but the guidance scale 1.0 with a distilled LoRA may affect sample quality; please state whether the baselines use the same inference protocol and whether any tuning was performed per method.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged

No load-bearing circularity; only a minor non-load-bearing self-citation.

full rationale

The derivation chain (Eqs. 1-4) is a constructive preprocessing interface, not a derivation that reduces to its inputs. Eq. 1 obtains the nominal trajectory by replaying actions through a controller; Eq. 2 renders it into mesh and end-effector depth; Eq. 4 conditions a diffusion model on the rendered streams plus static context. No fitted parameter is renamed as a prediction, and the main quantitative claims (Tables 1, 2, 4) are evaluated on held-out clips; the logged-state rows of Table 4 are explicitly an oracle diagnostic, not a claimed deployment prediction. The only self-citation is Dexterous World Models [44] (Sec. 3.5), which shares three authors with this paper and supplies the residual-dynamics/inpainting backbone and static-context design. This dependency is structural but not load-bearing for the paper's distinctive contribution: the nominal-trajectory rendering interface is implemented and validated on held-out data independently of any theorem or claim imported from [44]. The skeptical full-frame-metric confound (rendered mesh is visually close to the robot pixels in the target video) is a real external-validity concern about what the metrics isolate, but it is an evaluation confound rather than a circular derivation: the model's scene-response prediction is not logically forced by the conditioning streams. Accordingly no circular step is present; the score is 2 only to register the minor, non-load-bearing self-citation.

Axiom & Free-Parameter Ledger

0 free parameters · 6 axioms · 0 invented entities

The paper is an empirical ML systems contribution; it introduces no physical free parameters or invented entities. The assumptions above are the domain and implementation premises the interface depends on. The neural-network weights and standard training hyperparameters are fitted/chosen as part of the ML pipeline, but the central claim does not hinge on a specific numerical value.

axioms (6)
  • domain assumption Residual-dynamics/video-inpainting formulation from Dexterous World Models [44] can learn scene response around a static context.
    Equations (4)-(6) assume the latent video diffusion model can represent interaction-induced change given static context; the paper inherits this from [44] and Wan [47].
  • domain assumption Scene-free replay (Isaac Lab / shadow rollout) yields a deployment-available nominal trajectory that matches real pre-interaction robot motion.
    Section 4.1 and Appendix A; if the replay controller differs from deployment, the conditioning signal is not actually deployment-available.
  • domain assumption Static context stream (repeated first frame or robot-free simulated render) lets the model attribute all change to robot interaction.
    Section 3.3 and Appendix A; for real dynamic cameras this requires feedforward reconstruction, acknowledged as a limitation.
  • domain assumption Known URDF and camera-to-robot calibration are available for each embodiment.
    Stated as a requirement in Section 2 and the limitations; needed by the renderer ΠR.
  • domain assumption Depth inputs (FoundationStereo estimate or simulator depth) are accurate enough to resolve contact-relevant proximity and occlusion.
    Section 4.1 and Appendix A; the depth-ablation improvement depends on this accuracy.
  • domain assumption PSNR/SSIM/LPIPS are meaningful proxies for world-model action-following quality.
    Section 4.2; the paper itself notes cases where metrics are least diagnostic and relies on qualitative figures.

pith-pipeline@v1.3.0-alltime-deepseek · 13093 in / 11786 out tokens · 117931 ms · 2026-08-01T04:23:11.375635+00:00 · methodology

0 comments
read the original abstract

Action-conditioned video world models predict future observations from an initial observation and an action signal. In robotics, actions influence future observations through two distinct processes: they are first realized into robot motion by the robot body and controller, and the scene then responds through contact and object motion. Conditioning directly on action commands asks the world model to learn the realization process itself, while conditioning on logged future states leaks the interaction outcomes it is meant to predict. We propose robot-factored world models, which move two robot-specific factors outside the world model. First, action realization: each command is rolled through the robot's own controller and kinematics into a deployment-available nominal trajectory, a middle signal that avoids both action-realization learning and future-state leakage. Second, robot rendering: this nominal trajectory is rendered through the robot URDF, factoring the robot's geometry, kinematics, and appearance out of the model and into explicit rendered robot geometry. To resolve depth ambiguity, we pair end-effector depth with scene depth, giving geometric cues for contact and occlusion beyond image-plane overlap. Together, camera-aware static RGB/depth context and rendered robot geometry form a shared visual world-model interface that stays consistent across viewpoints and robot embodiments, so the model sees the action only as visible robot geometry and learns how objects respond to it. Our experiments show that the rendered interface outperforms vector-conditioned baselines and generalizes to unseen robot embodiments at inference. We further demonstrate that our model generates robot manipulation videos from human demonstrations by retargeting and rendering the hand motion as robot geometry.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2607.22535 by Byungjun Kim, Hanbyul Joo, Hyunsoo Cha, Taeksoo Kim.

Figure 1
Figure 1. Figure 1: Visual world-model interface. Static context carries scene and viewpoint; rendered nominal robot geometry carries action; the diffusion model predicts scene response. Raw Action Nominal Trajectory (a) Action–Nominal Trajectory Gap (b) Nominal Trajectory–Realized State Gap Nominal Trajectory Realized State [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p004_1.png] view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. Figure 2: Action-to-state realization gaps. (a) Robot-specific controllers and hardware constraints create a gap between raw actions and nominal trajectories. (b) Scene interaction creates a gap between nominal trajectories and realized states. The nominal trajectory serves as the deployment-available conditioning signal. other interaction outcomes. Rendering realized states as prompts serves as an oracle diagnostic… view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. Figure 3: Qualitative comparison. Rendered robot geometry localizes robot-driven scene changes, while depth helps resolve contact-relevant proximity and occlusion. the same deployment-available nominal trajectory as numeric state values. For the SVD-based comparison, we retrain the same backbone with pose conditioning or the rendered interface and evaluate on the DROID held-out set. For Wan [47]/Wan2.1-Fun InP [45],… view at source ↗
Figure 4
Figure 4. Figure 4: Depth ablation. End-effector and scene depth help distinguish contact-relevant proximity from image-plane overlap. Original Trajectory Edited Trajectory [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p007_4.png] view at source ↗
Figure 5
Figure 5. Figure 5: Prompt-following probe. Changing only the rendered nominal trajectory changes the predicted scene response [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p007_5.png] view at source ↗
Figure 6
Figure 6. Figure 6: Zero-shot embodiment composition. HRDexDB contains an unseen xArm 6–Inspire F1 pairing; rendered URDF motion still drives the predicted scene response. Original Video Naive Overlay Ours [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p008_6.png] view at source ↗
Figure 7
Figure 7. Figure 7: Application: human demonstration to robot video. Retargeted human motion is rendered as robot geometry and converted into a robot interaction rollout. interface level: unseen robot geometry can be consumed by the same visual conditioning path once represented as rendered geometry. 4.5 Application: Human Demonstration to Robot Video Human demonstration to robot video. As a downstream application of the shar… view at source ↗
Figure 8
Figure 8. Figure 8: Human demonstration to robot video pipeline. Human motion is converted into the same rendered mesh-and-depth interface used for robot data before being passed to the world model. D Human Demonstration to Robot Video Pipeline [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p015_8.png] view at source ↗
Figure 9
Figure 9. Figure 9: Zero-shot multi-embodiment inference. A bimanual Franka Panda setup from DexMim￾icGen is rendered as robot geometry and passed to the same video model. multi-arm prompt through the rendered interface. This qualitative result illustrates how the rendered interface supports new embodiment and end-effector configurations through the same conditioning path. DROID and RoboCasa-GR1 comparisons [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:… view at source ↗
Figure 10
Figure 10. Figure 10: Additional qualitative comparisons on DROID and RoboCasa-GR1. Rendered robot geometry exposes the action in the target camera frame and more consistently follows the commanded robot motion than AdaLN state-vector conditioning. 17 [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p017_10.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

70 extracted references · 19 linked inside Pith

  1. [1]

    Ha and J

    D. Ha and J. Schmidhuber. Recurrent world models facilitate policy evolution. InNeurIPS, 2018

    2018

  2. [2]

    A. Bar, G. Zhou, D. Tran, T. Darrell, and Y . LeCun. Navigation world models. InCVPR, 2025

    2025

  3. [3]

    F. Zhu, H. Wu, S. Guo, Y . Liu, C. Cheang, and T. Kong. Irasim: A fine-grained world model for robot manipulation. InICCV, 2025

    2025

  4. [4]

    Y . Guo, L. X. Shi, J. Chen, and C. Finn. Ctrl-world: A controllable generative world model for robot manipulation. InICLR, 2026

    2026

  5. [5]

    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. Zentner, G. Kurian, S. Indupuru, P. Jannaty, J. Gu, J. Zhang, J. Malik, P. Abbeel, M.-Y . Liu, Y . Zhu, J. Jang, and L. Fan. Dreamdojo: A generalist robot world model from large-scale hum...

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2026

  6. [6]

    A. K. Sharma, Y . Sun, N. Lu, Y . Zhang, J. Liu, and S. Yang. World-gymnast: Training robots with reinforcement learning in a world model.arXiv preprint arXiv:2602.02454, 2026

    arXiv 2026

  7. [7]

    Quevedo, A

    J. Quevedo, A. K. Sharma, Y . Sun, V . Suryavanshi, P. Liang, and S. Yang. Worldgym: World model as an environment for policy evaluation.arXiv preprint arXiv:2506.00613, 2025

    arXiv 2025

  8. [8]

    Y . Wang, C. Wen, H. Guo, S. Peng, M. Qin, H. Bao, X. Zhou, and R. Hu. Precise action-to-video generation through visual action prompts. InICCV, 2025

    2025

  9. [9]

    Hafner, T

    D. Hafner, T. Lillicrap, I. Fischer, R. Villegas, D. Ha, H. Lee, and J. Davidson. Learning latent dynamics for planning from pixels. InICML, 2019

    2019

  10. [10]

    Hafner, J

    D. Hafner, J. Pasukonis, J. Ba, and T. Lillicrap. Mastering diverse domains through world models.arXiv preprint arXiv:2301.04104, 2023

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2023

  11. [11]

    P. Wu, A. Escontrela, D. Hafner, P. Abbeel, and K. Goldberg. Daydreamer: World models for physical robot learning. InCoRL, 2023

    2023

  12. [12]

    Hansen, H

    N. Hansen, H. Su, and X. Wang. Td-mpc2: Scalable, robust world models for continuous control. InICLR, 2024

    2024

  13. [13]

    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

  14. [14]

    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 video world models.arXiv preprint arXiv:2505.12705, 2025

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2025

  15. [15]

    Bruce, M

    J. Bruce, M. D. Dennis, A. Edwards, J. Parker-Holder, Y . Shi, E. Hughes, M. Lai, A. Mavalankar, R. Steigerwald, C. Apps, et al. Genie: Generative interactive environments. InICML, 2024

    2024

  16. [16]

    Alonso, A

    E. Alonso, A. Jelley, V . Micheli, A. Kanervisto, A. Storkey, T. Pearce, and F. Fleuret. Diffusion for world modeling: Visual details matter in atari.NeurIPS, 2024

    2024

  17. [17]

    Valevski, Y

    D. Valevski, Y . Leviathan, M. Arar, and S. Fruchter. Diffusion models are real-time game engines. InICLR, 2025

    2025

  18. [18]

    Z. Yang, Y . Chen, J. Wang, S. Manivasagam, W.-C. Ma, A. J. Yang, and R. Urtasun. Unisim: A neural closed-loop sensor simulator. InCVPR, 2023. 9

    2023

  19. [19]

    J. Wu, S. Yin, N. Feng, X. He, D. Li, J. Hao, and M. Long. ivideogpt: Interactive videogpts are scalable world models.NeurIPS, 2024

    2024

  20. [20]

    H. Zhu, Y . Wang, J. Zhou, W. Chang, Y . Zhou, Z. Li, J. Chen, C. Shen, J. Pang, and T. He. Aether: Geometric-aware unified world modeling. InICCV, 2025

    2025

  21. [21]

    J. Zhou, H. Gao, V . V oleti, A. Vasishta, C.-H. Yao, M. Boss, P. Torr, C. Rupprecht, and V . Jampani. Stable virtual camera: Generative view synthesis with diffusion models. InICCV, 2025

    2025

  22. [22]

    Russell, A

    L. Russell, A. Hu, L. Bertoni, G. Fedoseev, J. Shotton, E. Arani, and G. Corrado. Gaia-2: A controllable multi-view generative world model for autonomous driving.arXiv preprint arXiv:2503.20523, 2025

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2025

  23. [23]

    S. Gao, S. Zhou, Y . Du, J. Zhang, and C. Gan. Adaworld: Learning adaptable world models with latent actions.arXiv preprint arXiv:2503.18938, 2025

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2025

  24. [24]

    Huang, Y

    M. Huang, Y . Xiang, Z. Liang, J. Huang, J. Wang, Z. Xu, F. Tan, H. Zhou, M. Yang, and G. Che. Coworld-vla: Thinking in a multi-expert world model for autonomous driving.arXiv preprint arXiv:2605.10426, 2026

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2026

  25. [25]

    Liang, P

    A. Liang, P. Czempin, M. Hong, Y . Zhou, E. Biyik, and S. Tu. Clam: Continuous latent action models for robot learning from unlabeled demonstrations.arXiv preprint arXiv:2505.04999, 2025

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2025

  26. [26]

    Q. Bu, Y . Yang, J. Cai, S. Gao, G. Ren, M. Yao, P. Luo, and H. Li. Univla: Learning to act anywhere with task-centric latent actions.arXiv preprint arXiv:2505.06111, 2025

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2025

  27. [27]

    Garrido, T

    Q. Garrido, T. Nagarajan, B. Terver, N. Ballas, Y . LeCun, and M. Rabbat. Learning latent action world models in the wild.arXiv preprint arXiv:2601.05230, 2026

    arXiv 2026

  28. [28]

    Zhang, A

    L. Zhang, A. Rao, and M. Agrawala. Adding conditional control to text-to-image diffusion models. InICCV, 2023

    2023

  29. [29]

    Zhang, Y

    Y . Zhang, Y . Wei, X. ZHANG, W. Zuo, Q. Tian, et al. Controlvideo: Training-free controllable text-to-video generation. InICLR, 2024

    2024

  30. [30]

    X. Wang, H. Yuan, S. Zhang, D. Chen, J. Wang, Y . Zhang, Y . Shen, D. Zhao, and J. Zhou. Videocomposer: Compositional video synthesis with motion controllability.NeurIPS, 2023

    2023

  31. [31]

    Y . Guo, C. Yang, A. Rao, Z. Liang, Y . Wang, Y . Qiao, M. Agrawala, D. Lin, and B. Dai. Animatediff: Animate your personalized text-to-image diffusion models without specific tuning. arXiv preprint arXiv:2307.04725, 2023

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2023

  32. [32]

    Z. Wang, Z. Yuan, X. Wang, Y . Li, T. Chen, M. Xia, P. Luo, and Y . Shan. Motionctrl: A unified and flexible motion controller for video generation. InACM SIGGRAPH, 2024

    2024

  33. [33]

    S. Yin, C. Wu, J. Liang, J. Shi, H. Li, G. Ming, and N. Duan. Dragnuwa: Fine-grained control in video generation by integrating text, image, and trajectory.arXiv preprint arXiv:2308.08089, 2023

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2023

  34. [34]

    Zhang, J

    Z. Zhang, J. Liao, M. Li, Z. Dai, B. Qiu, S. Zhu, L. Qin, and W. Wang. Tora: Trajectory-oriented diffusion transformer for video generation. InCVPR, 2025

    2025

  35. [35]

    M. Niu, X. Cun, X. Wang, Y . Zhang, Y . Shan, and Y . Zheng. Mofa-video: Controllable image animation via generative motion field adaptions in frozen image-to-video diffusion model. In ECCV, 2024

    2024

  36. [36]

    H. Zhou, C. Wang, R. Nie, J. Liu, D. Yu, Q. Yu, and C. Wang. Trackgo: A flexible and efficient method for controllable video generation. InAAAI, 2025. 10

    2025

  37. [37]

    Jiang, Z

    Z. Jiang, Z. Han, C. Mao, J. Zhang, Y . Pan, and Y . Liu. Vace: All-in-one video creation and editing. InICCV, 2025

    2025

  38. [38]

    D. Geng, C. Herrmann, J. Hur, F. Cole, S. Zhang, T. Pfaff, T. Lopez-Guevara, Y . Aytar, M. Rubinstein, C. Sun, et al. Motion prompting: Controlling video generation with motion trajectories. InCVPR, 2025

    2025

  39. [39]

    J. Shin, Z. Li, R. Zhang, J.-Y . Zhu, J. Park, E. Shechtman, and X. Huang. Motionstream: Real-time video generation with interactive motion controls.arXiv preprint arXiv:2511.01266, 2025

    arXiv 2025

  40. [40]

    H. Qiu, Z. Chen, Z. Wang, Y . He, M. Xia, and Z. Liu. Freetraj: Tuning-free trajectory control in video diffusion models.arXiv preprint arXiv:2406.16863, 2024

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2024

  41. [41]

    W.-D. K. Ma, J. P. Lewis, and W. B. Kleijn. Trailblazer: Trajectory control for diffusion-based video generation. InACM SIGGRAPH Asia, 2024

    2024

  42. [42]

    Y . Jain, A. Nasery, V . Vineet, and H. Behl. Peekaboo: Interactive video generation via masked- diffusion. InCVPR, 2024

    2024

  43. [43]

    Y . Li, X. Wang, Z. Zhang, Z. Wang, Z. Yuan, L. Xie, Y . Shan, and Y . Zou. Image conductor: Precision control for interactive video synthesis. InAAAI, 2025

    2025

  44. [44]

    B. Kim, T. Kim, J. Lee, and H. Joo. Dexterous world models.arXiv preprint arXiv:2512.17907, 2025

    arXiv 2025

  45. [45]

    Videox-fun: A video generation pipeline for diffusion transformer, 2026

    aigc apps. Videox-fun: A video generation pipeline for diffusion transformer, 2026. URL https://github.com/aigc-apps/VideoX-Fun

    2026

  46. [46]

    D. P. Kingma and M. Welling. Auto-encoding variational bayes. InICLR, 2014

    2014

  47. [47]

    Team Wan, A. Wang, B. Ai, B. Wen, C. Mao, C.-W. Xie, D. Chen, F. Yu, H. Zhao, J. Yang, et al. Wan: Open and advanced large-scale video generative models.arXiv preprint arXiv:2503.20314, 2025

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2025

  48. [48]

    Lipman, R

    Y . Lipman, R. T. Q. Chen, H. Ben-Hamu, M. Nickel, and M. Le. Flow matching for generative modeling. InICLR, 2023

    2023

  49. [49]

    X. Liu, C. Gong, and Q. Liu. Flow straight and fast: Learning to generate and transfer data with rectified flow. InICLR, 2023

    2023

  50. [50]

    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. InRSS, 2024

    2024

  51. [51]

    Nasiriany, A

    S. Nasiriany, A. Maddukuri, L. Zhang, A. Parikh, A. Lo, A. Joshi, A. Mandlekar, and Y . Zhu. Robocasa: Large-scale simulation of everyday tasks for generalist robots. InRSS, 2024

    2024

  52. [52]

    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

    arXiv 2026

  53. [53]

    J. Lim, T. Ha, M. Choi, J. Kim, B. Kim, S. Jeon, and H. Joo. Hrdexdb: A large-scale dataset of dexterous human and robotic hand grasps.arXiv preprint arXiv:2604.14944, 2026

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2026

  54. [54]

    Y .-W. Chao, W. Yang, Y . Xiang, P. Molchanov, A. Handa, J. Tremblay, Y . S. Narang, K. Van Wyk, U. Iqbal, S. Birchfield, J. Kautz, and D. Fox. DexYCB: A benchmark for capturing hand grasping of objects. InCVPR, 2021. 11

    2021

  55. [55]

    Mittal, P

    M. Mittal, P. Roth, J. Tigue, A. Richard, O. Zhang, P. Du, A. Serrano-Muñoz, X. Yao, R. Zür- brügg, N. Rudin, et al. Isaac lab: A gpu-accelerated simulation framework for multi-modal robot learning.arXiv preprint arXiv:2511.04831, 2025

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2025

  56. [56]

    Blattmann, T

    A. Blattmann, T. Dockhorn, S. Kulal, D. Mendelevitch, M. Kilian, D. Lorenz, Y . Levi, Z. English, V . V oleti, A. Letts, et al. Stable video diffusion: Scaling latent video diffusion models to large datasets.arXiv preprint arXiv:2311.15127, 2023

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2023

  57. [57]

    Peebles and S

    W. Peebles and S. Xie. Scalable diffusion models with transformers. InICCV, 2023

    2023

  58. [58]

    Zhang, P

    R. Zhang, P. Isola, A. A. Efros, E. Shechtman, and O. Wang. The unreasonable effectiveness of deep features as a perceptual metric. InCVPR, 2018

    2018

  59. [59]

    Sundaralingam, S

    B. Sundaralingam, S. K. S. Hari, A. Fishman, C. Garrett, K. Van Wyk, V . Blukis, A. Millane, H. Oleynikova, A. Handa, F. Ramos, N. Ratliff, and D. Fox. curobo: Parallelized collision-free minimum-jerk robot motion generation.arXiv preprint arXiv:2310.17274, 2023

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2023

  60. [60]

    Y . Qin, W. Yang, B. Huang, K. Van Wyk, H. Su, X. Wang, Y .-W. Chao, and D. Fox. Anyteleop: A general vision-based dexterous robot arm-hand teleoperation system. InRSS, 2023

    2023

  61. [61]

    C. M. Kim, B. Yi, H. Choi, Y . Ma, K. Goldberg, and A. Kanazawa. Pyroki: A modular toolkit for robot kinematic optimization. InIROS, 2025

    2025

  62. [62]

    Bjorck, F

    NVIDIA, J. Bjorck, F. Castañeda, N. Cherniadev, X. Da, R. Ding, L. Fan, Y . Fang, D. Fox, F. Hu, S. Huang, J. Jang, Z. Jiang, J. Kautz, K. Kundalia, L. Lao, Z. Li, Z. Lin, K. Lin, G. Liu, E. Llontop, L. Magne, A. Mandlekar, A. Narayan, S. Nasiriany, S. Reed, Y . L. Tan, G. Wang, Z. Wang, J. Wang, Q. Wang, J. Xiang, Y . Xie, Y . Xu, Z. Xu, S. Ye, Z. Yu, A....

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2025

  63. [63]

    B. Wen, M. Trepte, J. Aribido, J. Kautz, O. Gallo, and S. Birchfield. Foundationstereo: Zero-shot stereo matching. InCVPR, 2025

    2025

  64. [64]

    S. Bai, Y . Cai, R. Chen, K. Chen, X. Chen, et al. Qwen3-vl technical report.arXiv preprint arXiv:2511.21631, 2025

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2025

  65. [65]

    E. J. Hu, Y . Shen, P. Wallis, Z. Allen-Zhu, Y . Li, S. Wang, L. Wang, and W. Chen. LoRA: Low-rank adaptation of large language models. InICLR, 2022

    2022

  66. [66]

    Loshchilov and F

    I. Loshchilov and F. Hutter. Decoupled weight decay regularization. InICLR, 2019

    2019

  67. [67]

    Contributors

    L. Contributors. Lightx2v: Light video generation inference framework, 2025. URL https: //github.com/ModelTC/lightx2v

    2025

  68. [68]

    B. Zi, W. Peng, X. Qi, J. Wang, S. Zhao, R. Xiao, and K.-F. Wong. Minimax-remover: Taming bad noise helps video object removal.Advances in Neural Information Processing Systems, 38: 75518–75547, 2026

    2026

  69. [69]

    Jiang, Y

    Z. Jiang, Y . Xie, K. Lin, Z. Xu, W. Wan, A. Mandlekar, L. J. Fan, and Y . Zhu. DexMimicGen: Automated data generation for bimanual dexterous manipulation via imitation learning. In ICRA, pages 16923–16930, 2025. 12 A Interface Construction Details Dataset-specific nominalization.The main paper distinguishes raw actions, nominal robot-only trajectories, a...

    2025

  70. [70]

    Four raw-frame states are stacked for each Wan latent frame, giving a 184D AdaLN input

    For joint DROID+RoboCasa training, DROID fills the first 7 entries and RoboCasa fills the next 39 entries of a zero-padded 46D union vector. Four raw-frame states are stacked for each Wan latent frame, giving a 184D AdaLN input. Inference.Wan 2.1 14B variants are sampled with the LightX2V [ 67] CFG-and-step-distilled LoRA at 4 denoising steps and guidance...