Pith. sign in

REVIEW 3 major objections 5 minor 54 references

SG-WAM: Self-Guided World Modeling in Geometry-Aware Policy Space

T0 review · 3 major / 5 minor · reviewed 2026-08-06 · deepseek-v4-flash

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

Pith's one-line read SG-WAM predicts future states inside the policy's own latent space to reach 98.5% on LIBERO.

desk verdict The method is genuinely new and the writing is honest, but the headline LIBERO numbers are cross-paper and the token count was tuned on the test split, so superiority is not yet established. read the letter →

arxiv 2608.01397 v1 pith:4J6V4M5S submitted 2026-08-02 cs.RO cs.CV

Ruiteng Zhao , Zhengshen Zhang , Yue Su , Wenshuo Wang , Jiahui Li , Zhiyuan Yang , Francis E.H. Tay , Marcelo H. Ang Jr.
show 1 more author
Haiyue Zhu
This is my paper
classification cs.ROcs.CV
keywords robotmanipulationworldactionmodellatentmodelingself-guidedpredictionlearnabledynamicstokensgeometry-awarerepresentationvision-language-actionflowmatching
verification ladder T0 review T1 audit T2 compute T3 formal

The pith

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

The reading

SG-WAM argues that a world action model should predict future scene states in the same internal representation space that generates actions, rather than in pixels or in an auxiliary latent space only loosely tied to control. It inserts learnable dynamics tokens into a vision-language policy and trains a predictor to advance those tokens under the next chunk of robot actions, using an exponential moving average of the policy itself to form stable future targets. A frozen 3D-geometry teacher shapes the policy's image tokens so the dynamics tokens inherit spatial structure. On a 0.9B backbone with no large-scale embodied pretraining, the jointly optimized model reports 98.5% average success across the four LIBERO suites and 73% zero-shot on LIBERO-Plus, and it outperforms explicit and latent world-model baselines in real-world tests. The paper's central claim is that future prediction, spatial grounding, and action generation can be shaped as one shared objective.

What carries the argument

The load-bearing mechanism is the self-guided world prediction loop over learnable dynamics tokens. Eight dynamics tokens are appended to the visual-language token sequence and contextualized by the vision-language backbone, and their final-layer states, together with the encoded intervening action chunk, pass through the Self-Guided World Predictor. That predictor uses self-attention followed by cross-attention over the action tokens to produce a future latent state; the target is produced by an EMA copy of the same policy pathway run on the future observation, projected into the same compact latent space and detached with stop-gradient. A frozen 3D-geometry teacher aligns the main-view vis

What would settle it

A concrete check: re-run all baselines under SG-WAM's evaluation code on the same LIBERO split, or hold out LIBERO-Long when tuning the number of dynamics tokens; if Spatial Forcing's average remains 98.5 and SG-WAM's drops once tuning is moved off the test suites, the claimed advantage dissolves. A sharper mechanism test: replace the EMA policy target with a separately initialized future encoder; if average success stays 98.5, self-guided supervision is not doing the work.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

The central discovery is that the bottleneck for world action models is not whether to predict the future but where to predict it. SG-WAM claims that if future-state supervision is imposed on learnable dynamics tokens that remain inside the policy context, with targets drawn from an EMA copy of the same policy backbone, then the world-model objective directly reorganizes the representations the action expert consumes. Geometric supervision on the main-view image tokens gives those dynamics tokens the spatial grounding needed to distinguish where actions change the scene. The three losses—flow-matching action generation, cosine geometry alignment, and mean-squared latent prediction error—are

Load-bearing premise

The load-bearing premise is that the external benchmark protocols are equivalent to SG-WAM's own pipeline: baseline numbers on LIBERO and LIBERO-Plus are taken from their papers rather than re-run, and the final hyperparameters (eight dynamics tokens) were selected on the same four LIBERO suites later reported as the headline result.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • Future-state prediction does not need pixel or video reconstruction; a policy-derived latent target is sufficient to drive joint improvement.
  • A 0.9B policy without embodied pretraining can match or exceed much larger and pretrained baselines on LIBERO when world modeling is coupled directly to the policy space.
  • The largest measured benefit appears on long-horizon tasks: removing self-guided world modeling drops LIBERO-Long success from 96.2% to 92.2% in the ablation.
  • Geometry grounding and world modeling are complementary; together they add 3.2 average points over the no-auxiliary baseline (95.3% to 98.5%).
  • Action conditioning is functional: replacing the intervening actions with zeros reduces average success from 98.5% to 97.6%, with the largest drop again on LIBERO-Long.

Reading between the lines

Editorial extensions of the paper, not claims the author makes directly.

  • Editorial inference: if the self-guided target is what carries the gain, the same dynamics-token design could be grafted onto other vision-language-action backbones to improve their out-of-distribution robustness without changing their action heads.
  • Editorial inference: because the dynamics tokens remain in the policy context at inference, they could double as a lightweight latent planning interface—an optimizer could search over action chunks inside the predictor's latent space before executing.
  • Editorial inference: a direct necessity test would replace the EMA policy target with a separately initialized future encoder; if LIBERO average success stays near 98.5%, the 'self-guided' aspect is not load-bearing.
  • Editorial inference: the null-action ablation still reaches 97.6%, so the current policy state already encodes most predictive information; the remaining gap suggests SG-WAM's advantage should grow on tasks where action-induced state changes are harder to infer from observation alone.
Share X Bluesky LinkedIn Reddit HN

Editorial analysis

A structured set of objections, weighed in public.

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

Referee Report

3 major / 5 minor

Summary. SG-WAM proposes a world-action model that inserts learnable dynamics tokens into a VLM sequence, predicts their future latent states conditioned on the intervening action sequence, and uses an EMA copy of the same policy backbone to produce future prediction targets. A frozen VGGT teacher geometrically shapes the main-view policy visual tokens, and latent prediction, geometric grounding, and flow-matching action generation are optimized jointly via Eq. (10). The paper reports 98.5% average success on LIBERO and 73.0% on LIBERO-Plus for a 0.9B model, and real-world gains over VPP and VLA-JEPA. The central technical proposal is that future dynamics should be modeled in a geometry-aware, policy-derived representation space that is directly consumed by the action expert.

Significance. If the empirical claims hold, this is a valuable result: a 0.9B model without large-scale embodied pretraining matching or exceeding much larger baselines on LIBERO and showing strong zero-shot transfer on LIBERO-Plus would be a real advance. The method is clearly presented, the losses and architecture are internally consistent, and the paper includes useful internal controls, notably the null-action ablation in Appendix G and the attention-map analysis. The EMA-based prediction target is anchored to a real future observation and the benchmark success metric is external, so I do not regard the self-referential target construction as circular. However, the headline simulation claims rest on cross-paper baseline numbers and on hyperparameter selection performed on the same benchmark that is later reported as the final result. The real-world evaluation is too small to carry the claimed real-world superiority by itself. The conceptual contribution is sound, but the evidence supporting the headline numbers needs substantial strengthening before the paper can be accepted.

major comments (3)
  1. [Sec. 4.1 / Tables 1 and 2] The headline LIBERO and LIBERO-Plus comparisons rest on the statement that "Simulation baseline results are reported from the corresponding papers under their stated LIBERO and LIBERO-Plus protocols." No baseline is re-run in a common evaluation harness. LIBERO success rates are known to be sensitive to evaluation seeds, initial-state sampling, observation preprocessing, action-chunk length, and rollout counts; LIBERO-Plus has no fully standardized protocol across the cited papers. Therefore the reported margins (e.g., 73.0 vs. 69.6 on LIBERO-Plus, and the 98.5 LIBERO tie with Spatial Forcing) cannot currently be attributed to SG-WAM. The authors should either rerun the main baselines under one harness and release the evaluation code, or explicitly frame Tables 1-2 as literature-reported context and avoid superiority claims based on them.
  2. [Sec. 4.5 / Table 5 and Sec. 4.2 / Table 1] The number of dynamics tokens Nq was selected by maximizing average success on the same four LIBERO suites that are then reported as the headline result. Table 5 is non-monotonic (96.1, 98.5, 97.2 for Nq = 1, 8, 16), and the text states "We therefore used eight dynamics tokens in the final model." This means the reported 98.5% is a selected maximum over a hyperparameter grid evaluated on the test benchmark, not an unbiased estimate. The non-monotonic behavior makes the selection especially sensitive. The authors should use a held-out validation split (e.g., one LIBERO suite) for model selection, or report selection-corrected performance with confidence intervals.
  3. [Sec. 4.3 / Sec. 4.4 / Table 3] The real-world claims are based on 10-20 trials per condition, with no variance, confidence intervals, or statistical tests. For example, the Pick and Place ID success rates are 75% for SG-WAM and 30% for VPP; with 20 trials the standard error is roughly 10 percentage points for the 75% estimate. The phrase "consistently outperformed" is therefore not established beyond sampling noise, especially on Toolbox Organization with only 10 trials per method. Please report per-condition trial counts, binomial confidence intervals, or a statistical test, and ideally increase the trial counts for the long-horizon task.
minor comments (5)
  1. [Sec. 3.2 / Abstract] The backbone is described as Qwen3.5-0.8B in Sec. 3.2 but the model is called 0.9B in the abstract and Table 1. Please clarify whether the parameter count includes the action expert, projectors, and other trainable components, and keep the number consistent throughout.
  2. [Sec. 3.3 / Appendix D] Equation (8) and Appendix Eq. (14) give the same Lpred objective but describe it once as MSE and once as normalized MSE. Please unify the notation and state explicitly whether the Frobenius norm is divided by Nqd or not.
  3. [Sec. 2] There is a duplicated reference in the sentence citing vision-language-action policies: "[4–6, 21, 47, 47, 48]". Remove the duplicate [47].
  4. [Table 3] The trial counts are mentioned in the text but not in the table caption. Add n per condition to the table so the reader can see the sample size immediately.
  5. [Appendix G / Table 7] The null-action ablation is a valuable control and is only in the appendix. Since it directly supports the claim that intervening actions matter, consider moving it to the main paper or at least referencing it in Sec. 4.5.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 0.0 of 10

No circular derivation: the EMA prediction target is self-referential but anchored to a real future observation, and the headline results are not forced by any equation in the paper.

full rationale

The derivation chain is self-contained. The joint objective (Eq. 10) combines a flow-matching action loss, a cosine geometry loss against a frozen VGGT teacher, and an MSE latent-prediction loss. The prediction target (Eqs. 6 and 8) is generated by an EMA copy of the same policy from the future observation; this makes the target representation-family-consistent, but it is not an identity: the target depends on V_{t+Δ}, the prediction depends on V_t and A_t, and the stop-gradient plus momentum update prevents the target from collapsing to the online output. No equation sets the predicted latent equal to the target by construction, and the reported success rates are measured by an external LIBERO/LIBERO-Plus/real-world protocol. The null-action ablation (Table 7) is an internal control showing that the action conditioning carries information beyond the current policy state. Minor self-citations ([33], [47]) are related-work context, not load-bearing; the geometry teacher is external. Two non-circular concerns are noted: baseline numbers are taken from other papers (Sec. 4.1) and the number of dynamics tokens was selected on the same LIBERO suites that are later reported (Table 5 vs. Table 1). These are evaluation-validity risks, not circular reductions, so they do not raise the circularity score.

Assumptions & free parameters 5 free parameters · 4 assumptions · 1 invented entities

The framework relies on several hand-tuned hyperparameters (token count, EMA momentum, and two loss weights) and on two substantive domain assumptions: that EMA targets are stable without collapsing, and that VGGT features can be distilled into VLM tokens to improve manipulation. The learnable dynamics tokens are internal constructs with no independent evidence. None of these are fatal, but they mean the reported numbers are coupled to choices that are not independently justified.

free parameters (5)
  • number of learnable dynamics tokens Nq = 8
    Ablated on LIBERO (Table 5) and the best value on the reported benchmark was selected; no separate validation set is described.
  • EMA momentum mu = 0.999
    Set following BYOL (Appendix B); no ablation or sensitivity analysis is reported.
  • geometric loss weight lambda_geo = 0.1
    Chosen by hand in Appendix D; no sensitivity analysis is reported.
  • prediction loss weight lambda_pred = 0.1
    Chosen by hand in Appendix D; no sensitivity analysis is reported.
  • intervening action sequence length = 8 steps
    Set to match the 8-step action chunk generated by the action expert; no separate ablation.
assumptions (4)
  • domain assumption EMA features of the future observation are a stable, meaningful learning target that does not collapse and encodes future scene state
    The method relies on BYOL-style EMA updates (Appendix B) to avoid representation collapse, but no collapse analysis or independent probe of the target representation is provided.
  • domain assumption Frozen VGGT final-layer patch features encode geometry in a way that, when distilled into VLM image tokens, improves manipulation
    Adopted from prior work [38,47]; the paper shows attention maps but no quantitative geometry task evaluation.
  • domain assumption Success rate on LIBERO/LIBERO-Plus task-specific completion conditions is the correct metric of manipulation quality
    Standard benchmark protocol, but the paper uses this metric for all central claims without discussing saturation or variance.
  • standard math Flow matching ODE integration produces valid action chunks
    Established theory from conditional flow matching, used in Eq. 9; not a novel mathematical assumption.
invented entities (1)
  • learnable dynamics tokens Q
    purpose: Contextualized latent carriers whose future states are predicted and which also condition action generation
    Internal learnable embeddings with no externally falsifiable handle; they are evaluated only through downstream policy performance.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of SG-WAM: Self-Guided World Modeling in Geometry-Aware Policy Space." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/4J6V4M5S

@misc{pith2026260801397,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: SG-WAM: Self-Guided World Modeling in Geometry-Aware Policy Space},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/4J6V4M5S}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2608.01397}
}
read the original abstract

World Action Models (WAMs) couple action generation with prediction of future states. Their effectiveness depends on whether future dynamics are modeled in a space that is both aligned with action generation and sufficiently geometry-aware to capture where and how actions change the scene. Existing WAMs typically satisfy only part of this requirement, relying on either perceptually heavy observation-space targets or auxiliary latent spaces that are not jointly structured for action relevance and geometry. We propose SG-WAM, a self-guided framework that learns geometry-aware action-conditioned dynamics directly in the policy-derived representation space. SG-WAM introduces learnable dynamics tokens and a Self-Guided World Predictor that forecasts their future latent states conditioned on intervening robot actions. Prediction targets are generated by an exponential moving average copy of the same policy backbone, providing stable supervision within the representation family used by the action expert. Geometric supervision further structures the policy image-token representations, providing spatially grounded context for the dynamics tokens and yielding a future-alignment space that is both action-relevant and geometry-aware. Latent future prediction, geometric grounding, and flow-matching action generation are jointly optimized end-to-end in a unified framework. Built on a 0.9B model without large-scale embodied pretraining, SG-WAM achieves 98.5% average success on LIBERO and 73% on LIBERO-Plus, while outperforming strong baselines in both in-distribution and out-of-distribution real-world evaluations.

Discussion (0). Sign in to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

54 extracted references · 15 canonical work pages

  1. [1]

    V-jepa 2: Self-supervised video models enable understanding, predictionandplanning.arXiv preprint arXiv:2506.09985, 2025

    Mido Assran, Adrien Bardes, David Fan, Quentin Garrido, Russell Howes, Matthew Muckley, Ammar Rizvi, Claire Roberts, Koustuv Sinha, Artem Zholus, et al. V-jepa 2: Self-supervised video models enable understanding, predictionandplanning.arXiv preprint arXiv:2506.09985, 2025

    arXiv 2025

  2. [2]

    Gen2act: Hu- man video generation in novel scenarios enables generaliz- ablerobotmanipulation.arXiv preprint arXiv:2409.16283, 2024

    HomangaBharadhwaj,DebidattaDwibedi,AbhinavGupta, Shubham Tulsiani, Carl Doersch, Ted Xiao, Dhruv Shah, Fei Xia, Dorsa Sadigh, and Sean Kirmani. Gen2act: Hu- man video generation in novel scenarios enables generaliz- ablerobotmanipulation.arXiv preprint arXiv:2409.16283, 2024

    arXiv 2024

  3. [3]

    Motus: A unified latent action world model, 2025

    Hongzhe Bi, Hengkai Tan, Shenghao Xie, Zeyuan Wang, Shuhe Huang, Haitian Liu, Ruowen Zhao, Yao Feng, Chendong Xiang, Yinze Rong, Hongyan Zhao, Hanyu Liu, Zhizhong Su, Lei Ma, Hang Su, and Jun Zhu. Motus: A unified latent action world model, 2025. URLhttps: //arxiv.org/abs/2512.13030

    arXiv 2025

  4. [4]

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

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

    arXiv 2025

  5. [5]

    π0: Avision-language- actionflowmodelforgeneralrobotcontrol.arXiv preprint arXiv:2410.24164, 2024

    Kevin Black, Noah Brown, Danny Driess, Adnan Esmail, Michael Equi, Chelsea Finn, Niccolo Fusai, Lachy Groom, KarolHausman,BrianIchter,etal. π0: Avision-language- actionflowmodelforgeneralrobotcontrol.arXiv preprint arXiv:2410.24164, 2024

    arXiv 2024

  6. [6]

    π0.5: a vision-language-action model with open-world gener- alization

    Kevin Black, Noah Brown, James Darpinian, Karan Dha- balia, Danny Driess, Adnan Esmail, Michael Robert Equi, ChelseaFinn,NiccoloFusai,ManuelYGalliker,etal. π0.5: a vision-language-action model with open-world gener- alization. In9th Annual Conference on Robot Learning, 2025

    work page 2025

  7. [7]

    Genie: Generative interactive environments, 2024

    JakeBruce,MichaelDennis,AshleyEdwards,JackParker- Holder, Yuge Shi, Edward Hughes, Matthew Lai, Aditi Mavalankar, Richie Steigerwald, Chris Apps, Yusuf Aytar, SarahBechtle,FeryalBehbahani,StephanieChan,Nicolas Heess, Lucy Gonzalez, Simon Osindero, Sherjil Ozair, Scott Reed, Jingwei Zhang, Konrad Zolna, Jeff Clune, Nando de Freitas, Satinder Singh, and Tim...

    arXiv 2024

  8. [8]

    Univla: Learning to act anywhere with task-centric latent actions, 2025

    Qingwen Bu, Yanting Yang, Jisong Cai, Shenyuan Gao, Guanghui Ren, Maoqing Yao, Ping Luo, and Hongyang Li. Univla: Learning to act anywhere with task-centric latent actions, 2025. URL https://arxiv.org/abs/ 2505.06111

    arXiv 2025

Show all 54 references
  1. [9]

    Rynnvla-002: A unified vision-language- action and world model.arXiv preprint arXiv:2511.17502, 2025

    Jun Cen, Siteng Huang, Yuqian Yuan, Kehan Li, Hangjie Yuan,ChaohuiYu,BohanHou,YumingJiang,JiayanGuo, Xin Li, et al. Rynnvla-002: A unified vision-language- action and world model.arXiv preprint arXiv:2511.17502, 2025

    2025 arXiv

  2. [10]

    Worldvla: Towards autoregressive action world model.arXiv preprint arXiv:2506.21539, 2025

    JunCen,ChaohuiYu,HangjieYuan,YumingJiang,Siteng Huang, Jiayan Guo, Xin Li, Yibing Song, Hao Luo, Fan Wang, et al. Worldvla: Towards autoregressive action world model.arXiv preprint arXiv:2506.21539, 2025

    2025 arXiv

  3. [11]

    Lawam: Latent world action models for efficient dynamics-aware robot policies.arXiv preprint arXiv:2606.15768, 2026

    JialeiChen,KaiWang,KangChen,ShuaihangChen,Feng Gao, Wenhao Tang, Zhiyuan Li, Weilin Liu, Zhuyu Yao, Boxun Li, et al. Lawam: Latent world action models for efficient dynamics-aware robot policies.arXiv preprint arXiv:2606.15768, 2026

    2026

  4. [12]

    villa-x: Enhancing latent action modeling in vision- language-action models

    Xiaoyu Chen, Hangxing Wei, Pushi Zhang, Chuheng Zhang,KaixinWang,YanjiangGuo,RushuaiYang,Yucen Wang, Xinquan Xiao, Li Zhao, Jianyu Chen, and Jiang Bian. villa-x: Enhancing latent action modeling in vision- language-action models. InThe Fourteenth International Conference on Le...

    2026

  5. [13]

    Moto: Latent motion token as the bridging language for learning robot manipulation from videos

    Yi Chen, Yuying Ge, Weiliang Tang, Yizhuo Li, Yixiao Ge, Mingyu Ding, Ying Shan, and Xihui Liu. Moto: Latent motion token as the bridging language for learning robot manipulation from videos. InProceedings of the IEEE/CVF International Conference on Computer Vision, pages 1975...

    2025

  6. [14]

    Dial: Decoupling intent and action via latent world modeling for end-to-end vla, 2026

    Yi Chen, Yuying Ge, Hui Zhou, Mingyu Ding, Yixiao Ge, and Xihui Liu. Dial: Decoupling intent and action via latent world modeling for end-to-end vla, 2026. URL https://arxiv.org/abs/2603.29844

    2026 arXiv

  7. [15]

    Learning universal policies via text-guided video genera- tion.Advances in neural information processing systems, 36:9156–9172, 2023

    YilunDu,SherryYang,BoDai,HanjunDai,OfirNachum, Josh Tenenbaum, Dale Schuurmans, and Pieter Abbeel. Learning universal policies via text-guided video genera- tion.Advances in neural information processing systems, 36:9156–9172, 2023

    2023

  8. [16]

    Video language planning

    Yilun Du, Sherry Yang, Pete Florence, Fei Xia, Ayzaan Wahid, Pierre Sermanet, Tianhe Yu, Pieter Abbeel, Joshua B Tenenbaum, Leslie Kaelbling, et al. Video language planning. InInternational Conference on Learn- ing Representations, volume 2024, pages 31138–31155, 2024

    2024

  9. [17]

    Shenyuan Gao, William Liang, Kaiyuan Zheng, Ayaan Malik, Seonghyeon Ye, Sihyun Yu, Wei-Cheng Tseng, Yuzhu Dong, Kaichun Mo, Chen-Hsuan Lin, Qianli Ma, Seungjun Nah, Loic Magne, Jiannan Xiang, Yuqi Xie, Ruijie Zheng, Dantong Niu, You Liang Tan, K. R. Zentner, George Kurian, Sun...

    2026

  10. [18]

    Bootstrap your own latent-a new approach to self-supervised learning.Advances in neural information processing systems, 33:21271–21284, 2020

    Jean-Bastien Grill, Florian Strub, Florent Altché, Corentin Tallec, Pierre Richemond, Elena Buchatskaya, Carl Do- ersch, Bernardo Avila Pires, Zhaohan Guo, Mohammad Gheshlaghi Azar, et al. Bootstrap your own latent-a new approach to self-supervised learning.Advances in neural ...

    2020

  11. [19]

    Unified 4d world action modeling from video priors with asynchronous denoising.arXiv preprint arXiv:2604.26694, 2026

    Jun Guo, Qiwei Li, Peiyan Li, Zilong Chen, Nan Sun, Yifei Su, Heyun Wang, Yuan Zhang, Xinghang Li, and Huaping Liu. Unified 4d world action modeling from video priors with asynchronous denoising.arXiv preprint arXiv:2604.26694, 2026

    2026 arXiv

  12. [20]

    Videopredictionpolicy: Ageneralist robot policy with predictive visual representations.arXiv preprint arXiv:2412.14803, 2024

    YuchengHu,YanjiangGuo,PengchaoWang,XiaoyuChen, Yen-JenWang, JiankeZhang, KoushilSreenath, Chaochao Lu,andJianyuChen. Videopredictionpolicy: Ageneralist robot policy with predictive visual representations.arXiv preprint arXiv:2412.14803, 2024

    2024 arXiv

  13. [21]

    Open- vla: An open-source vision-language-action model.arXiv preprint arXiv:2406.09246, 2024

    Moo Jin Kim, Karl Pertsch, Siddharth Karamcheti, Ted Xiao, Ashwin Balakrishna, Suraj Nair, Rafael Rafailov, Ethan Foster, Grace Lam, Pannag Sanketi, et al. Open- vla: An open-source vision-language-action model.arXiv preprint arXiv:2406.09246, 2024

    2024 arXiv

  14. [22]

    Fine-tuning vision-language-action models: Optimizing speed and success.arXiv preprint arXiv:2502.19645, 2025

    Moo Jin Kim, Chelsea Finn, and Percy Liang. Fine-tuning vision-language-action models: Optimizing speed and success.arXiv preprint arXiv:2502.19645, 2025

    2025 arXiv

  15. [23]

    Tenenbaum

    Po-Chen Ko, Jiayuan Mao, Yilun Du, Shao-Hua Sun, and Joshua B. Tenenbaum. Learning to act from ac- tionless videos through dense correspondences. InThe Twelfth International Conference on Learning Representa- tions, 2024. URL https://openreview.net/forum? id=Mhb5fpA1T0

    2024

  16. [24]

    Spatial forcing: Implicit spatial representation align- ment for vision-language-action model.arXiv preprint arXiv:2510.12276, 2025

    Fuhao Li, Wenxuan Song, Han Zhao, Jingbo Wang, Pengxiang Ding, Donglin Wang, Long Zeng, and Haoang Li. Spatial forcing: Implicit spatial representation align- ment for vision-language-action model.arXiv preprint arXiv:2510.12276, 2025

    2025

  17. [25]

    Causal world modeling for robot control.arXiv preprint arXiv:2601.21998, 2026

    Lin Li, Qihang Zhang, Yiming Luo, Shuai Yang, Ruilin Wang, Fei Han, Mingrui Yu, Zelin Gao, Nan Xue, Xing Zhu, et al. Causal world modeling for robot control.arXiv preprint arXiv:2601.21998, 2026

    2026 arXiv

  18. [26]

    Qian Long, Yueze Wang, Jiaxi Song, Junbo Zhang, Peiyan Li, Wenxuan Wang, Yuqi Wang, Haoyang Li, Shaoxuan Xie,GuocaiYao,etal.Scalingworldmodelforhierarchical manipulation policies.arXiv preprint arXiv:2602.10983, 2026

    2026

  19. [27]

    Being-h0

    Hao Luo, Wanpeng Zhang, Yicheng Feng, Sipeng Zheng, Haiweng Xu, Chaoyi Xu, Ziheng Xi, Yuhui Fu, and Zongqing Lu. Being-h0. 7: A latent world-action model from egocentric videos.arXiv preprint arXiv:2605.00078, 2026

    2026 arXiv

  20. [28]

    Lda-1b: Scaling latent dynamics action model via universal embodied data ingestion, 2026

    JiangranLyu,KaiLiu,XuhengZhang,HaoranLiao,Yusen Feng, Wenxuan Zhu, Tingrui Shen, Jiayi Chen, Jiazhao Zhang, Yifei Dong, Wenbo Cui, Senmao Qi, Shuo Wang, Yixin Zheng, Mi Yan, Xuesong Shi, Haoran Li, Dongbin Zhao,Ming-YuLiu,ZhizhengZhang,LiYi,YizhouWang, and He Wang. Lda-1b: Sca...

    2026 arXiv

  21. [29]

    Leworldmodel: Stable end- to-endjoint-embeddingpredictivearchitecturefrompixels,

    Lucas Maes, Quentin Le Lidec, Damien Scieur, Yann Le- Cun, and Randall Balestriero. Leworldmodel: Stable end- to-endjoint-embeddingpredictivearchitecturefrompixels,

  22. [30]

    Omnivggt: Omni-modality driven visual geometry grounded transformer.arXiv preprint arXiv:2511.10560, 2025

    HaosongPeng,HaoLi,YalunDai,YushiLan,YihangLuo, Tianyu Qi, Zhengshen Zhang, Yufeng Zhan, Junfei Zhang, Wenchao Xu, et al. Omnivggt: Omni-modality driven visual geometry grounded transformer.arXiv preprint arXiv:2511.10560, 2025

    2025

  23. [31]

    Fast: Efficient action tokeniza- tion for vision-language-action models.arXiv preprint arXiv:2501.09747, 2025

    Karl Pertsch, Kyle Stachowicz, Brian Ichter, Danny Driess, Suraj Nair, Quan Vuong, Oier Mees, Chelsea Finn, and Sergey Levine. Fast: Efficient action tokeniza- tion for vision-language-action models.arXiv preprint arXiv:2501.09747, 2025

    2025 arXiv

  24. [32]

    Seedance 2.0: Advancing video generation for world complexity.arXiv preprint arXiv:2604.14148, 2026

    Team Seedance, De Chen, Liyang Chen, Xin Chen, Ying Chen, Zhuo Chen, Zhuowei Chen, Feng Cheng, Tianheng Cheng, Yufeng Cheng, et al. Seedance 2.0: Advancing video generation for world complexity.arXiv preprint arXiv:2604.14148, 2026

    2026 arXiv

  25. [33]

    World guidance: World modeling in condition space for action generation.arXiv preprint arXiv:2602.22010, 2026

    Yue Su, Sijin Chen, Haixin Shi, Mingyu Liu, Zhengshen Zhang, Ningyuan Huang, Weiheng Zhong, Zhengbang Zhu, Yuxiao Liu, and Xihui Liu. World guidance: World modeling in condition space for action generation.arXiv preprint arXiv:2602.22010, 2026

    2026

  26. [34]

    Vla-jepa: Enhancing vision-language- action model with latent world model.arXiv preprint arXiv:2602.10098, 2026

    Jingwen Sun, Wenyao Zhang, Zekun Qi, Shaojie Ren, Zezhi Liu, Hanxin Zhu, Guangzhong Sun, Xin Jin, and Zhibo Chen. Vla-jepa: Enhancing vision-language- action model with latent world model.arXiv preprint arXiv:2602.10098, 2026

    2026

  27. [35]

    Qwen Team. Qwen3. 5-omni technical report.arXiv preprint arXiv:2604.15804, 2026

    2026 arXiv

  28. [36]

    Starry: Spatial-temporalaction-centricworldmodelingforrobotic manipulation.arXiv preprint arXiv:2604.26848, 2026

    Yuxuan Tian, Yurun Jin, Bin Yu, Yukun Shi, Hao Wu, Chi Harold Liu, Kai Chen, and Cong Huang. Starry: Spatial-temporalaction-centricworldmodelingforrobotic manipulation.arXiv preprint arXiv:2604.26848, 2026

    2026 arXiv

  29. [37]

    Wan: Openandadvancedlarge-scalevideogenerative models.arXiv preprint arXiv:2503.20314, 2025

    Team Wan, Ang Wang, Baole Ai, Bin Wen, Chaojie Mao, Chen-Wei Xie, Di Chen, Feiwu Yu, Haiming Zhao, JianxiaoYang,JianyuanZeng,JiayuWang,JingfengZhang, 9 Jingren Zhou, Jinkai Wang, Jixuan Chen, Kai Zhu, Kang Zhao,KeyuYan,LianghuaHuang,MengyangFeng,Ningyi Zhang, Pandeng Li, Pingy...

    2025 arXiv

  30. [38]

    Vggt: Visual geometry grounded transformer

    Jianyuan Wang, Minghao Chen, Nikita Karaev, Andrea Vedaldi, Christian Rupprecht, and David Novotny. Vggt: Visual geometry grounded transformer. InProceedings of the Computer Vision and Pattern Recognition Conference, pages 5294–5306, 2025

    2025

  31. [39]

    Mvista-4d: View-consistent 4d world model with test-time action inference for robotic manipulation.arXiv preprint arXiv:2602.09878, 2026

    JiaxuWang,YichengJiang,TianlunHe,JingkaiSun,Qiang Zhang, Junhao He, Jiahang Cao, Zesen Gan, Mingyuan Sun, Qiming Shao, et al. Mvista-4d: View-consistent 4d world model with test-time action inference for robotic manipulation.arXiv preprint arXiv:2602.09878, 2026

    2026 arXiv

  32. [40]

    Flow as the cross-domain manipulation interface.arXiv preprint arXiv:2407.15208, 2024

    MengdaXu, ZhenjiaXu, YinghaoXu, ChengChi, Gordon Wetzstein, Manuela Veloso, and Shuran Song. Flow as the cross-domain manipulation interface.arXiv preprint arXiv:2407.15208, 2024

    2024 arXiv

  33. [41]

    Roboen- vision: A long-horizon video generation model for multi- task robot manipulation

    Liudi Yang, Yang Bai, George Eskandar, Fengyi Shen, Mohammad Altillawi, Dong Chen, Soumajit Majumder, Ziyuan Liu, Gitta Kutyniok, and Abhinav Valada. Roboen- vision: A long-horizon video generation model for multi- task robot manipulation. In2025 IEEE/RSJ International Confere...

    2025

  34. [42]

    Mantis: A versatile vision-language-action model with disentangled visual foresight

    Yi Yang, Xueqi Li, Yiyang Chen, Jin Song, Yihan Wang, Zipeng Xiao, Jiadi Su, You Qiaoben, Pengfei Liu, and Zhijie Deng. Mantis: A versatile vision-language-action model with disentangled visual foresight. InProceedings of the IEEE/CVF Conference on Computer Vision and Pattern ...

    2026

  35. [43]

    Latent action pretraining from videos

    Seonghyeon Ye, Joel Jang, Byeongguk Jeon, Se June Joo, Jianwei Yang, Baolin Peng, Ajay Mandlekar, Reuben Tan, Yu-Wei Chao, Bill Yuchen Lin, et al. Latent action pretraining from videos. InInternational Conference on Learning Representations, volume 2025, pages 28213– 28239, 2025

    2025

  36. [44]

    World action models are zero-shot policies.arXiv preprint arXiv:2602.15922, 2026

    Seonghyeon Ye, Yunhao Ge, Kaiyuan Zheng, Shenyuan Gao, Sihyun Yu, George Kurian, Suneel Indupuru, You Liang Tan, Chuning Zhu, Jiannan Xiang, et al. World action models are zero-shot policies.arXiv preprint arXiv:2602.15922, 2026

    2026 arXiv

  37. [45]

    Fast-wam: Do world action models need test-time future imagination?arXiv preprint arXiv:2603.16666, 2026

    TianyuanYuan, ZibinDong, YichengLiu, and HangZhao. Fast-wam: Do world action models need test-time future imagination?arXiv preprint arXiv:2603.16666, 2026

    2026 arXiv

  38. [46]

    Dreamvla: a vision- language-actionmodeldreamedwithcomprehensiveworld knowledge.Advances in Neural Information Processing Systems, 38:24195–24228, 2026

    Wenyao Zhang, Hongsi Liu, Zekun Qi, Yunnan Wang, Xinqiang Yu, Jiazhao Zhang, Runpei Dong, Jiawei He, He Wang, Zhizheng Zhang, et al. Dreamvla: a vision- language-actionmodeldreamedwithcomprehensiveworld knowledge.Advances in Neural Information Processing Systems, 38:24195–24228, 2026

    2026

  39. [47]

    Zhengshen Zhang, Hao Li, Yalun Dai, Zhengbang Zhu, Lei Zhou, Chenchen Liu, Dong Wang, Francis E. H. Tay, Sijin Chen, Ziwei Liu, Yuxiao Liu, Xinghang Li, and Pan Zhou. From spatial to actions: Grounding vision- language-action model in spatial foundation priors. In The Fourteen...

    2026

  40. [48]

    Ruiteng Zhao, Wenshuo Wang, Yicheng Ma, Xiaocong Li, FrancisEHTay,MarceloHAngJr,andHaiyueZhu.Fd-vla: Force-distilled vision-language-action model for contact- richmanipulation.arXiv preprint arXiv:2602.02142,2026

    2026

  41. [49]

    Tesseract: learning 4d embodiedworldmodels.arXiv preprint arXiv:2504.20995, 2025

    HaoyuZhen,QiaoSun,HongxinZhang,JunyanLi,Siyuan Zhou, Yilun Du, and Chuang Gan. Tesseract: learning 4d embodiedworldmodels.arXiv preprint arXiv:2504.20995, 2025

    2025 arXiv

  42. [50]

    Flare: Robot learning with implicit world modeling, 2025

    Ruijie Zheng, Jing Wang, Scott Reed, Johan Bjorck, Yu Fang, Fengyuan Hu, Joel Jang, Kaushil Kundalia, Zongyu Lin, Loic Magne, Avnish Narayan, You Liang Tan, Guanzhi Wang, Qi Wang, Jiannan Xiang, Yinzhen Xu, Seonghyeon Ye, Jan Kautz, Furong Huang, Yuke Zhu, and Linxi Fan. Flare...

    2025

  43. [51]

    3dflowaction: Learning cross-embodiment manipulation from 3d flow world model.arXiv preprint arXiv:2506.06199, 2025

    Hongyan Zhi, Peihao Chen, Siyuan Zhou, Yubo Dong, Quanxi Wu, Lei Han, and Mingkui Tan. 3dflowaction: Learning cross-embodiment manipulation from 3d flow world model.arXiv preprint arXiv:2506.06199, 2025

    2025 arXiv

  44. [52]

    Gem-4d: Geometry-enhanced videoworldmodelsforrobotmanipulation.arXiv preprint arXiv:2605.22882, 2026

    Kaichen Zhou, Yuzhen Chen, Fangneng Zhan, Hang Hua, Grace Chen, Xinhai Chang, Ao Qu, Yilun Du, Zhuang Liu, Paul Pu Liang, et al. Gem-4d: Geometry-enhanced videoworldmodelsforrobotmanipulation.arXiv preprint arXiv:2605.22882, 2026

    2026 arXiv

  45. [53]

    Irasim: A fine-grained world model for robot manipulation, 2025

    Fangqi Zhu, Hongtao Wu, Song Guo, Yuxiao Liu, Chilam Cheang, and Tao Kong. Irasim: A fine-grained world model for robot manipulation, 2025. URL https:// arxiv.org/abs/2406.14540. 10 Appendix A Details of Learnable Dynamics Tokens We introduce the learnable dynamics tokensQ∈R N...

    2025 arXiv

  46. [2026]

    URLhttps://arxiv.org/abs/2603.19312

    arXiv

Pith tools

Reviewed August 6, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.