Pith. sign in

REVIEW 1 major objections 4 minor 27 references

Cross-View Action Consistency for Camera-Robust Vision-Language-Action Policies

T0 review · 1 major / 4 minor · reviewed 2026-08-10 · deepseek-v4-flash

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

Pith's one-line read A training-only cross-view consistency loss on flow-based VLA policies raises held-out-camera success from 53.3% to 74.4% on a real robot and from 79.8% to 87.2% on LIBERO-Plus, without changing the deployment-time inputs.

desk verdict A well-controlled training-only recipe for camera robustness in flow-based VLAs, with a real but non-fatal gap between the stated mechanism and the training objective. read the letter →

arxiv 2608.06965 v1 pith:5YNNOZ6L submitted 2026-08-07 cs.RO

Bingqi Huang , Bingchuan Wei , Xuan Wang , Yingkai Cai , Zhaokui Wang This is my paper · ORCID
classification cs.RO
keywords vision-language-actionmodelscamerarobustnessflowmatchingcross-viewconsistencyaction-equivalentpairsLIBERO-Plusviewpointinvariancemulti-viewsupervision
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

The paper asks whether a flow-based vision-language-action (VLA) policy can be made stable under scene-camera motion while keeping the deployment interface exactly as before: a single scene RGB image, language instruction, and proprioceptive state, with the wrist stream masked. The proposed fix is to fine-tune on action-equivalent view pairs—two views of the same physical state under the nominal and a perturbed camera that share language, proprioception, and demonstrated action—and to add a cross-view term to the flow-matching objective that makes the predicted action-flow velocities agree at the same sampled flow coordinates. On the LIBERO-Plus camera-perturbation track the added term raises success from 79.8±0.8% to 87.2±0.4% over flow-matching-only training on the same paired data, and on a real robot held-out-camera success rises from 53.3% to 74.4%. A shuffled-pair control collapses to 25.8%, showing the gain requires action-equivalent pairing rather than generic smoothing. The reason to care is that existing camera-robustness fixes typically add depth, point clouds, camera labels, extrinsics, or extra modules at inference, while this objective modifies only the training loss.

What carries the argument

The central object is the cross-view action-flow consistency loss $L_{\mathrm{CV}}$ in Eq. (6): for each action-equivalent view pair and each sampled flow-time/noise point $(t_k,\varepsilon_k)$, it compares the two branch velocity predictions on the active action dimensions, $v_p^k[:,:A_{\mathrm{act}}]$ and $v_0^k[:,:A_{\mathrm{act}}]$, at the same noisy action point $x_{t_k}$. The argument that connects this loss to rollout behavior is that actions are produced by integrating the velocity field, so bounding velocity disagreement along the integration path bounds the divergence of the integrated action chunks; the paper proves this in Proposition 1 for Euler integration under a Lipschitz condition and treats the training-time interpolation points as a tractable surrogate for the integration path. The mean–residual reformulation shows $L_{\mathrm{CV}}$ acts purely on the view-disagreement residual, while the shuffled-pair decomposition, $E_{s,s'}\lVert v_p(s')-v_0(s)\rVert^2=E_s\lVert v_p(s)-v_0(s)\rVert^2+2\,\mathrm{Tr}(\mathrm{Cov}(v_p(s),v_0(s)))$, explains why non-equivalent pairing actively fights the flow-matching signal rather than acting as neutral smoothing.

What would settle it

Measure, on held-out action-equivalent view pairs from a trained policy, the velocity disagreement at the training-time interpolation points and at the points along the actual Euler integration trajectories, together with the resulting divergence of the integrated action chunks; if the interpolation-point disagreement can be made small while the trajectory-point disagreement and chunk divergence remain large, and if an evaluation variant that minimizes the loss directly on trajectory points fails to retain the camera-track gain, then the claimed surrogate-to-trajectory mechanism is not what carries the result.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

The central claim is that, for flow-based VLAs, regularizing the action-flow velocity field $v_\theta(x_t,t\mid o,l,q)$—the quantity that is directly integrated to generate continuous action chunks—across action-equivalent views is enough to make the policy's actions stable when the scene camera is moved. Concretely, for a pair $(o_0,o_p,l,q,a)$ sharing the same task state, instruction, proprioception, and demonstrated action chunk $a$, both views are supervised by flow matching to the same target, and an extra cross-view loss penalizes the squared distance between the two views' velocity predictions on the active action dimensions at shared sampled flow coordinates $x_{t_k}=t_k\varepsilon_k+(1-t_k)a$. In mean–residual coordinates the combined objective becomes $\lVert\bar{v}^k-u_{t_k}\rVert^2+(1+4\lambda_{\mathrm{CV}})\lVert\delta^k\rVert^2$, so the added penalty acts only on the view-disagreement residual and does not pull either view away from the demonstrated action. The paper reports 87.2±0.4% on the LIBERO-Plus camera track versus 79.8±0.8% for the same-data flow-matching-only control, 95.0±0.8% on nominal-camera benchmarks, and a real-robot held-out-camera improvement from 53.3% to 74.4% under the same single-scene-RGB inference interface.

Load-bearing premise

The load-bearing premise is that penalizing velocity disagreement at the training-time interpolation points $x_{t_k}=t_k\varepsilon_k+(1-t_k)a$ controls divergence of the integrated action chunks, even though the paper's bound applies to disagreement along the Euler integration trajectory and the two sets of points coincide only for the optimal straight-line flow; the authors call the training objective a tractable surrogate and qualitative motivation.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • Scene-camera robustness can be added to a flow-based VLA as a purely training-time regularization, leaving the deployed policy's inputs—a single scene RGB image, language, and proprioception—unchanged.
  • Camera-diverse data alone is not the source of the gain: the same paired data with ordinary flow matching reaches 79.8%, and the +7.4 percentage-point gap is attributable to the cross-view term.
  • Action-equivalent pairing is necessary: shuffling the pairs collapses performance to 25.8%, so approximate pairs built from independently collected trajectories are not a safe shortcut.
  • Nominal-camera performance is maintained (95.0% ID mean), and the cross-view objective also reduces per-seed variance on the ID benchmark compared with the same-data flow-matching control.
  • Because the objective changes only the training signal, it is orthogonal to inference-contract methods that use depth, point clouds, calibration, or test-time adaptation, and can be combined with them.

Reading between the lines

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

  • An implication the paper leaves implicit: because the loss is stated entirely in terms of the action-flow velocity field rather than any architecture-specific component, the same paired-view regularization should transfer to other flow- or diffusion-based action heads beyond the one architecture evaluated here.
  • A testable extension is data-efficient adaptation: a small synchronized multi-camera dataset collected on a new robot setup may recover most of the robustness gain, since the method needs no camera labels and acts only during fine-tuning.
  • The mean–residual decomposition suggests $L_{\mathrm{CV}}$ is a general view-invariance regularizer on action-relevant outputs, so action-equivalent pairs constructed for other nuisance factors—lighting, background, or object appearance—might yield similar stability improvements without changing the inference contract.
  • The paper's own limitation—consistency cannot recover information absent from a single RGB when held-out cameras occlude task-critical geometry—points to a direct combination of this objective with depth, point-cloud, or tactile inputs as a natural next step.
Share X Bluesky LinkedIn Reddit HN

Signed reviews

No signed human review yet.

Editorial analysis

A structured set of objections, weighed in public.

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

Referee Report

1 major / 4 minor

Summary. The paper proposes a training-time regularization objective, L_CV, for flow-based vision-language-action policies. The method constructs action-equivalent scene-camera view pairs—in simulation by resetting MuJoCo states and rerendering, on hardware by synchronized cameras—and encourages the action-flow velocity predictions from both views to agree at shared flow coordinates, while both remain supervised by standard flow matching. The authors evaluate on the LIBERO-Plus camera-perturbation benchmark and on a real-robot held-out camera protocol, reporting that the proposed objective improves camera-track success from 79.8±0.8% (FM-only on the same paired data) to 87.2±0.4% across three seeds, and held-out real-robot success from 53.3% to 74.4%. A shuffled-pair control that breaks action equivalence collapses performance, supporting the interpretation that the gain requires action-equivalent pairing. The paper also presents a proposition bounding action-chunk divergence by velocity disagreement along the integration trajectory, with an acknowledged surrogate gap between training-time interpolation points and integration-trajectory points.

Significance. The empirical contribution is strong and carefully controlled. The primary comparison isolates the cross-view term from data exposure via an identical-data FM-only baseline; the shuffled-pair control tests the mechanism's specificity; three training seeds, Wilson intervals, and a real-robot held-out-camera protocol support the main claim. If the results replicate, the method is a simple training-only recipe for improving scene-camera viewpoint robustness in flow-based VLAs without altering the single-RGB inference interface, and it is largely complementary to camera-aware architectures. The main weakness is the mechanism argument: Proposition 1 bounds divergence by disagreement at Euler integration points, while L_CV is evaluated at interpolation points, and the transfer is only a qualitative surrogate. This does not undermine the empirical finding but leaves the causal explanation less supported than the effect.

major comments (1)
  1. [§3 and Appendix E, Remark 1] The bound in Proposition 1 (Eq. 11) applies to velocity disagreement at the nominal Euler trajectory points x^(0)_{t_n}, whereas L_CV in Eq. (5) penalizes disagreement at the linear interpolation points x_{t_k} = t_k ε + (1−t_k)a. As Remark 1 states, the two sets of points coincide only for the optimal flow-matching solution; for the trained, non-optimal field the connection is not established. Since Contribution (1) asserts that the objective regularizes the field 'directly integrated' to produce actions, this gap is load-bearing for the mechanism claim. I recommend adding an empirical check: during or after training, measure the actual velocity disagreement along the Euler integration trajectories for both views and compare it with the L_CV value at interpolation points, or train with a loss evaluated at integration-trajectory points (e.g., by sampling the current policy's ODE paths) to see whether the robustness gain is mediated by the quantity Proposition 1 bounds.
minor comments (4)
  1. [§4.4] The phrase 'descriptive two-proportion test' should specify the exact test used (e.g., chi-square with continuity correction or Fisher's exact test) and the per-task p-values should be reported with a multiple-comparison correction, since the aggregate p-value appears driven primarily by the Headphone stand task.
  2. [Appendix B, Table 4] The λ_CV sweep is conducted in a different regime (single-sample, independent augmentation) from the final K=2 pair-consistent configuration; although the table note says this, the main text in §4.3 references Appendix B for λ sensitivity without emphasizing that the numbers are not directly comparable to Table 1. A brief clarification in §4.3 would prevent misreading.
  3. [Figure 3c] The bars for K=1 Matched (84.9%) and K=2 Matched (87.2%) are visually close; adding per-bar rollout counts or Wilson confidence intervals would make the differences and the shuffled collapses easier to interpret.
  4. [§D.4] The reporting rule in Appendix D.4 is useful, but it should be stated earlier (e.g., in §4.4) so that readers know the real-robot claim is based on held-out-camera success counts and the seen-to-held-out drop, not on the aggregate alone.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 0.0 of 10

No circularity: the cross-view loss is a training-time regularizer, the central comparison is controlled against a same-data baseline, and the theory gap is an acknowledged surrogate rather than a definitional equivalence.

full rationale

The paper's central claim is an empirical comparison between two training objectives that share identical data, architecture, optimizer, and step budget, differing only in the cross-view weight lambda_CV; the cross-view loss L_CV (Eq. 5) is a regularizer added to flow matching, not a parameter fitted to the evaluation outcome, and no fitted value is renamed as a prediction. The shuffled-pair control (Eq. 9, Figure 3c) directly tests whether the benefit requires action-equivalent pairing, and the mean-residual reformulation (Eq. 7) is a simple algebraic identity rather than a hidden reuse of the target result. Proposition 1 (Appendix E) is explicitly labeled by Remark 1 as a 'tractable surrogate' and 'qualitative motivation' because the training-time interpolation points differ from the Euler trajectory points for non-optimal fields; this is an acknowledged approximation in the mechanism story, not a circular step that forces the empirical outcome. The references are external benchmarks and base models, with no same-author citation carrying a load-bearing premise, and the real-robot evaluation uses held-out camera placements that never enter training or checkpoint selection. Consequently, no step of the derivation reduces by construction to its own inputs, and the empirical gains are isolated by appropriate controls.

Assumptions & free parameters 3 free parameters · 4 assumptions · 0 invented entities

The method's central claim rests on one scalar regularizer weight, two sampling hyperparameters, and two unverified modeling assumptions (Lipschitz regularity and surrogate transfer). No new physical entities are introduced.

free parameters (3)
  • lambda_CV = 0.10
    Cross-view loss weight; selected from a sweep (Appendix B) with insensitivity across 0.05-0.10, with 0.10 carried to the final K=2 configuration.
  • K (flow samples per pair) = 2
    Number of flow-time/noise samples; chosen for the final configuration; K=1 ablations also reported.
  • Beta(2,3) flow-time distribution = mode t=1/3
    Choice of sampling distribution concentrating flow times in the lower-to-mid range (Appendix F); affects training dynamics.
assumptions (4)
  • domain assumption The action-flow velocity field v_theta is L-Lipschitz in its action argument uniformly in t (Prop 1, Appendix E).
    Used to bound Euler trajectory divergence; a standard regularity assumption, not verified for the trained network.
  • ad hoc to paper Training-time interpolation points are a valid surrogate for the integration trajectory points (Remark 1).
    They coincide only under optimal flow matching; the paper explicitly flags this as a qualitative motivation.
  • domain assumption MuJoCo state reset and synchronized cameras produce true action-equivalent pairs (Sections 4.1, D.1).
    Same-state rendering in simulation and time-synchronized cameras on hardware are assumed to give identical task states, language, proprioception, and action targets.
  • standard math Standard conditional flow matching defines the velocity target u_t = epsilon - a (Eq. 2).
    Background flow-matching formulation used in the paper and in the pi_0.5 base model.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Cross-View Action Consistency for Camera-Robust Vision-Language-Action Policies." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/5YNNOZ6L

@misc{pith2026260806965,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Cross-View Action Consistency for Camera-Robust Vision-Language-Action Policies},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/5YNNOZ6L}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2608.06965}
}
abstract

Vision-language-action (VLA) policies fine-tuned from a fixed scene camera can fail when the camera is moved, even when the task, objects, language, and robot state are unchanged. We study scene-camera viewpoint robustness using only a scene RGB image, language, and proprioception, without camera labels, extrinsics, depth, or point-cloud inputs. The wrist stream is masked throughout to prevent an unperturbed visual shortcut from confounding attribution to scene-camera variation. For flow-based VLAs, we propose to regularize the action-flow velocity field, the quantity directly integrated to generate continuous action chunks. We construct action-equivalent view pairs by resetting original LIBERO demonstrations to the same MuJoCo state and rendering nominal and perturbed scene-camera views. Both views are supervised by flow matching, while a cross-view loss encourages their predicted action-flow velocities to agree at the same sampled flow coordinates. On the LIBERO-Plus camera-perturbation track, our method reaches 87.2$\pm$0.4% (4,797 rollouts per seed across 3 training seeds), +7.4pp over flow-matching-only training on the same paired data (79.8$\pm$0.8%, also 3 seeds) and +12.5pp over naive mixed-camera SFT, while maintaining nominal-camera ID performance (95.0$\pm$0.8%; same-data FM-only: 95.0$\pm$4.3%). A shuffled-pair control collapses to 25.8%, showing that the gain depends on action-equivalent pairing. On a real robot, we evaluate three tabletop tasks with 10 rollouts per task and camera placement; held-out-camera success improves from 53.3% to 74.4% under the same single-scene-RGB inference interface.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2608.06965 by the authors.

Figure 1
Figure 1. Camera viewpoint shifts can cause a VLA policy to produce different actions from the [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p002_1.png] view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. Cross-view action-flow consistency. During training, an action-equivalent nomi [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p003_2.png] view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. LIBERO-Plus camera-track analysis. (a) Rendered nominal and perturbed scene-camera [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p006_3.png] view at source ↗
Figures from the paper (3 more)
Figure 4
Figure 4. Figure 4: Real-robot synchronized multi-camera setup. Training demonstrations are collected with [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p007_4.png]
Figure 5
Figure 5. Figure 5: Task-level and aggregate success rates for seen and held-out camera placements. [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p008_5.png]
Figure 6
Figure 6. Figure 6: Scene-camera views used for the real-robot held-out evaluation. All six images show the [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p015_6.png]

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

27 extracted references · 8 canonical work pages

  1. [1]

    Brohan, N

    A. Brohan, N. Brown, J. Carbajal, Y . Chebotar, J. Dabis, C. Finn, K. Gopalakrishnan, K. Haus- man, A. Herzog, J. Hsu, J. Ibarz, B. Ichter, A. Irpan, T. Jackson, S. Jesmonth, N. J. Joshi, R. Julian, D. Kalashnikov, Y . Kuang, I. Leal, K.-H. Lee, S. Levine, Y . Lu, U. Malla, D. Man- junath, I. Mordatch, O. Nachum, C. Parada, J. Peralta, E. Perez, K. Pertsc...

    arXiv 2023

  2. [2]

    Brohan, N

    A. Brohan, N. Brown, J. Carbajal, Y . Chebotar, X. Chen, K. Choromanski, T. Ding, D. Driess, A. Dubey, C. Finn, P. Florence, C. Fu, M. G. Arenas, K. Gopalakrishnan, K. Han, K. Hausman, A. Herzog, J. Hsu, B. Ichter, A. Irpan, N. Joshi, R. Julian, D. Kalashnikov, Y . Kuang, I. Leal, L. Lee, T.-W. E. Lee, S. Levine, Y . Lu, H. Michalewski, I. Mordatch, K. Pe...

    arXiv 2023

  3. [3]

    M. J. Kim, K. Pertsch, S. Karamcheti, T. Xiao, A. Balakrishna, S. Nair, R. Rafailov, E. P. Foster, P. R. Sanketi, Q. Vuong, T. Kollar, B. Burchfiel, R. Tedrake, D. Sadigh, S. Levine, P. Liang, and C. Finn. Openvla: An open-source vision-language-action model. In P. Agrawal, O. Kroemer, and W. Burgard, editors,Proceedings of The 8th Conference on Robot Lea...

    2025

  4. [4]

    Black, N

    K. Black, N. Brown, D. Driess, A. Esmail, M. Equi, C. Finn, N. Fusai, L. Groom, K. Haus- man, B. Ichter, S. Jakubczak, T. Jones, L. Ke, S. Levine, A. Li-Bell, M. Mothukuri, S. Nair, K. Pertsch, L. X. Shi, J. Tanner, Q. Vuong, A. Walling, H. Wang, and U. Zhilinsky.π 0: A vision-language-action flow model for general robot control, 2026. URLhttps://arxiv. o...

    arXiv 2026

  5. [5]

    Intelligence, K

    P. Intelligence, K. Black, N. Brown, J. Darpinian, K. Dhabalia, D. Driess, A. Esmail, M. Equi, C. Finn, N. Fusai, M. Y . Galliker, D. Ghosh, L. Groom, K. Hausman, B. Ichter, S. Jakubczak, T. Jones, L. Ke, D. LeBlanc, S. Levine, A. Li-Bell, M. Mothukuri, S. Nair, K. Pertsch, A. Z. Ren, L. X. Shi, L. Smith, J. T. Springenberg, K. Stachowicz, J. Tanner, Q. V...

    arXiv 2025

  6. [6]

    S. Tian, B. Wulfe, K. Sargent, K. Liu, S. Zakharov, V . Guizilini, and J. Wu. View-invariant policy learning via zero-shot novel view synthesis, 2025. URLhttps://arxiv.org/abs/ 2409.03685

    arXiv 2025

  7. [7]

    D. Qu, H. Song, Q. Chen, Y . Yao, X. Ye, Y . Ding, Z. Wang, J. Gu, B. Zhao, D. Wang, and X. Li. Spatialvla: Exploring spatial representations for visual-language-action model, 2025. URLhttps://arxiv.org/abs/2501.15830

    arXiv 2025

  8. [8]

    Abouzeid, M

    A. Abouzeid, M. Mansour, Q. Sun, Z. Sun, and D. Song. Geoaware-vla: Implicit geometry aware vision-language-action model, 2025. URLhttps://arxiv.org/abs/2509.14117

    arXiv 2025

Show all 27 references
  1. [9]

    C. Li, J. Wen, Y . Peng, Y . Peng, F. Feng, and Y . Zhu. Pointvla: Injecting the 3d world into vision-language-action models, 2025. URLhttps://arxiv.org/abs/2503.07511. 9

    2025 arXiv

  2. [10]

    P. Li, Y . Chen, H. Wu, X. Ma, X. Wu, Y . Huang, L. Wang, T. Kong, and T. Tan. Bridgevla: Input-output alignment for efficient 3d manipulation learning with vision-language models,

  3. [11]

    Jiang, J

    T. Jiang, J. Ji, X. Tan, J. Fang, A. Bhattad, V . Guizilini, and M. R. Walter. Do you know where your camera is? view-invariant policy learning with camera conditioning, 2025. URL https://arxiv.org/abs/2510.02268

    2025

  4. [12]

    Zhang, H

    T. Zhang, H. Duan, H. Hao, Y . Qiao, J. Dai, and Z. Hou. Grounding actions in camera space: Observation-centric vision-language-action policy, 2025. URLhttps://arxiv.org/abs/ 2508.13103

    2025 arXiv

  5. [13]

    H. Heo, S. Woo, S. M. Kim, J. Kim, J. Lee, Y . Lee, and Y . M. Kim. Anycamvla: Zero-shot camera adaptation for viewpoint robust vision-language-action models, 2026. URLhttps: //arxiv.org/abs/2603.05868

    2026

  6. [14]

    Singh, A

    I. Singh, A. Goyal, S. Birchfield, D. Fox, A. Garg, and V . Blukis. Og-vla: Orthographic image generation for 3d-aware vision-language action model, 2025. URLhttps://arxiv.org/ abs/2506.01196

    2025

  7. [15]

    B. Liu, Y . Zhu, C. Gao, Y . Feng, Q. Liu, Y . Zhu, and P. Stone. Libero: Benchmarking knowledge transfer for lifelong robot learning, 2023. URLhttps://arxiv.org/abs/2306. 03310

    2023

  8. [16]

    S. Fei, S. Wang, J. Shi, Z. Dai, J. Cai, P. Qian, L. Ji, X. He, S. Zhang, Z. Fei, J. Fu, J. Gong, and X. Qiu. Libero-plus: In-depth robustness analysis of vision-language-action models, 2025. URLhttps://arxiv.org/abs/2510.13626

    2025 arXiv

  9. [17]

    C. Chi, Z. Xu, S. Feng, E. Cousineau, Y . Du, B. Burchfiel, R. Tedrake, and S. Song. Diffusion policy: Visuomotor policy learning via action diffusion, 2024. URLhttps://arxiv.org/ abs/2303.04137

    2024 arXiv

  10. [18]

    Zhang, Z

    Q. Zhang, Z. Liu, H. Fan, G. Liu, B. Zeng, and S. Liu. Flowpolicy: enabling fast and robust 3d flow-based policy via consistency flow matching for robot manipulation. AAAI’25/IAAI’25/EAAI’25. AAAI Press, 2025. ISBN 978-1-57735-897-8. doi:10.1609/ aaai.v39i14.33617. URLhttps://...

    2025 doi

  11. [19]

    W. Li, Q. Zhang, R. Zhai, L. Lin, and G. Wang. Vla models are more generalizable than you think: Revisiting physical and spatial modeling, 2026. URLhttps://arxiv.org/abs/ 2512.02902

    2026

  12. [20]

    Y . Seo, J. Kim, S. James, K. Lee, J. Shin, and P. Abbeel. Multi-view masked world models for visual robotic manipulation. In A. Krause, E. Brunskill, K. Cho, B. Engelhardt, S. Sabato, and J. Scarlett, editors,Proceedings of the 40th International Conference on Machine Learnin...

    2023

  13. [21]

    J.-C. Pang, N. Tang, K. Li, Y . Tang, X.-Q. Cai, Z.-Y . Zhang, G. Niu, M. Sugiyama, and Y . Yu. Learning view-invariant world models for visual robotic manipulation. InThe Thirteenth Inter- national Conference on Learning Representations, 2025. URLhttps://openreview.net/ forum...

    2025

  14. [22]

    S. Nair, A. Rajeswaran, V . Kumar, C. Finn, and A. Gupta. R3m: A universal visual repre- sentation for robot manipulation. In K. Liu, D. Kulic, and J. Ichnowski, editors,Proceedings of The 6th Conference on Robot Learning, volume 205 ofProceedings of Machine Learn- ing Researc...

    2023

  15. [23]

    T. Xiao, I. Radosavovic, T. Darrell, and J. Malik. Masked visual pre-training for motor control,

  16. [24]

    Majumdar, K

    A. Majumdar, K. Yadav, S. Arnaud, J. Ma, C. Chen, S. Silwal, A. Jain, V .-P. Berges, T. Wu, J. Vakil, P. Abbeel, J. Malik, D. Batra, Y . Lin, O. Maksymets, A. Rajeswaran, and F. Meier. Where are we in the search for an artificial visual cortex for embodied intelli- gence? In A...

    2023

  17. [25]

    local surrogate

    S. Karamcheti, S. Nair, A. S. Chen, T. Kollar, C. Finn, D. Sadigh, and P. Liang. Language- driven representation learning for robotics, 2023. URLhttps://arxiv.org/abs/2302. 12766. 11 A Dataset and Evaluation Details A.1 Same-state simulation pair construction We use original L...

    2023

  18. [2022]

    URLhttps://arxiv.org/abs/2203.06173

    arXiv

  19. [2025]

    URLhttps://arxiv.org/abs/2506.07961

Pith tools

Reviewed August 10, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.