Pith. sign in

REVIEW 3 major objections 4 minor 1 cited by

TOPReward: Token Probabilities as Hidden Zero-Shot Rewards for Robotics

T0 review · 3 major / 4 minor · reviewed 2026-08-02 · deepseek-v4-flash

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

Pith's one-line read Token probabilities yield a zero-shot robot progress reward, hitting 0.947 rank correlation with time order on 130+ tasks.

desk verdict A clean, useful idea with an evaluation that doesn't yet separate progress understanding from time correlation — worth referee time, but the headline VOC numbers should be treated as unproven until the promised control appears. read the letter →

arxiv 2602.19313 v2 pith:5DDFABAW submitted 2026-02-22 cs.RO cs.AIcs.LG

Shirui Chen , Cole Harrison , Ying-Chun Lee , Angela Jin Yang , Zhongzheng Ren , Lillian J. Ratliff , Jiafei Duan , Dieter Fox
show 1 more author
Ranjay Krishna
This is my paper · ORCID
classification cs.ROcs.AIcs.LG
keywords tokenprobabilitieszero-shotrewardvideo-languagemodelsprogressestimationrobotmanipulationtemporalvaluefunctionManiBenchbehaviorcloning
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

This paper claims that a pretrained video-language model already contains enough latent understanding of task completion to serve as a dense reward signal for robotic manipulation, if the reward is read from the model's internal token probabilities rather than from its generated text. The proposed method, TOPReward, measures the log-probability of the affirmative token 'True' in response to a completion query about a video prefix and an instruction, and normalizes this signal per episode to produce a progress curve. Across more than 130 real-world manipulation tasks on four robot platforms, the method achieves high agreement between predicted progress order and time order, and it supports downstream uses such as success detection and advantage-weighted behavior cloning. If correct, this would remove a major bottleneck in robot learning—the need for hand-crafted or trained reward functions—by showing that reward modeling is an emergent capability of off-the-shelf video-language models.

What carries the argument

The key machinery is the token-probability reward: for each video prefix, the method constructs a prompt that asks whether the trajectory completes an instruction, and takes the logarithm of the model's probability for the affirmative token 'True' as the reward. This converts the VLM's implicit world knowledge into a scalar that grows as evidence for completion accumulates; min-max normalization per episode yields a progress curve in [0,1], and increments can be clipped to form per-step dense rewards for policy learning. The method deliberately avoids chat templates, which the paper finds degrade performance, and relies on the raw next-token prediction distribution.

What would settle it

Present a video of a robot executing a task that stalls after an early partial success (e.g., grasping then dropping), and observe whether the log-probability of 'True' continues to increase as more stalled frames are added; if it does, the reward is tracking time rather than task content. A simpler check is to reverse the frame order: a progress reward that still rises with the number of frames would not be tracking progress.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

The central discovery is that the log-probability of a binary completion token—'True'—computed from a video-language model's next-token distribution over a video prefix and an instruction is a valid dense progress signal for robotic manipulation, without any fine-tuning. The paper argues that open-source VLMs fail at progress estimation not because they lack temporal understanding but because their textual output of numerical values is unstable; by probing the model's internal token distribution instead, TOPReward obtains a smoothly increasing reward as the task nears completion. On the newly introduced ManiRewardBench benchmark—130+ tasks across Franka, SO-100/101, and single-arm/bimanual Y

Load-bearing premise

The evaluation assumes that a high rank correlation between TOPReward's predicted scores and frame time (VOC) demonstrates genuine understanding of task progress, rather than the trivial tendency for any completion statement to become more plausible as more frames are shown.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • Reward engineering for robotic manipulation can be replaced by a single completion-token query on an off-the-shelf video-language model, requiring no task-specific demonstrations or reward-model training.
  • Because the reward is instruction-conditioned, the same model supplies progress feedback across a wide range of tasks and embodiments, making language-conditioned reinforcement learning more accessible.
  • The completion-token probability doubles as a success detector, enabling automatic dataset filtering and offline weighted behavior cloning without a separately trained classifier.
  • The method's performance is bounded by the backbone video-language model's visual understanding, so advances in video VLMs should lift reward quality directly.

Reading between the lines

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

  • A direct control experiment—fixing the number of frames while shuffling their content, or presenting reversed trajectories—would isolate whether the reward tracks task content or merely video length; the paper asserts but does not show this analysis.
  • TOPReward could be extended to long-horizon tasks by decomposing the instruction into subtask-level completion queries, trading extra forward passes for finer temporal resolution.
  • Using multiple affirmative tokens or contrasting token probabilities (e.g., True vs. False) might improve calibration and robustness across different VLM backbones, an avenue the paper leaves open.
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

3 major / 4 minor

Summary. TOPReward proposes a training-free reward signal for robotic manipulation: given a video prefix and a language instruction, it logs the probability that a VLM assigns to the affirmative token 'True' in response to a completion query, and uses this log-probability (after per-episode min-max normalization and a clipped incremental transform) as a dense progress reward. The paper introduces ManiRewardBench, a real-world manipulation benchmark with subtask-level temporal annotations, and reports that TOPReward achieves 0.947 mean VOC with Qwen3-VL-8B on this benchmark, substantially outperforming the GVL baseline on open-source models. It also reports success-detection ROC-AUC results and real-world advantage-weighted behavior cloning experiments on six SO-100 tasks, where TOP-AWR outperforms BC.

Significance. If the core claim is correct, TOPReward would be a valuable and simple result: extracting dense progress supervision from frozen VLMs without any training could remove a major bottleneck in robot learning. The paper's strengths include the breadth of the evaluation (130+ tasks, multiple embodiments), the release of a new benchmark with fine-grained subtask annotations, and the downstream validation via success detection and behavior-cloning fine-tuning. The method itself is transparent and easy to implement. However, the central metric (VOC) and the absence of a direct time-index control leave the main claim—that the signal reflects task-specific progress rather than a generic temporal artifact—incompletely supported. The success-detection experiments provide some evidence of content sensitivity, but the 0.654 AUC on Qwen3-VL is modest and does not by itself rescue the VOC-based progress-estimation claim.

major comments (3)
  1. [§5.1, Eq. (4), and §5.2] The headline metric VOC is rank-correlation of predicted scores with frame time. The paper's own Section 5.2 states that VOC is virtually identical for failed and successful trajectories (0.946 vs. 0.943) and that a trajectory which rises and then plateaus can still achieve high VOC. This directly undermines the interpretation of the reported 0.947 VOC as evidence that the signal 'tracks genuine task progress.' A time-only control (e.g., using frame index as the predictor, a partial-correlation analysis, or showing the log-probability curve on the failure split after plateau) is needed to support the abstract's assertion that the reward is 'not explained by time index alone.' Without such an analysis, the central claim is not established.
  2. [§3.1 and Appendix B] The affirmative token 'True' was selected post hoc because it showed the largest success–failure separation on the evaluation benchmark (Figure 8). This is a free parameter chosen using the same episodes on which the method is then evaluated. Such selection can inflate the reported performance and needs to be justified with a held-out selection procedure or a correction. At minimum, the authors should report the VOC and success-detection results for a few plausible alternative tokens (e.g., 'Yes', 'Complete') to demonstrate robustness to this choice.
  3. [Abstract and §5.2] The abstract promises 'additional analyses show that the reward is sensitive to the specified instruction and is not explained by time index alone,' but the full text contains no such analysis. The only relevant result is the success-detection ROC-AUC of 0.654 on Qwen3-VL-8B, which is weakly above chance and uses a different signal (average log-probability over the last three frames) rather than the dense per-prefix reward used for VOC. Please either add the promised time-index analysis or remove the claim; a concrete control would strengthen the paper considerably.
minor comments (4)
  1. [Table 4] The table formatting is broken: numbers run together (e.g., '1 23', '1.33 12.33', '5.676.33'), making it hard to read the per-method scores. Please align columns and use separate columns for Pretrained, BC, and TOP-AWR.
  2. [§5.4 and Table 5] The chat-template ablation is informative, but the mean VOCs reported in Table 5 (0.945 and 0.652 for Qwen and Molmo) do not match the mean values in Table 2 (0.947 and 0.642). Please check the averaging procedure and report error bars or standard deviations.
  3. [Appendix B, Figure 8] The token-selection plot should include error bars or confidence intervals, and the number of episodes used to compute the separation should be stated. Currently it is unclear how stable the 'True' preference is across tasks and models.
  4. [§4] ManiRewardBench is described as restricted-access with a 'controlled evaluation protocol.' This limits reproducibility. Please clarify what the protocol is and whether an evaluation server or benchmark release is planned.

Circularity Check

1 steps flagged · score 3.0 of 10

Core TOPReward derivation is independent and training-free, but the choice of the 'True' token is selected on the benchmark's success/failure labels and then reused for success-detection evaluation, a mild post-hoc fit.

  1. fitted input called prediction [Section 3.1 and Section B (token choice); Table 3 (success detection)]
    "We choose True as the affirmative completion token rather than alternatives (e.g., Yes) because it is a single token in our evaluated vocabularies and yields the largest, most consistent separation between successful and failed trajectories at the final step."

    The affirmative token is the only method-level choice in TOPReward. Section B selects it by ranking tokens on the mean final-step probability gap between successful and failed trajectories in ManiRewardBench, and Table 3 then reports success-detection ROC-AUC on the same benchmark's failure split. The success-detection result is therefore not an evaluation of a pre-specified, frozen signal: the token was chosen to maximize the very success/failure separation that the success-detection experiment measures. This is a post-hoc selection on the evaluation set, though it does not affect the main VOC-based progress-estimation claim, which does not use success/failure labels.

full rationale

The central derivation of TOPReward is self-contained: rt is defined directly as the log-probability of a fixed affirmative token from a frozen VLM (Eq. 1), with no parameters fitted to progress labels and no load-bearing self-citation chain. The primary VOC metric (Eq. 4) is Spearman rank correlation with frame time, and the per-episode min-max normalization (Eq. 2) is a monotone transform that cannot change Spearman correlation, so the normalization does not create circularity. The paper explicitly identifies the VOC failure mode—high rank correlation for early-plateau trajectories—and attempts to address it with success detection, which is a validity concern rather than a circular derivation. However, the abstract promises that the reward is 'not explained by time index alone,' yet the full text contains no partial-correlation or time-only control analysis; this missing support should be weighed as an evidentiary gap. The one concrete circularity-adjacent element is the token selection in Section B, which uses the same success/failure benchmark later used for success-detection evaluation; this is a mild post-hoc fit, but it is not load-bearing for the main zero-shot VOC claims or for the external Open X-Embodiment results. Overall, the paper's core claim is independent and externally benchmarked, so the circularity score is low.

Assumptions & free parameters 3 free parameters · 5 assumptions · 0 invented entities

The central claims rest on domain assumptions about VLM logits, the validity of the VOC metric, and the accuracy of the unreleased benchmark annotations. No new physical entities are introduced. Free parameters are mainly hyperparameters and the post-hoc token choice.

free parameters (3)
  • Affirmative token choice ('True') = True
    Selected post hoc as the token with the largest mean final-step probability separation between successful and failed trajectories (Section B); a fitting-to-data choice on benchmark episodes.
  • Reward scaling tau and max advantage delta_max = tau=2.0, delta_max=2.0
    Used in Eq. (3) for advantage-weighted behavior cloning; chosen by hand without sensitivity analysis.
  • Number of sampled prefixes K = unspecified in main text
    K uniformly spaced prefixes are used, but K is not stated; temporal resolution of the progress curve is a hidden choice.
assumptions (5)
  • domain assumption Pretrained video VLMs encode task-completion likelihood in the log-probability of the token 'True' for a binary completion prompt.
    Central mechanism of Section 3.1, Eq. (1); this is an empirical assumption about model internals, not a proven fact.
  • domain assumption For successful expert trajectories, chronological order is a valid proxy for task progress, so VOC against time index measures progress understanding.
    Section 5.1, Eq. (4); any time-correlated signal can score high, so this premise presumes the signal is progress-specific.
  • domain assumption ManiRewardBench subtask annotations are accurate and consistent across tasks and platforms.
    Section 4 and D.1; the restricted benchmark prevents external verification of annotation quality.
  • domain assumption The OXE LeRobot subset episodes are successful demonstrations with monotonic progress.
    Section 5.1; used as ground truth for VOC without per-episode progress labels.
  • domain assumption Next-token log-probabilities are comparable across prefixes after per-episode min-max normalization.
    Eq. (2); normalization discards absolute scale, while cross-episode success detection relies on raw log-probabilities.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of TOPReward: Token Probabilities as Hidden Zero-Shot Rewards for Robotics." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/5DDFABAW

@misc{pith2026260219313,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: TOPReward: Token Probabilities as Hidden Zero-Shot Rewards for Robotics},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/5DDFABAW}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2602.19313}
}
read the original abstract

General-purpose robot learning requires dense, instruction-conditioned feedback that can distinguish meaningful task progress from stalled, failed, or partially completed behavior. Yet obtaining such feedback at scale remains difficult, since existing approaches often rely on manual progress annotations, task-specific demonstrations, or reward models trained on curated robot datasets. We introduce TOPReward, a training-free progress reward method that probes pretrained Video-Language Models (VLMs) through their internal token probabilities rather than asking them to generate numerical progress values. Given a video prefix and a language instruction, TOPReward measures the model's likelihood that the instructed task has been completed, converting latent video-language understanding into a dense reward signal without task-specific reward-model training or manually annotated progress labels. We evaluate TOPReward on ManiRewardBench, our real-world manipulation benchmark spanning 130 unique tasks and four robot platforms, as well as on Open X-Embodiment datasets. Across these settings, TOPReward substantially outperforms prior training-free VLM reward methods on open-source models and is competitive with a trained reward-model baseline on progress-estimation metrics, while requiring no reward-model training. Additional analyses show that the reward is sensitive to the specified instruction and is not explained by time index alone. Finally, TOPReward supports downstream applications including success detection and offline reward-weighted behavior cloning.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2602.19313 by the authors.

Figure 1
Figure 1. Result highlights. TOPReward enables effective zero-shot estimation of task progress across diverse and challenging real￾world manipulation tasks, without task-specific training. By bootstrapping on a range of vision–language model backbones, TOPReward provides a temporally consistent visual reward signal that supports multiple downstream applications, including success detection, policy improvement, and evaluation … view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. Qualitative example of “Fold the Towel”: Instruction￾conditioned progress estimation on a real trajectory. The curve shows TOPReward’s predicted completion value over time, with annotated values at selected frames corresponding to semantic subtasks. adding a chat template substantially degrades performance. We hypothesize this is because progress estimation is better aligned with the pretraining objective of next-to… view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. VOC comparison across datasets. Mean dataset-level VOC for GVL (0-shot) and TOPReward across two evaluation sets: OXE (39 datasets, 20 episodes each) and ManiReward Bench (4 datasets, 113 tasks, 497 episodes). Error bars denote standard deviation across datasets within each evaluation set. Molmo2 (Clark et al., 2026), and Gemini-2.5-Pro (et al., 2025). We select Qwen3-VL and Molmo2 as representative open-source mode… view at source ↗
Figures from the paper (14 more)
Figure 4
Figure 4. Figure 4: Progress traces for ManiRewardBench. Example progress traces predicted by TOPReward (orange) compared to stage￾aware ground-truth completion (dashed) from ManiRewardBench, computed from annotated subtask boundaries. We also overlay Gemini-GVL (blue) on the same episode…
Figure 5
Figure 5. Figure 5: Illustrative example of the VOC failure mode. Because VOC depends only on the rank order of predicted values (not the absolute completion level), trajectories that rise and then plateau at different final completion levels can all score highly (≥ 0.85). As a result, VO…
Figure 6
Figure 6. Figure 6: The six real-world single-arm SO-100 manipulation tasks used for advantage-weighted behavior cloning evaluation. Pretrained BC TOP-AWR (Ours) Time [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p008_6.png]
Figure 7
Figure 7. Figure 7: Qualitative comparison on “Place doll in box.” The pretrained policy and behavior cloning (BC) both fail, while TOP-AWR, fine-tuned with advantage weights from TOPReward, succeeds consistently. Frames are uniformly sampled from evaluation rollouts [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:fig…
Figure 8
Figure 8. Figure 8: Top 10 tokens by absolute difference in mean final-step token probability between successful and failed trajectories. The affirmative token True shows the largest separation, motivating its use as the completion token in TOPReward. Left: mean token probability by group…
Figure 9
Figure 9. Figure 9: Per-episode VOC distributions, broken down by evaluation set (ManiRewardBench vs Open X-Embodiment) and model backbone [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p015_9.png]
Figure 10
Figure 10. Figure 10: Distribution of dataset-level ∆VOC = VOC(TOPReward) − VOC(GVL), shown separately for each model backbone. Positive values indicate TOPReward outperforms GVL; the dashed line marks the per-model mean. 15 [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p015_10.png]
Figure 11
Figure 11. Figure 11: Counts of different example tasks in the single-arm YAM dataset. 19 [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p019_11.png]
Figure 12
Figure 12. Figure 12: Counts of different example tasks in the bimanual YAM dataset. 20 [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p020_12.png]
Figure 13
Figure 13. Figure 13: Counts of different example tasks in the SO-100 dataset. 21 [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p021_13.png]
Figure 14
Figure 14. Figure 14: Counts of different example tasks in the Franka dataset. 22 [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p022_14.png]
Figure 15
Figure 15. Figure 15: Frequency of verbs [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p023_15.png]
Figure 16
Figure 16. Figure 16: Screenshot of the Annotation Tool. 23 [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p023_16.png]
Figure 17
Figure 17. Figure 17: Expert demonstration with annotation for the task ”Clean the table”. 24 [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p024_17.png]

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Forward citations

Cited by 1 Pith paper

Reviewed papers in the Pith corpus that reference this work. Sorted by Pith novelty score. Full citation record

  1. Freeform Preference Learning for Robotic Manipulation

    cs.RO 2026-06 unverdicted novelty 6.5 of 10

    Language-conditioned multi-axis human preferences yield denser rewards and steerable robot policies that outperform sparse and binary-preference baselines by 38 points on long-horizon manipulation.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

37 extracted references · 30 linked inside Pith · cited by 1 Pith paper

  1. [2]

    Baumli, K., Baveja, S., Behbahani, F., Chan, H., Comanici, G., Flennerhag, S., Gazeau, M., Holsheimer, K., Horgan, D., Laskin, M., et al

    URLhttps://arxiv.org/abs/2511.21631. Baumli, K., Baveja, S., Behbahani, F., Chan, H., Comanici, G., Flennerhag, S., Gazeau, M., Holsheimer, K., Horgan, D., Laskin, M., et al. Vision-language models as a source of rewards.arXiv preprint arXiv:2312.09187,

    arXiv

  2. [3]

    Push the puzzles to spell word GO

    Table 6 reports dataset-level VOC for GVL (0-shot) and TOPReward (TOPR) for each dataset and model backbone. Figure 10 visualizes per-episode VOC distributions (top) and the per-dataset improvement∆VOC = VOC(TOPReward)−VOC(GVL) (bottom). 14 TOPReward: Token Probabilities as Hidden Zero-Shot Rewards for Robotics Figure 9.Per-episode VOC distributions, brok...

    arXiv 1990

  3. [4]

    Discovering latent knowledge in language models without supervision

    Burns, C., Ye, H., Klein, D., and Steinhardt, J. Discovering latent knowledge in language models without supervision. arXiv preprint arXiv:2212.03827,

    arXiv

  4. [6]

    Dong, P., Mirchandani, S., Sadigh, D., and Finn, C

    URLhttps://arxiv.org/abs/2601.10611. Dong, P., Mirchandani, S., Sadigh, D., and Finn, C. What matters for batch online reinforcement learning in robotics?arXiv preprint arXiv:2505.08078,

    arXiv

  5. [7]

    Vision-language mod- els as success detectors.arXiv preprint arXiv:2303.07280,

    Du, Y ., Konyushkova, K., Denil, M., Raju, A., Landon, J., Hill, F., De Freitas, N., and Cabi, S. Vision-language mod- els as success detectors.arXiv preprint arXiv:2303.07280,

    arXiv

  6. [10]

    Fan, L., Wang, G., Jiang, Y ., Mandlekar, A., Yang, Y ., Zhu, H., Tang, A., Huang, D.-A., Zhu, Y ., and Anandkumar, A

    URL https: //arxiv.org/abs/2507.06261. Fan, L., Wang, G., Jiang, Y ., Mandlekar, A., Yang, Y ., Zhu, H., Tang, A., Huang, D.-A., Zhu, Y ., and Anandkumar, A. Minedojo: Building open-ended embodied agents with internet-scale knowledge.Advances in Neural Informa- tion Processing Systems, 35:18343–18362,

    arXiv

  7. [11]

    I-failsense: Towards general robotic failure de- tection with vision-language models.arXiv preprint arXiv:2509.16072,

    10 TOPReward: Token Probabilities as Hidden Zero-Shot Rewards for Robotics Grislain, C., Rahimi, H., Sigaud, O., and Chetouani, M. I-failsense: Towards general robotic failure de- tection with vision-language models.arXiv preprint arXiv:2509.16072,

    arXiv

  8. [12]

    P., Leibo, J

    Hester, T., Vecer´ık, M., Pietquin, O., Lanctot, M., Schaul, T., Piot, B., Sendonaris, A., Dulac-Arnold, G., Osband, I., Agapiou, J. P., Leibo, J. Z., and Gruslys, A. Learning from demonstrations for real world reinforcement learning. ArXiv, abs/1704.03732,

    arXiv

Show all 37 references
  1. [13]

    Inner monologue: Embodied reasoning through planning with language models.arXiv preprint arXiv:2207.05608,

    Huang, W., Xia, F., Xiao, T., Chan, H., Liang, J., Florence, P., Zeng, A., Tompson, J., Mordatch, I., Chebotar, Y ., et al. Inner monologue: Embodied reasoning through planning with language models.arXiv preprint arXiv:2207.05608,

    arXiv

  2. [14]

    Kadavath, S., Conerly, T., Askell, A., Henighan, T., Drain, D., Perez, E., Schiefer, N., Hatfield-Dodds, Z., DasSarma, N., Tran-Johnson, E., et al

    URL https://arxiv.org/abs/2511.14759. Kadavath, S., Conerly, T., Askell, A., Henighan, T., Drain, D., Perez, E., Schiefer, N., Hatfield-Dodds, Z., DasSarma, N., Tran-Johnson, E., et al. Language models (mostly) know what they know.arXiv preprint arXiv:2207.05221,

    arXiv

  3. [15]

    Mt-opt: Continuous multi-task robotic reinforcement learning at scale.arXiv preprint arXiv:2104.08212,

    Kalashnikov, D., Varley, J., Chebotar, Y ., Swanson, B., Jonschkowski, R., Finn, C., Levine, S., and Hausman, K. Mt-opt: Continuous multi-task robotic reinforcement learning at scale.arXiv preprint arXiv:2104.08212,

    arXiv

  4. [16]

    Kober, J., Bagnell, J

    URLhttps://arxiv.org/abs/2406.09246. Kober, J., Bagnell, J. A., and Peters, J. Reinforcement learning in robotics: A survey.The International Journal of Robotics Research, 32(11):1238–1274,

    arXiv

  5. [18]

    Roboreward: General-purpose vision- language reward models for robotics.arXiv preprint arXiv:2601.00675,

    Lee, T., Wagenmaker, A., Pertsch, K., Liang, P., Levine, S., and Finn, C. Roboreward: General-purpose vision- language reward models for robotics.arXiv preprint arXiv:2601.00675,

  6. [19]

    Lin, Z., Duan, J., Fang, H., Fox, D., Krishna, R., Tan, C., and Wen, B

    URLhttps://arxiv.org/abs/2510.14830. Lin, Z., Duan, J., Fang, H., Fox, D., Krishna, R., Tan, C., and Wen, B. Failsafe: Reasoning and recovery from failures in vision-language-action models.arXiv preprint arXiv:2510.01642,

  7. [20]

    Cognitive dissonance: Why do language model outputs disagree with internal representations of truthfulness? arXiv preprint arXiv:2312.03729,

    Liu, K., Casper, S., Hadfield-Menell, D., and Andreas, J. Cognitive dissonance: Why do language model outputs disagree with internal representations of truthfulness? arXiv preprint arXiv:2312.03729,

    arXiv

  8. [22]

    J., Kumar, V ., Zhang, A., Bastani, O., and Jayaraman, D

    Ma, Y . J., Kumar, V ., Zhang, A., Bastani, O., and Jayaraman, D. Liv: Language-image representations and rewards for robotic control. InInternational Conference on Machine Learning, pp. 23301–23320. PMLR, 2023a. Ma, Y . J., Liang, W., Wang, G., Huang, D.-A., Bastani, O., Jaya...

    arXiv

  9. [23]

    R3m: A universal visual representation for robot manipulation.arXiv preprint arXiv:2203.12601,

    11 TOPReward: Token Probabilities as Hidden Zero-Shot Rewards for Robotics Nair, S., Rajeswaran, A., Kumar, V ., Finn, C., and Gupta, A. R3m: A universal visual representation for robot manipulation.arXiv preprint arXiv:2203.12601,

    arXiv

  10. [24]

    B., Kumar, A., Zhang, G., and Levine, S

    Peng, X. B., Kumar, A., Zhang, G., and Levine, S. Advantage-weighted regression: Simple and scalable off-policy reinforcement learning.arXiv preprint arXiv:1910.00177,

    1910 arXiv

  11. [27]

    Robo-dopamine: Gen- eral process reward modeling for high-precision robotic manipulation.arXiv preprint arXiv:2512.23703,

    Tan, H., Chen, S., Xu, Y ., Wang, Z., Ji, Y ., Chi, C., Lyu, Y ., Zhao, Z., Chen, X., Co, P., et al. Robo-dopamine: Gen- eral process reward modeling for high-precision robotic manipulation.arXiv preprint arXiv:2512.23703,

  12. [28]

    Tian, K., Mitchell, E., Zhou, A., Sharma, A., Rafailov, R., Yao, H., Finn, C., and Manning, C

    URL https://arxiv.org/abs/2503.20020. Tian, K., Mitchell, E., Zhou, A., Sharma, A., Rafailov, R., Yao, H., Finn, C., and Manning, C. D. Just ask for calibra- tion: Strategies for eliciting calibrated confidence scores from language models fine-tuned with human feedback. arXiv ...

    arXiv

  13. [29]

    Steering your diffusion policy with latent space reinforce- ment learning.arXiv preprint arXiv:2506.15799,

    Wagenmaker, A., Nakamoto, M., Zhang, Y ., Park, S., Yagoub, W., Nagabandi, A., Gupta, A., and Levine, S. Steering your diffusion policy with latent space reinforce- ment learning.arXiv preprint arXiv:2506.15799,

    arXiv

  14. [30]

    Do nlp models know numbers? probing numeracy in embeddings.arXiv preprint arXiv:1909.07940,

    Wallace, E., Wang, Y ., Li, S., Singh, S., and Gardner, M. Do nlp models know numbers? probing numeracy in embeddings.arXiv preprint arXiv:1909.07940,

    1909 arXiv

  15. [32]

    Self-improving vision- language-action models with data generation via residual rl.arXiv preprint arXiv:2511.00091,

    Xiao, W., Lin, H., Peng, A., Xue, H., He, T., Xie, Y ., Hu, F., Wu, J., Luo, Z., Fan, L., et al. Self-improving vision- language-action models with data generation via residual rl.arXiv preprint arXiv:2511.00091,

  16. [33]

    How well do large language models perform in arithmetic tasks?arXiv preprint arXiv:2304.02015,

    Yuan, Z., Yuan, H., Tan, C., Wang, W., and Huang, S. How well do large language models perform in arithmetic tasks?arXiv preprint arXiv:2304.02015,

    arXiv

  17. [34]

    J., Liu, Y ., and Fakoor, R

    Zhang, J., Heo, M., Liu, Z., Biyik, E., Lim, J. J., Liu, Y ., and Fakoor, R. Extract: Efficient policy learning by extracting transferable robot skills from offline data.arXiv preprint arXiv:2406.17768,

    arXiv

  18. [35]

    A., Lim, J

    12 TOPReward: Token Probabilities as Hidden Zero-Shot Rewards for Robotics Zhang, J., Luo, Y ., Anwar, A., Sontakke, S. A., Lim, J. J., Thomason, J., Biyik, E., and Zhang, J. Rewind: Language-guided rewards teach robot policies without new demonstrations.arXiv preprint arXiv:2...

  19. [36]

    Progresslm: Towards progress reasoning in vision- language models.arXiv preprint arXiv:2601.15224,

    Zhang, J., Qian, C., Sun, H., Lu, H., Wang, D., Xue, L., and Liu, H. Progresslm: Towards progress reasoning in vision- language models.arXiv preprint arXiv:2601.15224,

    arXiv

  20. [1991]

    Vision-language models are zero-shot re- ward models for reinforcement learning.arXiv preprint arXiv:2310.12921,

    Rocamonde, J., Montesinos, V ., Nava, E., Perez, E., and Lindner, D. Vision-language models are zero-shot re- ward models for reinforcement learning.arXiv preprint arXiv:2310.12921,

    arXiv

  21. [2013]

    R., Lee, S., et al

    Lee, J., Duan, J., Fang, H., Deng, Y ., Liu, S., Li, B., Fang, B., Zhang, J., Wang, Y . R., Lee, S., et al. Molmoact: Action reasoning models that can reason in space.arXiv preprint arXiv:2508.07917,

    arXiv

  22. [2015]

    Open-world object manipulation us- ing pre-trained vision-language models.arXiv preprint arXiv:2303.00905,

    Stone, A., Xiao, T., Lu, Y ., Gopalakrishnan, K., Lee, K.- H., Vuong, Q., Wohlhart, P., Kirmani, S., Zitkovich, B., Xia, F., et al. Open-world object manipulation us- ing pre-trained vision-language models.arXiv preprint arXiv:2303.00905,

    arXiv

  23. [2019]

    Unleashing large-scale video generative pre-training for visual robot manipula- tion.arXiv preprint arXiv:2312.13139,

    Wu, H., Jing, Y ., Cheang, C., Chen, G., Xu, J., Li, X., Liu, M., Li, H., and Kong, T. Unleashing large-scale video generative pre-training for visual robot manipula- tion.arXiv preprint arXiv:2312.13139,

    arXiv

  24. [2020]

    J., Sodhani, S., Jayaraman, D., Bastani, O., Kumar, V ., and Zhang, A

    Ma, Y . J., Sodhani, S., Jayaraman, D., Bastani, O., Kumar, V ., and Zhang, A. Vip: Towards universal visual reward and representation via value-implicit pre-training.arXiv preprint arXiv:2210.00030,

    arXiv

  25. [2022]

    Sarm: Stage-aware reward modeling for long horizon robot manipulation.arXiv preprint arXiv:2509.25358, 2025a

    Chen, Q., Yu, J., Schwager, M., Abbeel, P., Shentu, Y ., and Wu, P. Sarm: Stage-aware reward modeling for long horizon robot manipulation.arXiv preprint arXiv:2509.25358, 2025a. Chen, Y ., Tian, S., Liu, S., Zhou, Y ., Li, H., and Zhao, D. Conrft: A reinforced fine-tuning meth...

    arXiv

  26. [2023]

    R., Tian, S., Yuan, W., Krishna, R., Fox, D., Mandlekar, A., and Guo, Y

    Duan, J., Pumacay, W., Kumar, N., Wang, Y . R., Tian, S., Yuan, W., Krishna, R., Fox, D., Mandlekar, A., and Guo, Y . Aha: A vision-language-model for detecting and reasoning over failures in robotic manipulation.arXiv preprint arXiv:2410.00371,

    arXiv

  27. [2024]

    Chal- lenges of real-world reinforcement learning.arXiv preprint arXiv:1904.12901,

    Dulac-Arnold, G., Mankowitz, D., and Hester, T. Chal- lenges of real-world reinforcement learning.arXiv preprint arXiv:1904.12901,

    1904 arXiv

  28. [2025]

    and Mitchell, T

    Azaria, A. and Mitchell, T. The internal state of an llm knows when it’s lying.arXiv preprint arXiv:2304.13734,

    arXiv

  29. [2026]

    Budzianowski, P., Wi´snios, E., G ´oral, G., Kulakov, I., Pe- trenko, V ., and Walas, K

    URL https: //arxiv.org/abs/2410.24164. Budzianowski, P., Wi´snios, E., G ´oral, G., Kulakov, I., Pe- trenko, V ., and Walas, K. Opengvl–benchmarking vi- sual temporal progress for data curation.arXiv preprint arXiv:2509.17321,

    arXiv

Pith tools

Reviewed August 2, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.