Pith. sign in

REVIEW 6 major objections 6 minor 2 cited by

Ego-PM claims that predicting the hand trajectory first lets one model output both the upcoming action and the future frames that action would cause, and that this joint prediction beats separate action-only and video-only baselines on egoc

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

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

Ego-PM predicts future hand trajectories and then uses them to condition latent diffusion video generation, jointly outputting actions and future frames in egocentric and robotic scenes.

T0 review reviewed 2026-08-05 challenge →

load-bearing objection A credible two-stage system for joint action prediction and frame generation, where the causal role of the trajectory conditioning is asserted more strongly than it is tested. the 6 major comments →

arxiv 2508.19852 v2 pith:5MVEOHAE submitted 2025-08-27 cs.CV

Ego-centric Predictive Model Conditioned on Hand Trajectories

Binjie Zhang , Mike Zheng Shou This is my paper
classification cs.CV
keywords egocentric visionhand trajectory predictionfuture video generationvision-language-action modelslatent diffusion modelshuman-object interactionrobot manipulationaction-conditioned world models
verification ladder T0 review T1 audit T2 compute T3 formal T4 reserved

The pith

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

The reading

The paper argues that in first-person scenes, the hand (or robot arm) is the natural hinge between language, vision, and what happens next. It builds a two-stage model, Ego-PM, that first predicts the future hand trajectory from past frames, text, and action history, then feeds that predicted trajectory into a latent diffusion model to synthesize the future frames. The central claim is that making the hand trajectory an explicit intermediate step improves both action prediction and video generation at the same time. The reported experiments on Ego4D, BridgeData V2, and RLBench back this claim against baselines that only do one of the two tasks.

Core claim

On the paper's own terms, the discovery is that action prediction and visual forecasting should be modeled as one coupled process, with the hand trajectory as the explicit shared variable. Stage I uses a consecutive-state modeling strategy (CoSMo) on top of a language model with an MLP action encoder–decoder to predict the future hand or end-effector trajectory. Stage II treats that predicted trajectory as a query in a block-wise causal cross-attention module over visual and text embeddings, then uses the fused condition to guide an image-based latent diffusion model to generate future frames one at a time. The paper claims this unified design outperforms separate VLA and video-generation ba

What carries the argument

The load-bearing object is the predicted hand-trajectory embedding. In Stage I, a LoRA-tuned autoregressive model processes interleaved vision, text, and action tokens and, using CoSMo, predicts the next trajectory from two consecutive prior states (with a [MASK] token for the initial state). In Stage II, that trajectory embedding becomes the query in block-wise causal cross-attention over visual and text key-value pairs, so later queries attend only to same-or-later context; the resulting multimodal condition vector is projected into a latent diffusion model's UNet. The causal cross-attention is the mechanism that ties the action guess to the pixels, while CoSMo is the mechanism that stabil

Load-bearing premise

The load-bearing premise is that a predicted hand (or robot arm) trajectory contains enough of the causal story of the next scene that feeding it into the frame generator genuinely improves the generated frames; if the visually decisive changes are driven by objects or forces that do not show up in the hand's path, the conditioning signal could be accurate yet uninformative.

What would settle it

Take a test episode where the hand barely moves but the scene changes substantially (e.g., pressing a button that trips a mechanism, or a tool acting at a distance). Compare Ego-PM's frame quality when the Stage I trajectory is replaced by the ground-truth future trajectory versus when it is replaced by a plausible but wrong trajectory; if frame quality does not track trajectory correctness on such episodes, the claimed action-to-pixels link is not carrying the generation. A simpler version: on Ego4D, compute the per-sample correlation between Hand IoU and FID, and check whether high-IoU sampl

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

If this is right

  • Action prediction and visual forecasting stop being separate tasks: one intermediate trajectory representation supports both outputs.
  • At inference time the model needs no additional annotations, since the trajectory is predicted internally from past frames and a text prompt.
  • The same architecture transfers from human egocentric video to robot manipulation, because hand and end-effector trajectories are treated as the same kind of signal.
  • Consecutive-state conditioning reduces compounding error in multi-step forecasts, making longer visual anticipation more practical.
  • Action-conditioned generation can handle moving foreground objects and dynamic scene context instead of assuming a static background.

Where Pith is reading between the lines

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

  • If the mechanism is right, trajectory correctness should be the main driver of frame quality: on Ego4D, per-sample Hand IoU should correlate with frame metrics such as FID. The paper does not report this correlation, but it is a direct test of whether the trajectory embedding is doing causal work.
  • An unstated extension is to replace or augment the trajectory with object-centric state changes (e.g., the bounding boxes or masks of moved objects); this would clarify whether the hand path alone is sufficient or merely sufficient on the tested datasets.
  • Because the fusion recipe treats hands and robot arms interchangeably, a natural probe is to condition on other intentional cues such as gaze or body pose; the paper's skeleton experiment on Nymeria already gestures in that direction.
  • The frame-by-frame image LDM suggests a ceiling on long-horizon consistency; an extension would predict a short latent video chunk rather than one frame at a time, which the current architecture does not claim to do.
Share X Bluesky LinkedIn Reddit HN

Editorial analysis

A structured set of objections, weighed in public.

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

Referee Report

6 major / 6 minor

Summary. The paper proposes Ego-PM, a two-stage egocentric predictive model. Stage I uses a LoRA-tuned LLM with a Consecutive State Modeling (CoSMo) strategy to predict future hand or robot-arm trajectories from interleaved vision, text, and action tokens. Stage II embeds the predicted action as query tokens in a block-wise causal cross-attention and feeds the fused multimodal conditions into a latent diffusion model to generate future frames one at a time. The authors evaluate on Ego4D, BridgeData V2, and a 9-task RLBench subset, reporting action-prediction and frame-generation metrics, ablations, and qualitative examples. The paper claims state-of-the-art performance in joint action prediction and future video synthesis.

Significance. If the claims hold, Ego-PM addresses a genuine gap: most egocentric VLA models output actions without visual consequences, and video generation models ignore explicit action/trajectory conditioning. The design is simple, uses only hand/arm coordinate annotations during training and no extra inputs at inference, and code is promised. The two-stage decomposition and the ablation structure are sensible. However, the current evidence does not yet establish the central causal claim that trajectory content, rather than additional conditioning capacity, drives the gains, and the quantitative support is weakened by missing uncertainty measures and some overclaimed numbers.

major comments (6)
  1. [Tables 1-5] No measure of uncertainty accompanies any reported result. Ego4D tables compare only two baselines, and Table 3 differences are sometimes extremely small (e.g., LPIPS 0.113 vs 0.112; PSNR 21.56 vs 21.71). Without multiple seeds, error bars, or significance tests, the repeated claim of 'significantly outperforms' is not supported. Please provide at least three seeds with mean±std, and if significance is claimed, state the test used.
  2. [Table 3] The abstract and text state that the method outperforms state-of-the-art baselines in future video synthesis. In Table 3, Ours has FID 16.36 vs 17.28 and FVD 83.43 vs 84.58 relative to This&That, but PSNR is worse (21.56 vs 21.71) and LPIPS is worse (0.113 vs 0.112). Thus the 'best frame metrics' claim is contradicted by the paper's own numbers; the result is mixed. Please qualify the claim and discuss the metric trade-offs.
  3. [Table 5, rows 3-4 and 7-8] The ablation shows that adding CCA with the action embedding improves scores, but no condition tests whether the semantic content of the predicted trajectory matters. A model that ignores trajectory values and uses action tokens only as a bias or extra capacity would show the same qualitative pattern. Add a control with random or zeroed trajectory embeddings, or a permutation test over trajectory values, to establish that the specific hand trajectory informs future frame generation.
  4. [Eqs. (2)-(4) and Stage II text] The description says 'CCA constrains each query to attend only to key-value pairs from the same or later time steps, providing the historical information for future frame prediction.' Attending to later time steps is not causal and conflicts with the stated purpose of using historical information. Please clarify the temporal masking: if queries attend only to earlier or current keys/values, say so; if later time steps are used, explain how leakage is avoided.
  5. [Tables 1-2] The Ego4D comparison is limited to LWM and LEGO for frame prediction, and no action-prediction baseline is included: Hand IoU is reported only for Ours. The joint-superiority claim therefore rests on a very small baseline set. Please include at least one hand-forecasting or action-prediction baseline and at least one additional egocentric generation baseline, reporting the same action metric for all methods.
  6. [Table 4] RLBench results use a 9-task subset, while the cited baselines are likely evaluated on the standard 18-task benchmark; the 'Average Rate' column may mix different protocols. No variance or per-task breakdown is shown for Ego-PM. As written, 'competitive with methods relying on richer inputs' is not established. Please specify the exact evaluation protocol, report per-task results, and provide uncertainty estimates.
minor comments (6)
  1. [Fig. 2] The label 'Casual Cross-Attn' should be 'Causal Cross-Attn'.
  2. [Fig. 1 caption] The caption says '(d) the Meta-World simulation environment', but the experiments use RLBench; please correct.
  3. [Section 'Consecutive Predictions'] The text says results are 'presented in rows 4-6 of Table 5'; the relevant configurations appear to be rows 4 and 8.
  4. [Eqs. (2)-(4)] The notation At:1→n is used for both ground-truth and predicted action signals; clarify that in Stage II the action embedding comes from the Stage I prediction, not from ground truth.
  5. [Table 7] The header uses 'PVEA-B' while the text uses 'PEV A'; please make the naming consistent.
  6. [Algorithm 1] Line 7 uses v2 and a2 without hats for predicted variables; make the hat notation consistent with the surrounding pseudocode.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged

No circularity found: the action-conditioned generation chain is tested against held-out targets and external baselines.

full rationale

The derivation chain is self-contained. Stage I (Eqs. 5–6) supervises predicted hand trajectories with L1/GIoU losses against ground-truth hand boxes, and Stage II (Eq. 7) trains an LDM to denoise future-frame latents conditioned on the Stage I action embedding via causal cross-attention (Eqs. 2–4). The ablations in Table 5 vary CoSMo, action encoding, and CCA while measuring frame and action metrics under the same held-out protocol used for the external baselines (LWM, LEGO, OpenVLA, etc.), so the reported gains are not enforced by construction. The only feedback loop is that inference uses Stage I's predicted action embeddings and consecutive prediction feeds the model's own prior outputs back in; this is compounding error, not circularity. The self-citations (TACA, DragAnything) appear only as background or baseline references and do not carry the central argument; there is no imported uniqueness theorem, no fitted parameter renamed as a prediction, and no equation that reduces to its own input. The skeptic's concern that trajectory content, rather than merely its presence, drives generation gains is a possible empirical confound, but it is not a circularity of the derivation.

Axiom & Free-Parameter Ledger

2 free parameters · 4 axioms · 0 invented entities

No physical entities are invented. The method rests on two validation-tuned scalar weights and several domain assumptions about hand-trajectory sufficiency, temporal window size, and label quality. These assumptions are tested only through in-domain ablations; no independent external evidence is supplied.

free parameters (2)
  • lambda_1 (action loss weight) = 0.1
    Set based on validation performance; balances language and action losses in Eq. 5.
  • lambda_2 (GIoU loss weight) = 0.01
    Set based on validation performance; balances L1 and GIoU in Eq. 6.
axioms (4)
  • domain assumption Hand or arm trajectories are the primary carrier of action information in egocentric and robotic manipulation, sufficient to condition future frame generation.
    Stated in the introduction and used throughout Stage II. If false, the method loses its main conditioning signal.
  • domain assumption Two consecutive input states (t-1 and t) provide enough temporal context for CoSMo to predict the next state.
    CoSMo only uses two frames and two action states; the paper's ablations test it but do not prove optimality or general sufficiency.
  • domain assumption Ground-truth hand boxes, narrations, and robot action labels used for supervision are accurate and complete.
    Ego4D hand tracks, BridgeData labels, and RLBench annotations are taken as ground truth with no noise analysis.
  • domain assumption Pretrained weights from CLIP, LLaVA, LEGO, OpenVLA, and Stable Diffusion provide a valid base for fine-tuning.
    The method initializes from these pretrained models; their quality and licensing are assumed to be appropriate.

reviewed 2026-08-05 · how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Ego-centric Predictive Model Conditioned on Hand Trajectories." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/5MVEOHAE

@misc{pith2026250819852,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Ego-centric Predictive Model Conditioned on Hand Trajectories},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/5MVEOHAE}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2508.19852}
}
Share X Bluesky LinkedIn Reddit HN
read the original abstract

In egocentric scenarios, anticipating both the next action and its visual outcome is essential for understanding human-object interactions and for enabling robotic planning. However, existing paradigms fall short of jointly modeling these aspects. Vision-Language-Action (VLA) models focus on action prediction but lack explicit modeling of how actions influence the visual scene, while video prediction models generate future frames without conditioning on specific actions, often resulting in implausible or contextually inconsistent outcomes. To bridge this gap, we propose a unified two-stage predictive framework that jointly models action and visual future in egocentric scenarios, conditioned on hand trajectories. In the first stage, we perform consecutive state modeling to process heterogeneous inputs (visual observations, language, and action history) and explicitly predict future hand trajectories. In the second stage, we introduce causal cross-attention to fuse multi-modal cues, leveraging inferred action signals to guide an image-based Latent Diffusion Model (LDM) for frame-by-frame future video generation. Our approach is the first unified model designed to handle both egocentric human activity understanding and robotic manipulation tasks, providing explicit predictions of both upcoming actions and their visual consequences. Extensive experiments on Ego4D, BridgeData, and RLBench demonstrate that our method outperforms state-of-the-art baselines in both action prediction and future video synthesis.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2508.19852 by Binjie Zhang, Mike Zheng Shou.

Figure 1
Figure 1. Figure 1: Examples of egocentric predictive modeling. [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p001_1.png] view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. Figure 2: Training framework of Ego-Centric Predictive Model (Ego-PM). In Stage I, a pre-trained LLM is fine-tuned via [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p003_2.png] view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. Figure 3: Qualitative comparisons of generated future frames (with predicted actions) for a sample egocentric scenario. [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p007_3.png] view at source ↗
Figure 4
Figure 4. Figure 4: Overview of Ego-PM architecture, comprising [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p008_4.png] view at source ↗

discussion (0)

Sign in with ORCID, Apple, or X to comment. Anyone can read and Pith papers without signing in.

Forward citations

Cited by 2 Pith papers

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

  1. Controllable Egocentric Video Generation via Occlusion-Aware Sparse 3D Hand Joints

    cs.CV 2026-03 unverdicted novelty 6.0

    A new occlusion-aware control module generates high-fidelity egocentric videos from sparse 3D hand joints, supported by a million-clip dataset and cross-embodiment benchmark.

  2. Controllable Egocentric Video Generation via Occlusion-Aware Sparse 3D Hand Joints

    cs.CV 2026-03 unverdicted novelty 6.0

    Sparse 3D hand joints plus an occlusion-aware control module produce higher-fidelity, 3D-consistent egocentric hand-object videos than dense-2D or implicit-pose baselines.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

57 extracted references · 29 canonical work pages · cited by 1 Pith paper · 3 internal anchors

  1. [1]

    , " * write output.state after.block = add.period write newline

    ENTRY address archivePrefix author booktitle chapter edition editor eid eprint howpublished institution isbn journal key month note number organization pages publisher school series title type volume year label extra.label sort.label short.list INTEGERS output.state before.all mid.sentence after.sentence after.block FUNCTION init.state.consts #0 'before.a...

  2. [2]

    write newline

    " write newline "" before.all 'output.state := FUNCTION n.dashify 't := "" t empty not t #1 #1 substring "-" = t #1 #2 substring "--" = not "--" * t #2 global.max substring 't := t #1 #1 substring "-" = "-" * t #2 global.max substring 't := while if t #1 #1 substring * t #2 global.max substring 't := if while FUNCTION word.in bbl.in capitalize " " * FUNCT...

  3. [3]

    Bai, Y.; Tran, D.; Bar, A.; LeCun, Y.; Darrell, T.; and Malik, J. 2025. Whole-Body Conditioned Egocentric Video Prediction. arXiv preprint arXiv:2506.21552

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2025

  4. [4]

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

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2023

  5. [5]

    D.; Dhariwal, P.; Neelakantan, A.; Shyam, P.; Sastry, G.; Askell, A.; et al

    Brown, T.; Mann, B.; Ryder, N.; Subbiah, M.; Kaplan, J. D.; Dhariwal, P.; Neelakantan, A.; Shyam, P.; Sastry, G.; Askell, A.; et al. 2020. Language models are few-shot learners. Advances in neural information processing systems, 33: 1877--1901

    2020

  6. [6]

    Chen, W.-G.; Spiridonova, I.; Yang, J.; Gao, J.; and Li, C. 2023. LLaVA-Interactive: An All-in-One Demo for Image Chat, Segmentation, Generation and Editing. arXiv preprint arXiv:2311.00571

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2023

  7. [7]

    W.; Sutton, C.; Gehrmann, S.; et al

    Chowdhery, A.; Narang, S.; Devlin, J.; Bosma, M.; Mishra, G.; Roberts, A.; Barham, P.; Chung, H. W.; Sutton, C.; Gehrmann, S.; et al. 2022. Palm: Scaling language modeling with pathways. arXiv preprint arXiv:2204.02311

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2022

  8. [8]

    Firoozi, R.; Tucker, J.; Tian, S.; Majumdar, A.; Sun, J.; Liu, W.; Zhu, Y.; Song, S.; Kapoor, A.; Hausman, K.; et al. 2023. Foundation models in robotics: Applications, challenges, and the future. The International Journal of Robotics Research, 02783649241281508

    work page 2023

  9. [9]

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

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2025

  10. [10]

    Ghosal, D.; Majumder, N.; Mehrish, A.; and Poria, S. 2023. Text-to-audio generation using instruction-tuned llm and latent diffusion model. arXiv preprint arXiv:2304.13731

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2023

  11. [11]

    Goodfellow, I.; Pouget-Abadie, J.; Mirza, M.; Xu, B.; Warde-Farley, D.; Ozair, S.; Courville, A.; and Bengio, Y. 2020. Generative adversarial networks. Communications of the ACM, 63(11): 139--144

    2020

  12. [12]

    Goyal, M.; Modi, S.; Goyal, R.; and Gupta, S. 2022. Human hands as probes for interactive object understanding. In Proceedings of the IEEE/CVF Conference on Computer Vision and Pattern Recognition, 3293--3303

    work page 2022

  13. [13]

    Grauman, K.; Westbury, A.; Byrne, E.; Chavis, Z.; Furnari, A.; Girdhar, R.; Hamburger, J.; Jiang, H.; Liu, M.; Liu, X.; et al. 2022. Ego4d: Around the world in 3,000 hours of egocentric video. In Proceedings of the IEEE/CVF Conference on Computer Vision and Pattern Recognition, 18995--19012

    2022

  14. [14]

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

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2018

  15. [15]

    Henschel, R.; Khachatryan, L.; Poghosyan, H.; Hayrapetyan, D.; Tadevosyan, V.; Wang, Z.; Navasardyan, S.; and Shi, H. 2025. Streamingt2v: Consistent, dynamic, and extendable long video generation from text. In Proceedings of the Computer Vision and Pattern Recognition Conference, 2568--2577

    work page 2025

  16. [16]

    Heusel, M.; Ramsauer, H.; Unterthiner, T.; Nessler, B.; and Hochreiter, S. 2017. Gans trained by a two time-scale update rule converge to a local nash equilibrium. Advances in neural information processing systems, 30

    2017

  17. [17]

    Hu, A.; Russell, L.; Yeo, H.; Murez, Z.; Fedoseev, G.; Kendall, A.; Shotton, J.; and Corrado, G. 2023. Gaia-1: A generative world model for autonomous driving. arXiv preprint arXiv:2309.17080

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2023

  18. [18]

    J.; Shen, Y.; Wallis, P.; Allen-Zhu, Z.; Li, Y.; Wang, S.; Wang, L.; Chen, W.; et al

    Hu, E. J.; Shen, Y.; Wallis, P.; Allen-Zhu, Z.; Li, Y.; Wang, S.; Wang, L.; Chen, W.; et al. 2022. Lora: Low-rank adaptation of large language models. ICLR

    work page 2022

  19. [19]

    Huang, Y.; Cai, M.; Li, Z.; Lu, F.; and Sato, Y. 2020. Mutual context network for jointly estimating egocentric gaze and action. IEEE Transactions on Image Processing, 29: 7795--7806

    work page 2020

  20. [20]

    R.; and Davison, A

    James, S.; Ma, Z.; Arrojo, D. R.; and Davison, A. J. 2020. Rlbench: The robot learning benchmark & learning environment. IEEE Robotics and Automation Letters

    work page 2020

  21. [21]

    Jia, W.; Liu, M.; and Rehg, J. M. 2022. Generative adversarial network for future hand segmentation from egocentric video. In European Conference on Computer Vision, 639--656. Springer

    work page 2022

  22. [22]

    Kazakos, E.; Nagrani, A.; Zisserman, A.; and Damen, D. 2019. Epic-fusion: Audio-visual temporal binding for egocentric action recognition. In Proceedings of the IEEE/CVF International Conference on Computer Vision, 5492--5501

    work page 2019

  23. [23]

    J.; Pertsch, K.; Karamcheti, S.; Xiao, T.; Balakrishna, A.; Nair, S.; Rafailov, R.; Foster, E.; Lam, G.; Sanketi, P.; et al

    Kim, M. J.; Pertsch, K.; Karamcheti, S.; Xiao, T.; Balakrishna, A.; Nair, S.; Rafailov, R.; Foster, E.; Lam, G.; Sanketi, P.; et al. 2024. Openvla: An open-source vision-language-action model. arXiv preprint arXiv:2406.09246

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2024

  24. [24]

    M.; and Liu, M

    Lai, B.; Dai, X.; Chen, L.; Pang, G.; Rehg, J. M.; and Liu, M. 2025. Lego: Learning egocentric action frame generation via visual instruction tuning. In European Conference on Computer Vision. Springer

    work page 2025

  25. [25]

    Lai, B.; Ryan, F.; Jia, W.; Liu, M.; and Rehg, J. M. 2023. Listen to Look into the Future: Audio-Visual Egocentric Gaze Anticipation. arXiv preprint arXiv:2305.03907

    work page internal anchor Pith review Pith/arXiv arXiv 2023

  26. [26]

    Lee, A.; Strobel, M.; and Finn, C. 2018. Stochastic Adversarial Video Prediction. In Advances in Neural Information Processing Systems

    work page 2018

  27. [27]

    Li, F.; Zhang, R.; Zhang, H.; Zhang, Y.; Li, B.; Li, W.; Ma, Z.; and Li, C. 2024. Llava-next-interleave: Tackling multi-image, video, and 3d in large multimodal models. arXiv preprint arXiv:2407.07895

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2024

  28. [28]

    Li, J.; Liu, K.; and Wu, J. 2023. Ego-Body Pose Estimation via Ego-Head Pose Estimation. In Proceedings of the IEEE/CVF Conference on Computer Vision and Pattern Recognition, 17142--17151

    work page 2023

  29. [29]

    P.; Lyu, Y.; Chhablani, G.; Jain, N.; Deng, Z.; Wang, X.; Morency, L.-P.; and Salakhutdinov, R

    Liang, P. P.; Lyu, Y.; Chhablani, G.; Jain, N.; Deng, Z.; Wang, X.; Morency, L.-P.; and Salakhutdinov, R. 2022. Multiviz: Towards visualizing and understanding multimodal models. arXiv preprint arXiv:2207.00056

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2022

  30. [30]

    Q.; Wang, J.; Soldan, M.; Wray, M.; Yan, R.; XU, E

    Lin, K. Q.; Wang, J.; Soldan, M.; Wray, M.; Yan, R.; XU, E. Z.; Gao, D.; Tu, R.-C.; Zhao, W.; Kong, W.; et al. 2022. Egocentric video-language pretraining. Advances in Neural Information Processing Systems, 35: 7575--7586

    work page 2022

  31. [31]

    Liu, H.; Yan, W.; Zaharia, M.; and Abbeel, P. 2024. World model on million-length video and language with ringattention. arXiv preprint arXiv:2402.08268

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2024

  32. [32]

    Liu, S.; Tripathi, S.; Majumdar, S.; and Wang, X. 2022. Joint hand motion and interaction hotspots prediction from egocentric videos. In Proceedings of the IEEE/CVF Conference on Computer Vision and Pattern Recognition, 3282--3292

    work page 2022

  33. [33]

    Lotter, W.; Kreiman, G.; and Cox, D. 2017. Deep predictive coding networks for video prediction and unsupervised learning. In arXiv preprint arXiv:1605.08104

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2017

  34. [34]

    Lu, G.; Zhang, S.; Wang, Z.; Liu, C.; Lu, J.; and Tang, Y. 2025. Manigaussian: Dynamic gaussian splatting for multi-task robotic manipulation. In European Conference on Computer Vision, 349--366. Springer

    work page 2025

  35. [35]

    J.; et al

    Ma, L.; Ye, Y.; Hong, F.; Guzov, V.; Jiang, Y.; Postyeni, R.; Pesqueira, L.; Gamino, A.; Baiyya, V.; Kim, H. J.; et al. 2024. Nymeria: A massive collection of multimodal egocentric daily motion in the wild. In European Conference on Computer Vision, 445--465. Springer

    work page 2024

  36. [36]

    Niu, D.; Sharma, Y.; Biamby, G.; Quenum, J.; Bai, Y.; Shi, B.; Darrell, T.; and Herzig, R. 2024. Llarva: Vision-action instruction tuning enhances robot learning. arXiv preprint arXiv:2406.11815

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2024

  37. [37]

    M.; and Furnari, A

    Ragusa, F.; Farinella, G. M.; and Furnari, A. 2023. StillFast: An End-to-End Approach for Short-Term Object Interaction Anticipation. In Proceedings of the IEEE/CVF Conference on Computer Vision and Pattern Recognition, 3635--3644

    work page 2023

  38. [38]

    Rombach, R.; Blattmann, A.; Lorenz, D.; Esser, P.; and Ommer, B. 2022. High-resolution image synthesis with latent diffusion models. In Proceedings of the IEEE/CVF conference on computer vision and pattern recognition, 10684--10695

    2022

  39. [39]

    Shi, Y.; Jiang, K.; Li, J.; Qian, Z.; Wen, J.; Yang, M.; Wang, K.; and Yang, D. 2023. Grid-centric traffic scenario perception for autonomous driving: A comprehensive review. arXiv preprint arXiv:2303.01212

    work page internal anchor Pith review Pith/arXiv arXiv 2023

  40. [40]

    Sou c ek, T.; Damen, D.; Wray, M.; Laptev, I.; and Sivic, J. 2024. Genhowto: Learning to generate actions and state transformations from instructional videos. In 2024 IEEE/CVF Conference on Computer Vision and Pattern Recognition (CVPR). IEEE

    work page 2024

  41. [41]

    Sudhakaran, S.; Escalera, S.; and Lanz, O. 2019. Lsta: Long short-term attention for egocentric action recognition. In Proceedings of the IEEE/CVF Conference on Computer Vision and Pattern Recognition, 9954--9963

    work page 2019

  42. [42]

    M.; Ghosh, D.; Walke, H.; Pertsch, K.; Black, K.; Mees, O.; Dasari, S.; Hejna, J.; Kreiman, T.; Xu, C.; et al

    Team, O. M.; Ghosh, D.; Walke, H.; Pertsch, K.; Black, K.; Mees, O.; Dasari, S.; Hejna, J.; Kreiman, T.; Xu, C.; et al. 2024. Octo: An open-source generalist robot policy. arXiv preprint arXiv:2405.12213

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2024

  43. [43]

    Tian, X.; Gu, J.; Li, B.; Liu, Y.; Wang, Y.; Zhao, Z.; Zhan, K.; Jia, P.; Lang, X.; and Zhao, H. 2024. Drivevlm: The convergence of autonomous driving and large vision-language models. arXiv preprint arXiv:2402.12289

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2024

  44. [44]

    Tome, D.; Alldieck, T.; Peluse, P.; Pons-Moll, G.; Agapito, L.; Badino, H.; and De la Torre, F. 2020. Selfpose: 3d egocentric pose estimation from a headset mounted camera. IEEE Transactions on Pattern Analysis and Machine Intelligence

    work page 2020

  45. [45]

    Touvron, H.; Lavril, T.; Izacard, G.; Martinet, X.; Lachaux, M.-A.; Lacroix, T.; Rozi \`e re, B.; Goyal, N.; Hambro, E.; Azhar, F.; et al. 2023. Llama: Open and efficient foundation language models. arXiv preprint arXiv:2302.13971

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2023

  46. [46]

    R.; Black, K.; Zhao, T

    Walke, H. R.; Black, K.; Zhao, T. Z.; Vuong, Q.; Zheng, C.; Hansen-Estruch, P.; He, A. W.; Myers, V.; Kim, M. J.; Du, M.; et al. 2023. Bridgedata v2: A dataset for robot learning at scale. In Conference on Robot Learning. PMLR

    work page 2023

  47. [47]

    Wang, B.; Sridhar, N.; Feng, C.; Van der Merwe, M.; Fishman, A.; Fazeli, N.; and Park, J. J. 2024 a . This&that: Language-gesture controlled video generation for robot planning. arXiv preprint arXiv:2407.05530

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2024

  48. [48]

    Wang, J.; Luvizon, D.; Xu, W.; Liu, L.; Sarkar, K.; and Theobalt, C. 2023. Scene-aware Egocentric 3D Human Pose Estimation. In Proceedings of the IEEE/CVF Conference on Computer Vision and Pattern Recognition, 13031--13040

    work page 2023

  49. [49]

    Wang, X.; Zhu, Z.; Huang, G.; Wang, B.; Chen, X.; and Lu, J. 2024 b . Worlddreamer: Towards general world models for video generation via predicting masked tokens. arXiv preprint arXiv:2401.09985

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2024

  50. [50]

    J.; Shou, M

    Wu, W.; Li, Z.; Gu, Y.; Zhao, R.; He, Y.; Zhang, D. J.; Shou, M. Z.; Li, Y.; Gao, T.; and Zhang, D. 2024. Draganything: Motion control for anything using entity representation. In European Conference on Computer Vision, 331--348. Springer

    work page 2024

  51. [51]

    Yang, D.; Tian, J.; Tan, X.; Huang, R.; Liu, S.; Chang, X.; Shi, J.; Zhao, S.; Bian, J.; Wu, X.; et al. 2023. Uniaudio: An audio foundation model toward universal audio generation. arXiv preprint arXiv:2310.00704

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2023

  52. [52]

    Ye, Y.; Li, X.; Gupta, A.; De Mello, S.; Birchfield, S.; Song, J.; Tulsiani, S.; and Liu, S. 2023. Affordance diffusion: Synthesizing hand-object interactions. In Proceedings of the IEEE/CVF Conference on Computer Vision and Pattern Recognition, 22479--22489

    work page 2023

  53. [53]

    Zhang, B.; Ge, Y.; Xu, X.; Shan, Y.; and Shou, M. Z. 2023. Taca: Upgrading your visual foundation model with task-agnostic compatible adapter. arXiv preprint arXiv:2306.12642

    work page internal anchor Pith review Pith/arXiv arXiv 2023

  54. [54]

    Zhang, M.; Teck Ma, K.; Hwee Lim, J.; Zhao, Q.; and Feng, J. 2017. Deep future gaze: Gaze anticipation on egocentric videos using adversarial networks. In Proceedings of the IEEE conference on computer vision and pattern recognition, 4372--4381

    work page 2017

  55. [55]

    A.; Shechtman, E.; and Wang, O

    Zhang, R.; Isola, P.; Efros, A. A.; Shechtman, E.; and Wang, O. 2018. The unreasonable effectiveness of deep features as a perceptual metric. In Proceedings of the IEEE conference on computer vision and pattern recognition, 586--595

    2018

  56. [56]

    Zhang, Z.; Liao, J.; Li, M.; Dai, Z.; Qiu, B.; Zhu, S.; Qin, L.; and Wang, W. 2025. Tora: Trajectory-oriented diffusion transformer for video generation. In Proceedings of the Computer Vision and Pattern Recognition Conference

    work page 2025

  57. [57]

    Zheng, W.; Chen, W.; Huang, Y.; Zhang, B.; Duan, Y.; and Lu, J. 2025. Occworld: Learning a 3d occupancy world model for autonomous driving. In European Conference on Computer Vision, 55--72. Springer

    work page 2025

This paper was first reviewed by deepseek-v4-flash on August 5, 2026.