Pith. sign in

REVIEW 1 major objections 8 minor 53 references

Robots reason in a latent memory palace before acting

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

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

T0 review · glm-5.2

2026-07-10 02:13 UTC pith:5YECQG6D

load-bearing objection Novel variational framework for adaptive latent reasoning in robot control, with real empirical wins but a fragile optimization regime. the 1 major comments →

arxiv 2607.08724 v1 pith:5YECQG6D submitted 2026-07-09 cs.LG cs.RO

Latent Memory Palace: Reasoning for Control as Autoregressive Variational Inference

Chuning Zhu , Eva Xu , Jose Barreiros , Krishnan Srinivasan , Paarth Shah , Abhishek Gupta This is my paper
classification cs.LG cs.RO
keywords latent reasoningvariational inferencerobot controlautoregressive latent variable modeladaptive test-time computeaction tokenizationimitation learningreinforcement learning
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 paper claims that a robot control policy can learn to deliberate before acting by generating a variable-length chain of discrete latent tokens—an internal sequence of intermediate computations that terminates when the policy decides it has thought enough. The key mechanism is to cast this deliberation as variational inference over an autoregressive latent distribution: a posterior network encodes expert demonstrations into latent token sequences, a prior network generates those sequences from observations alone at test time, and a decoder maps the resulting latent chain to continuous actions. To make the variable-length structure adaptive rather than arbitrary, the decoder variance shrinks with each additional latent step, so the model only spends more compute when doing so meaningfully sharpens the predicted action. The authors derive a tractable training objective by reformulating the variational lower bound as a reinforcement learning problem over latent trajectories, using a PPO-style clipped surrogate with a stepwise KL decomposition for variance reduction. The same framework, with observation conditioning removed, yields a variable-length action tokenizer that compresses continuous actions into discrete tokens for downstream autoregressive policies. Empirically, the policy matches or outperforms diffusion-based policies on real and simulated manipulation, and the tokenizer outperforms existing tokenization schemes when paired with the same downstream model.

Core claim

The central object is the Latent Memory Palace (LMP): a variable-length autoregressive latent distribution over discrete tokens, trained via a variational lower bound that is optimized as a latent-space RL problem. The adaptive stopping behavior arises from a decoder variance schedule that decays with latent length, creating an implicit compression penalty—the model extends its latent chain only when the reduction in action prediction error outweighs the cost of an additional step. This same variational structure, stripped of observation conditioning, functions as a variable-length action tokenizer whose partial token sequences always decode to valid actions, unlike fixed-matrix tokenizers.

What carries the argument

Autoregressive variational inference over discrete latent tokens with EOS termination; decoder variance decay as a length penalty; PPO-style clipped surrogate with stepwise KL decomposition and free-nats clipping for tractable optimization; uniform-interpolated regularization toward a length-aware uniform prior to prevent posterior collapse.

Load-bearing premise

The training procedure assumes that a PPO-style clipped surrogate with stepwise KL decomposition and free-nats clipping is enough to stably optimize the variational bound over discrete autoregressive latent trajectories without the posterior collapsing. The authors themselves note the method is sensitive to hyperparameters and prone to collapse without sufficiently large rollout buffers or regularization.

What would settle it

If the adaptive latent length provides no benefit beyond what a fixed-length latent of the same total capacity provides, or if the performance gains vanish when the variance schedule is replaced by a fixed variance, then the core claim that iterative adaptive computation drives the results would be undermined.

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

If this is right

  • If adaptive latent reasoning improves control policies, then the principle generalizes to any sequential decision-making domain where a policy must trade computation against precision—autonomous driving, surgical robotics, or game-playing agents could benefit from variable-length internal deliberation before committing to actions.
  • The decoder variance schedule as an implicit compression penalty offers a template for inducing adaptive compute in other generative models: any autoregressive latent variable model could adopt a similar shrinking-variance trick to make its depth data-dependent.
  • The finding that the same variational framework yields both a policy and a tokenizer suggests a deeper unity between reasoning and representation: the mechanism that lets a model deliberate before acting is the same mechanism that lets it compress actions into tokens for downstream use.
  • The observed correlation between fewer reasoning steps and higher action uncertainty (e.g., gripper timing variability) implies the model has learned to distinguish reducible from irreducible uncertainty, spending compute only where deliberation can help.

Where Pith is reading between the lines

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

  • If the compression penalty is what drives adaptive stopping, then the choice of variance decay rate directly controls the compute-accuracy trade-off at inference time, suggesting a single trained model could be steered toward faster or more deliberate behavior by adjusting the variance schedule at test time without retraining.
  • The fragility of the optimization (noted by the authors) suggests that the discrete autoregressive latent space may be replaceable by a continuous chain of Gaussians resembling a diffusion process, which the authors mention as a future direction; such a replacement could inherit the stable training dynamics of diffusion models while retaining adaptive depth.
  • The mode-seeking behavior observed when latent steps are truncated hints that the RL-trained posterior learns a structured latent space where shorter prefixes correspond to prototypical actions and longer prefixes carve out specific modes—a property that could be exploited for hierarchical planning or curriculum learning.

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

1 major / 8 minor

Summary. The paper introduces Latent Memory Palace (LMP), a framework that formulates iterative reasoning for robotic control as variational inference over a variable-length autoregressive latent distribution. The latent sequence terminates via an EOS token, enabling adaptive test-time compute. The variational lower bound is optimized via a PPO-style clipped surrogate with a stepwise KL decomposition (Appendix B.1). A decoder variance schedule that decays with latent length imposes an effective length penalty, inducing adaptive computation. The paper presents two instantiations: LMP-π (a control policy) and LMP-tok (a variable-length action tokenizer). Empirically, LMP-π outperforms Diffusion Policy on DROID and LIBERO-90, and LMP-tok outperforms VQ-VAE, FAST, and OAT on downstream autoregressive policy tasks. The core variational inference formulation is principled, the stepwise KL derivation is clean, and the adaptive compute behavior is an emergent rather than fitted property. The main concern is the coupling between the variance schedule (which drives adaptivity) and optimization stability, which the authors themselves flag as a limitation.

Significance. The paper makes a genuine conceptual contribution by connecting variational inference with autoregressive latent sequences for robotic control, a domain that lacks a natural discrete reasoning medium. The stepwise KL decomposition (Eq. 3, Appendix B.1) is a useful technical contribution that reduces variance in the RL objective. The empirical results are strong: LMP-π shows consistent gains over Diffusion Policy on real-world DROID tasks (Table 1) and on LIBERO-90 bottom-10 tasks (Table 2), and LMP-tok is the only tokenizer achieving nontrivial performance on the high-precision RoboMimic tool-hang task (Table 7). The adaptive compute analysis (Figs. 9–10) provides interpretable evidence that the model allocates fewer reasoning steps during gripper movements, correlating with irreducible action uncertainty. Code and detailed hyperparameters are provided (Table 5, Algorithms 1–2), supporting reproducibility.

major comments (1)
  1. Sec. 3.1 and Table 3: The variance schedule σ(T(z)) = γ^{T(z)} σ₀ serves a dual role—it is both the mechanism inducing adaptive test-time compute and a source of optimization fragility. Table 3 shows that changing σ_min from 0.01 to 0.05 drops LIBERO-90 overall success from 0.933 to 0.870 and bottom-10 from 0.645 to 0.450—a 20-point swing on the hardest tasks. Fig. 7 further reveals a narrow operating regime: insufficient compression (0.1–0.08) causes latents to be ignored entirely, while excessive compression (0.2–0.02) raises reconstruction error. The variance schedule is tuned per-domain (DROID: 0.2–0.02, LIBERO: 0.1–0.01). This coupling means the central claim that adaptive reasoning 'emerges' holds only within a manually tuned operating window. The authors should either (a) provide a principled procedure for selecting (σ_max, σ_min) without per-domain tuning, or (b) reframe the 'emG
minor comments (8)
  1. Sec. 3.2, Eq. (4): The notation CS(r, r̄; x) and the clipped surrogate are compact but dense. A brief inline explanation of the trust-region intuition would help readers from the robotics community who may not be familiar with PPO-style objectives.
  2. Table 5: The reconstruction loss coefficient differs by 10× between multi-task (0.01) and single-task (0.1) LMP-π. The paper does not explain this choice. A brief note on the sensitivity or rationale would improve reproducibility.
  3. Fig. 7: The labels '0.1 0.08 (1.25×)' and '0.1 0.01 (10×)' are ambiguous. Clarifying that these refer to σ_max/σ_min ratios would help.
  4. Sec. 4.1: The paper states both methods are '1B-parameter' policies but does not provide a parameter breakdown. Confirming that the comparison is parameter-matched (including observation encoders) would strengthen the claim.
  5. Table 6: On robomimic-square and robomimic-transport, LMP-π underperforms Diffusion Policy (0.87 vs. 0.92 and 0.75 vs. 0.80). The paper does not discuss these cases. A brief analysis of when LMP-π underperforms would balance the presentation.
  6. Sec. 3.3: The claim that LMP-tok can decode 'arbitrary length' partial sequences, unlike FAST, is interesting but the practical benefit is not quantified. Showing downstream policy performance with truncated token sequences would strengthen this comparison.
  7. Fig. 14: The comparison to DeepSeek R1's increasing reasoning length is suggestive but not substantiated. The curves also start from initialization, making the early dynamics hard to interpret.
  8. Appendix A.3: The world action model variant (LMP-wam) is mentioned but only briefly evaluated (Table 4). Either expand the analysis or clearly mark this as a preliminary appendix-only extension.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged

No significant circularity: the ELBO derivation and RL optimization objective are self-contained, with no self-citation chains or definitional reductions.

full rationale

The paper's core derivation chain is self-contained and non-circular. The starting point is the standard ELBO (Eq. 1), which is a well-known result from variational inference. The transition to an autoregressive latent variable model (Eq. 2) is a modeling choice (parameterizing z as a variable-length sequence with EOS), not a circular definition. The RL formulation in Section 3.2 reframes the ELBO as a policy-gradient objective over latent trajectories; the stepwise KL decomposition (Eq. 3, derived in Appendix B.1) is a standard mathematical identity that breaks the sequence-level KL into per-step terms without introducing circularity. The PPO-style clipped surrogate (Eq. 4) is an optimization technique applied to this objective, not a redefinition of it. The variance schedule σ(T(z)) = γ^{T(z)} σ₀ (Sec. 3.1) is a design choice that induces adaptive compute allocation; it is not defined in terms of the adaptive behavior it produces. The tokenizer objective (Eq. 8) is a straightforward specialization of the policy objective with observation conditioning dropped. No load-bearing step reduces to its own inputs by construction, and no self-citation chain is used to justify the central mathematical framework. The only concern is hyperparameter sensitivity (variance schedule tuning), but this is a robustness/correctness issue, not circularity.

Axiom & Free-Parameter Ledger

8 free parameters · 4 axioms · 3 invented entities

The framework introduces several ad-hoc design choices (variance schedule, free-nats clipping, prior mixture) that are empirically necessary for stability but lack rigorous theoretical justification. The stopping criterion analysis is heuristic. The core VI and PPO axioms are standard.

free parameters (8)
  • Variance schedule (sigma_max, sigma_min) = DROID: 0.2-0.02, LIBERO: 0.1-0.01
    Hand-tuned per dataset to control compression strength and elicit adaptive compute (Sec 3.1, Table 5).
  • Latent vocab size (nvocab) = DROID: 64, LIBERO: 16
    Chosen per dataset, affects representation capacity (Table 5).
  • Max latent sequence length (H) = 16
    Truncation length for training, chosen empirically (Table 5).
  • Prior mixture coefficient (alpha) = 0.1
    Controls uniform-interpolated regularization to prevent collapse (Appendix A.1, Table 5).
  • Free nats ratio (beta) = 0.05
    Caps KL strength per step, chosen empirically (Appendix A.1, Table 5).
  • PPO clip range (epsilon) = 0.01
    Trust region parameter for the clipped surrogate (Sec 3.2, Table 5).
  • KL loss coefficient = 1.0
    Weight on KL term in objective (Table 5).
  • Reconstruction loss coefficient = 0.01 (multitask), 0.1 (single-task)
    Weight on reconstruction term, tuned per setting (Table 5).
axioms (4)
  • standard math The variational lower bound (ELBO) is a valid objective for learning latent-variable models.
    Standard VI assumption, used in Eq. 1.
  • domain assumption The PPO-style clipped surrogate provides a stable policy gradient estimate for discrete autoregressive sampling.
    Adapted from standard PPO literature to the latent token space (Sec 3.2).
  • ad hoc to paper Decoder variance decaying with latent length imposes an effective length penalty.
    The heuristic stopping criterion analysis (Appendix B.2) assumes this, though it omits the KL term.
  • ad hoc to paper Per-step free-nats clipping prevents posterior collapse in autoregressive VI.
    Stabilization technique introduced in Appendix A.1, empirically necessary.
invented entities (3)
  • Latent Memory Palace (LMP) latent space independent evidence
    purpose: A variable-length autoregressive discrete latent space for iterative reasoning before action decoding.
    The space is learned end-to-end and its utility is validated on standard benchmarks (DROID, LIBERO, etc.).
  • EOS token in latent space independent evidence
    purpose: Allows variable-length termination of the latent reasoning chain.
    Standard technique in sequence modeling, here applied to latent reasoning for control.
  • LMP-tok tokenizer independent evidence
    purpose: A variable-length sequential action tokenizer derived by dropping observation conditioning from LMP.
    Validated as outperforming VQ-VAE, FAST, and OAT on downstream tasks (Fig 5, Table 7).

pith-pipeline@v1.1.0-glm · 30929 in / 2676 out tokens · 457170 ms · 2026-07-10T02:13:03.729605+00:00 · methodology

0 comments
read the original abstract

Human decision-making is highly flexible -- some actions are taken immediately; others require longer deliberation. Language models have exhibited a similar capacity for adaptive "reasoning." However, transferring this capability to continuous control policies has been challenging, as directly reasoning in language space may lack the granularity for spatial understanding and precise motions. In this work, we show that reasoning for control policies can emerge by organizing information in an autoregressive latent space reminiscent of a memory palace, where retrieval is iterative and adaptive. Our method, Latent Memory Palace (LMP), formulates reasoning as variational inference with an autoregressive latent distribution. We derive a latent-space reinforcement learning technique to tractably optimize its variational lower bound. The resulting policy, LMP-$\pi$, achieves strong empirical performance in simulation and real-world domains while exhibiting interpretable, adaptive allocation of test-time compute. We further show that the same framework yields a variable-length action tokenizer, LMP-$\texttt{tok}$, which significantly improves the performance of downstream autoregressive policies. Together, these results present a new perspective on latent reasoning for control through the lens of variational inference.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2607.08724 by Abhishek Gupta, Chuning Zhu, Eva Xu, Jose Barreiros, Krishnan Srinivasan, Paarth Shah.

Figure 1
Figure 1. Figure 1: (a) Latent Memory Palace (LMP) formulates iterative and adaptive reasoning as variational [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p002_1.png] view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. Figure 2: Training LMP-π alternates between two stages. (1) Latent rollout: the posterior generates a buffer of latent trajectories. (2) Model update: the model optimizes a clipped-surrogate of the variational lower bound, computed from the posterior, the prior, and the decoder. to latent reasoning happens when we parameterize the latent space by a variable-length autoregres￾sive model. In particular, we will repres… view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. Figure 3: LMP-π architecture. The model consists of a latent encoder and an action decoder. The encoder is a causal transformer cross-attending to observations and actions. The decoder is a bidirectional transformer cross-attending to observations and latents. Variance reduction via stepwise KL decomposition. A naive policy-gradient estimator of Eq. (2) has high variance because the return is only provided at the en… view at source ↗
Figure 4
Figure 4. Figure 4: Visualization of evaluation domains [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p006_4.png] view at source ↗
Figure 5
Figure 5. Figure 5: Average success rates of au￾toregressive policies fitted to tokenizers on Robomimic and LIBERO tasks. We compare LMP-tok with three representative action tokenizer baselines: (1) VQ-VAE [36], a 2-layer residual VQ tokenizer, (2) FAST [29], a variable-length action to￾kenizer based on DCT transform and byte-pair encoding, and (3) OAT [37], a variable-length latent action tokenizer with a coarse-to-fine indu… view at source ↗
Figure 6
Figure 6. Figure 6: , LMP consistently outperforms non-iterative latent￾variable models on both D3IL and RoboMimic tasks, in￾dicating that fixed-length latent representations lack the granularity needed for complex manipulation tasks. 7 [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p007_6.png] view at source ↗
Figure 7
Figure 7. Figure 7: Effect of compression on latent utilization. (a) [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p008_7.png] view at source ↗
Figure 8
Figure 8. Figure 8: As the number of latent steps is truncated, the policy exhibits mode￾seeking behavior. Qualitative analysis of test-time compute In [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p008_8.png] view at source ↗
Figure 9
Figure 9. Figure 9: LMP-π exhibits adaptive and interpretable allocation of latent steps. The length of latent traces is lower during gripper movements, e.g. (a) grasping and releasing, and (b) hand-over. 0.00 0.05 0.10 0.15 KNN Action Variance 4 6 8 10 12 Mean latent reasoning steps Reasoning Length vs Nearest Neighbor Action Variance Pearson = -0.518 [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p009_9.png] view at source ↗
Figure 10
Figure 10. Figure 10: Average latent step vs vari￾ance of KNN actions. The length of rea￾soning steps is negatively correlated with variance of the actions at the k = 32 nearest states in the dataset. Quantitative analysis of test-time compute In [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p009_10.png] view at source ↗
Figure 11
Figure 11. Figure 11: Real-world experiment setup. We run real-world experiments on the DROID Franka [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p019_11.png] view at source ↗
Figure 12
Figure 12. Figure 12: Distribution of single-task success rates over LIBERO-90. LMP- [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p021_12.png] view at source ↗
Figure 13
Figure 13. Figure 13: Analysis of test-time compute allocation. We manually move a block through an open [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p022_13.png] view at source ↗
Figure 14
Figure 14. Figure 14: Average latent length vs training steps. As training progresses, the model demonstrates spontaneous in￾crease in average latent steps. To understand the training dynamics of LMP-π, we plot the average number of reasoning steps against the number of gradient steps in [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p022_14.png] view at source ↗
Figure 16
Figure 16. Figure 16: Allocation of action tokens in autoregressive policies trained on LMP- [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p023_16.png] view at source ↗
Figure 15
Figure 15. Figure 15: Success rate vs latent steps. Truncating the number of latent steps at test time leads to a marginal drop in performance. This happens when the model exhibits mode-seeking behavior. In [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p023_15.png] view at source ↗
Figure 17
Figure 17. Figure 17: Additional visualization of test-time compute allocation in simulation tasks. Each timestep [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p025_17.png] view at source ↗
Figure 18
Figure 18. Figure 18: Additional visualization of test-time compute allocation in real robot tasks. Each timestep [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p026_18.png] view at source ↗

Review history (2 revisions) →

discussion (0)

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

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

53 extracted references · 53 canonical work pages · 15 internal anchors

  1. [1]

    J. Wei, X. Wang, D. Schuurmans, M. Bosma, B. Ichter, F. Xia, E. H. Chi, Q. V . Le, and D. Zhou. Chain-of-thought prompting elicits reasoning in large language models. InProceedings of the 36th International Conference on Neural Information Processing Systems, NIPS ’22, Red Hook, NY , USA, 2022. Curran Associates Inc. ISBN 9781713871088

    work page 2022

  2. [2]

    Deepseek-r1 incentivizes reasoning in llms through reinforcement learning

    DeepSeek-AI. Deepseek-r1 incentivizes reasoning in llms through reinforcement learning. Nature, 645(8081):633–638, Sept. 2025. ISSN 1476-4687. doi:10.1038/s41586-025-09422-z. URLhttp://dx.doi.org/10.1038/s41586-025-09422-z

    work page doi:10.1038/s41586-025-09422-z 2025

  3. [3]

    OpenAI o1 System Card

    OpenAI. Openai o1 system card, 2024. URLhttps://arxiv.org/abs/2412.16720

    work page internal anchor Pith review Pith/arXiv arXiv 2024

  4. [4]

    B. Chen, Z. Xu, S. Kirmani, B. Ichter, D. Driess, P. Florence, D. Sadigh, L. Guibas, and F. Xia. Spatialvlm: Endowing vision-language models with spatial reasoning capabilities, 2024. URL https://arxiv.org/abs/2401.12168

    work page internal anchor Pith review Pith/arXiv arXiv 2024

  5. [5]

    D. P. Kingma and M. Welling. Auto-encoding variational bayes. In Y . Bengio and Y . LeCun, editors,2nd International Conference on Learning Representations, ICLR 2014, Banff, AB, Canada, April 14-16, 2014, Conference Track Proceedings, 2014. URL http://arxiv.org/ abs/1312.6114

    work page internal anchor Pith review Pith/arXiv arXiv 2014

  6. [6]

    S. Yao, D. Yu, J. Zhao, I. Shafran, T. Griffiths, Y . Cao, and K. Narasimhan. Tree of thoughts: Deliberate problem solving with large language models.Advances in neural information processing systems, 36:11809–11822, 2023

    work page 2023

  7. [7]

    Scaling LLM Test-Time Compute Optimally can be More Effective than Scaling Model Parameters

    C. Snell, J. Lee, K. Xu, and A. Kumar. Scaling llm test-time compute optimally can be more effective than scaling model parameters, 2024. URL https://arxiv.org/abs/2408.03314

    work page internal anchor Pith review Pith/arXiv arXiv 2024

  8. [8]

    N. Ma, S. Tong, H. Jia, H. Hu, Y .-C. Su, M. Zhang, X. Yang, Y . Li, T. Jaakkola, X. Jia, and S. Xie. Inference-time scaling for diffusion models beyond scaling denoising steps. 2025

    work page 2025

  9. [9]

    R.-J. Zhu, T. Peng, T. Cheng, X. Qu, J. Huang, D. Zhu, H. Wang, K. Xue, X. Zhang, Y . Shan, T. Cai, T. Kergan, A. Kembay, A. Smith, C. Lin, B. Nguyen, Y . Pan, Y . Chou, Z. Cai, Z. Wu, Y . Zhao, T. Liu, J. Yang, W. Zhou, C. Zheng, C. Li, Y . Zhou, Z. Li, Z. Zhang, J. Liu, G. Zhang, W. Huang, and J. Eshraghian. A survey on latent reasoning, 2025. URL https...

    work page internal anchor Pith review Pith/arXiv arXiv 2025

  10. [10]

    S. Hao, S. Sukhbaatar, D. Su, X. Li, Z. Hu, J. Weston, and Y . Tian. Training large language models to reason in a continuous latent space, 2025. URL https://arxiv.org/abs/2412. 06769

    work page 2025

  11. [11]

    Z. Shen, H. Yan, L. Zhang, Z. Hu, Y . Du, and Y . He. CODI: Compressing chain-of-thought into continuous space via self-distillation. In C. Christodoulopoulos, T. Chakraborty, C. Rose, and V . Peng, editors,Proceedings of the 2025 Conference on Empirical Methods in Natural Language Processing, pages 677–693, Suzhou, China, Nov. 2025. Association for Compu...

    work page doi:10.18653/v1/2025.emnlp-main.36 2025

  12. [12]

    Z. Yang, X. Yu, D. Chen, M. Shen, and C. Gan. Machine mental imagery: Empower multimodal reasoning with latent visual tokens, 2025. URLhttps://arxiv.org/abs/2506.17218. 10

    work page internal anchor Pith review Pith/arXiv arXiv 2025

  13. [13]

    X. Zhou, Z. Liu, H. Wang, C. Du, M. Lin, C. Li, L. Wang, and T. Pang. Variational reasoning for language models.arXiv preprint arXiv:2509.22637, 2025

    work page arXiv 2025

  14. [14]

    F. Wang, H. Liu, G. Zhao, H. Xu, and Z. Gao. Regular: Variational latent reasoning guided by rendered chain-of-thought.arXiv preprint arXiv:2601.23184, 2026

    work page arXiv 2026

  15. [15]

    T. Lin, X. Zhao, X. Zhang, R. Long, Y . Xu, Z. Jiang, W. Su, and B. Zheng. Ravr: Reference- answer-guided variational reasoning for large language models, 2025. URL https://arxiv. org/abs/2510.25206

    work page arXiv 2025

  16. [16]

    D. A. Pomerleau. Alvinn: an autonomous land vehicle in a neural network. InProceedings of the 2nd International Conference on Neural Information Processing Systems, NIPS’88, page 305–313, Cambridge, MA, USA, 1988. MIT Press

    work page 1988

  17. [17]

    Florence, C

    P. Florence, C. Lynch, A. Zeng, O. A. Ramirez, A. Wahid, L. Downs, A. Wong, J. Lee, I. Mordatch, and J. Tompson. Implicit behavioral cloning. InConference on robot learning, pages 158–168. PMLR, 2022

    work page 2022

  18. [18]

    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.The International Journal of Robotics Research, 2024

    work page 2024

  19. [19]

    N. M. Shafiullah, Z. Cui, A. A. Altanzaya, and L. Pinto. Behavior transformers: Cloning k modes with one stone.Advances in neural information processing systems, 35:22955–22968, 2022

    work page 2022

  20. [21]

    Robotic Control via Embodied Chain-of-Thought Reasoning

    M. Zawalski, W. Chen, K. Pertsch, O. Mees, C. Finn, and S. Levine. Robotic control via embodied chain-of-thought reasoning, 2025. URLhttps://arxiv.org/abs/2407.08693

    work page internal anchor Pith review Pith/arXiv arXiv 2025

  21. [22]

    W. Chen, S. Belkhale, S. Mirchandani, O. Mees, D. Driess, K. Pertsch, and S. Levine. Training strategies for efficient embodied reasoning, 2025. URL https://arxiv.org/abs/2505. 08243

    work page 2025

  22. [23]

    F. Lin, R. Nai, Y . Hu, J. You, J. Zhao, and Y . Gao. Onetwovla: A unified vision-language-action model with adaptive reasoning, 2025. URLhttps://arxiv.org/abs/2505.11917

    work page arXiv 2025

  23. [24]

    J. Lee, J. Duan, H. Fang, Y . Deng, S. Liu, B. Li, B. Fang, J. Zhang, Y . R. Wang, S. Lee, W. Han, W. Pumacay, A. Wu, R. Hendrix, K. Farley, E. VanderBilt, A. Farhadi, D. Fox, and R. Krishna. Molmoact: Action reasoning models that can reason in space, 2025. URL https://arxiv.org/abs/2508.07917

    work page internal anchor Pith review Pith/arXiv arXiv 2025

  24. [25]

    Y . Li, Y . Deng, J. Zhang, J. Jang, M. Memmel, R. Yu, C. R. Garrett, F. Ramos, D. Fox, A. Li, A. Gupta, and A. Goyal. Hamster: Hierarchical action models for open-world robot manipulation, 2025. URLhttps://arxiv.org/abs/2502.05485

    work page internal anchor Pith review Pith/arXiv arXiv 2025

  25. [26]

    Y . Tur, J. Naghiyev, H. Fang, W.-C. Tsai, J. Duan, D. Fox, and R. Krishna. Recurrent-depth vla: Implicit test-time compute scaling of vision-language-action models via latent iterative reasoning, 2026. URLhttps://arxiv.org/abs/2602.07845

    work page arXiv 2026

  26. [27]

    Proximal Policy Optimization Algorithms

    J. Schulman, F. Wolski, P. Dhariwal, A. Radford, and O. Klimov. Proximal policy optimization algorithms, 2017. URLhttps://arxiv.org/abs/1707.06347

    work page internal anchor Pith review Pith/arXiv arXiv 2017

  27. [28]

    Higgins, L

    I. Higgins, L. Matthey, A. Pal, C. Burgess, X. Glorot, M. Botvinick, S. Mohamed, and A. Lerchner. beta-V AE: Learning basic visual concepts with a constrained variational framework. InInternational Conference on Learning Representations, 2017. URL https: //openreview.net/forum?id=Sy2fzU9gl. 11

    work page 2017

  28. [29]

    Pertsch, K

    K. Pertsch, K. Stachowicz, B. Ichter, D. Driess, S. Nair, Q. Vuong, O. Mees, C. Finn, and S. Levine. FAST: Efficient Action Tokenization for Vision-Language-Action Models. In Proceedings of Robotics: Science and Systems, LosAngeles, CA, USA, June 2025. doi: 10.15607/RSS.2025.XXI.012

    work page doi:10.15607/rss.2025.xxi.012 2025

  29. [30]

    Rybkin, K

    O. Rybkin, K. Daniilidis, and S. Levine. Simple and effective vae training with calibrated decoders. InInternational conference on machine learning, pages 9179–9189. PMLR, 2021

    work page 2021

  30. [31]

    DROID: A Large-Scale In-The-Wild Robot Manipulation Dataset

    A. Khazatsky, K. Pertsch, S. Nair, A. Balakrishna, S. Dasari, S. Karamcheti, S. Nasiriany, M. K. Srirama, L. Y . Chen, K. Ellis, P. D. Fagan, J. Hejna, M. Itkina, M. Lepert, Y . J. Ma, P. T. Miller, J. Wu, S. Belkhale, S. Dass, H. Ha, A. Jain, A. Lee, Y . Lee, M. Memmel, S. Park, I. Radosavovic, K. Wang, A. Zhan, K. Black, C. Chi, K. B. Hatch, S. Lin, J. ...

    work page internal anchor Pith review Pith/arXiv arXiv 2024

  31. [32]

    B. Liu, Y . Zhu, C. Gao, Y . Feng, qiang liu, Y . Zhu, and P. Stone. LIBERO: Benchmark- ing knowledge transfer for lifelong robot learning. InThirty-seventh Conference on Neu- ral Information Processing Systems Datasets and Benchmarks Track, 2023. URL https: //openreview.net/forum?id=xzEtNSuDJk

    work page 2023

  32. [33]

    X. Jia, D. Blessing, X. Jiang, M. Reuss, A. Donat, R. Lioutikov, and G. Neumann. To- wards diverse behaviors: A benchmark for imitation learning with human demonstrations. InThe Twelfth International Conference on Learning Representations, 2024. URL https: //openreview.net/forum?id=6pPYRXKPpw

    work page 2024

  33. [34]

    What Matters in Learning from Offline Human Demonstrations for Robot Manipulation

    A. Mandlekar, D. Xu, J. Wong, S. Nasiriany, C. Wang, R. Kulkarni, L. Fei-Fei, S. Savarese, Y . Zhu, and R. Mart´ın-Mart´ın. What matters in learning from offline human demonstrations for robot manipulation. InarXiv preprint arXiv:2108.03298, 2021

    work page internal anchor Pith review Pith/arXiv arXiv 2021

  34. [35]

    T. L. Team, J. Barreiros, A. Beaulieu, A. Bhat, R. Cory, E. Cousineau, H. Dai, C.-H. Fang, K. Hashimoto, M. Z. Irshad, M. Itkina, N. Kuppuswamy, K.-H. Lee, K. Liu, D. McConachie, I. McMahon, H. Nishimura, C. Phillips-Grafflin, C. Richter, P. Shah, K. Srinivasan, B. Wulfe, C. Xu, M. Zhang, A. Alspach, M. Angeles, K. Arora, V . C. Guizilini, A. Castro, D. C...

    work page internal anchor Pith review Pith/arXiv arXiv 2025

  35. [36]

    S. Lee, Y . Wang, H. Etukuru, H. J. Kim, N. M. M. Shafiullah, and L. Pinto. Behavior generation with latent actions.arXiv preprint arXiv:2403.03181, 2024

    work page internal anchor Pith review Pith/arXiv arXiv 2024

  36. [37]

    C. Liu, X. Han, J. Gao, Y . Zhao, H. Chen, and Y . Du. Oat: Ordered action tokenization. In Proceedings of Robotics: Science and Systems, 2026. 12

    work page 2026

  37. [38]

    C. Zhu, R. Yu, S. Feng, B. Burchfiel, P. Shah, and A. Gupta. Unified world models: Coupling video and action diffusion for pretraining on large robotic datasets. InProceedings of Robotics: Science and Systems (RSS), 2025

    work page 2025

  38. [39]

    S. Ye, Y . Ge, K. Zheng, S. Gao, S. Yu, G. Kurian, S. Indupuru, Y . L. Tan, C. Zhu, J. Xiang, A. Malik, K. Lee, W. Liang, N. Ranawaka, J. Gu, Y . Xu, G. Wang, F. Hu, A. Narayan, J. Bjorck, J. Wang, G. Kim, D. Niu, R. Zheng, Y . Xie, J. Wu, Q. Wang, R. Julian, D. Xu, Y . Du, Y . Chebotar, S. Reed, J. Kautz, Y . Zhu, L. J. Fan, and J. Jang. World action mod...

    work page

  39. [40]

    URLhttps://arxiv.org/abs/2602.15922

    work page internal anchor Pith review Pith/arXiv arXiv

  40. [41]

    Rybkin, K

    O. Rybkin, K. Daniilidis, and S. Levine. Simple and effective vae training with calibrated decoders. In M. Meila and T. Zhang, editors,Proceedings of the 38th International Conference on Machine Learning, volume 139 ofProceedings of Machine Learning Research, pages 9179–

    work page

  41. [42]

    URL https://proceedings.mlr.press/v139/rybkin21a

    PMLR, 18–24 Jul 2021. URL https://proceedings.mlr.press/v139/rybkin21a. html. 13 A Extended Method Details A.1 Posterior stabilization Optimizing Eq. (4) involves jointly training the prior pθ(z|o) and the posterior qθ(z|o, a) , which is prone to collapse. We mitigate this with two stabilizers. (i) Uniform-interpolated regularization.We regularize the pos...

    work page 2021

  42. [43]

    Pick up the block and put it in the bowl

    block-bowl (zero-shot)involves picking up a cube block and placing it in a bowl. The objects are randomly initialized across the workspace. An episode is considered successful 18 (a) DROID Setup (b) Evaluation Tracker Scene camera Eval camera Wrist camera MisalignedAligned Figure 11: Real-world experiment setup. We run real-world experiments on the DROID ...

    work page

  43. [44]

    Pick up the marker and put it in the mug

    marker-mug (zero-shot)involves picking up a marker and dropping it in a mug. The objects are randomly initialized across the workspace. An episode is considered successful if the gripper releases the marker into the mug. Language instruction: “Pick up the marker and put it in the mug.”

    work page

  44. [45]

    Insert the peg into the hole

    peg-hole (finetuned)is a high-precision manipulation task which involves inserting a square peg into a base with a square hole. The base is randomly initialized in a square region near the center of the workspace, and the peg is randomly initialized outside the square region. An episode is considered successful if the gripper inserts the peg securely into...

    work page

  45. [46]

    Clean up the table

    clean-table (finetuned)is a compositional manipulation task which involves placing 3 objects scattered around the workspace into a bowl. We collect demonstrations by randomly choosing 3 objects from a 7-object suite. We measure partial success of cleaning up at least 1, 2, and 3 objects. Language instruction: “Clean up the table.” LIBERO [32]is a simulate...

    work page

  46. [47]

    The gaps between the rods naturally create multimodality

    avoidingis an analytical task where the robot needs to navigate from one end of the table to the other while avoiding the rods arranged in a pyramidal shape. The gaps between the rods naturally create multimodality. The action space is 2-dimensional xy coordinates

    work page

  47. [48]

    The action space is 3-dimensional xyz coordinates

    aligninginvolves aligning a hollow square shape to a target pose with a rod endeffector, where colored faces need to match. The action space is 3-dimensional xyz coordinates. The strategy is to either push from outside the square, or insert the rod inside the square and pull. The dataset contains both pushing and pulling demonstrations. 19 Table 6: Evalua...

    work page

  48. [49]

    The 2, 4, and 6 variants have 1, 2, and 3 blocks for each color

    sorting (2, 4, 6)involves pushing red and blue colored blocks into corresponding red and blue colored bins using a rod endeffector. The 2, 4, and 6 variants have 1, 2, and 3 blocks for each color. The action space is 2-dimensional xy coordinates. The dataset contains demonstrations of sorting the objects in different orders. Robomimic [34]is a simulated r...

    work page

  49. [50]

    The observations are (84, 84) images from a scene camera and a wrist camera

    liftinvolves lifting a cube off the table. The observations are (84, 84) images from a scene camera and a wrist camera

    work page

  50. [51]

    The observations are (84, 84) images from a scene camera and a wrist camera

    caninvolves picking up a can from one table and putting it in the correct cell in the adjacent table. The observations are (84, 84) images from a scene camera and a wrist camera

    work page

  51. [52]

    The observations are (84, 84) images from a scene camera and a wrist camera

    squareinvolves picking up a “frame” piece with a square hole and dropping it on a square peg. The observations are (84, 84) images from a scene camera and a wrist camera

    work page

  52. [53]

    The observations are (240, 240) images from a scene camera and a wrist camera

    tool-hangis a high-precision task that involves inserting a hanger on a narrow stand and hanging a wrench on the hanger. The observations are (240, 240) images from a scene camera and a wrist camera

    work page

  53. [54]

    reasoning

    transportis a bimanual task involving a sequence of operations: the left arm lifts up the lid and hands the hammer to the right arm, while the right arm first moves a block from one bin to another, then receives the hammer and places it into a bin. The observations are (84, 84) images from one scene camera and two wrist cameras. D Additional Experiments D...

    work page