Pith. sign in

REVIEW 3 major objections 2 cited by

From Passive Observer to Active Critic: Reinforcement Learning Elicits Process Reasoning for Robotic Manipulation

T0 review · 3 major / 0 minor · reviewed 2026-07-14 · grok-4.5

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

Pith's one-line read Outcome-based reinforcement learning turns video language models into active critics that estimate robotic task progress with half the error of prior specialist baselines.

desk verdict Solid engineering stack that turns a 7B video MLLM into a progress critic via GRPO + boundary anchoring; results look real, novelty is combinatorial, and the main soft spot is how faithful the 0–100 labels are. read the letter →

arxiv 2603.15600 v2 pith:6MI2Y3P6 submitted 2026-03-16 cs.RO cs.AIcs.CLcs.CV

Yibin Liu , Yaxing Lyu , Daqi Gao , Zhixuan Liang , Weiliang Tang , Shilong Mu , Xiaokang Yang , Yao Mu This is my paper
classification cs.ROcs.AIcs.CLcs.CV
keywords videomultimodallargelanguagemodelsprocesssupervisiontaskprogressestimationreinforcementlearningforreasoningroboticmanipulationfailuredetectionchain-of-thoughtembodiedAI
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

Long-horizon robot manipulation needs dense process feedback, but today's video multimodal models mostly act as passive observers: they describe what is happening instead of measuring how far the current state is from the goal. This paper shows that a 7B video model can be turned into an active critic by training it with outcome-based reinforcement learning that rewards correct final progress scores and forces an explicit chain-of-thought. The input is structured by sandwiching the video clip between a clear initial-state image and a current-state image so the model must align the trajectory to both boundaries. On a new multi-environment dataset and benchmark the resulting model cuts mean absolute error roughly in half relative to specialized reasoning baselines, beats far larger general models, and transfers zero-shot to hard failure detection. A sympathetic reader cares because reliable, language-conditioned progress critics are a missing ingredient for scalable reward signals in real-world robot learning.

What carries the argument

PRIMO R1's structured temporal anchoring (initial-state image, process video, current-state image) together with GRPO that optimizes only final-progress accuracy and output format; this combination forces the model to generate an explicit planning-observation-reasoning chain that maps visual state transitions onto a 0-100 progress scale.

What would settle it

Replace the timestamp-derived progress labels on a held-out long-horizon task set with independent human annotations of true physical completion percentage; if the model's mean absolute error advantage and the coherence of its generated reasoning chains both disappear, the central claim fails.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

A 7B video multimodal model trained with group-relative policy optimization on continuous progress labels, using a format-plus-accuracy reward that elicits chain-of-thought and a structured input of initial image + video + current image, becomes a state-of-the-art process supervisor: average mean relative accuracy 82.90 and mean absolute error 15.52 across simulation and real humanoid domains, plus 67 percent zero-shot accuracy on the RoboFail failure-detection benchmark.

Load-bearing premise

The continuous 0-100 progress numbers derived from sub-task timestamps and automatic segmentation are faithful ground-truth labels of physical task completion, so that a pure outcome reward on those numbers truly elicits causal process reasoning rather than label-fitting rationalizations.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • Dense, language-conditioned reward signals for long-horizon robot policies can be obtained from a single 7B critic without privileged state or hand-engineered dense rewards.
  • Optimizing continuous progress estimation alone is enough to construct the temporal representations needed for discrete failure detection, so separate failure-training data become unnecessary for many verification tasks.
  • Explicit boundary-state images plus forced chain-of-thought remove the reference-demonstration dependency that limits earlier progress models.
  • Sim-to-real transfer of process supervision improves because the model must reason about state alignment rather than memorize visual trajectories.
  • The same critic can be queried with arbitrary natural-language goals, inheriting the linguistic generalization of the base multimodal model.

Reading between the lines

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

  • If the critic is accurate enough, closed-loop policy learning could replace sparse success/failure labels with continuous progress gradients even in unstructured real homes and factories.
  • The same anchoring-plus-outcome-RL recipe may transfer to non-manipulation domains that require progress monitoring over long video (assembly verification, surgical skill assessment, household chore tracking).
  • Because the reasoning is forced into an explicit plan-observe-reason template, the generated chains themselves become a cheap source of synthetic process explanations for further distillation or human oversight.
  • A natural next test is whether freezing the critic and using its progress scores as a dense reward actually accelerates end-to-end policy learning on a long-horizon manipulation suite.
Share X Bluesky LinkedIn Reddit HN

Editorial analysis

A structured set of objections, weighed in public.

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

Referee Report

3 major / 0 minor

Summary. The paper proposes PRIMO R1, a 7B video MLLM post-trained with SFT then GRPO to act as an active process critic for robotic manipulation. Inputs are structured as (I_init, V_seq, I_curr) plus a language goal; the policy is trained to emit a <planning>/<observation>/<reasoning> CoT and a scalar progress y∈[0,100]. Training uses a format reward plus a bounded linear accuracy reward on |ŷ−y_gt| (Eq. 2). The authors release PRIMO Dataset/Bench spanning AgiBot, BEHAVIOR, RoboTwin, and an OOD real humanoid split. Empirically, the 7B model reports average MRA 82.90 / MAE 15.52 (Table 1), roughly halving MAE of specialized 7B reasoning baselines and beating Qwen2.5-VL-72B by ~9 MRA points, plus 67% zero-shot accuracy on RoboFail (Table 2), above GPT-4o and OpenAI o1 in their comparison. Ablations attribute gains to SFT+RL synergy (Table 3) and boundary-state anchoring (Table 4), with qualitative CoT cases and fine-grained MAE by progress bin (Fig. 4).

Significance. Process supervision for long-horizon manipulation is a genuine bottleneck; a compact, language-conditioned critic that generalizes across simulators and real humanoids would be useful for reward design and monitoring. Strengths include a clear two-stage post-training recipe, multi-environment ID/OOD evaluation (including a real humanoid transfer set), modality and SFT/RL ablations, fine-grained error analysis that reduces late-stage hallucination, and a public dataset/benchmark contribution. The zero-shot RoboFail transfer is a valuable external check that continuous progress training can help discrete failure verification. If the reported gains hold under stricter label and statistical scrutiny, the work is a solid, practical advance for embodied process reward models rather than a purely incremental SFT paper.

major comments (3)
  1. Appendix A and Eq. (2): y_gt is built from sub-task timestamp segmentation (BDDL/LLM captions, code markers, teleop timestamps) and then used as the sole accuracy outcome for GRPO. The central narrative—that RL elicits causal state-alignment / process reasoning rather than template CoT that matches a temporal fraction—depends on these labels tracking physical completion (object states, contacts, irreversible failures). The manuscript does not validate label fidelity against physical state metrics on any subset, nor does it quantify how often sub-task fractions diverge from true completion (e.g., failed grasps that still advance the clock). Please either (i) provide a physical-state audit of labels on a held-out subset, or (ii) reframe claims as progress relative to annotated sub-task scripts and add an explicit limitation on interpreting CoT as causal verification. Without this, Tables 1
  2. Table 2 / RoboFail: SOTA claims (67.0%, +6 over o1) rest on n=100 curated examples with no confidence intervals, bootstrap, or multi-seed reporting. Given binary accuracy and closed-source baselines, a few flips change the ranking. Report uncertainty (e.g., Wilson/bootstrap CIs), clarify exact prompt/protocol parity with Cosmos-Reason1 numbers, and temper absolute SOTA language if intervals overlap. This is load-bearing for the zero-shot failure-detection claim highlighted in the abstract.
  3. Table 4: The final triad (I_init+V_seq+I_curr) is not uniformly best—on AgiBot, I_init+V_seq (MAE 24.94) and V_seq+I_curr (25.04) beat the triad (29.39); the triad’s main win is Behavior (long-horizon). The paper asserts boundary anchoring as a “necessary structural prerequisite” (§3.1, contributions), but the ablation shows a horizon-dependent trade-off. Please justify the fixed triad choice quantitatively (e.g., horizon-stratified selection rule, or show that RL dynamics in Fig. 7 outweigh the AgiBot MAE regression), or adopt a task-adaptive input policy. As written, the architectural claim is stronger than the table supports.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 1.0 of 10

No definitional circularity: standard SFT+outcome-RL training/eval on constructed progress labels, with external zero-shot RoboFail and OOD humanoid results.

full rationale

The paper is an empirical systems/ML contribution. Progress estimation is formalized as learning F(I_init, V_seq, I_curr | I) → y ∈ [0,100] (Sec. 3.1); y_gt comes from timestamp/sub-task segmentation of multi-source trajectories (App. A); GRPO maximizes a composite reward r_fmt + r_acc where r_acc is the bounded linear decay on |ŷ − y_gt| (Eq. 2) and format enforces <think>/<answer> tags. Reported MRA/MAE (Table 1) and RoboFail accuracy (Table 2) are ordinary held-out or external measurements, not quantities forced by construction from the training objective. Ablations (Tables 3–4) and qualitative CoT examples likewise compare against the same external metrics. RoboFail is an independent benchmark (REFLECT/Cosmos-Reason1); Real Humanoid is a distinct teleoperated embodiment. Shared construction pipelines for the ID portion of PRIMO Bench are normal dataset practice and do not render the OOD or zero-shot claims tautological. No self-definitional equations, no fitted scalar renamed as a first-principles prediction, and no load-bearing uniqueness theorem imported via self-citation appear in the derivation chain. Label faithfulness is a separate validity concern, not circularity.

Assumptions & free parameters 5 free parameters · 4 assumptions · 2 invented entities

Empirical systems paper. Load-bearing content is the training recipe, the progress annotation ontology, and the claim that outcome RL + boundary images yield general process critics. Free parameters are standard training knobs; axioms are domain modeling choices; invented entities are the named framework and datasets rather than physical objects.

free parameters (5)
  • R_max in accuracy reward = 100.0 (example)
    Sets the linear decay scale of racc = max(0, 1 - |ŷ−y|/R_max); paper uses e.g. 100.0. Directly shapes the dense reward landscape for GRPO.
  • GRPO group size G and KL beta = G=8, beta=0.04
    G=8 rollouts and beta=0.04 control advantage normalization and policy drift; chosen by authors, not derived.
  • SFT/RL learning rates and batch schedule = 1.0e-6
    lr=1e-6, global batch 64 (SFT) / small GRPO batches, 1 epoch each—standard fitted training hyperparameters that affect final MRA/MAE.
  • Frame count and resolution (train vs infer) = 16 train / 32 infer frames
    Train max 16 frames at 128×28×28; infer 32 frames at 256×28×28. Temporal sampling choices that affect measured progress accuracy.
  • Format reward magnitude = +1 if format matches
    Binary +1 for <think>/<answer> structure; relative weight vs accuracy reward is a design choice that forces CoT length/style.
assumptions (4)
  • domain assumption Task progress is a well-defined continuous scalar y∈[0,100] aligned with sub-task timestamp segmentation.
    Problem formulation §3.1 and dataset construction Appendix A treat segmented trajectories as ground-truth progress for both reward and metrics.
  • domain assumption Group Relative Policy Optimization with outcome-only rewards elicits useful intermediate Chain-of-Thought without process labels.
    Method §3.3 imports the R1/GRPO paradigm; success of CoT is measured only by final ŷ accuracy plus format.
  • ad hoc to paper Explicitly providing I_init and I_curr with V_seq is necessary for accurate long-horizon progress estimation.
    Stated as structural prerequisite (§3.1) and supported by Table 4 ablation; treated as architectural axiom of PRIMO R1.
  • standard math Standard transformer/VLM training math (AdamW, KL-regularized policy gradients, indicator MRA).
    Eqs. 1–5 and training configs use conventional GRPO/PPO-style and regression metrics without novel proofs.
invented entities (2)
  • PRIMO R1 framework
    purpose: Named 7B critic pipeline: triad visual input + SFT then GRPO for progress CoT.
    Central system contribution; no independent existence outside this paper’s training run.
  • PRIMO Dataset / PRIMO Bench
    purpose: SFT (116k) and RL (182k) progress+CoT corpora and ID/OOD evaluation splits including Real Humanoid.
    New evaluation and training resource; labels and splits defined by the authors’ pipeline.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of From Passive Observer to Active Critic: Reinforcement Learning Elicits Process Reasoning for Robotic Manipulation." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/6MI2Y3P6

@misc{pith2026260315600,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: From Passive Observer to Active Critic: Reinforcement Learning Elicits Process Reasoning for Robotic Manipulation},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/6MI2Y3P6}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2603.15600}
}
read the original abstract

Accurate process supervision remains a critical challenge for long-horizon robotic manipulation. A primary bottleneck is that current video MLLMs, trained primarily under a Supervised Fine-Tuning (SFT) paradigm, function as passive "Observers" that recognize ongoing events rather than evaluating the current state relative to the final task goal. In this paper, we introduce PRIMO R1 (Process Reasoning Induced Monitoring), a 7B framework that transforms video MLLMs into active "Critics". We leverage outcome-based Reinforcement Learning to incentivize explicit Chain-of-Thought generation for progress estimation. Furthermore, our architecture constructs a structured temporal input by explicitly anchoring the video sequence between initial and current state images. Supported by the proposed PRIMO Dataset and Benchmark, extensive experiments across diverse in-domain environments and out-of-domain real-world humanoid scenarios demonstrate that PRIMO R1 achieves state-of-the-art performance. Quantitatively, our 7B model achieves a 50% reduction in the mean absolute error of specialized reasoning baselines, demonstrating significant relative accuracy improvements over 72B-scale general MLLMs. Furthermore, PRIMO R1 exhibits strong zero-shot generalization on difficult failure detection tasks. We establish state-of-the-art performance on RoboFail benchmark with 67.0% accuracy, surpassing closed-source models like OpenAI o1 by 6.0%.

Discussion (0). Sign in to comment.

Forward citations

Cited by 2 Pith papers

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

  1. RoboProcessBench: Benchmarking Process-Aware Understanding in Vision-Language Robotic Manipulation

    cs.RO 2026-06 unverdicted novelty 6.0 of 10

    RoboProcessBench is a new benchmark decomposing process-aware understanding into static monitoring and dynamic reasoning across 12 question families, with evaluations showing VLM limitations but post-training gains on...

  2. RoboProcessBench: Benchmarking Process-Aware Understanding in Vision-Language Robotic Manipulation

    cs.RO 2026-06 conditional novelty 6.0 of 10

    A 12-family, ~58k-question benchmark reveals that VLMs are weak at judging robotic manipulation progress and temporal order, and that fine-tuning on it improves local state, motion, and primitive-aware cues.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

138 extracted references · 17 linked inside Pith · cited by 1 Pith paper

  1. [1]

    arXiv preprint arXiv:2503.15558 (2025)

    Azzolini, A., Bai, J., Brandon, H., Cao, J., Chattopadhyay, P., Chen, H., Chu, J., Cui, Y., Diamond, J., Ding, Y., et al.: Cosmos-reason1: From physical common sense to embodied reasoning. arXiv preprint arXiv:2503.15558 (2025)

    arXiv 2025

  2. [2]

    arXiv preprint arXiv:2503.06669 (2025)

    Bu, Q., Cai, J., Chen, L., Cui, X., Ding, Y., Feng, S., Gao, S., He, X., Hu, X., Huang, X., et al.: Agibot world colosseo: A large-scale manipulation platform for scalable and intelligent embodied systems. arXiv preprint arXiv:2503.06669 (2025)

    arXiv 2025

  3. [3]

    arXiv preprint arXiv:2506.18088 (2025)

    Chen, T., Chen, Z., Chen, B., Cai, Z., Liu, Y., Li, Z., Liang, Q., Lin, X., Ge, Y., Gu, Z., et al.: Robotwin 2.0: A scalable data generator and benchmark with strong domain randomization for robust bimanual robotic manipulation. arXiv preprint arXiv:2506.18088 (2025)

    arXiv 2025

  4. [4]

    International Journal of Computer Vision134(3), 118 (2026)

    Chen, Y., Ge, Y., Ge, Y., Ding, M., Li, B., Wang, R., Xu, R., Shan, Y., Liu, X.: Egoplan-bench: Benchmarking multimodal large language models for human-level planning. International Journal of Computer Vision134(3), 118 (2026)

    2026

  5. [5]

    Chen, Y., Ge, Y., Wang, R., Ge, Y., Cheng, J., Shan, Y., Liu, X.: Grpo-care: Consistency-awarereinforcementlearningformultimodalreasoning.arXivpreprint arXiv:2506.16141 (2025)

    arXiv 2025

  6. [6]

    arXiv preprint arXiv:2406.07476 (2024)

    Cheng, Z., Leng, S., Zhang, H., Xin, Y., Li, X., Chen, G., Zhu, Y., Zhang, W., Luo, Z., Zhao, D., et al.: Videollama 2: Advancing spatial-temporal modeling and audio understanding in video-llms. arXiv preprint arXiv:2406.07476 (2024)

    arXiv 2024

  7. [7]

    arXiv preprint arXiv:2503.21776 (2025)

    Feng, K., Gong, K., Li, B., Guo, Z., Wang, Y., Peng, T., Wu, J., Zhang, X., Wang, B., Yue, X.: Video-r1: Reinforcing video reasoning in mllms. arXiv preprint arXiv:2503.21776 (2025)

    arXiv 2025

  8. [8]

    arXiv preprint arXiv:2509.24008 (2025)

    Ge, H., Wang, Y., Chang, K.W., Wu, H., Cai, Y.: Framemind: Frame-interleaved video reasoning via reinforcement learning. arXiv preprint arXiv:2509.24008 (2025)

    arXiv 2025

Show all 138 references
  1. [9]

    arXiv preprint arXiv:2501.12948 (2025)

    Guo, D., Yang, D., Zhang, H., Song, J., Zhang, R., Xu, R., Zhu, Q., Ma, S., Wang, P., Bi, X., et al.: Deepseek-r1: Incentivizing reasoning capability in llms via reinforcement learning. arXiv preprint arXiv:2501.12948 (2025)

    2025 arXiv

  2. [10]

    In: Proceedings of the IEEE/CVF Conference on Computer Vision and Pattern Recognition

    Huang, B., Wang, X., Chen, H., Song, Z., Zhu, W.: Vtimellm: Empower llm to grasp video moments. In: Proceedings of the IEEE/CVF Conference on Computer Vision and Pattern Recognition. pp. 14271–14280 (2024)

    2024

  3. [11]

    arXiv preprint arXiv:2502.21257 (2025)

    Ji, Y., Tan, H., Shi, J., Hao, X., Zhang, Y., Zhang, H., Wang, P., Zhao, M., Mu, Y., An, P., et al.: Robobrain: A unified brain model for robotic manipulation from abstract to concrete. arXiv preprint arXiv:2502.21257 (2025)

    2025 arXiv

  4. [12]

    In: Conference on Robot Learning

    Li, C., Zhang, R., Wong, J., Gokmen, C., Srivastava, S., Martín-Martín, R., Wang, C., Levine, G., Lingelbach, M., Sun, J., et al.: Behavior-1k: A benchmark for em- bodied ai with 1,000 everyday activities and realistic simulation. In: Conference on Robot Learning. pp. 80–93. P...

    2023

  5. [13]

    IEEE Trans

    Li, Y., Wang, L., Wang, T., Yang, X., Luo, J., Wang, Q., Deng, Y., Wang, W., Sun, X., Li, H., et al.: Star: A first-ever dataset and a large-scale benchmark for scene graph generation in large-size satellite imagery. IEEE Trans. Pattern Anal. Mach. Intell.47(3), 1832–1849 (2025)

    2025

  6. [14]

    Li, Y., Wang, C., Jia, J.: Llama-vid: An image is worth 2 tokens in large lan- guagemodels.In:EuropeanConferenceonComputerVision.pp.323–340.Springer (2024)

    2024

  7. [15]

    In: Proceedings of the 2024 conference on empirical methods in natural language processing

    Lin, B., Ye, Y., Zhu, B., Cui, J., Ning, M., Jin, P., Yuan, L.: Video-llava: Learning united visual representation by alignment before projection. In: Proceedings of the 2024 conference on empirical methods in natural language processing. pp. 5971– 5984 (2024) Reinforcement Le...

    2024

  8. [16]

    arXiv preprint arXiv:2508.02629 (2025)

    Liu, Y., Liang, Z., Chen, Z., Chen, T., Hu, M., Dong, W., Xu, C., Han, Z., Qin, Y., Mu, Y.: Hycodepolicy: Hybrid language controllers for multimodal monitoring and decision in embodied agents. arXiv preprint arXiv:2508.02629 (2025)

    2025 arXiv

  9. [17]

    arXiv preprint arXiv:2306.15724 (2023)

    Liu, Z., Bahety, A., Song, S.: Reflect: Summarizing robot experiences for failure explanation and correction. arXiv preprint arXiv:2306.15724 (2023)

    2023 arXiv

  10. [18]

    In: The Thirteenth International Conference on Learning Representations (2024)

    Ma, Y.J., Hejna, J., Fu, C., Shah, D., Liang, J., Xu, Z., Kirmani, S., Xu, P., Driess, D., Xiao, T., et al.: Vision language models are in-context value learners. In: The Thirteenth International Conference on Learning Representations (2024)

    2024

  11. [19]

    In: International Conference on Machine Learning

    Ma, Y.J., Kumar, V., Zhang, A., Bastani, O., Jayaraman, D.: Liv: Language-image representations and rewards for robotic control. In: International Conference on Machine Learning. pp. 23301–23320. PMLR (2023)

    2023

  12. [20]

    arXiv preprint arXiv:2210.00030 (2022)

    Ma, Y.J., Sodhani, S., Jayaraman, D., Bastani, O., Kumar, V., Zhang, A.: Vip: Towards universal visual reward and representation via value-implicit pre-training. arXiv preprint arXiv:2210.00030 (2022)

    2022 arXiv

  13. [21]

    In: Proceedings of the 62nd Annual Meeting of the Association for Computational Linguistics (Volume 1: Long Papers)

    Maaz, M., Rasheed, H., Khan, S., Khan, F.: Video-chatgpt: Towards detailed video understanding via large vision and language models. In: Proceedings of the 62nd Annual Meeting of the Association for Computational Linguistics (Volume 1: Long Papers). pp. 12585–12602 (2024)

    2024

  14. [22]

    Advances in Neural Information Processing Systems36, 42748–42761 (2023)

    Patraucean, V., Smaira, L., Gupta, A., Recasens, A., Markeeva, L., Banarse, D., Koppula, S., Malinowski, M., Yang, Y., Doersch, C., et al.: Perception test: A di- agnostic benchmark for multimodal video models. Advances in Neural Information Processing Systems36, 42748–42761 (2023)

    2023

  15. [23]

    In: Proceedings of the IEEE/CVF Conference on Computer Vision and Pattern Recognition

    Ren, S., Yao, L., Li, S., Sun, X., Hou, L.: Timechat: A time-sensitive multi- modal large language model for long video understanding. In: Proceedings of the IEEE/CVF Conference on Computer Vision and Pattern Recognition. pp. 14313– 14323 (2024)

    2024

  16. [24]

    In: Proceedings of the Computer Vision and Pattern Recognition Conference

    Ren, W., Yang, H., Min, J., Wei, C., Chen, W.: Vista: Enhancing long-duration and high-resolution video understanding by video spatiotemporal augmentation. In: Proceedings of the Computer Vision and Pattern Recognition Conference. pp. 3804–3814 (2025)

    2025

  17. [25]

    arXiv preprint arXiv:1707.06347 (2017)

    Schulman, J., Wolski, F., Dhariwal, P., Radford, A., Klimov, O.: Proximal policy optimization algorithms. arXiv preprint arXiv:1707.06347 (2017)

    2017 arXiv

  18. [26]

    In: 2024 IEEE International Conference on Robotics and Automation (ICRA)

    Sermanet, P., Ding, T., Zhao, J., Xia, F., Dwibedi, D., Gopalakrishnan, K., Chan, C., Dulac-Arnold, G., Maddineni, S., Joshi, N.J., et al.: Robovqa: Multimodal long- horizon reasoning for robotics. In: 2024 IEEE International Conference on Robotics and Automation (ICRA). pp. 6...

    2024

  19. [27]

    arXiv preprint arXiv:2504.07615 (2025)

    Shen, H., Liu, P., Li, J., Fang, C., Ma, Y., Liao, J., Shen, Q., Zhang, Z., Zhao, K., Zhang, Q., et al.: Vlm-r1: A stable and generalizable r1-style large vision-language model. arXiv preprint arXiv:2504.07615 (2025)

    2025 arXiv

  20. [28]

    In: Proceedings of the IEEE/CVF Conference on Computer Vision and Pattern Recognition

    Song, E., Chai, W., Wang, G., Zhang, Y., Zhou, H., Wu, F., Chi, H., Guo, X., Ye, T., Zhang, Y., et al.: Moviechat: From dense token to sparse memory for long video understanding. In: Proceedings of the IEEE/CVF Conference on Computer Vision and Pattern Recognition. pp. 18221–1...

    2024

  21. [29]

    Advances in Neural Information Processing Systems36, 55681–55693 (2023)

    Sontakke, S., Zhang, J., Arnold, S., Pertsch, K., Bıyık, E., Sadigh, D., Finn, C., Itti, L.: Roboclip: One demonstration is enough to learn robot policies. Advances in Neural Information Processing Systems36, 55681–55693 (2023)

    2023

  22. [30]

    arXiv preprint arXiv:2512.23703 (2025) 18 Y

    Tan, H., Chen, S., Xu, Y., Wang, Z., Ji, Y., Chi, C., Lyu, Y., Zhao, Z., Chen, X., Co, P., et al.: Robo-dopamine: General process reward modeling for high-precision robotic manipulation. arXiv preprint arXiv:2512.23703 (2025) 18 Y. Liu et al

    2025

  23. [31]

    arXiv preprint arXiv:2503.13377 (2025)

    Wang, Y., Wang, Z., Xu, B., Du, Y., Lin, K., Xiao, Z., Yue, Z., Ju, J., Zhang, L., Yang, D., et al.: Time-r1: Post-training large vision language model for temporal video grounding. arXiv preprint arXiv:2503.13377 (2025)

    2025 arXiv

  24. [32]

    In: Proceedings of the IEEE/CVF conference on computer vision and pattern recognition

    Xiao,J.,Shang,X.,Yao,A.,Chua,T.S.:Next-qa:Nextphaseofquestion-answering to explaining temporal actions. In: Proceedings of the IEEE/CVF conference on computer vision and pattern recognition. pp. 9777–9786 (2021)

    2021

  25. [33]

    arXiv preprint arXiv:2503.10615 (2025)

    Yang, Y., He, X., Pan, H., Jiang, X., Deng, Y., Yang, X., Lu, H., Yin, D., Rao, F., Zhu, M., et al.: R1-onevision: Advancing generalized multimodal reasoning through cross-modal formalization. arXiv preprint arXiv:2503.10615 (2025)

    2025 arXiv

  26. [34]

    Advances in Neural Information Processing Systems36, 76749–76771 (2023)

    Yu, S., Cho, J., Yadav, P., Bansal, M.: Self-chained image-language model for video localization and question answering. Advances in Neural Information Processing Systems36, 76749–76771 (2023)

    2023

  27. [35]

    arXiv preprint arXiv:2509.15937 (2025)

    Zhai, S., Zhang, Q., Zhang, T., Huang, F., Zhang, H., Zhou, M., Zhang, S., Liu, L., Lin, S., Pang, J.: A vision-language-action-critic model for robotic real-world reinforcement learning. arXiv preprint arXiv:2509.15937 (2025)

    2025

  28. [36]

    arXiv preprint arXiv:2505.10911 (2025)

    Zhang, J., Luo, Y., Anwar, A., Sontakke, S.A., Lim, J.J., Thomason, J., Biyik, E., Zhang, J.: Rewind: Language-guided rewards teach robot policies without new demonstrations. arXiv preprint arXiv:2505.10911 (2025)

    2025

  29. [37]

    arXiv preprint arXiv:2601.15224 (2026)

    Zhang, J., Qian, C., Sun, H., Lu, H., Wang, D., Xue, L., Liu, H.: Pro- gresslm: Towards progress reasoning in vision-language models. arXiv preprint arXiv:2601.15224 (2026)

    2026 arXiv

  30. [38]

    action af- fordance

    Zhang, P., Zhang, K., Li, B., Zeng, G., Yang, J., Zhang, Y., Wang, Z., Tan, H., Li, C., Liu, Z.: Long context transfer from language to vision. arXiv preprint arXiv:2406.16852 (2024) Reinforcement Learning Elicits Process Reasoning for Robotic Manipulation 19 Appendix A Benchm...

    2024 arXiv

  31. [39]

    How much of the task has been completed?

  32. [40]

    What percentage of the task is finished?

  33. [41]

    How complete is the task in the video?

  34. [42]

    Estimate the completion percentage of the task. 28 Y. Liu et al

  35. [43]

    How far along is the agent in completing the task (in percent)?

  36. [44]

    To what extent has the task been completed?

  37. [45]

    Please estimate how much of the task has been done (0-100%)

  38. [46]

    What fraction of the task appears to be finished?

  39. [47]

    How much progress has been made toward completing the task?

  40. [48]

    Give the approximate percentage of task completion

  41. [49]

    Based on the video, what is the task’s completion percentage?

  42. [50]

    Considering the ongoing actions, how complete is the task execution?

  43. [51]

    From the current progress shown, estimate how much of the task is done

  44. [52]

    According to the visual evidence, what is the completion rate of the task?

  45. [53]

    Based on the observed steps, how far has the task progressed?

  46. [54]

    Judging from the video, how much of the overall task has been achieved?

  47. [55]

    Based on the actions shown, estimate the percentage of task completion

  48. [56]

    Using the video context, determine how much progress has been made

  49. [57]

    According to the current situation, what percent of the task is completed?

  50. [58]

    What is the estimated completion rate of the task shown in this clip?

  51. [59]

    Task completion percentage?

  52. [60]

    Estimate task progress (0-100%)

  53. [61]

    Completion rate of the task?

  54. [62]

    Task progress percentage based on the video?

  55. [63]

    How much of the task is done (in %)?

  56. [64]

    Approximate percent of task completion?

  57. [65]

    Predicted completion level (0-100)?

  58. [66]

    What’s the completion percentage?

  59. [67]

    Estimate progress ratio (0% or 100%)?

  60. [68]

    Task progress estimation in percentage?

  61. [69]

    How complete is the overall procedure in the video?

  62. [70]

    What’s the current progress percentage for this task?

  63. [71]

    Evaluate the current completion level of the task

  64. [72]

    How much has the agent accomplished in this task?

  65. [73]

    Determine the completion percentage of the process

  66. [74]

    Provide an estimate of how much of the task is done

  67. [75]

    What’s the current progress ratio of the operation?

  68. [76]

    Estimate how complete the ongoing task is

  69. [77]

    What is the approximate progress achieved so far?

  70. [78]

    Based on the video evidence, how much of the task is finished?

  71. [79]

    According to the observed actions, what percentage is complete?

  72. [80]

    How far has the agent advanced in completing the task?

  73. [81]

    Quantify the level of task completion (0-100%)

  74. [82]

    Provide a numeric estimate of task completion

  75. [83]

    Indicate how much of the task is completed

  76. [84]

    What portion of the task has been done so far?

  77. [85]

    Compute the completion percentage for the current task

  78. [86]

    Estimate the proportion of the completed task

  79. [87]

    Evaluate the current progress made toward completion

  80. [88]

    How progressed is the task shown in this video? Reinforcement Learning Elicits Process Reasoning for Robotic Manipulation 29

  81. [89]

    Based on this clip, what’s the completion percentage?

  82. [90]

    How much progress has the agent made so far?

  83. [91]

    Indicate the task completion rate as a percentage

  84. [92]

    What’s the estimated completion percentage of the shown task?

  85. [93]

    Approximately what percentage of the task is complete?

  86. [94]

    How advanced is the task execution in this clip?

  87. [95]

    What is the current task progress in numeric terms?

  88. [96]

    From the visual information, estimate the completion percent

  89. [97]

    Provide an approximate completion percentage

  90. [98]

    How far along toward completion is the task?

  91. [99]

    Based on the actions, how complete is the task process?

  92. [100]

    What is the overall completion rate of this task?

  93. [101]

    Estimate the progress level of the operation (0-100)

  94. [102]

    To what degree is the task completed according to the video?

  95. [103]

    Provide an estimation of the task completion level

  96. [104]

    How much work has been completed in the task so far?

  97. [105]

    How complete is the process illustrated in the video?

  98. [106]

    What’s the approximate task completion ratio?

  99. [107]

    How much of the procedure has been achieved?

  100. [108]

    Provide a numerical estimate of progress toward completion

  101. [109]

    Based on what’s shown, estimate the completion level

  102. [110]

    How much of the total work has been finished?

  103. [111]

    Provide a completion score between 0 and 100

  104. [112]

    What is the predicted task completion rate?

  105. [113]

    Please quantify how much progress the agent has made

  106. [114]

    How much of the defined task has already been accomplished?

  107. [115]

    What’s the expected percentage of task completion?

  108. [116]

    From this video, estimate how much the task has progressed

  109. [117]

    How much progress can be observed in the task execution?

  110. [118]

    What is the level of completion observed?

  111. [119]

    According to the video, what’s the completion score?

  112. [120]

    How complete is the operation displayed?

  113. [121]

    Determine the degree of completion (in percentage)

  114. [122]

    How far toward full completion has the agent progressed?

  115. [123]

    Report the completion rate inferred from the video

  116. [124]

    Provide a completion estimate between 0 and 100 percent

  117. [125]

    What is the overall completion percentage observed?

  118. [126]

    How much of the ongoing task is done so far?

  119. [127]

    What is the measured completion proportion?

  120. [128]

    Estimate the current percentage of finished work

  121. [129]

    Quantify the extent of completion visible in the video

  122. [130]

    How far along is the process in percentage terms?

  123. [131]

    What percentage of the work has been achieved?

  124. [132]

    Approximate how complete the shown procedure is

  125. [133]

    Indicate how much of the task remains unfinished

  126. [134]

    How close to full completion is the task right now?

  127. [135]

    What percentage of the total task goal has been reached?

  128. [136]

    How much of the intended activity has been completed?

  129. [137]

    Give an estimated completion rate (0-100%)

  130. [138]

    Estimate the degree of completion based on the given video. 30 Y. Liu et al. Table 8:SFT Training Config Configuration Value Algorithm trainer TRL SFTTrainer seed 42 Model freeze_vision_tower FALSE enable_gradient_checkpointing TRUE attn_implementation flash_attention_2 precis...

Pith tools

Reviewed July 14, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.