Pith. sign in

REVIEW 2 major objections 6 minor 41 references

Diffusion ReRoll makes robotic sequence generation revisable by selectively re-noising locally stable regions, so earlier and later segments can refine one another during denoising, and reports consistent success gains over monotonic and ca

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

2026-08-01 11:17 UTC pith:6NXA5PUX

load-bearing objection Solid empirical paper with a real new mechanism; the core ablation doesn't fully separate re-noising from extra DDIM budget, but the compute-matched baseline gains hold up. the 2 major comments →

arxiv 2607.19919 v1 pith:6NXA5PUX submitted 2026-07-22 cs.RO cs.LG

Diffusion ReRoll: Revisable Denoising for Robotic Sequential Prediction

Seonsoo Kim , Seongil Hong , Jun-Gill Kang This is my paper
classification cs.RO cs.LG
keywords diffusion modelsrobotic sequential predictionrevisable denoisingschedule matrixlinear chunkscross-horizon revisionpolicy learninglong-horizon planning
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.

Diffusion ReRoll argues that a diffusion sequence predictor need not commit monotonically to an early plan. It trains a per-token-noise denoiser on randomized piecewise-linear 'linear chunks' and then deploys a schedule matrix that periodically returns selected horizon regions to high noise—ReRoll events—while the rest of the sequence keeps denoising. This lets early and late segments revise each other before a final plan is produced. The paper's evidence is a set of matched comparisons: a 21% relative gain over Diffusion Forcing in guidance-based maze replanning, a 23% relative gain over Diffuser in goal inpainting, a 56.5% average relative gain over Diffusion Policy on official LIBERO-10, and improved out-of-distribution joint-policy success (57.2% to 71.0%) in unified video-action prediction. A reader should care because closed-loop robots are hurt by early mistakes that later context could correct, and this mechanism makes the correction built into denoising rather than bolted on as a separate repair module.

Core claim

The central claim is that revisability can be engineered directly into the diffusion schedule. A schedule matrix assigns each sequence token a noise level at every denoising row; downward rows are denoising updates, while scheduled upward rows are explicit forward noising that resets a token region to full noise. These reset transitions—ReRoll events—let a locally stable segment be re-generated under the updated context of the rest of the horizon. The paper shows that training on randomized linear noise chunks, rather than independent per-token noise, is what makes this work: applying the ReRoll matrix to a Diffusion-Forcing-trained model does not reliably improve success, and adding a causa

What carries the argument

The load-bearing object is the schedule matrix with virtual linear chunks. Each entry is the noise level assigned to a token at a given denoising row; linear chunks are piecewise-linear noise profiles across the horizon, so denoising proceeds as waves rather than at a single global level. A ReRoll event is a scheduled upward transition that re-injects full noise into a chunk of tokens, attaching it to the next wave. The matrix alone is not enough: the paper also changes the training noise distribution to randomized linear chunks, and the deployment matrix controls whether information flows forward, from both ends, or mostly from the terminal side.

Load-bearing premise

ReRoll's gains rest on the model being trained with randomized linear noise chunks and without causal masking; if that training alignment is absent, the schedule matrix alone does not reliably beat causal denoising, and the headline LIBERO gain also narrows under the open-gripper reset protocol.

What would settle it

Take a denoiser trained with independently sampled per-token noise and deploy the exact ReRoll schedule matrix on AntMaze Giant guidance planning and LIBERO-10; if its success matches the linear-chunk-trained ReRoll model, the paper's claim that structured chunk training is necessary would be refuted. A second decisive check: on the same trained model, compare zero ReRoll events against six; if success does not rise with event count, the gains would come from something other than re-noising.

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

If this is right

  • Long-horizon planning should improve most where early mistakes are hard to reverse; the largest reported maze gains are in Large and Giant variants, with ReRoll recovering paths that full-sequence diffusion commits to incorrectly.
  • The same trained model can change its information-flow pattern by swapping the schedule matrix, so forward, backward, and endpoint-conditioned revision become deployment-time choices rather than architecture changes.
  • Multi-task action-chunk prediction improves across all evaluated horizons and observation histories on LIBERO-10; the paper hypothesizes the gain is largest when multiple plausible action structures compete, which is consistent with the smaller single-task RoboCasa gains.
  • Unified video-action models gain in out-of-distribution joint-policy success and show the lowest zero-action error, indicating stronger action-video consistency than monotonic or causal variants.
  • ReRoll's benefit is conditional on training with randomized linear chunks and non-causal attention; the schedule matrix alone, applied to independently noised training, is not enough.

Where Pith is reading between the lines

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

  • Left implicit is that the schedule matrix could be adapted per rollout—e.g., increasing ReRoll events in regions flagged as high-risk—without retraining, since the model already saw variable chunk slopes; this would be a cheap test of the revisability interface.
  • The two-protocol LIBERO results imply that absolute gains depend on evaluation reset details; future comparisons should report the gripper-reset protocol, and the true advantage of re-noising may be smaller under easier resets.
  • If ReRoll's benefit is an inductive bias from structured noise, then other per-token diffusion backbones, including larger robot models, might inherit it simply by changing their training noise distribution without adding the schedule machinery.
  • The zero-action diagnostic offers a reusable metric: action-video consistency can serve as an early signal for downstream control robustness under out-of-distribution visual changes, before full policy rollouts are run.

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

2 major / 6 minor

Summary. Diffusion ReRoll (DR) is a scheme for robotic sequential prediction that generalizes per-token noise conditioning à la Diffusion Forcing. The schedule matrix is organized into virtual piecewise-linear 'chunks'; when a chunk's leading edge reaches a reset noise level, a ReRoll event re-noises that region to full noise and attaches it to an adjacent chunk, while other regions continue denoising. Training uses randomized linear-chunk noise profiles, and the paper introduces forward and bidirectional schedule variants. The method is evaluated on OGBench maze planning, LIBERO-10 and RoboCasa policy learning, and UWM unified video-action prediction, reporting large relative gains over Diffuser, Diffusion Forcing, and Diffusion Policy, plus schedule ablations and an analysis of two LIBERO-10 reset protocols.

Significance. If the reported results hold, DR identifies a new and potentially useful design axis for diffusion sequence predictors—non-monotonic, structured re-noising—and demonstrates gains across three diverse robotics benchmarks. The paper's transparency is a notable strength: matched DF/DR architectures, the zero-event ablation, the action-representation control, the causal-masking control, and the explicit reporting of two LIBERO-10 reset protocols. However, the central mechanistic attribution is currently weakened by a compute confound: the ReRoll-event ablation varies both the number of re-noising events and the number of DDIM updates. Thus, the empirical contribution is solid as a system-level result, but the claim that 'revisable denoising' is the active ingredient needs an additional control experiment before it can be regarded as established.

major comments (2)
  1. [Sec. 4.1, Fig. 7, Table 7] The central attribution claim—'DR's gains are largely driven by selective re-noising'—is not yet isolated from inference compute. In the ReRoll-event ablation, increasing Nroll from 0 to 6 changes the schedule matrix from 124 to 202 DDIM rows in planning and from 11/23/31 to 29/53/85 updates in policy settings (Table 7). The zero-event condition is therefore not a same-budget no-reset control; a monotonic causal schedule with the same number of rows might recapture most of the gain. Please add a control that matches the total DDIM update count while keeping the schedule monotonic (e.g., a slower causal ramp with the same number of rows, or additional intermediate rows), and re-evaluate the conclusion in Sec. 4.1. Without this control, the reported gains remain consistent with 'more denoising steps' as an alternative explanation.
  2. [Abstract and Sec. 4.3, Table 2, Appendix C.3.2] The abstract's headline '56.5% relative gain' over Diffusion Policy on LIBERO-10 is based on the official gripper-reset protocol. Under the open-gripper protocol reported in Table 2, the same 2/16/8 comparison is 82.5% vs. 76.2% (about 8% relative), and the average improvement over the five settings drops to roughly 18% relative. The official 2/16/8 ReRoll result also has a very large standard deviation (51.0 ±24.1). The paper does transparently report both protocols and discusses the reset discrepancy, but the summary and conclusion select the most favorable number. Please add a protocol caveat in the abstract/conclusion, or report the average across both protocols, so the reader is not left with an overstatement of the policy-learning gain.
minor comments (6)
  1. [Abstract] 'Relative gains' are defined only in Appendix C.1; consider a parenthetical in the abstract (e.g., 'relative to the baseline average') to avoid misreading as absolute percentage-point gains.
  2. [Table 2] Please add a footnote to Table 2 pointing to Appendix C.3.2 and D.3 for the reset-protocol sensitivity and the per-seed results behind the large standard deviation.
  3. [Fig. 7] Ensure the y-axis label ('Success rate') is visible in the final figure; the text references fractions but the figure axes are not labeled in the submitted version.
  4. [Sec. 2.2, Eq. (2)] M is undefined when introduced. Define M as the number of schedule rows (denoising steps).
  5. [Appendix A.1] The forward noising transition in Eq. (6) uses the same alpha-bar scaling; a short derivation or reference to standard forward diffusion would help readers verify the variance.
  6. [Sec. 4.2] The Diffuser guidance results in Table 1 are very low (e.g., 16% on AntMaze Giant). Please state whether this reflects the re-enabled OGBench start-goal randomization and whether the Diffuser model was trained with the same guidance objective, so readers can compare with other Diffuser evaluations.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged

No significant circularity; ReRoll's gains are empirical and not forced by construction.

full rationale

The paper's central claims are empirical comparisons against external baselines (Diffuser, Diffusion Forcing, Diffusion Policy, UWM) on OGBench, LIBERO-10, RoboCasa, and LIBERO-90/10 video-action benchmarks. Neither the schedule-matrix construction (Sec. 3.1) nor the linear-chunk training loss (Sec. 3.2, Eqs. 7-8) contains the reported success rates as inputs. The only fitted quantities, the horizon-dependent cumulative-action scaling exponents alpha_p and alpha_r (Appendix B.3), are fitted to training-set statistics, and the paper provides an ablation (Fig. 19) showing that applying the same action representation to vanilla Diffusion Policy does not reproduce the gains, so the representation is not an output disguised as a prediction. The method depends on co-designed non-causal training (Fig. 18) and linear-chunk training (Fig. 15), but this dependency is empirical and explicitly ablated, not a definitional equivalence. The ReRoll-event ablation in Sec. 4.1 is confounded by increasing DDIM update counts (Table 7: 124 to 202 rows for planning; 11 to 29 for the 16/8 policy), so the inference that 'gains are largely driven by selective re-noising' is not fully controlled; this is an experimental-design weakness rather than circularity, because the schedule-to-success relationship is not asserted by construction. The Limitations section candidly states that 'ReRoll still requires schedule tuning for new tasks,' which further indicates that schedule parameters are not a hidden fit to the evaluation results. The only self-citation, [11], appears in a survey sentence about stitching methods ('CompDiffuser [10, 11]') and is not load-bearing for ReRoll's mechanism. No equation in the paper reduces a predicted quantity to a fitted input, and no uniqueness or ansatz is imported from the authors' prior work; therefore no circular step can be exhibited, and the paper is self-contained against external benchmarks.

Axiom & Free-Parameter Ledger

7 free parameters · 5 axioms · 1 invented entities

The paper's central contribution is empirical and depends on a cluster of schedule hyperparameters and training-distribution choices. No extra physical entities are postulated. The most honest accounting is that the 'ReRoll mechanism' is a co-designed combination of per-token noise conditioning, non-causal training, a tuned schedule matrix, and—for policy experiments—a customized action representation.

free parameters (7)
  • denoising slope s_dns = 4 for planning and policy; 3.78/3.56 for unified video-action
    Controls chunk length and the number of DDIM rows; tuned per task family (Tables 9, 11, 13).
  • reset noise level k_reset = 0.52K (maze planning), 0.5K (policy), 0.412K (video-action)
    Determines when a ReRoll event triggers; ablation shows best value differs across tasks (Fig. 14).
  • number of ReRoll events N_roll = 6 forward (6/9 for video-action); zero-event ablation uses 0
    Controls how much repeated revision is distributed across the horizon; chosen as a default while noting saturating returns.
  • training chunk hyperparameters: N_max, chunk slope range, starting-level range = N_max=8, slope range [2,10], start range [0,0.5K]
    Shape the training noise distribution; ranges are tied to the deployment schedule and are task-dependent.
  • meeting point in bidirectional UWM schedule = 0.765 T_joint / 0.75 T_a
    Biases the schedule toward image-to-action revision; selected for the video-action setting.
  • action representation scaling exponents alpha_p, alpha_r, c_r = derived from empirical std of cumulative targets on training set
    These normalize cumulative action targets so that token-wise revision is stable; the ablations show the representation alone hurts vanilla Diffusion Policy, but the exponents are still fitted to data.
  • min-SNR clipping gamma and image-loss weight = gamma=2.5 for actions (5.0 for image branch), w_img=1.5
    Loss reweighting used for the DF/DR variants; tuned and different from the vanilla UWM objective.
axioms (5)
  • standard math DDIM update equations (Eq. 4-6) correctly approximate the reverse diffusion process when token noise levels are heterogeneous.
    The schedule-matrix sampler relies on standard DDIM transitions for downward noise levels and explicit forward noising for upward resets.
  • domain assumption Per-token noise-level conditioning is a sufficient interface for the transformer to learn the intended denoising schedule.
    The architecture injects a sinusoidal noise embedding per token; there is no proof that this interface can represent all schedule information, only empirical validation.
  • ad hoc to paper Non-causal attention is both permissible and necessary for ReRoll deployment.
    The paper shows causal masking degrades ReRoll performance (Fig. 18); the method therefore assumes the task and architecture allow non-causal cross-horizon information flow.
  • ad hoc to paper Anchor-relative cumulative action representation with horizon-dependent normalization is a valid and useful action parameterization for ReRoll.
    This representation is introduced to make token-wise revision stable; no theoretical justification is given, only the ablation in Fig. 19.
  • domain assumption The benchmark protocols (OGBench, LIBERO-10, RoboCasa, UWM) are meaningful proxies for robotic sequential prediction performance.
    All experiments are simulated; the paper explicitly states real-robot validation is future work.
invented entities (1)
  • Linear chunks and ReRoll events no independent evidence
    purpose: A schedule-matrix construct for describing and training piecewise-linear noise-level patterns; ReRoll events are the re-noising operations.
    These are methodological constructs, not new physical entities. They have no external falsifiable handle independent of the method itself.

pith-pipeline@v1.3.0-alltime-deepseek · 26968 in / 10907 out tokens · 114453 ms · 2026-08-01T11:17:38.470613+00:00 · methodology

0 comments
read the original abstract

We propose Diffusion ReRoll, a diffusion-based framework for robotic sequential prediction that enables revisable denoising over horizons. Existing diffusion-based sequence predictors typically perform a single monotonic denoising process. In contrast, Diffusion ReRoll selectively re-noises regions that have become locally stable while the remaining regions continue denoising, so the re-noised regions can be refined again using context from the rest of the horizon. This structured re-noising enables iterative cross-horizon revision, allowing earlier and later segments to revise one another, while maintaining local consistency. We evaluate Diffusion ReRoll against full-sequence diffusion and causal denoising based on Diffusion Forcing across long-horizon planning, policy learning, and unified video-action modeling. On OGBench PointMaze and AntMaze, Diffusion ReRoll achieves relative gains in average success rate of 21% over Diffusion Forcing in matched guidance-based planning and 23% over Diffuser in matched goal-inpainting. In diffusion-policy-style action prediction, Diffusion ReRoll improves average success by 56.5% relative to Diffusion Policy across different prediction horizons and history lengths on the LIBERO-10 multi-task benchmark. In unified video-action prediction, Diffusion ReRoll improves policy and inverse dynamics performance, especially under out-of-distribution evaluation, and achieves the best action-video consistency. These results support structured re-noising as an effective mechanism for revisable robotic sequence generation.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2607.19919 by Jun-Gill Kang, Seongil Hong, Seonsoo Kim.

Figure 1
Figure 1. Figure 1: Comparison of full-sequence diffusion, causal denoising, and Diffusion ReRoll. ReRoll [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p001_1.png] view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. Figure 2: Causal Denoising by Per-Token Noise Levels This formulation can be viewed as noise-as-masking. x 0 t is fully visible, x K t is effectively masked, and inter￾mediate levels are partially visible. Per-token noise lev￾els therefore place different sequence tokens at differ￾ent denoising states. Diffusion Forcing trains with ran￾domly assigned token-wise noise levels, which enables the same model to be sample… view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. Figure 3: Part of simplified Dif￾fusion ReRoll schedule. Diffusion ReRoll (DR) is a diffusion-based sequential predic￾tion framework that actively manages token-wise noise levels through a schedule matrix. The schedule matrix is defined over sequence timesteps and denoising steps, specifying the noise level assigned to each token at each denoising step. Unlike full￾sequence diffusion, DR imposes piecewise-linear noi… view at source ↗
Figure 4
Figure 4. Figure 4: Representation of Diffusion ReRoll with (a) Schedule [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p004_4.png] view at source ↗
Figure 5
Figure 5. Figure 5: Two bidirectional sched￾ule matrices are shown with de￾noising wave representation. Number of ReRoll events. Let Nroll be the number of ReRoll events. This parameter controls how many times full noise is reintroduced to each token during the denoising pro￾cess. Too few events limit horizon-wide revision, while too many can make re-noising redundant and increase the number of DDIM rows without further benef… view at source ↗
Figure 6
Figure 6. Figure 6: Training with randomized linear noise-level chunks. We sample piecewise-linear noise [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p005_6.png] view at source ↗
Figure 7
Figure 7. Figure 7: Effect of ReRoll events in (a) long-horizon planning, (b) policy learning, and (c) unified [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p006_7.png] view at source ↗
Figure 8
Figure 8. Figure 8: Denoising process of Diffuser and Diffusion ReRoll are shown. Diffusion ReRoll keeps [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p007_8.png] view at source ↗
Figure 9
Figure 9. Figure 9: Procedure of zero action experiment and generated last scene images are visualized. We next evaluate DR in a unified video-action prediction setting. Unified World Models (UWM) support action prediction, future-visual predic￾tion, and joint video-action generation within a single model [25]. Here, we test whether DR improves policy generation, inverse dynamics, OOD robustness, and action-video consistency.… view at source ↗
Figure 10
Figure 10. Figure 10: Bidirectional variants introduce backward waves from the terminal. The taking over [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p013_10.png] view at source ↗
Figure 11
Figure 11. Figure 11: Bidirectional schedule ma￾trices tested on OGBench maze plan￾ning. The taking over matrix performs slightly better. For maze planning, the bidirectional schedule matrix is mainly used in the goal-inpainting setting, where both start and goal states are given. In the main experiments, we use the taking over matrix. The meeting and taking over matrices show similar overall performance, but the taking over m… view at source ↗
Figure 12
Figure 12. Figure 12: Zero-action visualization for Unified Video-Action Modeling schedule matrices. Action [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p014_12.png] view at source ↗
Figure 13
Figure 13. Figure 13: Schedule matrices with same ReRoll parameters under different horizons. The ReRoll schedule matrix is controlled by three coupled parameters: denoising slope, reset noise level, and number of ReRoll events. Because the schedule matrix is defined over both sequence timesteps and DDIM rows, these parameters have di￾rect meaning with respect to the prediction horizon. The same normalized parameter values at … view at source ↗
Figure 14
Figure 14. Figure 14: Reset noise-level ablation under different numbers of ReRoll events. Performance is best [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p015_14.png] view at source ↗
Figure 15
Figure 15. Figure 15: Importance of linear-chunk training. A ReRoll schedule matrix is most effective when [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p017_15.png] view at source ↗
Figure 16
Figure 16. Figure 16: First-chunk noise assignment. Later chunks start from the reset-level range, while the [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p018_16.png] view at source ↗
Figure 17
Figure 17. Figure 17: Effect of chunk-slope range. A wider range gives slightly better perfor￾mance. In the main setting, each chunk slope is sampled as αc ∼ U (0.5sdns, 2.5sdns), (11) where sdns is the denoising slope of the deployment schedule. We compare this default wide range with a narrow range, αc ∼ U(0.875sdns, 1.125sdns) (12) [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p019_17.png] view at source ↗
Figure 18
Figure 18. Figure 18: Effect of causal masking. Causal masking restricts cross-horizon information flow and degrades ReRoll performance. Many sequence models use causal masking to im￾pose left-to-right sequential structure. However, DR is designed to use cross-horizon context during de￾noising. Selected regions are re-noised and revised again using information from other parts of the hori￾zon. If causal masking is applied, thi… view at source ↗
Figure 19
Figure 19. Figure 19: Effect of action representation on Diffusion Policy. The original delta￾action representation performs better than the relative cumulative representation used by DF/DR. Diffusion Policy with the same representation. To check whether DR’s gains come mainly from the action representation, we train an additional Diffu￾sion Policy baseline using the same representation used by DF and DR. This ablation separat… view at source ↗
Figure 20
Figure 20. Figure 20: Used schedule matrices at OGBench planning tasks. [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p025_20.png] view at source ↗
Figure 21
Figure 21. Figure 21: Initial gripper-state gap in LIBERO-10. The open-gripper reset is closer to the training [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p027_21.png] view at source ↗
Figure 22
Figure 22. Figure 22: Schedule matrices used for diffusion-policy-style action prediction. Under receding [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p028_22.png] view at source ↗
Figure 23
Figure 23. Figure 23: Observation differences between the base and OOD settings. Task-irrelevant background objects are removed in the OOD setting. For the unified video-action world modeling experi￾ments, we evaluate UWM, UWM + Diffusion Forc￾ing (DF), and UWM + Diffusion ReRoll (DR) on LIBERO-10. Image observations are encoded by a from-scratch ResNet visual backbone. All three models are pretrained on LIBERO-90 and fine-tun… view at source ↗
Figure 24
Figure 24. Figure 24: Unified Video-Action generation schedule matrices. The schedule is defined over 32 [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p030_24.png] view at source ↗
Figure 25
Figure 25. Figure 25: Denoising visualization for Diffuser. We visualize predicted clean trajectories [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p035_25.png] view at source ↗
Figure 26
Figure 26. Figure 26: Denoising visualization for Diffusion Forcing. We visualize predicted clean trajectories [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p036_26.png] view at source ↗
Figure 27
Figure 27. Figure 27: Denoising visualization for Diffusion ReRoll. We visualize predicted clean trajectories [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p037_27.png] view at source ↗
Figure 28
Figure 28. Figure 28: Generated future-video examples from UWM, UWM + DF, and UWM + DR. [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p038_28.png] view at source ↗
Figure 29
Figure 29. Figure 29: Additional generated future-video examples from UWM, UWM + DF, and UWM + DR. [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p039_29.png] view at source ↗

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

41 extracted references · 14 linked inside Pith

  1. [1]

    Sohl-Dickstein, E

    J. Sohl-Dickstein, E. Weiss, N. Maheswaranathan, and S. Ganguli. Deep unsupervised learn- ing using nonequilibrium thermodynamics. InInternational conference on machine learning, pages 2256–2265. pmlr, 2015

    2015

  2. [2]

    J. Ho, A. Jain, and P. Abbeel. Denoising diffusion probabilistic models.Advances in neural information processing systems, 33:6840–6851, 2020

    2020

  3. [3]

    A. Ajay, Y . Du, A. Gupta, J. Tenenbaum, T. Jaakkola, and P. Agrawal. Is conditional generative modeling all you need for decision-making?arXiv preprint arXiv:2211.15657, 2022

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2022

  4. [4]

    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, 44(10-11):1684–1704, 2025

    2025

  5. [5]

    J. Ho, T. Salimans, A. Gritsenko, W. Chan, M. Norouzi, and D. J. Fleet. Video diffusion models.Advances in neural information processing systems, 35:8633–8646, 2022

    2022

  6. [6]

    Janner, Y

    M. Janner, Y . Du, J. Tenenbaum, and S. Levine. Planning with diffusion for flexible behavior synthesis. InInternational Conference on Machine Learning, 2022

    2022

  7. [7]

    S. Li, Y . Gao, D. Sadigh, and S. Song. Unified video action model.arXiv preprint arXiv:2503.00200, 2025

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2025

  8. [8]

    B. Chen, T. Zhang, H. Geng, C. Zhang, P. Li, K. Song, W. T. Freeman, J. Malik, P. Abbeel, R. Tedrake, V . Sitzmann, and Y . Du. Large video planner enables generalizable robot control. arXiv preprint arXiv:2512.15840, 2025

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2025

  9. [9]

    U. A. Mishra, S. Xue, Y . Chen, and D. Xu. Generative skill chaining: Long-horizon skill planning with diffusion models. In7th Annual Conference on Robot Learning, 2023

    2023

  10. [10]

    Y . Luo, U. A. Mishra, Y . Du, and D. Xu. Generative trajectory stitching through diffusion composition.arXiv preprint arXiv:2503.05153, 2025

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2025

  11. [11]

    S. Kim, Y . Choi, D. E. Matsunaga, and K.-E. Kim. Stitching sub-trajectories with conditional diffusion model for goal-conditioned offline rl. InProceedings of the AAAI Conference on Artificial Intelligence, volume 38, pages 13160–13167, 2024

    2024

  12. [12]

    T. Wu, Z. Fan, X. Liu, H.-T. Zheng, Y . Gong, J. Jiao, J. Li, J. Guo, N. Duan, W. Chen, et al. Ar-diffusion: Auto-regressive diffusion model for text generation.Advances in Neural Infor- mation Processing Systems, 36:39957–39974, 2023

    2023

  13. [13]

    D. Ruhe, J. Heek, T. Salimans, and E. Hoogeboom. Rolling diffusion models.arXiv preprint arXiv:2402.09470, 2024

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2024

  14. [14]

    B. Chen, D. Mart ´ı Mons ´o, Y . Du, M. Simchowitz, R. Tedrake, and V . Sitzmann. Diffusion forcing: Next-token prediction meets full-sequence diffusion.Advances in Neural Information Processing Systems, 37:24081–24125, 2024

    2024

  15. [15]

    C. Meng, Y . He, Y . Song, J. Song, J. Wu, J.-Y . Zhu, and S. Ermon. SDEdit: Guided image synthesis and editing with stochastic differential equations. InInternational Conference on Learning Representations, 2022. 9

    2022

  16. [16]

    Lugmayr, M

    A. Lugmayr, M. Danelljan, A. Romero, F. Yu, R. Timofte, and L. Van Gool. Repaint: In- painting using denoising diffusion probabilistic models. InProceedings of the IEEE/CVF conference on computer vision and pattern recognition, pages 11461–11471, 2022

    2022

  17. [17]

    Chang, H

    H. Chang, H. Zhang, L. Jiang, C. Liu, and W. T. Freeman. Maskgit: Masked generative image transformer. InProceedings of the IEEE/CVF conference on computer vision and pattern recognition, pages 11315–11325, 2022

    2022

  18. [18]

    Zhuang, S

    L. Zhuang, S. Fan, F. P. Audonnet, Y . Ru, E. S. Ho, G. A. Camarasa, and P. Henderson. Masked generative policy for robotic control.arXiv preprint arXiv:2512.09101, 2025

    arXiv 2025

  19. [19]

    K. Lee, S. Kim, and J. Choi. Refining diffusion planner for reliable behavior synthesis by automatic detection of infeasible plans.Advances in Neural Information Processing Systems, 36:24223–24246, 2023

    2023

  20. [20]

    C. Pan, G. Anantharaman, N.-C. Huang, C. Jin, D. Pfrommer, C. Yuan, F. Permenter, G. Qu, N. Boffi, G. Shi, and M. Simchowitz. Much ado about noising: Dispelling the myths of generative robotic control.arXiv preprint arXiv:2512.01809, 2025

    arXiv 2025

  21. [21]

    Pfrommer, Z

    D. Pfrommer, Z. Dou, C. Scarvelis, M. Simchowitz, and A. Jadbabaie. Is your diffusion model actually denoising?Advances in Neural Information Processing Systems, 38:94380–94420, 2026

    2026

  22. [22]

    R. Wang, Z. Cai, F. Pu, J. Xu, W. Yin, M. Wang, R. Ji, C. Gu, B. Li, Z. Huang, H. Deng, D. Lin, Z. Liu, and L. Yang. Demystifying video reasoning.arXiv preprint arXiv:2603.16870, 2026

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2026

  23. [23]

    S. Park, K. Frans, B. Eysenbach, and S. Levine. Ogbench: Benchmarking offline goal- conditioned rl. InInternational Conference on Learning Representations (ICLR), 2025

    2025

  24. [24]

    B. Liu, Y . Zhu, C. Gao, Y . Feng, Q. Liu, Y . Zhu, and P. Stone. Libero: Benchmarking knowl- edge transfer for lifelong robot learning.Advances in Neural Information Processing Systems, 36:44776–44791, 2023

    2023

  25. [25]

    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

    2025

  26. [26]

    K. Song, B. Chen, M. Simchowitz, Y . Du, R. Tedrake, and V . Sitzmann. History-guided video diffusion.arXiv preprint arXiv:2502.06764, 2025

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2025

  27. [27]

    T. Yin, Q. Zhang, R. Zhang, W. T. Freeman, F. Durand, E. Shechtman, and X. Huang. From slow bidirectional to fast autoregressive video diffusion models. InProceedings of the IEEE/CVF Conference on Computer Vision and Pattern Recognition, pages 22963–22974, 2025

    2025

  28. [28]

    J. Song, C. Meng, and S. Ermon. Denoising diffusion implicit models.arXiv preprint arXiv:2010.02502, 2020

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2010

  29. [29]

    J. Yoon, H. Cho, D. Baek, Y . Bengio, and S. Ahn. Monte carlo tree diffusion for system 2 planning.arXiv preprint arXiv:2502.07202, 2025

    arXiv 2025

  30. [30]

    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

    2026

  31. [31]

    Ho and T

    J. Ho and T. Salimans. Classifier-free diffusion guidance.arXiv preprint arXiv:2207.12598, 2022

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2022

  32. [32]

    Dhariwal and A

    P. Dhariwal and A. Nichol. Diffusion models beat gans on image synthesis.Advances in neural information processing systems, 34:8780–8794, 2021. 10

    2021

  33. [33]

    Nasiriany, A

    S. Nasiriany, A. Maddukuri, L. Zhang, A. Parikh, A. Lo, A. Joshi, A. Mandlekar, and Y . Zhu. Robocasa: Large-scale simulation of everyday tasks for generalist robots. InRobotics: Science and Systems (RSS), 2024

    2024

  34. [34]

    Wiedemer, Y

    T. Wiedemer, Y . Li, P. Vicol, S. S. Gu, N. Matarese, K. Swersky, B. Kim, P. Jaini, and R. Geirhos. Video models are zero-shot learners and reasoners.arXiv preprint arXiv:2509.20328, 2025

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2025

  35. [35]

    Liang, P

    J. Liang, P. Tokmakov, R. Liu, S. Sudhakar, P. Shah, R. Ambrus, and C. V ondrick. Video generators are robot policies.arXiv preprint arXiv:2508.00795, 2025

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2025

  36. [36]

    T. Hang, S. Gu, C. Li, J. Bao, D. Chen, H. Hu, X. Geng, and B. Guo. Efficient diffusion training via min-snr weighting strategy. InProceedings of the IEEE/CVF international conference on computer vision, pages 7441–7451, 2023

    2023

  37. [37]

    C. Chi, Z. Xu, C. Pan, E. Cousineau, B. Burchfiel, S. Feng, R. Tedrake, and S. Song. Universal manipulation interface: In-the-wild robot teaching without in-the-wild robots. InProceedings of Robotics: Science and Systems (RSS), 2024

    2024

  38. [38]

    Black, N

    K. Black, N. Brown, D. Driess, A. Esmail, M. Equi, C. Finn, N. Fusai, L. Groom, K. Hausman, B. Ichter, et al. Pi zero: a vision-language-action flow model for general robot control.arXiv preprint arXiv:2410.24164, 2024

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2024

  39. [39]

    C. Chen, J. Baek, F. Deng, K. Kawaguchi, C. Gulcehre, and S. Ahn. Plandq: Hierarchical plan orchestration via d-conductor and q-performer.arXiv preprint arXiv:2406.06793, 2024

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2024

  40. [40]

    Mandlekar, D

    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.arXiv preprint arXiv:2108.03298, 2021

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2021

  41. [41]

    Mandlekar, S

    A. Mandlekar, S. Nasiriany, B. Wen, I. Akinola, Y . Narang, L. Fan, Y . Zhu, and D. Fox. Mimicgen: A data generation system for scalable robot learning using human demonstrations. In7th Annual Conference on Robot Learning, 2023. 11 Appendix A Choosing the Schedule Matrix A.1 DDIM Updates with Schedule Matrices This section describes the schedule-matrix sa...

    2023

This paper was first reviewed by deepseek-v4-flash on August 1, 2026.