Pith. sign in

REVIEW 2 major objections 4 minor 3 cited by

Fusing force and joint data into training makes a vision-only robot encoder recover force from pixels alone, with gains concentrated exactly where cameras are weakest.

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 · deepseek-v4-flash

2026-08-02 04:55 UTC pith:CFEBYQ6B

load-bearing objection Solid, honest empirical study; pose result holds, force claim overreaches, and missing artifacts block full verification. the 2 major comments →

arxiv 2607.13522 v1 pith:CFEBYQ6B submitted 2026-07-15 cs.RO cs.CV

Kepler-Encoder-v0.1: Towards a Multimodal Embedding Model for Robots

Ishneet Sukhvinder Singh , Dhanoosh Pooranakumaran , Alex Nguyen , Jia Qi Yip This is my paper
classification cs.RO cs.CV
keywords multimodal encoderrobot state estimationvision-only evaluationcross-modal pretrainingforce/torque recoveryjoint-embedding predictive architectureembodiment-agnostic representationself-supervised 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 asks whether a robot's camera-only representation can be made to carry body state the camera cannot see, especially force. It trains an encoder on robot video plus joint and force/torque streams, holding out one modality and predicting it from the others, then discards the state streams at evaluation time. On a large multi-robot corpus, the resulting vision-only latent reads end-effector and force state significantly better than frozen vision features or a compute-matched vision-only control, while matching the strongest baselines on joint angles, which are visible in the frame. A single such encoder spans four robot types with different joint counts and sensor suites, and its own cross-modal prediction error flags invalid states without extra training. The gains are modest in absolute terms but are statistically robust and align with the paper's core assertion: fusion during training reshapes the vision pathway to encode what pixels alone do not contain.

Core claim

We show that a multimodal encoder trained with joint, gripper, and force/torque streams, then evaluated with vision only, produces a latent that recovers end-effector state—and force in particular—from pixels significantly above raw frozen vision-transformer features and a compute-matched vision-only control on every sensored robot tested. Absolute single-timestep force recovery is modest (R² 0.05, −0.001, 0.187 across the three force-sensored robots, versus near-zero or negative for the baselines), and on motor state, which the camera largely sees, the latent is statistically tied with the strongest vision baselines. The fused latent is also the only feature whose distance geometry consiste

What carries the argument

The central object is a learned-query cross-attention fuser that compresses a variable-size set of tokens—frozen vision patch features plus masked motor and end-effector state readings—into a fixed-size latent vector. The training signal is masked cross-modal latent prediction: hold out one modality, predict its target embedding from the remaining modalities under a joint-embedding predictive objective with a distributional anti-collapse regularizer. This forces each stream to encode structure useful to the others, so the vision pathway learns force-relevant cues even though force leaves almost no trace in a single frame. A frozen vision backbone and a robot-agnostic masked state grid keep o

Load-bearing premise

The force claim rests on interpreting a small, statistically significant edge over at-or-below-zero baselines as evidence that the latent carries usable force information; if that edge is noise-level in absolute terms, the force result collapses.

What would settle it

Train a compute-matched vision-only encoder on the same data with a short temporal window (a few frames) and no state streams; if its force probe R² matches or exceeds the fused latent's values (0.05/−0.001/0.187 on the three robots), cross-modal training is not needed for force reading from pixels. Also probe force after partialling out pose and time-derivatives of pose; if the residual R² stays near zero for both the fused latent and raw vision, the apparent force gain is a pose artifact.

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

If this is right

  • If correct, robot policies could use a single vision-only embedding that doubles as a state read-out, removing the need to append raw proprioception or force numbers at inference time.
  • The training-free surprise signal—the encoder's own cross-modal prediction error—can detect out-of-range robot states at AUROC 0.90, offering a safety monitor on a model already being used.
  • One embodiment-agnostic encoder can replace per-robot specialists, with a data-budget-matched control showing the breadth comes from embodiment diversity rather than data volume.
  • The vision-only latent preserves enough world structure for a diffusion decoder to reconstruct the camera frame, indicating the spatial compression retains task-relevant content despite dropping fine texture.
  • The single-timestep ceiling on force recovery motivates the stated next step of native-rate temporal fusion, which the paper expects to raise both motor and force read-outs.

Where Pith is reading between the lines

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

  • If the recoverable force is mostly the component entangled with joint configuration and contact geometry—the paper's own pose-partialling leaves a near-zero residual—then the practical value of the force gain likely depends on temporal context; a video-based temporal model may recover the pose-independent force component and overtake the single-timestep encoder.
  • The read-out transfer failure between full-context and vision-only latents suggests downstream users must fit per-configuration probes; adding a latent-consistency term that aligns the two would be a directly testable modification to enable single-read-out deployment.
  • The same masked cross-modal recipe could be applied to other states that leave no single-frame trace, such as contact location, tool wear, or thermal state, and the invalid-state monitor hints that any joint-embedding encoder trained on paired modalities can yield an anomaly detector for free.
  • The gap between high effective rank and modest linear-probe accuracy warns that rank health and linear decodability are different quantities; evaluations reporting only one of the two could mislead about representation quality.

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 / 4 minor

Summary. The paper presents Kepler-Encoder-v0.1, a multimodal encoder for robot state that fuses frozen ViT patch features, proprioception, and force/torque tokens through a learned-query cross-attention fuser, trained on RH20T with masked cross-modal latent prediction and SIGReg anti-collapse regularization. At evaluation only vision enters, and the paper asks whether this vision-only latent recovers body state better than vision-only baselines. The main empirical claim is that, on held-out groups, the fused latent reads end-effector state — and force in particular — significantly above raw frozen-ViT features, a PCA-256 compression, and a compute-matched vision-only encoder, while remaining statistically tied with the strongest baselines on motor state. Secondary results include a cross-embodiment transfer study, a training-free invalid-state monitor, and a latent-conditioned diffusion decoder.

Significance. If the central claim held in the form stated, this would be a useful contribution: controlled evidence that cross-modal training reshapes a vision-only representation to carry body state, with a single architecture spanning heterogeneous robots. The experimental design is a genuine strength: the compute-matched vision-only control, the PCA-256 compression control, the committed group-held-out splits, five seeds, and cluster-bootstrap confidence intervals are all appropriate and above the usual standard for this literature. The end-effector pose / TCP result is robust and consistently positive across embodiments. However, the force-specific component of the headline is not established by the reported numbers: the absolute force R² values are at or near zero for every feature, and the paper's own pose-partialling shows the recoverable force is largely pose-entangled. The significance of the paper therefore depends on whether the contribution is reframed around end-effector pose and cross-modal reshaping generally, rather than 'force in particular.'

major comments (2)
  1. [§5.2.3, Table 10, Abstract] The 'force in particular' claim is not supported by the reported absolute R² values. The fused latent's force R² is 0.049 (flexiv), −0.001 (ur5), 0.187 (kuka) against PT-ViT −0.005, −0.115, 0.103. The differences are statistically significant, but the magnitudes are essentially zero or negative; both features are nearly force-blind at a single timestep. A significant positive gap over a near-zero baseline does not demonstrate that the latent 'carries' usable force information. Moreover, the force⊥pose row in Table 10 gives +0.008, −0.025, +0.007 for the fused latent, i.e. near zero or negative, and the corresponding values for PT-ViT and the vision-only control are not tabulated. The abstract's 'force in particular' and the conclusion's repetition of that phrase overstate what the data show. The authors honestly flag 'absolute force recovery … is modest,' but this qualification is not ca
  2. [§6 and §5.2.3] The paper's own limitation statement directly undermines the force contribution: 'the force recoverable at a single timestep is largely the component entangled with joint configuration and contact geometry; the pose-independent part is out of reach without time.' This is not a minor caveat — it is the central issue with the force claim. If the recoverable force is pose-entangled, then the result is better described as a byproduct of pose/contact-geometry recovery, not independent force recovery. To make the force-specific claim load-bearing, the authors would need to show that the cross-modal gain over baselines survives after conditioning on pose (e.g. by reporting force⊥pose for all baselines, with uncertainties), or they should reframe the contribution around end-effector pose/TCP and treat force as a suggestive but inconclusive secondary signal. As written, the current framing asks t
minor comments (4)
  1. [§5.1.4] The 95% CI for the end-effector gain is reported for the PCA-256 comparison but not for the PT-ViT comparison or for per-embodiment differences. Since the per-embodiment picture is used in the ablation, providing CIs there would strengthen the interpretation.
  2. [Table 10] The force⊥pose column is reported only for the fused latent. The text says the PT-ViT residual is 'negative,' but no number is given. Reporting this quantity for all baselines, with seed/bootstrap variability, is necessary to support the claim that the fused latent is above baselines after partialling.
  3. [§5.3] The AUROC values (0.90 and 0.69) for the invalid-state monitor are point estimates. Given that the paper otherwise carefully reports uncertainty, bootstrap or seed intervals would be appropriate here.
  4. [Appendix B] The full-finetuned ViT baseline is a single run without an uncertainty interval. Since this baseline is used to argue that finetuning the backbone does not help, a small seed study or at least a note on sensitivity would be more convincing.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged

No load-bearing circularity: the central cross-modal claim rests on held-out probes on a frozen latent against controlled baselines; only a minor related-work self-citation appears.

full rationale

I walked the derivation chain from the masked cross-modal prediction objective (Eq. 2) through the evaluation protocol. The exported vision-only latent zv is frozen at evaluation, and robot-state recovery is measured by a ridge probe fit on train rows only and scored on committed held-out groups (Sections 5.1.2-5.1.4). The target of the training loss is a modality embedding produced by an EMA encoder, not the raw state probed at evaluation, so the probe is not the training objective renamed. The main comparisons also isolate the claimed cause: the vision-only control has identical architecture, data, and compute and differs only in whether state streams were visible during training, and the PCA-256 and finetuned-head baselines separate compression and in-domain adaptation from cross-modal fusion. None of the headline end-effector or force numbers are fitted parameters used to produce the conclusion; they are held-out R2 values. The force-specific conclusion is the weakest part of the paper statistically (absolute R2 near zero on some robots, and force⊥pose near zero after partialling), but that is an interpretation/correctness limitation, not circularity: the paper reports the small absolute values and the pose-entanglement explicitly in Table 10 and Section 5.2.3. The only self-citation is the related-work pointer 'speaker verification [Yip et al., 2023]' (Section 2, by co-author Jia Qi Yip), which is not load-bearing for any premise. Accordingly there is no identified circular step; the score of 2 reflects only the presence of this non-load-bearing self-citation.

Axiom & Free-Parameter Ledger

5 free parameters · 4 axioms · 0 invented entities

No new physical entities, forces, or conserved quantities are introduced. The free parameters are architectural and training hyperparameters, two of which (SIGReg weight, EMA momentum) are not reported in the text. The main axioms are dataset-trust and evaluation-interpretation assumptions.

free parameters (5)
  • Latent width d = 256
    Reported architecture choice; Appendix E shows d=128/256 preferred on ur5, so d is hand-selected, though not fitted to the headline force numbers.
  • Query count M / fuser depth L = M=8, L=2
    Reported hyperparameters chosen for compute; not swept systematically for the central claim.
  • SIGReg penalty weight(s) = not reported
    Section 3.4 adds per-modality and joint SIGReg to the prediction loss but gives no numerical weights; the trade-off between prediction and regularization is a hand-chosen (or tuned) parameter that shapes the latent.
  • EMA target momentum coefficient = not reported
    The EMA target encoder in Section 3.4 requires a momentum hyperparameter; its value is not stated in the paper.
  • Ridge probe alpha = 10
    Linear probes use ridge alpha=10 (§5.1.2); this stabilizes correlated features and is a diagnostic hyperparameter, held constant across compared features so it does not confound the relative comparisons.
axioms (4)
  • domain assumption Force is an instantaneous state variable directly read from the wrist sensor at each tick, so a single frame is a well-posed target for force recovery.
    Section 3.1 explicitly argues velocity/acceleration are time-derivatives outside the single-timestep model, while force is treated as instantaneous; this justifies the single-frame evaluation that underpins the headline force result.
  • domain assumption RH20T shipped state streams (joint angles, velocities, TCP pose, force/torque) are accurate, camera-aligned ground truth.
    Section 4 describes the dataset and timing; the entire probe evaluation and the anomaly monitor take these labels as ground truth.
  • domain assumption Frozen LeJEPA ViT-B/16 features are an adequate vision representation for robot state recovery.
    Appendix A motivates freezing; the conclusion that fusion beats baselines is relative to this backbone, so the result could be different with a different frozen feature extractor.
  • domain assumption A linear probe's held-out R² is a meaningful measure of whether a feature 'carries' state.
    The paper deliberately uses the weakest read-out (§5.1.2) and supplements with RankMe/distance correlation; but the headline 'force in particular' conclusion is driven by linear R² differences near zero.

pith-pipeline@v1.3.0-alltime-deepseek · 28424 in / 16047 out tokens · 165537 ms · 2026-08-02T04:55:53.916813+00:00 · methodology

0 comments
read the original abstract

A robot must understand the state of its own body, but a camera sees only part of it. Force and contact leave almost no trace in a single frame, and raw vision features read force at $R^2$ at or below $0.10$ on every robot we test. We present Kepler-Encoder-v0.1, a robot-first multimodal encoder that treats robot state as a modality and fuses vision, proprioception, and force/torque into a single shared latent with a learned-query cross-attention layer, trained self-supervised by masked cross-modal prediction under the LeJEPA/SIGReg objective. At evaluation only vision enters, which poses a sharp question. Does fusing state into training make the vision-only latent carry anything the pixels do not already contain? On the RH20T corpus the answer is yes, precisely where the camera is weakest. On held-out scenes, the vision-only latent recovers end-effector state, and force in particular, significantly above both raw frozen-ViT features and a compute-matched vision-only control on every sensored robot, though absolute force recovery at a single timestep is modest; on motor state, which the camera largely sees, it is statistically tied with the strongest vision baselines, and it is the only feature whose latent geometry tracks state. A single embodiment-agnostic encoder covers four robots, and a data-matched control shows this breadth reflects embodiment diversity rather than data volume. The frozen latent is directly useful. Its own cross-modal prediction error is a training-free invalid-state monitor (AUROC $0.90$ on out-of-range states, $0.69$ on scene-swapped states), and a diffusion decoder (PixNerd) reconstructs the camera frame from the latent, confirming the spatial compression preserves world-state. This report validates the single-timestep case; native-rate temporal fusion is the next step.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2607.13522 by Alex Nguyen, Dhanoosh Pooranakumaran, Ishneet Sukhvinder Singh, Jia Qi Yip.

Figure 1
Figure 1. Figure 1: The cross-attention bottleneck at matrix level, with the sizes of the reported instantiation. [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p006_1.png] view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. Figure 2: The training objective as a joint-embedding predictive architecture. [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p007_2.png] view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. Figure 3: Training loss of Kepler-Encoder-v0.1 (per-epoch mean of the total objective, prediction [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p010_3.png] view at source ↗
Figure 4
Figure 4. Figure 4: PCA of the vision-only zv within ur5, colored by gripper width, showing a smooth open→closed gradient, i.e. the latent encodes continuous world-state, not only discrete robot/scene identity. (a) Pixel decode from the vision-only latent zv. (b) Cross-modal decode from the state-only latent (vision hidden, motor+ee only) [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p014_4.png] view at source ↗
Figure 5
Figure 5. Figure 5: Generative probes of what the latent retains (held-out frames top, reconstructions bottom in [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p014_5.png] view at source ↗
Figure 6
Figure 6. Figure 6: Patch-feature PCA over held-out test frames (rows: Flexiv, UR5, Franka, KUKA), all [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p016_6.png] view at source ↗
Figure 7
Figure 7. Figure 7: Attention overlays on held-out frames (rows: Flexiv, UR5, Franka, KUKA). [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p017_7.png] view at source ↗
Figure 8
Figure 8. Figure 8: Cross-modal gain per robot, the fused zv against the identically-trained vision-only control. The gain is largest on the end-effector targets. 19 [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p019_8.png] view at source ↗
Figure 9
Figure 9. Figure 9: Invalid-state detection on held-out ur5. The encoder’s cross-modal prediction error [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p021_9.png] view at source ↗
Figure 10
Figure 10. Figure 10: Joint angles decoded from the frozen vision-only [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p022_10.png] view at source ↗
Figure 11
Figure 11. Figure 11: The continuous-time, multi-rate extension. Streams arrive at different native rates (vision [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p033_11.png] view at source ↗

discussion (0)

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

Forward citations

Cited by 3 Pith papers

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

  1. What Can Latent World Models Know? Physical Parameter Identifiability in Multimodal Predictive Representations

    cs.LG 2026-07 conditional novelty 7.0

    Prediction targets, not fused inputs, decide which physical parameters enter a latent world model; slow ratio-type parameters like drag remain largely unacquired despite high recoverability certificates.

  2. What Can Latent World Models Know? Physical Parameter Identifiability in Multimodal Predictive Representations

    cs.LG 2026-07 conditional novelty 7.0

    In latent world models, prediction targets—not input sensors or data volume—determine which physical parameters the learned representation contains; drag remains systematically unlearned by deterministic prediction ob...

  3. What Can Latent World Models Know? Physical Parameter Identifiability in Multimodal Predictive Representations

    cs.LG 2026-07 conditional novelty 6.0

    Prediction targets, not inputs, decide which physical parameters a latent world model acquires; a certified-recoverable drag parameter stays unlearned under every deterministic prediction objective tested.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

42 extracted references · 36 linked inside Pith · cited by 1 Pith paper

  1. [3]

    raw vision got better at decoding within-robot state

    and the evaluation (Section 5). 30 D Single-embodiment fusion: cfg3 POC and cfg3+cfg4 scale-up Before scaling to the full transfer matrix (Section 5.2.1), we fuse video + robot state at a single timestep on UR5 data and ask whether the fused latent beats each modality alone, and whether the gain iscross-modalrather than mere compression. A cross-modal sig...

    2020

  2. [4]

    Verified against arXiv:2506.09985 (2026-07- 14)

    Meta FAIR; 30 authors, full list on the arXiv page. Verified against arXiv:2506.09985 (2026-07- 14). Kleanthis Avramidis, Tiantian Feng, Woojae Jeong, Jihwan Lee, Wenhui Cui, Richard M Leahy, and Shrikanth Narayanan. Neural codecs as biosignal tokenizers.arXiv preprint arXiv:2510.09095,

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2026

  3. [5]

    MultiMAE: Multi-modal multi-task masked autoencoders.arXiv preprint arXiv:2204.01678,

    Roman Bachmann, David Mizrahi, Andrei Atanov, and Amir Zamir. MultiMAE: Multi-modal multi-task masked autoencoders.arXiv preprint arXiv:2204.01678,

    Pith/arXiv arXiv

  4. [6]

    data2vec: A general framework for self-supervised learning in speech, vision and language.arXiv preprint arXiv:2202.03555,

    Alexei Baevski, Wei-Ning Hsu, Qiantong Xu, Arun Babu, Jiatao Gu, and Michael Auli. data2vec: A general framework for self-supervised learning in speech, vision and language.arXiv preprint arXiv:2202.03555,

    Pith/arXiv arXiv

  5. [8]

    Verified against arXiv:2511.08544 (2026-07-14)

    Training architecture used in this work. Verified against arXiv:2511.08544 (2026-07-14). Nicolas Carion, Francisco Massa, Gabriel Synnaeve, Nicolas Usunier, Alexander Kirillov, and Sergey Zagoruyko. End-to-end object detection with transformers. InEuropean Conference on Computer Vision (ECCV),

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2026

  6. [11]

    Yuqi Chen, Kan Ren, Yansen Wang, Yuchen Fang, Weiwei Sun, and Dongsheng Li

    Verified against arXiv:2208.03196 (2026-07-14). Yuqi Chen, Kan Ren, Yansen Wang, Yuchen Fang, Weiwei Sun, and Dongsheng Li. ContiFormer: Continuous-time transformer for irregular time series modeling.arXiv preprint arXiv:2402.10635,

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2026

  7. [12]

    Jungwon Choi, Hyungi Lee, Byung-Hoon Kim, and Juho Lee

    arXiv:2112.01527. Jungwon Choi, Hyungi Lee, Byung-Hoon Kim, and Juho Lee. Joint-embedding masked autoencoder for self-supervised learning of dynamic functional connectivity from the human brain.arXiv preprint arXiv:2403.06432,

    Pith/arXiv arXiv

  8. [14]

    24 Zibin Dong, Yicheng Liu, Shiduo Zhang, Baijun Ye, Yifu Yuan, Fei Ni, Jingjing Gong, Xipeng Qiu, Hang Zhao, Yinchuan Li, et al

    Cited for register-token / attention-sink behavior. 24 Zibin Dong, Yicheng Liu, Shiduo Zhang, Baijun Ye, Yifu Yuan, Fei Ni, Jingjing Gong, Xipeng Qiu, Hang Zhao, Yinchuan Li, et al. Actioncodec: What makes for good action tokenizers.arXiv preprint arXiv:2602.15397,

    arXiv

  9. [15]

    RH20T: A comprehensive robotic dataset for learning diverse skills in one-shot.arXiv preprint arXiv:2307.00595,

    Hao-Shu Fang, Hongjie Fang, Zhenyu Tang, Jirong Liu, Chenxi Wang, Junbo Wang, Haoyi Zhu, and Cewu Lu. RH20T: A comprehensive robotic dataset for learning diverse skills in one-shot.arXiv preprint arXiv:2307.00595,

    Pith/arXiv arXiv

  10. [16]

    RankMe: Assessing the downstream performance of pretrained self-supervised representations by their rank.arXiv preprint arXiv:2210.02885,

    Quentin Garrido, Randall Balestriero, Laurent Najman, and Yann Lecun. RankMe: Assessing the downstream performance of pretrained self-supervised representations by their rank.arXiv preprint arXiv:2210.02885,

    Pith/arXiv arXiv

  11. [17]

    Latent-compressed variational autoencoder for video diffusion models.arXiv preprint arXiv:2604.16479,

    Jiarui Guan, Wenshuai Zhao, Zhengtao Zou, Juho Kannala, and Arno Solin. Latent-compressed variational autoencoder for video diffusion models.arXiv preprint arXiv:2604.16479,

    Pith/arXiv arXiv

  12. [18]

    FuseMoE: Mixture-of-experts transformers for fleximodal fusion.arXiv preprint arXiv:2402.03226,

    Xing Han, Huy Nguyen, Carl Harris, Nhat Ho, and Suchi Saria. FuseMoE: Mixture-of-experts transformers for fleximodal fusion.arXiv preprint arXiv:2402.03226,

    Pith/arXiv arXiv

  13. [19]

    Yanan He, Yunshi Wen, Xin Wang, and Tengfei Ma

    arXiv:2202.07765. Yanan He, Yunshi Wen, Xin Wang, and Tengfei Ma. Mts-jepa: Multi-resolution joint-embedding predictive architecture for time-series anomaly prediction.arXiv preprint arXiv:2602.04643,

    Pith/arXiv arXiv

  14. [21]

    Carolina Higuera, Akash Sharma, Taosha Fan, Chaithanya Krishna Bodduluri, Byron Boots, Michael Kaess, Mike Lambeta, Tingfan Wu, Zixi Liu, Francois Robert Hogan, et al

    Verified against arXiv:2410.24090 (2026-07-14). Carolina Higuera, Akash Sharma, Taosha Fan, Chaithanya Krishna Bodduluri, Byron Boots, Michael Kaess, Mike Lambeta, Tingfan Wu, Zixi Liu, Francois Robert Hogan, et al. Tactile beyond pixels: Multisensory touch representations for robot manipulation.arXiv preprint arXiv:2506.14754,

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2026

  15. [22]

    Set functions for time series (SeFT).arXiv preprint arXiv:1909.12064,

    Max Horn, Michael Moor, Christian Bock, Bastian Rieck, and Karsten Borgwardt. Set functions for time series (SeFT).arXiv preprint arXiv:1909.12064,

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 1909

  16. [24]

    Seyed Mehran Kazemi, Rishab Goel, Sepehr Eghbali, Janahan Ramanan, Jaspreet Sahota, Sanjay Thakur, Stella Wu, Cathal Smyth, Pascal Poupart, and Marcus Brubaker

    arXiv:1902.10186; cited for the caveat that raw attention weight is not a faithful importance attribution. Seyed Mehran Kazemi, Rishab Goel, Sepehr Eghbali, Janahan Ramanan, Jaspreet Sahota, Sanjay Thakur, Stella Wu, Cathal Smyth, Pascal Poupart, and Marcus Brubaker. Time2Vec: Learning a vector representation of time.arXiv preprint arXiv:1907.05321,

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 1902

  17. [25]

    OpenVLA: An open-source vision-language-action model.arXiv preprint arXiv:2406.09246,

    Moo Jin Kim, Karl Pertsch, Siddharth Karamcheti, Ted Xiao, Ashwin Balakrishna, Suraj Nair, Rafael Rafailov, Ethan Foster, Grace Lam, Pannag Sanketi, et al. OpenVLA: An open-source vision-language-action model.arXiv preprint arXiv:2406.09246,

    Pith/arXiv arXiv

  18. [26]

    Self-supervised multisen- sory pretraining for contact-rich robot reinforcement learning.arXiv preprint arXiv:2511.14427,

    Rickmer Krohn, Vignesh Prasad, Gabriele Tiboni, and Georgia Chalvatzaki. Self-supervised multisen- sory pretraining for contact-rich robot reinforcement learning.arXiv preprint arXiv:2511.14427,

    Pith/arXiv arXiv

  19. [27]

    Hongyang Lei, Xiaolong Cheng, Qi Qin, Dan Wang, Kun Fan, Huazhen Huang, Qingqing Gu, Yetao Wu, Zhonglin Jiang, Yong Chen, et al

    arXiv:1810.00825. Hongyang Lei, Xiaolong Cheng, Qi Qin, Dan Wang, Kun Fan, Huazhen Huang, Qingqing Gu, Yetao Wu, Zhonglin Jiang, Yong Chen, et al. M3-jepa: Multimodal alignment via multi-gate moe based on the joint-embedding predictive architecture.arXiv preprint arXiv:2409.05929,

    Pith/arXiv arXiv

  20. [28]

    Lee, Huazhe Xu, Edward Adelson, Li Fei-Fei, Ruohan Gao, and Jiajun Wu

    Hao Li, Yizhi Zhang, Junzhe Zhu, Shaoxiong Wang, Michelle A. Lee, Huazhe Xu, Edward Adelson, Li Fei-Fei, Ruohan Gao, and Jiajun Wu. See, hear, and feel: Smart sensory fusion for robotic manipulation.arXiv preprint arXiv:2212.03858,

    Pith/arXiv arXiv

  21. [29]

    Yang Li, Zhaxizhuoma, Hongru Jiang, Junjie Xia, Hongquan Zhang, Jinda Du, Yunsong Zhou, Jia Zeng, Ce Hao, Jieji Ren, et al

    arXiv:2301.12597. Yang Li, Zhaxizhuoma, Hongru Jiang, Junjie Xia, Hongquan Zhang, Jinda Du, Yunsong Zhou, Jia Zeng, Ce Hao, Jieji Ren, et al. Forcevla2: Unleashing hybrid force-position control with force awareness for contact-rich manipulation.arXiv preprint arXiv:2603.15169,

    Pith/arXiv arXiv

  22. [30]

    David Mizrahi, Roman Bachmann, O˘guzhan Kar, Teresa Yeo, Mingfei Gao, Afshin Dehghan, and Amir Zamir

    Verified against DBLP (2026-07-14). David Mizrahi, Roman Bachmann, O˘guzhan Kar, Teresa Yeo, Mingfei Gao, Afshin Dehghan, and Amir Zamir. 4M: Massively multimodal masked modeling.arXiv preprint arXiv:2312.06647,

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2026

  23. [32]

    SensorFM

    41 authors, full list on the arXiv page. Verified against arXiv:2605.22759 (2026-07-14). Caution: the paper does not name its model “SensorFM”; the running text should not use that name for this citation. Maxime Oquab, Timothée Darcet, Théo Moutakanni, Huy V o, Marc Szafraniec, Vasil Khalidov, et al. DINOv2: Learning robust visual features without supervi...

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2026

  24. [34]

    Carmelo Sferrazza, Younggyo Seo, Hao Liu, Youngwoon Lee, and Pieter Abbeel

    Verified against arXiv:2501.09747 (2026-07-14). Carmelo Sferrazza, Younggyo Seo, Hao Liu, Youngwoon Lee, and Pieter Abbeel. The power of the senses: Generalizable manipulation from vision and touch through masked multimodal learning. arXiv preprint arXiv:2311.00924,

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2026

  25. [35]

    Mojito: Llm-aided motion instructor with jitter-reduced inertial tokens.arXiv preprint arXiv:2502.16175,

    Ziwei Shan, Yaoyu He, Chengfeng Zhao, Jiashen Du, Jingyan Zhang, Qixuan Zhang, Jingyi Yu, and Lan Xu. Mojito: Llm-aided motion instructor with jitter-reduced inertial tokens.arXiv preprint arXiv:2502.16175,

    Pith/arXiv arXiv

  26. [36]

    Satya Narayan Shukla and Benjamin M. Marlin. Multi-time attention networks for irregularly sampled time series.arXiv preprint arXiv:2101.10318,

    Pith/arXiv arXiv

  27. [37]

    Airoa moma dataset: A large-scale hierarchical dataset for mobile manipulation.arXiv preprint arXiv:2509.25032,

    Ryosuke Takanami, Petr Khrapchenkov, Shu Morikuni, Jumpei Arima, Yuta Takaba, Shunsuke Maeda, Takuya Okubo, Genki Sano, Satoshi Sekioka, Aoi Kadoya, et al. Airoa moma dataset: A large-scale hierarchical dataset for mobile manipulation.arXiv preprint arXiv:2509.25032,

    arXiv

  28. [38]

    Adaptive 1d video diffusion autoencoder.arXiv preprint arXiv:2602.04220,

    Yao Teng, Minxuan Lin, Xian Liu, Shuai Wang, Xiao Yang, and Xihui Liu. Adaptive 1d video diffusion autoencoder.arXiv preprint arXiv:2602.04220,

    arXiv

  29. [40]

    Verified against arXiv:2409.20537 (2026-07-14)

    HPT. Verified against arXiv:2409.20537 (2026-07-14). Shuai Wang, Ziteng Gao, Chenhui Zhu, Weilin Huang, and Limin Wang. PixNerd: Pixel neural field diffusion.arXiv preprint arXiv:2507.23268, 2025a. URL https://arxiv.org/abs/2507. 23268. Tongzhou Wang and Phillip Isola. Understanding contrastive representation learning through align- ment and uniformity on...

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2026

  30. [41]

    Vq-vla: Improving vision-language-action models via scaling vector-quantized action tokenizers.arXiv preprint arXiv:2507.01016, 2025b

    Yating Wang, Haoyi Zhu, Mingyu Liu, Jiange Yang, Hao-Shu Fang, and Tong He. Vq-vla: Improving vision-language-action models via scaling vector-quantized action tokenizers.arXiv preprint arXiv:2507.01016, 2025b. Jiange Yang, Bei Liu, Jianlong Fu, Bocheng Pan, Gangshan Wu, and Limin Wang. Spatiotemporal predictive pre-training for robotic motor control.arXi...

    Pith/arXiv arXiv

  31. [42]

    Xinlu Zhang, Shiyang Li, Zhiyu Chen, Xifeng Yan, and Linda Petzold

    arXiv:2305.12121. Xinlu Zhang, Shiyang Li, Zhiyu Chen, Xifeng Yan, and Linda Petzold. Improving medical predictions by irregular multimodal electronic health records modeling.arXiv preprint arXiv:2210.12156,

    Pith/arXiv arXiv

  32. [43]

    Can Zheng, Jiguang He, Guofa Cai, Nannan Li, Mehdi Bennis, Henk Wymeersch, and Merouane Debbah

    arXiv:2510.08807. Can Zheng, Jiguang He, Guofa Cai, Nannan Li, Mehdi Bennis, Henk Wymeersch, and Merouane Debbah. JEPA-MSAC: A joint-embedding predictive architecture for multimodal sensing-assisted communications.arXiv preprint arXiv:2603.29796,

    Pith/arXiv arXiv

  33. [44]

    Verified against arXiv:2603.29796 (2026-07-14). Ruijie Zheng, Jing Wang, Scott Reed, Johan Bjorck, Yu Fang, Fengyuan Hu, Joel Jang, Kaushil Kundalia, Zongyu Lin, Loic Magne, Avnish Narayan, You Liang Tan, Guanzhi Wang, Qi Wang, Jiannan Xiang, Yinzhen Xu, Seonghyeon Ye, Jan Kautz, Furong Huang, Yuke Zhu, and Linxi Fan. FLARE: Robot learning with implicit w...

    arXiv 2026

  34. [45]

    Yi Zhou, Connelly Barnes, Jingwan Lu, Jimei Yang, and Hao Li

    Verified against arXiv:2505.15659 (2026-07-14). Yi Zhou, Connelly Barnes, Jingwan Lu, Jimei Yang, and Hao Li. On the continuity of rotation representations in neural networks. InProceedings of the IEEE/CVF Conference on Computer Vision and Pattern Recognition (CVPR), pages 5745–5753,

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2026

  35. [47]

    Verified against arXiv:2512.13684 (2026-07-14); no conference venue listed on the abs page

    Google DeepMind. Verified against arXiv:2512.13684 (2026-07-14); no conference venue listed on the abs page. 27 A Preliminary: freezing the vision backbone Before the main study, one preliminary experiment fixes a design choice, whether to finetune the vision backbone on robot video. It does not help. Continuing LeJEPA on cfg3 video has no effect. A high ...

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2026

  36. [48]

    Two conventions resolve near-collisions

    Symbols are chosen so that no glyph carries two meanings. Two conventions resolve near-collisions. Case is significant, so M (query count) and m (the motor modality) are distinct, as are N (a token count) and any lowercase index. Weight is significant, so a plain e (the ee modality label) and a boldface e(·) (a learned modality embedding) are distinct. Th...

    2026

  37. [2019]

    Perceiver IO: A general architecture for structured inputs & outputs.arXiv preprint arXiv:2107.14795, 2021a

    Andrew Jaegle, Sebastian Borgeaud, Jean-Baptiste Alayrac, Carl Doersch, Catalin Ionescu, David Ding, et al. Perceiver IO: A general architecture for structured inputs & outputs.arXiv preprint arXiv:2107.14795, 2021a. Andrew Jaegle, Felix Gimeno, Andy Brock, Andrew Zisserman, Oriol Vinyals, and Joao Carreira. Perceiver: General perception with iterative at...

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2019

  38. [2020]

    Hun Chang, Byunghee Cha, and Jong Chul Ye

    arXiv:2005.12872. Hun Chang, Byunghee Cha, and Jong Chul Ye. Hyperspherical autoencoder for high-fidelity image reconstruction and generation.arXiv preprint arXiv:2601.22904,

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2005

  39. [2021]

    Girish Narayanswamy, Maxwell A

    arXiv:2107.00135. Girish Narayanswamy, Maxwell A. Xu, A. Ali Heydari, Samy Abdel-Ghaffar, Marius Guerard, Kara Vaillancourt, Zhihan Zhang, Jake Garrison, et al. Towards a general intelligence and interface for wearable health data.arXiv preprint arXiv:2605.22759,

    Pith/arXiv arXiv

  40. [2022]

    Mahmoud Assran, Quentin Duval, Ishan Misra, Piotr Bojanowski, Pascal Vincent, Michael Rabbat, Yann LeCun, and Nicolas Ballas

    arXiv:2204.14198. Mahmoud Assran, Quentin Duval, Ishan Misra, Piotr Bojanowski, Pascal Vincent, Michael Rabbat, Yann LeCun, and Nicolas Ballas. Self-supervised learning from images with a joint-embedding predictive architecture (I-JEPA).arXiv preprint arXiv:2301.08243,

    Pith/arXiv arXiv

  41. [2024]

    Vision transformers need registers.arXiv preprint arXiv:2309.16588,

    Timothée Darcet, Maxime Oquab, Julien Mairal, and Piotr Bojanowski. Vision transformers need registers.arXiv preprint arXiv:2309.16588,

    Pith/arXiv arXiv

  42. [2025]

    Jean-Baptiste Alayrac, Jeff Donahue, Pauline Luc, Antoine Miech, Iain Barr, Yana Hasson, Karel Lenc, Arthur Mensch, Katherine Millican, Malcolm Reynolds, et al

    arXiv:2503.06669. Jean-Baptiste Alayrac, Jeff Donahue, Pauline Luc, Antoine Miech, Iain Barr, Yana Hasson, Karel Lenc, Arthur Mensch, Katherine Millican, Malcolm Reynolds, et al. Flamingo: a visual language model for few-shot learning. InAdvances in Neural Information Processing Systems (NeurIPS),

    Pith/arXiv arXiv