Pith. sign in

REVIEW 4 major objections 6 minor 39 references

Touch-augmented robot policies can learn contact dynamics by predicting how future vision will change under the next actions, with no extra cost at deployment.

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 · grok-4.5

2026-07-31 13:31 UTC pith:CQWWWUZ2

load-bearing objection Practical, low-overhead recipe for high-dim tactile into a strong VLA with real gains; attribution of those gains specifically to “dynamics-aware JEPA” is thinner than the headline claims. the 4 major comments →

arxiv 2607.24485 v2 pith:CQWWWUZ2 submitted 2026-07-27 cs.RO

{τ}: Learning Touch-Augmented Vision-Language-Action Models from Future Visual Supervision

Ning Cheng , Jinan Xu , Wanlin Li , Yangzhi Chen , Jing Gao , Yiqun Wang , Kelan Peng , Wenjuan Han This is my paper
classification cs.RO
keywords vision-language-actiontactile sensingcontact-rich manipulationJEPAself-supervised learningrobot learningTacAura
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.

Vision-language-action robots often fail at contact-rich work because cameras miss force, slip, and fine deformation. This paper argues that high-dimensional tactile signals can fill that gap if they are trained to be predictive of how the scene will look after the robot’s next moves. The method, called τ, freezes a pretrained vision-language-action backbone, adds a tactile encoder and adapter, and during training only runs a lightweight predictor that maps current touch plus the upcoming action chunk to future visual feature changes. That predictive loss is discarded at inference, so deployment cost stays the same. On a new four-task suite of plug insertion, USB insertion, stamp press, and whiteboard erasing, the best variant roughly doubles full-task success over strong tactile baselines and still works on unseen objects and cluttered scenes.

Core claim

Action-conditioned prediction of future visual latent changes is a sufficient training signal to turn high-dimensional tactile images into dynamics-aware tokens that a pretrained vision-language-action model can fuse for contact-rich manipulation, raising average full-task success from about 31% to about 71% on four real robot tasks without adding inference overhead.

What carries the argument

JEPA-style self-supervised branch: a small predictor that, given current tactile tokens and the expert action chunk, forecasts detached future visual feature deltas; a tactile-variation-weighted cosine loss aligns those forecasts and is used only while training.

Load-bearing premise

That forcing touch features to predict how future vision will change under the next actions is what actually teaches useful contact dynamics, rather than the mere presence of a tactile pathway or leakage from the supervisory camera views.

What would settle it

Retrain the identical architecture with the predictive loss removed or with the future-visual targets replaced by noise or shuffled futures; if full-task success on insertion and force-modulation stages collapses back near the no-tactile baseline, the dynamics claim fails.

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

If this is right

  • Contact-rich VLA fine-tuning can stay data-efficient by adding touch only as a train-time predictive pathway, not as a permanent extra encoder at runtime.
  • High-dimensional vision-based tactile maps can be treated as dynamics carriers without collapsing them to 6D wrench sequences.
  • Wrist-view versus front-view future-visual targets trade off by task: localization-heavy insertion favors the front view; force-heavy press/wipe favors the wrist view.
  • A synchronized multi-view vision–proprioception–tactile dataset of only 100 demos per task is already enough to show large real-robot gains when the predictive objective is present.

Where Pith is reading between the lines

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

  • If the predictive objective is the real driver, the same train-only future-visual branch could be attached to other pretrained VLAs without redesigning their action heads.
  • View-dependent gains suggest a learned router over supervisory cameras would beat fixed single-view or naive dual-view fusion under the same data budget.
  • The residual drop on unseen USB geometry and clutter implies the learned dynamics still lean on visual target localization; pure force-closure tasks may transfer more cleanly than tight-tolerance insertion.

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

4 major / 6 minor

Summary. The manuscript presents τ, a touch-augmented VLA built on π0.5. A touch encoder (initialized from the VLA vision encoder) plus a linear adapter maps bilateral vision-based tactile signals (normal + shear maps from DM-Tac WS sensors) into LLM-aligned tokens fused with visual and textual tokens for flow-matching action prediction. The key training-time addition is a JEPA-style auxiliary branch (Eqs. 3-9): an MLP predictor, conditioned on current tactile tokens and the future expert action chunk, predicts changes in future visual features computed by the (stop-gradient) VLA vision encoder, supervised by a weighted cosine loss with weights derived from tactile-variation magnitude. The branch is removed at inference, adding no deployment cost. The authors also contribute TacAura, a four-task contact-rich dataset (plug/USB insertion, stamp press, whiteboard erasing; 100 demos each). Real-robot evaluation over 20 trials per condition reports average full-task success of 71.25% for the best variant vs 31.25% for the strongest adapted baseline (T-Rex†), with ablations isolating action conditioning, SSL, and the tactile module, plus zero-shot object/scene generalization tests on two tasks.

Significance. If the results hold, this is a substantial practical advance for contact-rich manipulation with VLAs: large real-robot gains on four tasks, evidence that latent (rather than pixel- or wrench-level) tactile supervision is effective at modest data scale (100 demos/task), and a dataset plus tooling that the authors commit to release. The three supervisory-view variants and the incremental ablation protocol (action conditioning, SSL, tactile module) are genuine strengths, and the stage-wise evaluation is more informative than the usual binary success reporting. However, the paper's *mechanistic* contribution — the claim that the gain comes specifically from action-conditioned dynamics supervision of the tactile pathway — is not yet established (see Major Comments 1-2), which limits the conceptual contribution relative to the empirical one.

major comments (4)
  1. [§Training Strategy, Eqs. (3)-(9); Table 2] Eq. (3) and Table 2: the central mechanism claim — that L_SSL makes the *tactile* representation dynamics-aware — is not isolated by the experiments. The predictor P receives both Z_touch and Z_action, and nothing in the architecture forces P to attend to Z_touch. In expert demonstrations the action chunk alone is highly predictive of future visual feature changes (smooth, repetitive trajectories), so P can largely minimize Eq. (9) via an action→Δz_vision mapping, sending weak gradient into the touch encoder. The paper's own 'w/o Action Seq.' row (71.25→58.75, a 12.5-point drop) is consistent with actions carrying a large share of the predictive signal. A simple control — an action-only predictor P(Z_action) with tactile input masked, or a tactile-shuffled pairing — would bound how much tactile information the SSL branch actually uses. Without it, the 'dynamics-aware tactile representati
  2. [§Ablation Study, Table 2] The 'w/o SSL' ablation (71.25→51.25) conflates at least four things: the dynamics-prediction objective itself, generic auxiliary-loss regularization on the touch encoder/adapter (which is otherwise trained only through L_IL), the tactile-variation weighting of Eq. (8), and the additional optimization signal through a module initialized from the vision encoder. There is no sham-supervision control (e.g., temporally shuffled Δz targets, which preserves loss magnitude and gradient volume but destroys the dynamics signal) and no alternative-supervision control (e.g., predict future *tactile* features, or predict absolute rather than difference visual features). Since Table 2 shows the tactile pathway without SSL already recovers 51.25 vs 28.75 for π0.5, the incremental 20 points attributed to the specific JEPA-style objective could partly come from any auxiliary loss. At least one such contr
  3. [§Experiments, Tables 1-2, Figure 5] Statistical robustness: each cell is 20 trials with no confidence intervals, no seed variance, and apparently a single trained checkpoint per configuration. At n=20 the 95% binomial half-width is ±20pp near 50% success, so several per-task and per-stage comparisons in Tables 1-2 (e.g., USB insertion 50% vs 30%) are within noise of each other, and the ablation deltas of 5-15 points on individual tasks are not individually significant. The headline aggregate (71.25% vs 31.25% over 4×20 trials) likely survives, but the paper's stage-wise and task-level interpretations lean on numbers that may not. Please report CIs, train at least 2-3 seeds for the main ablations, and state whether the same checkpoint/hyperparameters were used for all conditions.
  4. [§Training Strategy, Eqs. (5), (8)-(10)] Target non-stationarity and potential shortcut: the SSL target Δz_vision is produced by E_vis with a stop-gradient (Eq. (5)), but the text describes end-to-end fine-tuning, implying E_vis is itself updated by L_IL during training. If so, the SSL target drifts over training, and in principle the encoder could co-adapt so that the weighted cosine loss is reduced without the tactile branch learning dynamics (standard JEPA uses a frozen or EMA target encoder precisely to avoid this). The manuscript should state explicitly whether E_vis is frozen, fine-tuned, or EMA-tracked; if fine-tuned, an analysis or control showing the loss reduction reflects tactile information rather than encoder drift is needed.
minor comments (6)
  1. [Table 1] The dagger-marked baselines (ForceVLA†, ForceFlow†, T-Rex†) are 'adapted for our tactile sensing setup,' but the adaptation protocol — retraining data, demo count, whether they receive the same DM-Tac WS input, and hyperparameter effort parity — is deferred to an appendix not present in this version. Given that these baselines score below vision-only π0.5 on several tasks, readers need this detail to trust the comparison.
  2. [§Training Strategy, Eqs. (8)-(10)] No sensitivity analysis is given for the free parameters λ=0.3 (Eq. 10), (w_min, w_max)=(0.2, 0.5→5.0) (Eq. 8), the temporal offsets {Δk}, and horizon H. Even a coarse λ sweep would help; note w_min=0.2 means nominally contact-free steps still receive 20% weight, which interacts with Major Comment 2.
  3. [§Model Architecture; References] Notation and text: 'Adaption' vs 'Adaptation' inconsistency (Figure 1 vs §Model Architecture); 'concatenated with the visual tokens and textual tokens form a unified...' is missing 'to'; the LeCun et al. (2022) citation is formatted as a technical report, not the standard reference.
  4. [§Generalization Analysis, Figure 5] Figure 5 (generalization) reports single success rates per condition with no trial counts or error bars; the USB-insertion object-generalization values (25% vs 35% on the two unseen objects) are used to draw conclusions about geometry sensitivity that are likely within binomial noise at n≈20.
  5. [Abstract / §Conclusion] The claim of 'no deployment overhead' should be qualified: inference compute is unchanged, but the method requires two vision-based tactile sensors and their calibration at deployment; a sentence acknowledging the hardware prerequisite would make the claim precise.
  6. [§Main Results, Table 1] The DualViewSup. result (57.50%, below both single-view variants and slightly below ForceVLA† on stamp press) is honestly reported but under-analyzed; a brief diagnostic (e.g., per-view SSL loss curves) would strengthen the fusion discussion beyond the current speculation about 'simple fusion strategy.'

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged

No significant circularity: standard empirical VLA fine-tuning with an auxiliary SSL objective whose targets are stop-gradient external visual features, not quantities defined from the tactile parameters.

full rationale

τ’s load-bearing chain is architectural proposal plus supervised imitation (L_IL via conditional flow matching on expert action chunks) and an auxiliary JEPA-style loss (L_SSL) that aligns a predictor’s output with detached future-minus-current visual latents from the frozen π0.5 vision encoder, weighted by observed tactile magnitude. The SSL target is not defined from the tactile encoder/adapter parameters being optimized, nor is any reported success rate obtained by fitting a free parameter to the evaluation metric and renaming the fit a prediction. Real-robot stage-wise success rates, zero-shot object/scene splits, and leave-one-component-out ablations (Table 2) are external empirical measurements, not identities forced by construction. The Touch100k self-citation appears only in related work as prior tactile-dataset context and does not underwrite the central performance claims. Methodological worries about whether P can ignore Z_touch or whether “w/o SSL” isolates dynamics versus extra capacity are causal-identification / correctness issues, not circularity. No self-definitional loop, fitted-input-as-prediction, load-bearing self-citation uniqueness claim, or renamed known result is present.

Axiom & Free-Parameter Ledger

4 free parameters · 4 axioms · 2 invented entities

The central claim rests on standard imitation + self-supervised representation learning assumptions, the suitability of a pretrained π0.5 backbone, and a handful of hand-chosen loss hyperparameters. No new physical entities are postulated; the main modeling bets are that latent visual change is a good proxy for contact dynamics and that a linear adapter plus MLP predictor suffice to inject touch into the VLA token space.

free parameters (4)
  • SSL loss weight λ = 0.3
    Balances L_IL and L_SSL; set to 0.3 with no sensitivity sweep reported.
  • tactile-variation weight clip bounds (w_min, w_max) = 0.2 / 5.0
    Hand-set to 0.2 and 5.0 to down-weight negligible or abnormal tactile changes in L_SSL.
  • temporal prediction offsets {Δk} and horizon H
    Define which future visual frames the predictor must match; exact set is described only as 'predefined' and affects what dynamics are supervised.
  • training steps and demo count = 30k steps, 100 demos/task
    30 000 steps on 100 demos per task; performance claims are tied to this budget.
axioms (4)
  • domain assumption Conditional flow-matching imitation on expert action chunks is a valid policy learning objective for the VLA action expert.
    Inherited from π0/π0.5 (Black et al.); used for L_IL without re-derivation.
  • ad hoc to paper Future visual feature changes computed by the frozen VLA vision encoder are a sufficient supervisory signal for control-relevant tactile dynamics.
    Core design choice of the JEPA-style branch (Eqs. 3–9); not independently validated outside the ablation.
  • domain assumption A linear adapter plus shared vision-encoder-initialized touch encoder can map high-dimensional tactile maps into the pretrained VLA token space without destroying backbone capabilities.
    Standard PEFT-style assumption; supported by the large drop when the tactile module is removed.
  • domain assumption 100 human teleoperated demonstrations per task, synchronized at 10 Hz, adequately cover the contact modes needed for the reported generalization tests.
    Data-quantity assumption underlying all success-rate claims.
invented entities (2)
  • τ tactile encoding + JEPA-style predictive branch no independent evidence
    purpose: Produce action-conditioned spatiotemporal tactile tokens that are predictive of future visual change and usable by the VLA action expert.
    Architectural construct introduced by the paper; evaluated only inside this work.
  • TacAura dataset no independent evidence
    purpose: Provide synchronized vision-proprioception-tactile demonstrations for four contact-rich tasks.
    New data asset; promised to be released but not yet externally validated.

pith-pipeline@v1.2.0-grok45-kimik3 · 17543 in / 3407 out tokens · 61964 ms · 2026-07-31T13:31:26.034636+00:00 · methodology

0 comments
read the original abstract

Incorporating tactile sensing into Vision-Language-Action (VLA) models holds promise for contact-rich manipulation, where visual observations alone often fail to capture critical cues about physical interactions. However, learning informative tactile representation while effectively adapting it to pretrained VLA models remains challenging under limited task-specific data. Existing methods either focus on instantaneous contact states or model temporal interaction dynamics using 6D wrench sequences, leaving high-dimensional tactile signals underexplored. To address these challenges, we present {\tau}, a touch-augmented VLA framework that learns an action-conditioned spatiotemporal tactile representation from future visual supervision inspired by the Joint-Embedding Predictive Architecture (JEPA), and fuses it with vision-language features for action generation. This supervision operates in latent space and is used only during training, adding no deployment overhead. We also introduce TacAura, a dataset of synchronized vision, proprioception, and vision-based tactile signals across four representative contact-rich manipulation tasks. Experiments show that {\tau} outperforms existing models and generalizes to unseen objects and scenes, delivering improved manipulation performance and robustness.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2607.24485 by Jinan Xu, Jing Gao, Kelan Peng, Ning Cheng, Wanlin Li, Wenjuan Han, Yangzhi Chen, Yiqun Wang.

Figure 1
Figure 1. Figure 1: τ Framework. Multi-view visual observations, tactile signals, and language instruction are encoded into modality￾specific tokens and fused by the large language model in the vision-language-action model for action chunk prediction. During training, an auxiliary JEPA-style self-supervised objective predicts future visual representations from action-conditioned latent features, enabling predictive multimodal… view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. Figure 2: Contact-rich task suite of TacAura. The prediction target is the latent representation of the future visual observation, which is extracted by the vision encoder Evis of the pretrained VLA backbone: {z vision t+∆k } K k=1 = Evis({It+∆k } K k=1), (5) where It+∆k denotes a set of the future RGB images at the temporal offset ∆k. Training Strategy The proposed τ is trained end-to-end by jointly optimizing a su… view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. Figure 3: Qualitative results of policy execution. [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p006_3.png] view at source ↗
Figure 5
Figure 5. Figure 5: Success rates for USB insertion and white [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p006_5.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

39 extracted references · 12 linked inside Pith

  1. [1]

    Robotics: Science and Systems XIX , year=

    Learning Fine-Grained Bimanual Manipulation with Low-Cost Hardware , author=. Robotics: Science and Systems XIX , year=

  2. [2]

    Robotics: Science and Systems XIX , year=

    Diffusion Policy: Visuomotor Policy Learning via Action Diffusion , author=. Robotics: Science and Systems XIX , year=

  3. [3]

    ICRA 2025 Workshop: Beyond Pick and Place , year=

    Reactive Diffusion Policy: Slow-Fast Visual-Tactile Policy Learning for Contact-Rich Manipulation , author=. ICRA 2025 Workshop: Beyond Pick and Place , year=

    2025

  4. [4]

    Proceedings of the European Conference on Computer Vision (ECCV) , year =

    Seeing Touch from Motion: A Unified Modality-Aware Visuo-Tactile Policy with Tactile Motion Correlation , author =. Proceedings of the European Conference on Computer Vision (ECCV) , year =

  5. [5]

    Advances in Neural Information Processing Systems , volume=

    Touch in the wild: Learning fine-grained manipulation with a portable visuo-tactile gripper , author=. Advances in Neural Information Processing Systems , volume=

  6. [6]

    Biomimetic Intelligence and Robotics , pages=

    Vtla: Vision-tactile-language-action model with preference learning for insertion manipulation , author=. Biomimetic Intelligence and Robotics , pages=. 2026 , publisher=

    2026

  7. [7]

    arXiv preprint arXiv:2501.09747 , year=

    Fast: Efficient action tokenization for vision-language-action models , author=. arXiv preprint arXiv:2501.09747 , year=

    Pith/arXiv arXiv

  8. [8]

    arXiv preprint arXiv:2512.23864 , year=

    Learning to Feel the Future: DreamTacVLA for Contact-Rich Manipulation , author=. arXiv preprint arXiv:2512.23864 , year=

    Pith/arXiv arXiv

  9. [9]

    arXiv preprint arXiv:2603.23481 , year=

    Vtam: Video-tactile-action models for complex physical interaction beyond vlas , author=. arXiv preprint arXiv:2603.23481 , year=

    arXiv

  10. [10]

    arXiv preprint arXiv:2606.08737 , year=

    Dream-Tac: A Unified Tactile World Action Model for Contact-Rich Robot Manipulation , author=. arXiv preprint arXiv:2606.08737 , year=

    Pith/arXiv arXiv

  11. [11]

    The Thirty-ninth Annual Conference on Neural Information Processing Systems , year=

    ForceVLA: Enhancing VLA Models with a Force-aware MoE for Contact-rich Manipulation , author=. The Thirty-ninth Annual Conference on Neural Information Processing Systems , year=

  12. [12]

    arXiv preprint arXiv:2605.11048 , year=

    ForceFlow: Learning to Feel and Act via Contact-Driven Flow Matching , author=. arXiv preprint arXiv:2605.11048 , year=

    Pith/arXiv arXiv

  13. [13]

    IEEE Robotics and Automation Letters , year=

    VLA-Touch: Enhancing Vision-Language-Action Model with Dual-Level Tactile Feedback , author=. IEEE Robotics and Automation Letters , year=

  14. [14]

    arXiv preprint arXiv:2507.09160 , year=

    Tactile-VLA: unlocking vision-language-action model's physical knowledge for tactile generalization , author=. arXiv preprint arXiv:2507.09160 , year=

    Pith/arXiv arXiv

  15. [15]

    IEEE Robotics and Automation Letters , year=

    OmniVTLA: Vision-Tactile-Language-Action Models With Semantic-Aligned Tactile Sensing , author=. IEEE Robotics and Automation Letters , year=

  16. [16]

    arXiv preprint arXiv:2601.20321 , year=

    Tactile-Force Alignment in Vision-Language-Action Models for Force-aware Manipulation , author=. arXiv preprint arXiv:2601.20321 , year=

    arXiv

  17. [17]

    arXiv preprint arXiv:2601.20239 , year=

    TouchGuide: Inference-Time Steering of Visuomotor Policies via Touch Guidance , author=. arXiv preprint arXiv:2601.20239 , year=

    Pith/arXiv arXiv

  18. [18]

    arXiv preprint arXiv:2607.02840 , year=

    TACO: TActile World Model as a Self-COrrector forScalable VLA Post-Training , author=. arXiv preprint arXiv:2607.02840 , year=

    Pith/arXiv arXiv

  19. [19]

    arXiv preprint arXiv:2606.13102 , year=

    Ftp-1: A generalist foundation tactile policy across tactile sensors for contact-rich manipulation , author=. arXiv preprint arXiv:2606.13102 , year=

    Pith/arXiv arXiv

  20. [20]

    arXiv preprint arXiv:2606.17055 , year=

    T-rex: Tactile-reactive dexterous manipulation , author=. arXiv preprint arXiv:2606.17055 , year=

    Pith/arXiv arXiv

  21. [21]

    arXiv preprint arXiv:2509.26642 , year=

    Mla: A multisensory language-action model for multimodal understanding and forecasting in robotic manipulation , author=. arXiv preprint arXiv:2509.26642 , year=

    arXiv

  22. [22]

    Conference on Robot Learning , pages=

    Learning rich touch representations through cross-modal self-supervision , author=. Conference on Robot Learning , pages=. 2021 , organization=

    2021

  23. [23]

    Advances in neural information processing systems , volume=

    Zero-shot learning through cross-modal transfer , author=. Advances in neural information processing systems , volume=

  24. [24]

    European conference on computer vision , pages=

    Ambient sound provides supervision for visual learning , author=. European conference on computer vision , pages=. 2016 , organization=

    2016

  25. [25]

    Advances in neural information processing systems , volume=

    Vilbert: Pretraining task-agnostic visiolinguistic representations for vision-and-language tasks , author=. Advances in neural information processing systems , volume=

  26. [26]

    arXiv preprint arXiv:2211.12498 , year=

    Touch and go: Learning from human-collected vision and touch , author=. arXiv preprint arXiv:2211.12498 , year=

    Pith/arXiv arXiv

  27. [27]

    European conference on computer vision , pages=

    Contrastive multiview coding , author=. European conference on computer vision , pages=. 2020 , organization=

    2020

  28. [28]

    arXiv preprint arXiv:2209.13042 , year=

    Self-supervised visuo-tactile pretraining to locate and follow garment features , author=. arXiv preprint arXiv:2209.13042 , year=

    Pith/arXiv arXiv

  29. [29]

    2023 IEEE/RSJ International Conference on Intelligent Robots and Systems (IROS) , pages=

    Learn from incomplete tactile data: Tactile representation learning with masked autoencoders , author=. 2023 IEEE/RSJ International Conference on Intelligent Robots and Systems (IROS) , pages=. 2023 , organization=

    2023

  30. [30]

    2025 , booktitle=

    AnyTouch: Learning Unified Static-Dynamic Representation across Multiple Visuo-tactile Sensors , author=. 2025 , booktitle=

    2025

  31. [31]

    2026 , booktitle=

    AnyTouch 2: General Optical Tactile Representation Learning For Dynamic Tactile Perception , author=. 2026 , booktitle=

    2026

  32. [32]

    Proceedings of the IEEE/CVF Conference on Computer Vision and Pattern Recognition , pages=

    Binding touch to everything: Learning unified multimodal tactile representations , author=. Proceedings of the IEEE/CVF Conference on Computer Vision and Pattern Recognition , pages=

  33. [33]

    Information Fusion , volume=

    Touch100k: A large-scale touch-language-vision dataset for touch-centric multimodal representation , author=. Information Fusion , volume=. 2025 , publisher=

    2025

  34. [34]

    Proceedings of the IEEE/CVF conference on computer vision and pattern recognition , pages=

    Self-supervised learning from images with a joint-embedding predictive architecture , author=. Proceedings of the IEEE/CVF conference on computer vision and pattern recognition , pages=

  35. [35]

    arXiv preprint arXiv:2410.24164 , year=

    _0 : A Vision-Language-Action Flow Model for General Robot Control , author=. arXiv preprint arXiv:2410.24164 , year=

    Pith/arXiv arXiv

  36. [36]

    Black, Kevin and Brown, Noah and Darpinian, James and Dhabalia, Karan and Driess, Danny and Esmail, Adnan and Equi, Michael Robert and Finn, Chelsea and Fusai, Niccolo and Galliker, Manuel Y and others , booktitle=. _

  37. [37]

    Conference on Robot Learning , pages=

    Rt-2: Vision-language-action models transfer web knowledge to robotic control , author=. Conference on Robot Learning , pages=. 2023 , organization=

    2023

  38. [38]

    Conference on Robot Learning , pages=

    OpenVLA: An Open-Source Vision-Language-Action Model , author=. Conference on Robot Learning , pages=. 2025 , organization=

    2025

  39. [39]

    2, 2022-06-27 , author=

    A path towards autonomous machine intelligence version 0.9. 2, 2022-06-27 , author=. Open Review , volume=

    2022