Pith. sign in

REVIEW 3 major objections 5 minor 3 cited by

AimBot: A Simple Auxiliary Visual Cue to Enhance Spatial Awareness of Visuomotor Policies

T0 review · 3 major / 5 minor · reviewed 2026-08-05 · deepseek-v4-flash

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

Pith's one-line read The paper claims that overlaying aiming-line and reticle cues—computed from depth, camera geometry, and gripper pose—onto camera images improves visuomotor policy success in simulation and real trials, at under one millisecond overhead.

desk verdict Useful, cheap visual augmentation with consistent gains and two caveats: thin real-world stats and an internal pseudocode inconsistency in the reticle length cue. read the letter →

arxiv 2508.08113 v1 pith:KN7G42GN submitted 2025-08-11 cs.RO

Yinpei Dai , Jayjun Lee , Yichi Zhang , Ziqiao Ma , Jed Yang , Amir Zadeh , Chuan Li , Nima Fazeli
show 1 more author
Joyce Chai
This is my paper · ORCID
classification cs.RO
keywords reticleoverlayvisualaugmentationvisuomotorpolicyvision-language-actionmodelimitationlearningspatialawarenessend-effectorstateencodingLIBERObenchmark
verification ladder T0 review T1 audit T2 compute T3 formal

The pith

A machine-rendered reading of the paper's core claim, the machinery that carries it, and where it could break.

The reading

Visuomotor policies map camera pixels to robot actions, but the relationship between the gripper and the objects around it is usually fed in as a separate proprioception vector rather than something the model can see. AimBot's claim is that this relationship can be drawn directly into the pixels: a shooting line from the gripper along its pointing direction to the first occluded point, plus a crosshair reticle in the wrist view whose size encodes distance to the nearest surface, both computed from depth, camera extrinsics, and end-effector pose at negligible cost. Fine-tuning three vision-language-action backbones (π0, π0-FAST, OpenVLA-OFT) on the augmented images, the paper reports consistent gains, largest on the hardest LIBERO-Long suite (e.g., π0 from 85.2% to 91.0%) and in real-world trials (e.g., π0 from 27 to 43 successes out of 50). A control where the cues are randomly misaligned performs below the no-cue baseline (77.4% vs 85.2%), which the paper reads as evidence that the geometric content of the cue—not extra visual clutter—carries the benefit. If right, the method offers a cheap, architecture-agnostic route to spatial grounding that any RGB-based policy could adopt.

What carries the argument

The load-bearing mechanism is the visibility-guided stopping point. From the end-effector origin the algorithm advances in small increments along the gripper's direction vector, projecting each candidate 3D point into the camera and testing it against the observed depth map; it halts once a tolerance number of consecutive points are occluded or out of frame. That single point generates both cues: a shooting line drawn from gripper origin to the stopping point in fixed global views, and a crosshair reticle centered on the projected stopping point in the wrist view, with line length scaled by how far the projection travelled, so a close surface yields a long reticle and a distant one a short r

What would settle it

Run the same AimBot pipeline on a task where the gripper aims into open space—mid-air catching, reaching over an empty bin—and compare success against the unaugmented baseline; vanishing gains would confirm the nearby-surface assumption is load-bearing. A sharper test: replace the depth map with a constant so nothing is ever occluded, freezing the stopping point at a fixed distance, and check whether the reticle's depth-modulated length is what produces the improvement.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

The paper's central claim is that end-effector position, pointing direction, and distance to the nearest surface can be drawn into pixel space as two simple 2D cues—a shooting line in global views and a depth-modulated reticle in the wrist view—and that training on the augmented images improves manipulation success across model families with no architectural change. Both cues anchor on a 'stopping point' found by stepping from the gripper origin along the gripper direction, projecting each point into the camera, and stopping at the first run of points occluded from the depth map; reticle size is scaled by the projection distance so proximity is visible. The ablation evidence: AimBot without

Load-bearing premise

The cue only carries spatial meaning when the gripper points toward a nearby or enclosed surface: the paper's Limitations section states that in open space or above empty space the line and reticle project onto distant regions and lose their utility, and all evaluation tasks are tabletop tasks with objects and containers nearby.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • On LIBERO, AimBot improves or matches all three backbones and gains the most on the hardest suite: π0 goes from 85.2% to 91.0% on LIBERO-Long, π0-FAST from 81.6% to 87.1%, and OpenVLA-OFT from 87.5% to 91.2%.
  • In real-world trials, total successes rise from 21 to 36 for OpenVLA-OFT, 42 to 47 for π0-FAST, and 27 to 43 for π0; the failure log attributes most of the gain to fewer grasping and placing misalignments.
  • The reticle can partially replace the proprioceptive state vector: AimBot without proprioception scores 88.0% on LIBERO-Long versus 85.2% for proprioception alone, and 91.0% with both.
  • Randomizing the cues drops performance below the no-cue baseline (77.4% versus 85.2%), so the benefit comes from the cues' spatial accuracy rather than added visual variety.
  • Under out-of-distribution test-time shifts, π0-FAST with AimBot succeeded in 12 of 15 trials versus 7 of 15 without, and the overlay costs under 1 ms per image versus roughly 0.3 s for trace-based cues and over 5 s for affordance-point cues.

Reading between the lines

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

  • The paper leaves untested its stated limitation that the cues need a nearby or enclosed surface; a natural extension is a fallback rendering—an infinite ray to the image edge, or a target on a virtual ground plane—for open-air and in-hand manipulation, where the current stopping-point search runs to its maximum step and the cue loses its referent.
  • Since the plain-color variant retains most of the gain, the geometry (line direction, reticle position and length) appears to carry nearly all the signal; a minimal overlay such as a single dot at the stopping point might capture much of the benefit with even less visual burden.
  • Because the method consumes only binary visibility comparisons, not raw depth values, it may tolerate coarse or model-predicted depth; a testable corollary is that AimBot could work in RGB-only settings via monocular depth estimation, an option the Limitations section mentions but does not measure.
  • The attention maps suggest the mechanism is attentional re-weighting rather than added model capacity; if so, the same overlay should transfer to other attention-based policies and could even serve as an input-side intervention for models whose weights cannot be fine-tuned.
Share X Bluesky LinkedIn Reddit HN

Signed reviews

No signed human review yet.

Editorial analysis

A structured set of objections, weighed in public.

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

Referee Report

3 major / 5 minor

Summary. The paper proposes AimBot, a visual augmentation technique that overlays 'shooting lines' on global-view images and 'scope reticles' on wrist-view images, computed from the end-effector (EE) pose, depth, and camera extrinsics. The aim is to provide explicit spatial cues—EE position, orientation, grasp state, and proximity to surfaces—to visuomotor policies without changing their architecture. The method is evaluated by fine-tuning three VLA backbones (π0, π0-FAST, OpenVLA-OFT) on LIBERO simulation benchmarks and on five real-world tabletop tasks. The paper reports consistent gains, especially on LIBERO-Long (π0: 85.2→91.0; π0-FAST: 81.6→87.1) and real-world total successes (π0: 27/50→43/50). Ablations include removing proprioceptive input, randomizing the cue, and varying reticle design choices such as fixed length, plain color, and bullseye style.

Significance. If the reported results hold, AimBot is a simple, compute-efficient (<1 ms), and model-agnostic augmentation that can be applied to any visuomotor policy. The paper's strengths are the breadth of evaluation—three backbones, simulation and real-robot experiments—and the inclusion of several ablations, most notably the randomized-cue control (Table 4), which supports the claim that the specific spatial grounding matters. The attention analysis is a useful qualitative first step. However, there is an internal inconsistency between the described reticle-length mechanism and the provided pseudocode, and several quantitative claims rest on small sample sizes without error bars or significance tests. These issues affect the reproducibility and the strength of the central claim.

major comments (3)
  1. [§3.2 and Algorithm 5] The text states that the wrist reticle's line length is modulated by the projection distance (EE to nearest surface) to encode proximity. Algorithm 5 computes the scaling from `zw`, obtained by `(uw, vw, zw) <- WLD2IMG(p, Ew, Kw)` where `p` is the EE origin. For a rigidly attached wrist camera, the EE origin is at a fixed position in the camera frame, so `zw` is constant across the entire rollout (up to calibration noise). Hence Algorithm 5 produces a constant reticle length and cannot encode distance to the surface. This contradicts the design claim in §3.2 and undermines the default-vs-'W/ FIXED LENGTH' ablation in Appendix A.2, since both are constant length under the pseudocode. Please clarify which implementation was actually used; if the pseudocode is accurate, the described distance-to-surface encoding is not part of the evaluated method, and the paper overstates the information c
  2. [Tables 1 and 2, Section 4.2] The real-world results are reported as 10 trials per task with no confidence intervals, standard errors, or seed variation. The phrase 'AimBot significantly improves performance across all models and tasks' is not fully supported: for π0-FAST, the total improves from 42/50 to 47/50, which is not statistically significant at conventional thresholds, and several per-task comparisons are ties (e.g., Fruits in Box, Ball in Drawer). In simulation, Table 1 averages four runs but reports no variance, and some suites show small negative changes (e.g., OpenVLA-OFT Spatial −1.0, π0 Object −0.4). Without variance or statistical tests, the 'consistently improves or matches' claim is not established, especially for the small gains in non-Long suites.
  3. [Section 4.3, OOD generalization] The out-of-distribution evaluation totals 15 episodes (3 per task) with π0-FAST, yielding 12 vs. 7 successes. This sample is too small to support the stated conclusion that AimBot 'effectively' improves OOD generalization. Please provide more trials per condition or temper the claim to a preliminary observation.
minor comments (5)
  1. [Algorithm 4] The pseudocode says 'Draw green line over longest visible span' for the open state and 'through all visible spans' for the closed state, but the text does not explain what a 'visible span' is or why the two states differ in drawing behavior. Clarify the intended rendering.
  2. [Algorithm 3] The loop condition `if n < N and vis is False then n <- n + 1; else if n >= N then break` is confusing: it increments the tolerance counter only on invisible points, but the break condition `n >= N` is checked in every iteration without resetting `n` when a visible point is encountered. This may not match the text's description of 'a tolerance number of invisible p(i)'. Please rewrite for clarity and consistency.
  3. [Table 2] The 'Other baseline settings' rows (π0 + Traces, π0 + RoboPoint, π0 + Depth Images) are presented separately from the main comparison but are not included in any statistical summary. Please clarify whether these runs are conducted under the same protocol and report the corresponding totals consistently.
  4. [Section 4.3] The attention analysis extracts from 'Layer 1, Head 11' without justification for the choice, and the heatmaps are qualitative. Consider reporting quantitative attention concentration scores or a small grid over multiple layers/heads to avoid cherry-picking.
  5. [Section 4.1] The claim of 'less than 1 ms' overhead is not accompanied by details on the hardware, image resolution, or measurement methodology. Add a brief timing setup description so the reader can assess the computational cost claim.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 0.0 of 10

No significant circularity: the paper's empirical claims are tested against external benchmarks and ablations, not derived from its own assumptions.

full rationale

AimBot is an empirical visual-augmentation method, not a derivation chain. The claimed improvements on LIBERO and real-world tasks are measured against external baselines (π0, π0-FAST, OpenVLA-OFT, TraceVLA, RoboPoint, depth-image inputs) and are not fitted to the reported success numbers. The visual cue itself is computed from depth, camera extrinsics, and end-effector pose, and the paper directly tests whether the spatial alignment of the cue matters: the randomized-cue ablation (π0 + AimBot random, 77.4% vs. 91.0%) and the proprioception ablation (π0 + AimBot − proprio., 88.0%) show that the effect is not trivially explained by redundant pixel content or by the proprioceptive state that the cue encodes. Self-citations appear only in related-work context and are not load-bearing. The Limitations section honestly states boundary conditions (dependence on depth sensing, nearby surfaces, simple end-effectors, constrained motion), but these are scope limitations, not circular reasoning. One non-circular concern is that Algorithm 5's reticle-length scaling uses `zw` from the wrist camera, which is approximately constant for a rigidly attached wrist camera, so the pseudocode does not implement the text's claimed distance-to-surface modulation; however, this is a reproducibility/correctness issue, not a case of the paper's result being equivalent to its inputs by construction. Overall, the central claim is self-contained and externally falsifiable, so the circularity score is 0.

Assumptions & free parameters 6 free parameters · 4 assumptions · 0 invented entities

No new physical entities are introduced; the overlays are deterministic renderings of existing robot state and depth. The main ledger entries are hand-chosen algorithmic constants, especially the visibility threshold, marching step, tolerance, maximum distance, reticle length constants, and the reticle design selected on LIBERO.

free parameters (6)
  • visibility depth threshold epsilon (Eq. 3) = not reported
    Small positive value used to decide whether a projected gripper point is visible against the depth map; hand chosen.
  • marching step size delta (Algorithm 3) = not reported
    Step length used to march from the EE along the gripper direction to find the stopping point; hand chosen.
  • visibility tolerance N (Algorithm 3) = not reported
    Number of consecutive invisible points before the marching loop breaks; hand chosen.
  • maximum projection distance (Algorithm 3) = 2 meters
    Hard cap on the marching distance; hand chosen and relevant to cue appearance.
  • reticle length constants (Algorithm 5) = not reported
    MinReticleLength, MaxReticleLength, and MaxEEtoSurfaceDistance control how strongly reticle length varies with distance; hand chosen.
  • AimBot visual cue design (default vs plain color, grasp sense, fixed length, small scale, bullseye) = default crosshair plus shooting line setting
    Selected after comparing variants on LIBERO in Appendix A.2; this is design selection on the evaluation benchmark before real-world transfer.
assumptions (4)
  • standard math Known pinhole camera projection equations with accurate extrinsics and intrinsics (Eqs. 1 and 2)
    All projection and overlay computation relies on the pinhole model and calibrated cameras.
  • domain assumption RGB-D depth is aligned with RGB and accurate enough for the visibility test (Eq. 3, Limitations section)
    The method requires metric depth; the authors acknowledge dependence on an RGB-D sensor or reliable monocular depth.
  • domain assumption The gripper frame z-axis direction is a meaningful indicator of intended spatial alignment and typically points at a nearby surface (Section 3.2, Limitations section)
    The shooting line direction d is derived from EE orientation; if the gripper points into open space, the cue loses meaning. The paper states this assumption explicitly.
  • domain assumption Visuomotor policies can extract and exploit pixel-space spatial cues after fine-tuning (Section 4.3 attention analysis)
    The entire method presumes that the policy learns from the overlaid lines and reticles. The attention visualization and random-cue ablation support this, but it remains an empirical assumption.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of AimBot: A Simple Auxiliary Visual Cue to Enhance Spatial Awareness of Visuomotor Policies." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/KN7G42GN

@misc{pith2026250808113,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: AimBot: A Simple Auxiliary Visual Cue to Enhance Spatial Awareness of Visuomotor Policies},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/KN7G42GN}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2508.08113}
}
read the original abstract

In this paper, we propose AimBot, a lightweight visual augmentation technique that provides explicit spatial cues to improve visuomotor policy learning in robotic manipulation. AimBot overlays shooting lines and scope reticles onto multi-view RGB images, offering auxiliary visual guidance that encodes the end-effector's state. The overlays are computed from depth images, camera extrinsics, and the current end-effector pose, explicitly conveying spatial relationships between the gripper and objects in the scene. AimBot incurs minimal computational overhead (less than 1 ms) and requires no changes to model architectures, as it simply replaces original RGB images with augmented counterparts. Despite its simplicity, our results show that AimBot consistently improves the performance of various visuomotor policies in both simulation and real-world settings, highlighting the benefits of spatially grounded visual feedback.

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Forward citations

Cited by 3 Pith papers

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

  1. DC-WAM: Dynamic-Centric Visual Supervision and Reasoning for World-Action Models

    cs.RO 2026-07 conditional novelty 6.0 of 10

    A dynamic-centric World-Action Model that reweights future-video supervision and attention toward interaction-induced motion improves robot policy robustness under visual perturbations.

  2. UAOR: Uncertainty-aware Observation Reinjection for Vision-Language-Action Models

    cs.CV 2026-02 conditional novelty 6.0 of 10

    Uncertainty-aware observation reinjection into FFN layers improves VLA manipulation success rates across LIBERO, SIMPLER, CALVIN, and real-robot tasks with no training.

  3. GeoProp: Grounding Robot State in Vision for Generalist Manipulation

    cs.RO 2026-07 conditional novelty 5.0 of 10

    Projecting robot end-effector state onto image feature maps and sampling co-located visual tokens improves manipulation policy success by 4-10% across 67 tasks.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

50 extracted references · 22 canonical work pages · cited by 3 Pith papers

  1. [1]

    C. Chi, Z. Xu, S. Feng, E. Cousineau, Y . Du, B. Burchfiel, R. Tedrake, and S. Song. Diffusion policy: Visuomotor policy learning via action diffusion. The International Journal of Robotics Research, 2024

    2024

  2. [2]

    Khazatsky, K

    A. Khazatsky, K. Pertsch, S. Nair, A. Balakrishna, S. Dasari, S. Karamcheti, S. Nasiriany, M. K. Srirama, L. Y . Chen, K. Ellis, et al. Droid: A large-scale in-the-wild robot manipulation dataset. arXiv preprint arXiv:2403.12945, 2024

    arXiv 2024

  3. [3]

    Black, N

    K. Black, N. Brown, D. Driess, A. Esmail, M. Equi, C. Finn, N. Fusai, L. Groom, K. Haus- man, B. Ichter, S. Jakubczak, T. Jones, L. Ke, S. Levine, A. Li-Bell, M. Mothukuri, S. Nair, K. Pertsch, L. X. Shi, J. Tanner, Q. Vuong, A. Walling, H. Wang, and U. Zhilinsky. Pi0: A vision-language-action flow model for general robot control. Physical Intelligence, 2...

    work page 2024

  4. [4]

    M. Kim, K. Pertsch, S. Karamcheti, T. Xiao, A. Balakrishna, S. Nair, R. Rafailov, E. Foster, G. Lam, P. Sanketi, Q. Vuong, T. Kollar, B. Burchfiel, R. Tedrake, D. Sadigh, S. Levine, P. Liang, and C. Finn. Openvla: An open-source vision-language-action model.arXiv preprint arXiv:2406.09246, 2024

    arXiv 2024

  5. [5]

    Pertsch, K

    K. Pertsch, K. Stachowicz, B. Ichter, D. Driess, S. Nair, Q. Vuong, O. Mees, C. Finn, and S. Levine. Fast: Efficient action tokenization for vision-language-action models, 2025. URL https://arxiv.org/abs/2501.09747. 9

    arXiv 2025

  6. [6]

    C.-Y . Hung, Q. Sun, P. Hong, A. Zadeh, C. Li, U. Tan, N. Majumder, S. Poria, et al. Nora: A small open-sourced generalist vision language action model for embodied tasks.arXiv preprint arXiv:2504.19854, 2025

    arXiv 2025

  7. [7]

    F. Lin, R. Nai, Y . Hu, J. You, J. Zhao, and Y . Gao. Onetwovla: A unified vision-language-action model with adaptive reasoning. arXiv preprint arXiv:2505.11917, 2025

    arXiv 2025

  8. [8]

    D. Qu, H. Song, Q. Chen, Y . Yao, X. Ye, Y . Ding, Z. Wang, J. Gu, B. Zhao, D. Wang, et al. Spatialvla: Exploring spatial representations for visual-language-action model. arXiv preprint arXiv:2501.15830, 2025

    arXiv 2025

Show all 50 references
  1. [9]

    Zheng, Y

    R. Zheng, Y . Liang, S. Huang, J. Gao, H. Daum ´e III, A. Kolobov, F. Huang, and J. Yang. Tracevla: Visual trace prompting enhances spatial-temporal awareness for generalist robotic policies. arXiv preprint arXiv:2412.10345, 2024

    2024 arXiv

  2. [10]

    C. Li, J. Wen, Y . Peng, Y . Peng, F. Feng, and Y . Zhu. Pointvla: Injecting the 3d world into vision-language-action models. arXiv preprint arXiv:2503.07511, 2025

    2025 arXiv

  3. [11]

    C. H. Song, V . Blukis, J. Tremblay, S. Tyree, Y . Su, and S. Birchfield. Robospatial: Teaching spatial understanding to 2d and 3d vision-language models for robotics. In Proceedings of the Computer Vision and Pattern Recognition Conference, pages 15768–15780, 2025

    2025

  4. [12]

    E. Zhou, J. An, C. Chi, Y . Han, S. Rong, C. Zhang, P. Wang, Z. Wang, T. Huang, L. Sheng, et al. Roborefer: Towards spatial referring with reasoning in vision-language models for robotics. arXiv preprint arXiv:2506.04308, 2025

    2025

  5. [13]

    Firoozi, J

    R. Firoozi, J. Tucker, S. Tian, A. Majumdar, J. Sun, W. Liu, Y . Zhu, S. Song, A. Kapoor, K. Hausman, et al. Foundation models in robotics: Applications, challenges, and the future. The International Journal of Robotics Research, page 02783649241281508, 2023

    2023

  6. [14]

    Jeung, S.-S

    B.-S. Jeung, S.-S. Lim, and D.-H. Lee. Development of optical sighting system for moving target tracking. Current Optics and Photonics, 3(2):154–163, 2019

    2019

  7. [15]

    Zhang, J

    C. Zhang, J. Sun, Q. Hou, B. Chen, H. Yao, Z. Zhou, and J. Cong. Augmented reality enabled galilean sighting system with an adjustable reticle. Applied Optics, 60(18):5387–5391, 2021

    2021

  8. [16]

    S. Ledin. Advanced riflescope reticle guide, 2021. URL https://www.opticsplanet.com/ howto/how-to-advanced-reticle-guide.html

    2021

  9. [17]

    Touvron, L

    H. Touvron, L. Martin, K. Stone, P. Albert, A. Almahairi, Y . Babaei, N. Bashlykov, S. Batra, P. Bhargava, S. Bhosale, et al. Llama 2: Open foundation and fine-tuned chat models. arXiv preprint arXiv:2307.09288, 2023

    2023 arXiv

  10. [18]

    J. Bai, S. Bai, Y . Chu, Z. Cui, K. Dang, X. Deng, Y . Fan, W. Ge, Y . Han, F. Huang, et al. Qwen technical report. arXiv preprint arXiv:2309.16609, 2023

    2023 arXiv

  11. [19]

    W. He, Y . Dai, Y . Zheng, Y . Wu, Z. Cao, D. Liu, P. Jiang, M. Yang, F. Huang, L. Si, et al. Galaxy: A generative pre-trained model for task-oriented dialog with semi-supervised learning and explicit policy injection. In Proceedings of the AAAI conference on artificial intell...

    2022

  12. [20]

    Achiam, S

    J. Achiam, S. Adler, S. Agarwal, L. Ahmad, I. Akkaya, F. L. Aleman, D. Almeida, J. Altenschmidt, S. Altman, S. Anadkat, et al. Gpt-4 technical report. arXiv preprint arXiv:2303.08774, 2023

    2023 arXiv

  13. [21]

    J. Xi, Y . He, J. Yang, Y . Dai, and J. Chai. Teaching embodied reinforcement learning agents: Informativeness and diversity of language use. In Y . Al-Onaizan, M. Bansal, and Y .-N. Chen, editors, Proceedings of the 2024 Conference on Empirical Methods in Nat- ural Language P...

    2024 doi

  14. [22]

    M. J. Kim, C. Finn, and P. Liang. Fine-tuning vision-language-action models: Optimizing speed and success, 2025. URL https://arxiv.org/abs/2502.19645

    2025 arXiv

  15. [23]

    G. Team. Gemma: Open models based on gemini research and technology. arXiv preprint arXiv:2403.08295, 2024

    2024 arXiv

  16. [24]

    Bjorck, F

    J. Bjorck, F. Casta ˜neda, N. Cherniadev, X. Da, R. Ding, L. Fan, Y . Fang, D. Fox, F. Hu, S. Huang, et al. Gr00t n1: An open foundation model for generalist humanoid robots. arXiv preprint arXiv:2503.14734, 2025

    2025 arXiv

  17. [25]

    Jones, O

    J. Jones, O. Mees, C. Sferrazza, K. Stachowicz, P. Abbeel, and S. Levine. Beyond sight: Finetuning generalist robot policies with heterogeneous sensors via language grounding. In Proceedings of the IEEE International Conference on Robotics and Automation (ICRA), 2025

    2025

  18. [26]

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

    2025 arXiv

  19. [27]

    J. Yang, H. Zhang, F. Li, X. Zou, C. Li, and J. Gao. Set-of-mark prompting unleashes extraor- dinary visual grounding in gpt-4v. arXiv preprint arXiv:2310.11441, 2023

    2023 arXiv

  20. [28]

    Shtedritski, C

    A. Shtedritski, C. Rupprecht, and A. Vedaldi. What does clip know about a red circle? visual prompt engineering for vlms. In Proceedings of the IEEE/CVF International Conference on Computer Vision, pages 11987–11997, 2023

    2023

  21. [29]

    Y . Dai, J. Lee, N. Fazeli, and J. Chai. Racer: Rich language-guided failure recovery policies for imitation learning. arXiv preprint arXiv:2409.14674, 2024

    2024 arXiv

  22. [30]

    Y . Dai, R. Peng, S. Li, and J. Chai. Think, act, and ask: Open-world interactive personalized robot navigation. In 2024 IEEE international conference on robotics and automation (ICRA), pages 3296–3303. IEEE, 2024

    2024

  23. [31]

    Nasiriany, F

    S. Nasiriany, F. Xia, W. Yu, T. Xiao, J. Liang, I. Dasgupta, A. Xie, D. Driess, A. Wahid, Z. Xu, et al. Pivot: Iterative visual prompting elicits actionable knowledge for vlms. arXiv preprint arXiv:2402.07872, 2024

    2024 arXiv

  24. [32]

    F. Li, Q. Jiang, H. Zhang, T. Ren, S. Liu, X. Zou, H. Xu, H. Li, J. Yang, C. Li, et al. Visual in-context prompting. In Proceedings of the IEEE/CVF Conference on Computer Vision and Pattern Recognition, pages 12861–12871, 2024

    2024

  25. [33]

    Nasiriany, S

    S. Nasiriany, S. Kirmani, T. Ding, L. Smith, Y . Zhu, D. Driess, D. Sadigh, and T. Xiao. Rt-affordance: Affordances are versatile intermediate representations for robot manipulation,

  26. [34]

    J. Gu, S. Kirmani, P. Wohlhart, Y . Lu, M. G. Arenas, K. Rao, W. Yu, C. Fu, K. Gopalakrishnan, Z. Xu, P. Sundaresan, P. Xu, H. Su, K. Hausman, C. Finn, Q. Vuong, and T. Xiao. Rt-trajectory: Robotic task generalization via hindsight trajectory sketches, 2023

    2023

  27. [35]

    Shridhar, Y

    M. Shridhar, Y . L. Lo, and S. James. Generative image as action models. In Proceedings of the 8th Conference on Robot Learning (CoRL), 2024

    2024

  28. [36]

    W. Yuan, J. Duan, V . Blukis, W. Pumacay, R. Krishna, A. Murali, A. Mousavian, and D. Fox. Robopoint: A vision-language model for spatial affordance prediction for robotics. arXiv preprint arXiv:2406.10721, 2024

    2024 arXiv

  29. [37]

    Y . Li, Y . Deng, J. Zhang, J. Jang, M. Memmel, R. Yu, C. R. Garrett, F. Ramos, D. Fox, A. Li, A. Gupta, and A. Goyal. Hamster: Hierarchical action models for open-world robot manipulation, 2025. URL https://arxiv.org/abs/2502.05485. 11

    2025 arXiv

  30. [38]

    Levine, C

    S. Levine, C. Finn, T. Darrell, and P. Abbeel. End-to-end training of deep visuomotor policies. Journal of Machine Learning Research, 17(39):1–40, 2016

    2016

  31. [39]

    D. A. Forsyth and J. Ponce. Computer vision: a modern approach. prentice hall professional technical reference, 2002

    2002

  32. [40]

    B. Liu, Y . Zhu, C. Gao, Y . Feng, Q. Liu, Y . Zhu, and P. Stone. Libero: Benchmarking knowl- edge transfer for lifelong robot learning. arXiv preprint arXiv:2306.03310, 2023

    2023 arXiv

  33. [41]

    Loshchilov and F

    I. Loshchilov and F. Hutter. Decoupled weight decay regularization. arXiv preprint arXiv:1711.05101, 2017

    2017 arXiv

  34. [42]

    E. J. Hu, Y . Shen, P. Wallis, Z. Allen-Zhu, Y . Li, S. Wang, L. Wang, W. Chen, et al. Lora: Low-rank adaptation of large language models. ICLR, 1(2):3, 2022

    2022

  35. [43]

    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. In Proceedings of Robotics: Science and Systems (RSS), 2024

    2024

  36. [44]

    Gildenblat and contributors

    J. Gildenblat and contributors. Pytorch library for cam methods. https://github.com/ jacobgil/pytorch-grad-cam, 2021. 12 A Appendix A.1 AimBot Algorithm Algorithm 1 WLD2IMG Require: 3D point pwld, extrinsic matrix E ∈ R4×4 and intrinsic matrix K ∈ R3×3 of camera c Ensure: 2D i...

    2021

  37. [46]

    W/ PLAIN COLOR : using a uniform gray color for the augmented guidance

  38. [47]

    W/ GRASP SENSE : detecting whether an object is in between the gripper fingers and chang- ing the reticle color to indicate a successful grasp

  39. [48]

    W/ FIXED LENGTH : rendering crosshair reticles with a fixed line length instead of adapting to the estimated depth

  40. [49]

    W/ SMALL SCALE : reducing the size and thickness of the visual cues

  41. [50]

    Results of π0-FAST and π0 are given in Table 5 and Table 6, respectively

    W/ BULLSEYE STYLE : replacing the crosshair with a classical bullseye (concentric circle) reticle design; Figure 6 illustrates different ablated settings of our AimBot augmentation. Results of π0-FAST and π0 are given in Table 5 and Table 6, respectively. As we can see, the de...

  42. [2024]

    URL https://arxiv.org/abs/2411.02704

    arXiv

Pith tools

Reviewed August 5, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.