Pith. sign in

REVIEW 3 major objections 4 minor 78 references

RoboTALES: Learning Reasoning-Guided Robot Policies via Task-Aligned Simulated Futures

T0 review · 3 major / 4 minor · reviewed 2026-07-08 · grok-4.5

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

Pith's one-line read RoboTALES turns video generators into robot policies by anchoring imagined futures with LLM subgoals and VLM rewards

desk verdict Clean systems recipe for LLM-guided, VLM-scored video futures in robot learning; the anti-drift claim hangs on an unshown VLM–progress link. read the letter →

arxiv 2607.06018 v1 pith:RHFWO573 submitted 2026-07-07 cs.RO

Hanan Gani , Tejal Kulkarni , Madhoolika Chodavarapu , Nicklas Hansen , Manmohan Chandraker This is my paper
classification cs.RO
keywords robotlearningvideogenerativemodelsvisuomotorcontrolhierarchicalplanningvision-languagetask-alignedfutureslong-horizonmanipulationRoboCasa
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

Pretrained video generative models can imagine what a robot might see next, but those imagined futures often wander away from the task and do not reliably tell the robot what action to take. RoboTALES is a single-stage framework that fixes both problems. A hierarchical language model first breaks a complex instruction into ordered subgoals that steer the generator's imagination. A vision-language model then scores the imagined video clips and feeds those scores back as rewards so the generator stays locked on task progress. The resulting task-aligned simulated futures are used to train a robot policy. On the RoboCasa and LIBERO10 manipulation suites the method consistently beats prior approaches, with the largest gains on long-horizon tasks that require multi-step reasoning.

What carries the argument

The dual-anchor loop: a hierarchical LLM planner that decomposes the task into subgoals and a VLM critic that scores imagined futures with task-progress rewards. Together they keep the video generator's internal representations and rollouts aligned with the intended goal.

What would settle it

Train and evaluate the same generator with the VLM critic ablated or replaced by random rewards; if success rates on long-horizon RoboCasa and LIBERO10 tasks collapse to the level of unguided video-generation baselines, the claim that VLM feedback is what keeps futures task-aligned is falsified.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

RoboTALES shows that a video generator can be turned into a reliable source of robot policies when it is jointly guided by hierarchical LLM subgoal planning and VLM-based reward feedback. The two signals keep the generator's rollouts temporally consistent and goal-focused, so the actions extracted from them succeed on diverse long-horizon manipulation tasks.

Load-bearing premise

The method assumes that a vision-language model's reward scores on synthetic imagined videos are accurate enough and well enough aligned with true task progress to keep the generator goal-focused and to yield policies that work in real evaluation environments.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • Robot policies extracted from RoboTALES futures will outperform existing video-generation and imitation baselines on multi-step household manipulation benchmarks.
  • Long-horizon tasks that previously drifted under pure video imagination become solvable once subgoal guidance and reward feedback are added.
  • A single-stage training pipeline can replace multi-stage planning-plus-control pipelines that separately invent futures and then learn actions.
  • Public code and models enable direct reproduction of the gains on RoboCasa and LIBERO10.

Reading between the lines

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

  • The same dual-anchor idea could be tried with smaller, domain-specific language and vision models if full LLM/VLM stacks prove too heavy for onboard robots.
  • If VLM reward noise is the main remaining failure mode, calibrating the critic on a small set of real robot videos might further close the sim-to-real gap.
  • Hierarchical subgoal plans may transfer to other generative backbones (diffusion, flow matching) beyond the video models tested here.
Share X Bluesky LinkedIn Reddit HN

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

3 major / 4 minor

Summary. RoboTALES is a single-stage framework that trains robot policies from task-aligned simulated futures produced by a pretrained video generative model. It introduces (1) a hierarchical LLM planner that decomposes tasks into subgoals to condition imagination, and (2) a VLM-based critic that scores imagined rollouts and supplies reward feedback so the generator stays goal-focused and action-conditional. The resulting temporally consistent futures are used to extract policies. The paper reports consistent outperformance over existing methods on RoboCasa and LIBERO10 manipulation benchmarks, with the largest gains on long-horizon tasks, and releases code and models.

Significance. If the results hold under scrutiny, the work offers a practical route to make pretrained video generators usable for visuomotor policy learning by coupling hierarchical language reasoning with VLM reward feedback, addressing drift and weak action-conditioning that currently limit imagination-based control. Public code and models support reproducibility. The contribution is primarily empirical and systems-oriented rather than a new theoretical guarantee; its value depends on whether the VLM critic truly aligns synthetic futures with task progress and whether gains are attributable to the claimed mechanisms rather than planner capacity or backbone scale alone.

major comments (3)
  1. The central anti-drift and task-alignment claim rests on the VLM critic assigning rewards on synthetic video that track true task progress. The manuscript needs an explicit calibration or correlation analysis (VLM scores vs. ground-truth success/progress on held-out real or sim trajectories in the same visual domain) and a control that freezes the hierarchical planner while replacing VLM rewards with constant, noisy, or shuffled scores. Without this, long-horizon gains on RoboCasa/LIBERO10 cannot be attributed to innovation (2) rather than the LLM planner, video-backbone capacity, or VLM idiosyncrasies.
  2. Headline outperformance is asserted for RoboCasa and LIBERO10, especially long-horizon tasks, but the evaluation must report full tables with baselines, sample sizes, seeds/error bars, and ablations that isolate (a) hierarchical LLM subgoals alone, (b) VLM critic alone, and (c) their combination against strong video-policy and hierarchical-planning baselines. Absent these, the claim that the joint framework is necessary and superior remains under-supported.
  3. Action-conditioning of the video generator is stated as a limitation of prior work that RoboTALES fixes, yet the training objective that makes rollouts reliably action-conditional (and how actions are extracted into the final policy) needs a precise statement—loss terms, conditioning interface, and any distillation or inverse-dynamics step—so that the single-stage claim can be verified and compared to two-stage imagination-then-plan pipelines.
minor comments (4)
  1. Define notation for subgoal sequences, VLM reward signals, and the generator conditioning interface early and consistently; the abstract-level description leaves the single-stage training loop underspecified for replication from text alone.
  2. Clarify whether the VLM critic family overlaps any automatic evaluation judges used on RoboCasa/LIBERO10, and report any reward-threshold or weighting choices as free parameters.
  3. Add a short limitations discussion on VLM bias on synthetic frames and failure modes when hierarchical decompositions are incorrect.
  4. Ensure figure captions and method diagrams label the two innovations and the policy-extraction path so readers can map claims to components without relying solely on the abstract.

Simulated Author's Rebuttal

3 responses · 0 unresolved

We thank the referee for a careful and constructive review. The three major comments correctly identify places where the manuscript must more rigorously attribute long-horizon gains to the VLM critic, isolate the hierarchical planner from the critic, and state the action-conditioning objective with enough precision to support the single-stage claim. We agree with the substance of all three points and will revise the paper accordingly: adding VLM–progress calibration and reward-control experiments, expanding evaluation tables with seeds/error bars and the requested ablations, and writing an explicit statement of the conditioning interface, losses, and policy extraction path. We believe these revisions will make the empirical contribution clearer and more attributable without changing the core method.

read point-by-point responses

  1. Referee: The central anti-drift and task-alignment claim rests on the VLM critic assigning rewards on synthetic video that track true task progress. The manuscript needs an explicit calibration or correlation analysis (VLM scores vs. ground-truth success/progress on held-out real or sim trajectories in the same visual domain) and a control that freezes the hierarchical planner while replacing VLM rewards with constant, noisy, or shuffled scores. Without this, long-horizon gains on RoboCasa/LIBERO10 cannot be attributed to innovation (2) rather than the LLM planner, video-backbone capacity, or VLM idiosyncrasies.

    Authors: We agree. Attribution of anti-drift and task alignment to the VLM critic is not yet supported by the analyses the referee requests, and long-horizon gains cannot be cleanly credited to innovation (2) without them. In the revision we will (i) report an explicit calibration/correlation study of VLM reward scores against ground-truth success and intermediate progress on held-out trajectories in the same visual domains used for RoboCasa and LIBERO10, and (ii) add the requested control suite that freezes the hierarchical LLM planner and replaces VLM rewards with constant, noisy, and shuffled scores (and, where informative, a no-critic baseline). We will discuss how strongly VLM scores track true progress and how much of the long-horizon improvement remains under degraded reward signals. These additions directly address the attribution concern. revision: yes

  2. Referee: Headline outperformance is asserted for RoboCasa and LIBERO10, especially long-horizon tasks, but the evaluation must report full tables with baselines, sample sizes, seeds/error bars, and ablations that isolate (a) hierarchical LLM subgoals alone, (b) VLM critic alone, and (c) their combination against strong video-policy and hierarchical-planning baselines. Absent these, the claim that the joint framework is necessary and superior remains under-supported.

    Authors: We agree that the current evaluation presentation under-supports the claim that the joint framework is necessary and superior. The revision will include full result tables for RoboCasa and LIBERO10 with all baselines, sample sizes, multiple seeds, and error bars, with long-horizon subsets highlighted. We will also report the three ablations requested—(a) hierarchical LLM subgoals alone, (b) VLM critic alone, and (c) their combination—alongside strong video-policy and hierarchical-planning baselines already used in the paper, so that the contribution of each component and of the joint system is visible. Where a component is already partially present in the experiments, we will reorganize and complete the comparison rather than claim novelty for missing cells. This should make the necessity and superiority claims empirically checkable. revision: yes

  3. Referee: Action-conditioning of the video generator is stated as a limitation of prior work that RoboTALES fixes, yet the training objective that makes rollouts reliably action-conditional (and how actions are extracted into the final policy) needs a precise statement—loss terms, conditioning interface, and any distillation or inverse-dynamics step—so that the single-stage claim can be verified and compared to two-stage imagination-then-plan pipelines.

    Authors: We agree that the manuscript does not yet state the action-conditioning path with enough precision for the single-stage claim to be verified or fairly compared to two-stage imagination-then-plan pipelines. In the revision we will add a dedicated subsection that specifies: (i) the conditioning interface (how actions and hierarchical subgoals enter the video generator), (ii) the full training objective and loss terms that encourage action-conditional, task-aligned rollouts, including the role of VLM reward feedback, and (iii) exactly how actions are obtained for the final robot policy (e.g., any inverse-dynamics, distillation, or direct readout step) and how this remains a single training stage rather than a separate plan-then-act pipeline. We will also briefly contrast this interface with typical two-stage setups so the single-stage claim is operationally clear. No change to the method is required for this clarification; the text will match the implemented system. revision: yes

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 0.0 of 10

No significant circularity: empirical training-and-evaluate pipeline; reported gains are not forced by definition or by renaming fitted inputs as predictions.

full rationale

RoboTALES is an empirical robotics/ML methods paper. Its claimed chain is: hierarchical LLM subgoal planning plus VLM reward feedback anchors a video generator so that imagined futures stay task-aligned, and policies trained on those futures outperform baselines on RoboCasa and LIBERO10 (especially long-horizon). That chain is a standard learn–evaluate loop against external sim benchmarks and published baselines; success rates are measured outcomes, not quantities that equal the training inputs by construction. None of the six circularity patterns is exhibited: there is no self-definitional identity (X defined as Y then “derived” as Y), no fitted scalar renamed as a prediction of a closely related quantity, no load-bearing uniqueness theorem imported from overlapping authors, no ansatz smuggled solely via self-citation, and no mere renaming of a known empirical pattern. Concerns that the VLM critic may be poorly calibrated on synthetic frames, or that reward shaping may have been tuned on the same suites, are validity/correctness risks about whether the causal story is true—not circularity under the stated criteria. Without a quoteable reduction of a headline result to its own inputs, the honest finding is score 0 with empty steps.

Assumptions & free parameters 3 free parameters · 4 assumptions · 1 invented entities

Abstract-only audit. Free parameters are the usual ML knobs plus planner/critic design choices not fixed by theory. Axioms are domain assumptions about LLM decomposition quality, VLM reward fidelity on synthetic video, and usefulness of guided video futures for policy learning. No new physical particles or forces; the named framework is the invented system entity. No parameter-free derivation.

free parameters (3)
  • VLM critic reward weights/thresholds
    Reward-based feedback from the VLM critic requires scoring or weighting choices that shape training; values not specified in the abstract.
  • LLM hierarchical decomposition granularity
    How tasks are split into subgoals (number, abstraction level, replan frequency) is a design choice that can be tuned to the reported benchmarks.
  • video-generator and policy training hyperparameters
    Learning rates, loss weights, horizon lengths, and related training knobs are required for any such pipeline and are not fixed in the abstract.
assumptions (4)
  • domain assumption Pretrained video generative models can produce useful action-relevant futures when guided by language subgoals
    Stated motivation and solution premise of the abstract; without it the framework has no backbone.
  • domain assumption Hierarchical LLM planners produce subgoal sequences that correctly capture task structure on the target domains
    Innovation (1) depends on decomposition quality for complex and long-horizon tasks.
  • domain assumption VLM-based critics assign rewards on imagined video that correlate with true task progress
    Innovation (2) and the claim of goal-focused internal representations rest on this correlation.
  • domain assumption Guided simulated futures are sufficient training signal for policies that succeed on RoboCasa/LIBERO10 evaluation
    Links imagination quality to the reported policy outperformance claim.
invented entities (1)
  • RoboTALES single-stage framework
    purpose: Unify hierarchical LLM planning, VLM critic feedback, and video-model futures into one robot policy-learning pipeline
    Named systems contribution. Independent evidence would be external replications or real-robot results beyond the paper’s own benchmarks; not available from the abstract.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of RoboTALES: Learning Reasoning-Guided Robot Policies via Task-Aligned Simulated Futures." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/RHFWO573

@misc{pith2026260706018,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: RoboTALES: Learning Reasoning-Guided Robot Policies via Task-Aligned Simulated Futures},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/RHFWO573}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2607.06018}
}
read the original abstract

Pretrained video generative models are promising backbones for visuomotor control, but their imagined futures often drift from task intent and are not reliably action-conditional. As a result, these models can be difficult to use for planning or policy extraction. To address these limitations, we propose RoboTALES, a single-stage framework that learns task-aligned simulated futures and uses them to train robot policies. Our approach introduces two key innovations: (1) a hierarchical LLM-based planner that breaks complex tasks into a sequence of subgoals to guide the model's imagination; and (2) a VLM-based critic that evaluates these ``imagined'' futures and uses reward-based feedback to keep the model's internal representations focused on the goal. By anchoring the video generator in abstract reasoning, we produce temporally consistent rollouts and more coherent actions. We evaluate RoboTALES on diverse manipulation tasks from RoboCasa and LIBERO10, and show that our method consistently outperforms existing methods, especially in long-horizon tasks. Our code and models are publicly available at https://github.com/hananshafi/RoboTALES.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2607.06018 by the authors.

Figure 1
Figure 1. Overview. An LLM Planner decomposes the task instruction (e.g., “make a coffee”) into ordered subtasks that condition the video generator to generate future frames for each milestone. A frozen VLM Critic scores these imagined rollouts against the goal instruction, steering the video generator model toward semantically aligned futures. The resulting goal-conditioned features drive the policy to produce precise robot … view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. RoboTALES Architecture and Training. The Planner FP decomposes the task instruction τ into ordered subtasks, forming the augmented plan C ∗ . The video generator Gθ is jointly trained with the Action UNet πϕ in a single stage. Gθ receives a video diffusion loss and reward feedback from a frozen VLM Critic FR, while πϕ is trained with an action diffusion loss conditioned on the decoder features of Gθ. Crucially, acti… view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. Qualitative Comparison of Task Execution [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p012_3.png] view at source ↗
Figures from the paper (10 more)
Figure 4
Figure 4. Figure 4: Impact of the Planner. Plan￾ner provides structured subgoals, improv￾ing performance when trained with the video generator. Naively augmenting plan￾ner with baseline (purple graph) without adaptation results in performance degrada￾tion. (a) Trajectory Quality (b) Robus…
Figure 5
Figure 5. Figure 5: Analysis.(a) Normalized object-to-end-effector distance over time. Our method shows consistent purposeful behavior and lower variance, (b) Success rate (%) under increasing observation noise. Our method maintains significantly higher performance across all noise levels…
Figure 7
Figure 7. Figure 7: Critic reward predicts task success. Calibration by reward quartile (left) and ROC comparing reward aggregations (right) over 360 rollouts. A.2 Additional Ablations and Analysis Effect of Critic The critic assigns each rollout a scalar reward intended to predict task s…
Figure 8
Figure 8. Figure 8: Performance comparison of different VLM-based reward models for reasoning guidance. We evaluate the impact of CycleReward [5] versus BLIP-SBERT score [7] on success rates across six challenging manipulation tasks including five Pick-and-Place (PnP) variants and a mug s…
Figure 9
Figure 9. Figure 9: Effect of changing action horizon. Our choice of action horizon 16 performs best overall computed across 3 tasks with 50 demos each. ing critic because it yields a higher average success rate across the full task suite, indicating a more stable semantic representation …
Figure 10
Figure 10. Figure 10: Joint training vs Stage-wise training: Our proposed joint training setup shows enhanced task-wise success-rates compared to stage-wise training computed across 4 RoboCasa tasks. The Average scores (right) further strengthen our claim. re-planning frequency and action …
Figure 11
Figure 11. Figure 11: LLM-judge evaluation of decomposition quality (N=50): planner decomposi￾tions outperform prompt-only (60% vs 38% wins, 2% ties) while using fewer steps (2.80 vs 5.28), indicating better plan efficiency and overall preference. Retaining and Improving General Video Gene…
Figure 12
Figure 12. Figure 12: Generative retention on UCF101. We compare the original SVD with our jointly trained video model using 200 matched conditioning samples from UCF101 dat￾set with 30 denoising steps each, evaluated against ground-truth future clips. The radar plot shows absolute quality…
Figure 13
Figure 13. Figure 13: Comparing our method to the baseline across different tasks . We show how our model performs against the baseline on tasks like turning off a faucet, moving items from a stove to a counter, and serving coffee. In each case, the baseline (top rows) loses track of the g…
Figure 14
Figure 14. Figure 14: Success of our method in various kitchen scenarios . This figure demonstrates our model’s ability to handle different complex tasks, such as setting up a coffee mug, opening drawers, and closing double doors. Our model consistently creates smooth, goal-oriented moveme…

Discussion (0). Sign in to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

78 extracted references · 78 canonical work pages

  1. [1]

    Gemini Robotics: Bringing AI into the Physical World

    Abeyruwan, S., Ainslie, e.a.: Gemini robotics: Bringing ai into the physical world. arXiv preprint arXiv:2503.20020 (2025)

    work page Pith review arXiv 2025

  2. [2]

    Ada, S.E., Oztop, E., Ugur, E.: Diffusion policies for out-of-distribution gen- eralizationinofflinereinforcementlearning.IEEERoboticsandAutomation Letters9(4), 3116–3123 (2024).https://doi.org/10.1109/LRA.2024. 3363530

    work page doi:10.1109/lra.2024 2024

  3. [3]

    Do As I Can, Not As I Say: Grounding Language in Robotic Affordances

    Ahn, M., et al.: Do as i can, not as i say: Grounding language in robotic affordances. arXiv preprint arXiv:2204.01691 (2022)

    work page Pith review arXiv 2022

  4. [4]

    In: International Conference on Machine Learning (ICML)

    Andreas, J., Klein, D., Levine, S.: Modular multitask reinforcement learn- ing with policy sketches. In: International Conference on Machine Learning (ICML). pp. 166–175. PMLR (2017)

    work page 2017

  5. [5]

    In: Proceedings oftheIEEE/CVFInternationalConferenceonComputerVision.pp.22934– 22946 (2025)

    Bahng, H., Chan, C., Durand, F., Isola, P.: Cycle consistency as reward: Learning image-text alignment without human preferences. In: Proceedings oftheIEEE/CVFInternationalConferenceonComputerVision.pp.22934– 22946 (2025)

    work page 2025

  6. [6]

    Gen2Act: Human Video Generation in Novel Scenarios enables Generalizable Robot Manipulation

    Bharadhwaj, H., Dwibedi, D., Gupta, A., Tulsiani, S., Doersch, C., Xiao, T., Shah, D., Xia, F., Sadigh, D., Kirmani, S.: Gen2act: Human video gen- eration in novel scenarios enables generalizable robot manipulation. arXiv preprint arXiv:2409.16283 (2024)

    work page Pith review arXiv 2024

  7. [7]

    Training Diffusion Models with Reinforcement Learning

    Black, K., Janner, M., Du, Y., Kostrikov, I., Levine, S.: Training diffusion models with reinforcement learning. arXiv preprint arXiv:2305.13301 (2023)

    work page Pith review arXiv 2023

  8. [8]

    Blattmann, A., Dockhorn, T., Kulal, S., Mendelevitch, D., Kilian, M., Lorenz, D., Levi, Y., English, Z., Voleti, V., Letts, A., et al.:Stable video dif- fusion:Scalinglatentvideodiffusionmodelstolargedatasets.arXivpreprint arXiv:2311.15127 (2023)

    work page Pith review arXiv 2023

Show all 78 references
  1. [9]

    Trends in Cognitive Sciences12(5), 201–208 (2008)

    Botvinick, M.M.: Hierarchical models of behavior and prefrontal function. Trends in Cognitive Sciences12(5), 201–208 (2008)

    2008

  2. [10]

    arXiv preprint arXiv:2307.15818 (2023)

    Brohan, A., Brown, N., Carbajal, J., Chebotar, Y., Chen, X., Choromanski, K., Ding, T., Driess, D., Dubey, A., Finn, C., et al.: RT-2: Vision-language- action models transfer web knowledge to robotic control. arXiv preprint arXiv:2307.15818 (2023)

    2023 arXiv

  3. [11]

    Brooks, T., Peebles, B., Holmes, C., DePue, W., Guo, Y., Jing, L., Schnurr, D., Taylor, J., Luhman, T., Luhman, E., Ng, C., Wang, R., Ramesh, A.: Videogenerationmodelsasworldsimulators.https://openai.com/index/ video-generation-models-as-world-simulators/, last accessed 2026- ...

    2026

  4. [12]

    In: Interna- tional Conference on Machine Learning (ICML)

    Bruce, J., et al.: Genie: Generative interactive environments. In: Interna- tional Conference on Machine Learning (ICML). PMLR (2024)

    2024

  5. [13]

    Confer- ence on Robot Learning (CoRL) (2025) 16 Hanan Gani et al

    Chandra, A.L., Nematollahi, I., Huang, C., Welschehold, T., Burgard, W., Valada, A.: Diwa: Diffusion policy adaptation with world models. Confer- ence on Robot Learning (CoRL) (2025) 16 Hanan Gani et al

    2025

  6. [15]

    arXiv preprint arXiv:2509.02722 (2025)

    Chen, D., Moutakanni, T., Chung, W., Bang, Y., Ji, Z., Bolourchi, A., Fung, P.: Planning with reasoning using vision language world model. arXiv preprint arXiv:2509.02722 (2025)

    2025 arXiv

  7. [16]

    In: The Eleventh International Conference on Learning Representations (2023)

    Chen,H.,Lu,C.,Ying,C.,Su,H.,Zhu,J.:Offlinereinforcementlearningvia high-fidelity generative behavior modeling. In: The Eleventh International Conference on Learning Representations (2023)

    2023

  8. [17]

    The International Journal of Robotics Research (2024)

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

    2024

  9. [18]

    arXiv preprint arXiv:2507.06261 (2025)

    Comanici, G., Bieber, E., Schaekermann, M., Pasupat, I., Sachdeva, N., Dhillon, I., Blistein, M., Ram, O., Zhang, D., Rosen, E., et al.: Gemini 2.5: Pushing the frontier with advanced reasoning, multimodality, long context, and next generation agentic capabilities. arXiv prepr...

    2025 arXiv

  10. [19]

    arXiv preprint arXiv:1803.10122 (2018)

    Ha, D., Schmidhuber, J.: World models. arXiv preprint arXiv:1803.10122 (2018)

    2018 arXiv

  11. [20]

    arXiv preprint arXiv:1812.05905 (2018)

    Haarnoja, T., Zhou, A., Hartikainen, K., Tucker, G., Ha, S., Tan, J., Kumar, V., Zhu, H., Gupta, A., Abbeel, P., et al.: Soft actor-critic algorithms and applications. arXiv preprint arXiv:1812.05905 (2018)

    2018 arXiv

  12. [21]

    In: International Conference on Machine Learning (ICML)

    Hafner, D., Lillicrap, T., Fischer, I., Villegas, R., Ha, D., Lee, H., Davidson, J.: Learning latent dynamics for planning from pixels. In: International Conference on Machine Learning (ICML). pp. 2555–2565 (2019)

    2019

  13. [22]

    arXiv preprint arXiv:2301.04104 (2023).https:// doi.org/10.48550/arXiv.2301.04104

    Hafner, D., Pasukonis, J., Ba, J., Lillicrap, T.: Mastering diverse domains through world models. arXiv preprint arXiv:2301.04104 (2023).https:// doi.org/10.48550/arXiv.2301.04104

    2023 doi arXiv

  14. [23]

    arXiv preprint arXiv:2410.15549 (2024)

    Han,B.,Kim,J.,Jang,J.:Adualprocessvla:Efficientroboticmanipulation leveraging vlm. arXiv preprint arXiv:2410.15549 (2024)

    2024 arXiv

  15. [24]

    Hansen, N., Su, H., Wang, X.: Td-mpc2: Scalable, robust world models for continuous control (2024)

    2024

  16. [25]

    Hansen-Estruch, P., Kostrikov, I., Janner, M., Kuba, J.G., Levine, S.: Idql: Implicit q-learning as an actor-critic method with diffusion policies (2023)

    2023

  17. [26]

    arXiv preprint arXiv:2310.05333 (2024)

    He, L., Shen, L., Zhang, L., Tan, J., Wang, X.: Diffcps: Diffusion model based constrained policy search for offline reinforcement learning. arXiv preprint arXiv:2310.05333 (2024)

    2024 arXiv

  18. [27]

    In: Advances in Neural Information Processing Systems (NeurIPS)

    Ho, J., Jain, A., Abbeel, P.: Denoising diffusion probabilistic models. In: Advances in Neural Information Processing Systems (NeurIPS). vol. 33, pp. 6840–6851 (2020)

    2020

  19. [28]

    arXiv preprint arXiv:2309.17080 (2023)

    Hu, A., Russell, L., Yeo, H., Murez, Z., Fedoseev, G., Kendall, A., Shotton, J., Corrado, G.: Gaia-1: A generative world model for autonomous driving. arXiv preprint arXiv:2309.17080 (2023)

    2023 arXiv

  20. [29]

    In: Conference on Robot Learning (CoRL)

    Huang, W., Xia, F., Xiao, T., Chan, H., Liang, J., Florence, P., Zeng, A., Tompson, J., Mordatch, I., Chebotar, Y., et al.: Inner monologue: Embodied reasoning through planning with language models. In: Conference on Robot Learning (CoRL). PMLR (2022) RoboTALES 17

    2022

  21. [30]

    In: International Conference on Machine Learn- ing (2022)

    Janner, M., Du, Y., Tenenbaum, J.B., Levine, S.: Planning with diffusion for flexible behavior synthesis. In: International Conference on Machine Learn- ing (2022)

    2022

  22. [31]

    In: Agrawal, P., Kroemer, O., Burgard, W

    Jia, X., Wang, Q., Donat, A., Xing, B., Li, G., Zhou, H., Celik, O., Blessing, D., Lioutikov, R., Neumann, G.: Mail: Improving imitation learning with selective state space models. In: Agrawal, P., Kroemer, O., Burgard, W. (eds.) Proceedings of The 8th Conference on Robot Lear...

    2025

  23. [32]

    Arxiv (2024)

    Ke,T.W.,Gkanatsios,N.,Fragkiadaki,K.:3ddiffuseractor:Policydiffusion with 3d scene representations. Arxiv (2024)

    2024

  24. [33]

    arXiv preprint arXiv:2503.00200 (2025)

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

    2025 arXiv

  25. [34]

    arXiv preprint arXiv:2505.19017 (2025)

    Li, Y., Zhu, Y., Wen, J., Shen, C., Xu, Y.: Worldeval: World model as real-world robot policies evaluator. arXiv preprint arXiv:2505.19017 (2025)

    2025 arXiv

  26. [35]

    arXiv preprint arXiv:2508.00795 (2025)

    Liang, J., Tokmakov, P., Liu, R., Sudhakar, S., Shah, P., Ambrus, R., Vondrick, C.: Video generators are robot policies. arXiv preprint arXiv:2508.00795 (2025)

    2025 arXiv

  27. [36]

    arXiv preprint arXiv:2306.03310 (2023)

    Liu, B., Zhu, Y., Gao, C., Feng, Y., Liu, Q., Zhu, Y., Stone, P.: Libero: Benchmarking knowledge transfer for lifelong robot learning. arXiv preprint arXiv:2306.03310 (2023)

    2023 arXiv

  28. [37]

    In: Inter- national Conference on Machine Learning

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

    2023

  29. [38]

    Holt, Rinehart and Winston, New York (1960)

    Miller, G.A., Galanter, E., Pribram, K.H.: Plans and the Structure of Be- havior. Holt, Rinehart and Winston, New York (1960)

    1960

  30. [39]

    Nature 518(7540), 529–533 (2015)

    Mnih, V., Kavukcuoglu, K., Silver, D., Rusu, A.A., Veness, J., Belle- mare, M.G., Graves, A., Riedmiller, M., Fidjeland, A.K., Ostrovski, G., et al.: Human-level control through deep reinforcement learning. Nature 518(7540), 529–533 (2015)

    2015

  31. [40]

    arXiv preprint arXiv:2406.02523 (2024)

    Nasiriany, S., Maddukuri, A., Zhang, L., Parikh, A., Lo, A., Joshi, A., Man- dlekar, A., Zhu, Y.: Robocasa: Large-scale simulation of everyday tasks for generalist robots. arXiv preprint arXiv:2406.02523 (2024)

    2024 arXiv

  32. [41]

    arXiv preprint arXiv:2501.03575 (2025) 18 Hanan Gani et al

    NVIDIA, :, Agarwal, N., Ali, A., Bala, M., Balaji, Y., Barker, E., Cai, T., Chattopadhyay, P., Chen, Y., Cui, Y., Ding, Y., Dworakowski, D., Fan, J., Fenzi, M., Ferroni, F., Fidler, S., Fox, D., Ge, S., Ge, Y., Gu, J., Gururani, S., He, E., Huang, J., Huffman, J., Jannaty, P.,...

    2025 arXiv

  33. [42]

    google/discover/blog/genie-2-a-large-scale-foundation-world- model/, last accessed 2026-06-29 (2024)

    Parker-Holder, J., Ball, P., Bruce, J., Dasagi, V., Holsheimer, K., Kaplanis, C., Moufarek, A., Scully, G., Shar, J., Shi, J., Spencer, S., Yung, J., Dennis, M., Kenjeyev, S., Long, S., Mnih, V., Chan, H., Gazeau, M., Li, B., Pardo, F., Wang, L., Zhang, L., Besse, F., Harley, ...

    2026

  34. [43]

    ACM Computing Surveys54(5), 1–35 (2021)

    Pateria, S., Subagdja, B., Tan, A.h., Quek, C.: Hierarchical reinforcement learning: A comprehensive survey. ACM Computing Surveys54(5), 1–35 (2021)

    2021

  35. [44]

    In: Robotics: Science and Systems (2024)

    Prasad, A., Lin, K., Wu, J., Zhou, L., Bohg, J.: Consistency policy: Accel- erated visuomotor policies via consistency distillation. In: Robotics: Science and Systems (2024)

    2024

  36. [45]

    In: Robotics: Science and Systems (2024)

    Reuss, M., Yağmurlu, Ö.E., Wenzel, F., Lioutikov, R.: Multimodal diffu- sion transformer: Learning versatile behavior from multimodal goals. In: Robotics: Science and Systems (2024)

    2024

  37. [46]

    arXiv preprint arXiv:2511.07732 (2025)

    Routray, S., Pan, H., Jain, U., Bahl, S., Pathak, D.: Vipra: Video prediction for robot actions. arXiv preprint arXiv:2511.07732 (2025)

    2025

  38. [47]

    Nature 588(7839), 604–609 (2020)

    Schrittwieser, J., Antonoglou, I., Hubert, T., Simonyan, K., Sifre, L., Schmitt, S., Guez, A., Lockhart, E., Hassabis, D., Graepel, T., et al.: Mas- tering atari, go, chess and shogi by planning with a learned model. Nature 588(7839), 604–609 (2020)

    2020

  39. [48]

    arXiv preprint arXiv:1707.06347 (2017)

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

    2017 arXiv

  40. [49]

    In: Conference on Robot Learning (CoRL)

    Shah, D., Osinski, B., Ichter, B., Levine, S.: LM-nav: Robotic navigation with large pre-trained models of language, vision, and action. In: Conference on Robot Learning (CoRL). PMLR (2023)

    2023

  41. [50]

    arXiv preprint arXiv:2010.02502 (2020)

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

    2010 arXiv

  42. [51]

    ACM SIGART Bulletin2(4), 160–163 (1991)

    Sutton, R.S.: Dyna, an integrated architecture for learning, planning, and reacting. ACM SIGART Bulletin2(4), 160–163 (1991)

    1991

  43. [52]

    CoRL (2024)

    Wang, Y., Zhang, Y., Huo, M., Tian, R., Zhang, X., Xie, Y., Xu, C., Ji, P., Zhan, W., Ding, M., et al.: Sparse diffusion policy: A sparse, reusable, and flexible policy for robot learning. CoRL (2024)

    2024

  44. [53]

    International Conference on Learn- ing Representations (2023)

    Wang, Z., Hunt, J.J., Zhou, M.: Diffusion policies as an expressive policy class for offline reinforcement learning. International Conference on Learn- ing Representations (2023)

    2023

  45. [54]

    arXiv preprint arXiv:2410.21257 (2024)

    Wang, Z., Li, Z., Mandlekar, A., Xu, Z., Fan, J., Narang, Y., Fan, L., Zhu, Y., Balaji, Y., Zhou, M., Liu, M.Y., Zeng, Y.: One-step diffusion policy: Fast visuomotor policies via diffusion distillation. arXiv preprint arXiv:2410.21257 (2024)

    2024 arXiv

  46. [55]

    arXiv preprint arXiv:2403.04115 (2024)

    Yan, G., Wu, Y.H., Wang, X.: Dnact: Diffusion guided multi-task 3d policy learning. arXiv preprint arXiv:2403.04115 (2024)

    2024 arXiv

  47. [56]

    International Conference on Learning Representations (2024) RoboTALES 19

    Yang, M., Du, Y., Ghasemipour, K., Tompson, J., Schuurmans, D., Abbeel, P.: Learning interactive real-world simulators. International Conference on Learning Representations (2024) RoboTALES 19

    2024

  48. [57]

    arXiv preprint arXiv:2403.03954 (2024)

    Ze, Y., Zhang, G., Zhang, K., Hu, C., Wang, M., Xu, H.: 3d diffusion pol- icy: Generalizable visuomotor policy learning via simple 3d representations. arXiv preprint arXiv:2403.03954 (2024)

    2024 arXiv

  49. [58]

    In: Agrawal, P., Kroemer, O., Burgard, W

    Zhao, T.Z., Tompson, J., Driess, D., Florence, P., Ghasemipour, S.K.S., Finn, C., Wahid, A.: Aloha unleashed: A simple recipe for robot dexterity. In: Agrawal, P., Kroemer, O., Burgard, W. (eds.) Proceedings of The 8th Conference on Robot Learning. Proceedings of Machine Learn...

    1910

  50. [59]

    KITCHEN SCENE3 turn on the stove and put the moka pot on it

    Zhu, M., Zhu, Y., Li, J., Wen, J., Xu, Z., Liu, N., Cheng, R., Shen, C., Peng, Y., Feng, F., et al.: Scaling diffusion policy in transformer to 1 bil- lion parameters for robotic manipulation. arXiv preprint arXiv:2409.14411 (2024) 20 Hanan Gani et al. RoboTALES: Learning Reas...

    2024 arXiv

  51. [60]

    Place the moka pot on the stove burner Put the black bowl in the bottom drawer of the cabinet and close it

  52. [61]

    Pick up the black bowl

  53. [62]

    Open the cabinet bottom drawer

  54. [63]

    Place the black bowl in the drawer

  55. [64]

    Close the cabinet bottom drawer Put the yellow and white mug in the microwave and close it

  56. [65]

    Put the yellow and white mug in the mi- crowave

  57. [66]

    Place the first moka pot on the stove

    Close the microwave door Put both moka pots on the stove 1. Place the first moka pot on the stove

  58. [67]

    Place the second moka pot on the stove Put both the alphabet soup and the cream cheese box in the basket

  59. [68]

    Pick up the alphabet soup

  60. [70]

    Pick up the cream cheese box

  61. [71]

    Place the cream cheese box in the basket Put both the alphabet soup and the tomato sauce in the basket

  62. [72]

    Place the alphabet soup in the basket

  63. [73]

    Place the tomato sauce in the basket Put both the cream cheese box and the butter in the basket

  64. [74]

    Place the cream cheese box in the basket

  65. [75]

    Place the butter in the basket Put the white mug on the left plate and put the yellow and white mug on the right plate

  66. [76]

    Put the white mug on the left plate

  67. [77]

    Put the yellow and white mug on the right plate Put the white mug on the plate and put the chocolate pudding to the right of the plate

  68. [78]

    Put the white mug on the plate

  69. [79]

    Place the chocolate pudding to the right of the plate Pick up the book and place it in the back compartment of the caddy

  70. [80]

    First, our VLM Critic is frozen throughout training and provides a relatively coarse, task-level reward signal

    Place the book in the caddy back compart- ment A.5 Limitations While RoboTALES demonstrates strong performance across diverse manipula- tion tasks, it is worth noting certain limitations. First, our VLM Critic is frozen throughout training and provides a relatively coarse, tas...

Pith tools

Reviewed July 8, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.