Pith. sign in

REVIEW 5 major objections 4 minor 55 references

Converting 1,940 hours of egocentric human video into 18,561 hours of robot-format data, then mixing it with real robot data, improves out-of-distribution generalization across visual, scene, embodiment, and task-semantic shifts.

Reviewed by Pith at T0; open to challenge. T0 means a machine referee read the full paper against a public rubric. the ladder, T0–T4 →

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

T0 review · deepseek-v4-flash

2026-08-04 04:19 UTC pith:SEX24ZQT

load-bearing objection A serious, well-controlled study of ego-to-robot data at scale, with an unresolved question about camera motion in the action labels. the 5 major comments →

arxiv 2608.02580 v1 pith:SEX24ZQT submitted 2026-08-03 cs.RO

Ego2Robot: Scalable Robot Data Synthesis from Egocentric Human Data

Ye Wang , Pei Lin , Xiong-Hui Chen , Haoqi Yuan , Zhixuan Liang , Yiyang Huang , Anzhe Chen , Zixing Lei
show 7 more authors
Jie Zhang Tao Zhang Haoyang Li Tong Zhang Chenxi Xiao Ziyuan Jiao Qin Jin
This is my paper
classification cs.RO
keywords robot data synthesisegocentric videovision-language-action pretrainingout-of-distribution generalizationaction retargetingcross-embodimentdata augmentationrobot manipulation
verification ladder T0 review T1 audit T2 compute T3 formal T4 reserved

The pith

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

The paper tries to establish that the abundant, cheap supply of egocentric human manipulation video can become large-scale robot pretraining data: retarget hand motions into robot end-effector trajectories, render robot arms into the original scenes, filter for quality, and the result complements real robot demonstrations. It reports a pipeline that processes about 1,940 hours of egocentric video across four sources and 15 robot arm morphologies into 18,561 hours of synthesized robot data. The central claim is that mixing this synthesized data with real robot data during vision-language-action pretraining improves out-of-distribution generalization under independently varied visual appearance, scene layout, robot embodiment, and task semantics, and that the benefit carries over to a physical dual-arm robot. If true, it opens a route around the robot-data bottleneck by using human first-person video as a scalable source of manipulation diversity.

Core claim

Ego2Robot's central discovery is that ego-to-robot synthesis scales beyond per-task demos. Starting from egocentric hand-manipulation video, the pipeline extracts hand keypoints, retargets them to a parallel-jaw gripper representation, optimizes a per-episode robot base pose so the trajectory is kinematically feasible, inpaints the human arms, and composites a rendered robot arm into the scene with depth ordering. All actions are stored as camera-frame relative end-effector deltas, so frames from different cameras and different robot bodies share a single action space. The paper reports that joint pretraining on this synthesized data plus real robot data improves out-of-distribution success

What carries the argument

The central object is the camera-frame relative end-effector (EEF) action: action deltas expressed in the observer's camera frame rather than the world frame, which unifies data from unknown camera placements and varied robot morphologies without per-video extrinsic calibration. The other load-bearing mechanism is the base-pose search—for each ego trajectory, a robot base placement in SE(3) is selected by grid search over kinematic reach and IK feasibility, so that human hand motions become feasible robot motions for each of 15 target morphologies. Visual alignment is completed by arm segmentation, video inpainting to remove hands, and depth-aware compositing of the rendered robot, followed

Load-bearing premise

The pipeline assumes that camera-frame relative end-effector actions are a stable action representation for egocentric sources with unknown, potentially moving camera placements; the paper neither estimates nor compensates for camera motion, so if head motion changes the mapping from robot behavior to action labels, the synthesized data is noisier than the reported gains suggest.

What would settle it

Take egocentric videos with known head motion (e.g., head-mounted IMU or reconstructed camera trajectories), generate Ego2R labels both in the moving camera frame and in a camera-motion-compensated frame, and run identical pretraining on both versions; if the compensated labels do not preserve or improve the out-of-distribution gains, the benefit is not due to transferable manipulation content but to representation noise.

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

If this is right

  • Mixing Ego2R-synthesized data with robot data at a 1:1 ratio improves out-of-distribution success relative to robot-only pretraining across visual, scene, embodiment, and task-semantics shifts.
  • The benefit is complementary rather than a simple volume effect: a low 1:3 mixing ratio yields little change, while 3:1 and 1:1 ratios give substantial gains.
  • Scaling the number of rendered robot morphologies from 1 to 15 steadily improves downstream performance, and adding raw egocentric video as an extra 'morphology' provides a further jump.
  • Even with no real robot data in pretraining, the pipeline-processed ego data outperforms raw ego data, showing the action and visual alignment stages matter.
  • On a physical dual-arm robot, using pipeline-converted casual ego play alongside teleoperated demonstrations improves success on all five long-horizon tasks tested.

Where Pith is reading between the lines

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

  • Inference: Because the egocentric camera is head-mounted and moving, camera-frame action labels contain motion-dependent noise that can act as an implicit augmentation; a controlled comparison against camera-motion-compensated labels would separate this from transferable manipulation content.
  • Inference: The disentangled evaluation suggests ego-synthesized data mainly improves invariance and cross-distribution robustness rather than trajectory coverage—a testable prediction is that finetuning sample efficiency on novel tasks improves most in visually or semantically shifted settings.
  • Inference: The per-trajectory base-pose search is a general feasibility filter that could be reused to screen any human demonstration against a target robot, beyond the rendering pipeline.
  • Inference: Multi-morphology rendering also acts as cheap visual domain randomization; the reported robot-color and camera-offset robustness gains suggest the same synthesis could serve perception augmentation even when action labels are not retargeted.

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

5 major / 4 minor

Summary. The paper presents Ego2Robot, a pipeline that converts egocentric human manipulation videos into robot-format training data by retargeting hand poses to parallel-jaw grippers, replacing human arms with rendered robot arms via segmentation/inpainting and depth-aware compositing, and applying three levels of quality curation. The pipeline is applied to four egocentric sources totaling roughly 1,940 hours, producing 18,561 hours of training data across 15 robot morphologies. The authors also extend RoboTwin2.0 with disentangled perturbation axes (visual, scene layout, embodiment, task semantics) and evaluate a Qwen3.5-4B VLA policy pretrained on mixtures of Ego2Robot-synthesized and real robot data. The central claim is that joint pretraining with Ego2Robot data consistently improves out-of-distribution generalization, with additional real-robot gains from finetuning on pipeline-converted ego play data.

Significance. If the central claim holds, this is a substantial contribution: it would show that retarget-and-render synthesis from egocentric human video can scale to VLA pretraining and provide complementary value to real robot data, which is currently expensive and heterogeneous. The paper has notable strengths: a controlled pretraining comparison with a fixed frame budget across all mixing ratios, evaluation on public benchmarks (RoboTwin2.0 and EBench), real-robot validation, and a detailed appendix documenting the pipeline. The disentangled perturbation protocol is a useful methodological contribution in itself. However, the empirical support is weakened by the absence of seeds or error bars and by an unaddressed action-representation issue for moving egocentric cameras, which could confound the interpretation of the reported gains.

major comments (5)
  1. [Section 3 and Appendix C.2, Eq. (10)] The camera-frame relative EEF action representation requires a per-frame camera-to-world transform T_wc to convert end-effector deltas into the observer's frame. For all four egocentric sources (ANT, EgoDex, ViTRA, EgoVerse), the camera is head-mounted and moves during manipulation. The paper does not state whether T_wc is per-frame or fixed, and no camera-pose estimation or stabilization step is described in Sec. A.1 (WiLoR/DynHaMR output hand poses, not camera poses; Eq. (6) optimizes MANO parameters only). If T_wc is fixed, Eq. (10) is invalid for moving cameras: the same robot EEF displacement maps to different labels depending on head motion. If T_wc is per-frame, the paper must specify how it is obtained. This is load-bearing because the central claim attributes OOD gains to action retargeting; without camera-motion compensation, the synthesized action labels can be systematically
  2. [Tables 1-2 and Figures 3-4] All success rates are point estimates with no seeds, error bars, or confidence intervals. For RoboTwin aggregates with 50 episodes per task and 50 tasks (n=2500), a +2.6 change in the Randomized column is only about 2.6 binomial standard errors under independence, and many per-dimension differences are smaller (e.g., Table 2: Height +2.3, UR5 +4.8, Franka -1.7). The real-robot results use 20 trials per task (Table 4), where a +14 difference carries a standard error of roughly 10 percentage points. Without multiple seeds or confidence intervals, the claim that the method 'consistently improves' is not statistically supported. I recommend reporting at least 3 seeds with mean±std, or per-condition confidence intervals, and performing a significance test for the main comparisons.
  3. [Abstract and Section 5.2] The abstract states that joint pretraining 'consistently improves out-of-distribution generalization across multiple perturbation types.' This is contradicted by Table 2: at the 1:3 ratio, 7 of 11 perturbation cells are negative (e.g., BG -1.6, Height -1.5, Franka -2.5); at 3:1, BG -1.1, Franka -1.4, Lang +0.0; at 1:1, Franka -1.7, with UR5 only +4.8. The gains are consistent for some axes (especially Object instances and Paraphrased instructions), but not universal. The wording should be tempered, or the paper should report which differences are statistically significant.
  4. [Sections 5.1, A.2, A.5] Qwen3.5 is used as the policy backbone, as the VLM for subtask segmentation and instruction generation (A.2), and as the L3 semantic consistency filter (A.5). The Task Semantics axis includes paraphrased instructions generated by human+LLM and unseen-object tasks; the gains in Object (+10.3) and Paraphrased (+5.4) conditions could be inflated by the same model family generating the training instructions and filtering the data. This is a confound rather than a circular derivation, but it should be addressed: e.g., evaluate with a set of human-written paraphrases, use a different VLM for filtering, or ablate the L3 filter.
  5. [Figure 3 and Section 5.3] The ablation 'pipeline alignment is essential' rests on a single point estimate on the RoboTwin Randomized setting, with no error bars. The difference between raw ego (28.1%) and Ego2R single-morphology (31.7%) is plausible but needs variance reporting. Also, the statement that raw ego data 'acts as a 16th morphology' is speculative; the jump from 33.5% to 37.3% could come from extra data diversity, not from treating raw ego as a morphology. The paper should either provide supporting analysis (e.g., action-space/visual-embedding distance) or soften the claim.
minor comments (4)
  1. [Abstract and Section 3] The '18,561 hours' figure is the total volume after rendering across 15 morphologies and curation, not unique source hours. Please clarify this in the abstract and main text to avoid misinterpretation.
  2. [Section 5.2] The statement that EBench 'confirms gains under higher viewpoint' is based on the 3:1 ratio achieving 51.7 vs. 1:1 achieving 49.8; the ordering across ratios is not consistent, so this conclusion should be phrased more cautiously.
  3. [Appendix A.5] The L3 prompt instructs the VLM to be tolerant of 'fake/toy objects' and 'minor spatial deviations.' This may make the filter too permissive and weaken the curation step; consider reporting how many episodes were discarded at each level.
  4. [Appendix A.6 and Table 3] The color randomization range H∼U(0,1), S∼U(0.3,1), V∼U(0.4,1) is applied to all links; this is a sensible augmentation, but please clarify whether the background and scene objects are also randomized, since Figure 2 lists Robot Color as a separate axis.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged

No circular derivation; empirical claims are benchmarked externally and pipeline stages do not reduce to their inputs.

full rationale

The paper's central claim is empirical, not derivational: it asserts that joint pretraining on Ego2Robot-synthesized and robot data improves out-of-distribution generalization. That claim is tested on external benchmarks (RoboTwin2.0, EBench) and real-robot deployment, with held-out perturbation axes; the results are not obtained by plugging the conclusion into the construction. The action-alignment stage (Eqs. 1-3, temporal smoothing) converts hand keypoints to gripper trajectories; the base-pose search (Eq. 4) optimizes IK feasibility and is not a fit to the evaluation metric; visual alignment (Eq. 5) is compositing, not a prediction. The camera-frame relative EEF transform (Eq. 10) is a coordinate transformation chosen to unify data from unknown camera placements; while the moving-camera issue in egocentric video is a genuine validity concern, no equation defines the evaluation outcome in terms of this transform. Self-citations (refs 27, 28, 30) appear only in related work and are not load-bearing; ref [50] (Qwen3.5) is used both for data filtering/instruction generation and as the policy backbone, which is a possible experimental confound for language/semantic gains, but the paper does not derive its generalization claim from that identity—the gains are measured against externally defined tasks. The Limitations section acknowledges rendering and retargeting limitations but does not assert any circular dependency. Thus no step in the claimed derivation chain reduces to its own inputs.

Axiom & Free-Parameter Ledger

5 free parameters · 6 axioms · 0 invented entities

The pipeline relies on several domain assumptions about retargeting fidelity, camera-frame action stability, keyframe IK sufficiency, and VLM curation correctness. The free parameters listed are hand-chosen or fitted to observed data speed distributions and do not have independent derivations.

free parameters (5)
  • Per-source frame subsampling ratios = ANT/EgoDex 0.6, EgoVerse 0.45, ViTRA 0.25
    Selected to align human action speed to robot teleoperation speed (Section 3 Action Speed Alignment).
  • Base-pose reach penalty target (rho_bar) = 0.65
    Hand-chosen constant in Eq. 8 to encourage operating at 65% of max reach during base pose search.
  • Hand-to-gripper fingertip blend weights = 0.7 index, 0.3 middle
    Heuristic in Eq. 1 for defining the virtual fingertip; affects all retargeted gripper poses.
  • L1 validity thresholds = IK error <0.05m; mask >70% invalid; cross-arm contacts >1 invalid
    Hand-chosen pipeline filtering thresholds in Appendix A.5.
  • Robot color randomization ranges = H~U(0,1), S~U(0.3,1), V~U(0.4,1)
    Augmentation ranges in A.6, chosen without derivation.
axioms (6)
  • domain assumption Hand trajectories after retargeting to a parallel gripper preserve task-relevant manipulation intent.
    Used in Section 3 Action Alignment; acknowledged limitation in Section 6 (drops finger articulation).
  • domain assumption Camera-frame relative EEF actions are consistent across egocentric sources with unknown, potentially moving cameras.
    Section 3 Action Representation; no camera motion estimation or compensation is described.
  • domain assumption IK feasibility at keyframes implies whole-trajectory feasibility for the chosen base placement.
    Equation 4 and base pose search in Section 3; only keyframe IK is verified.
  • domain assumption Depth-aware compositing yields images whose task-relevant information is preserved after inpainting and overlay.
    Section 3 Visual Alignment; artifacts under heavy occlusion are acknowledged in Limitations.
  • domain assumption Qwen3.5 VLM judgments of semantic consistency are accurate enough to curate training data.
    L3 curation in Section 3.3; same model family used as policy backbone.
  • domain assumption RoboTwin2.0 extensions and EBench are valid proxies for real-world out-of-distribution generalization.
    Section 4 evaluation framework; real-robot eval limited to 5 tasks.

pith-pipeline@v1.3.0-daily-deepseek · 19590 in / 15539 out tokens · 139443 ms · 2026-08-04T04:19:50.825458+00:00 · methodology

0 comments
read the original abstract

Learning generalizable robot manipulation policies requires large-scale and diverse demonstration data. Egocentric human manipulation videos offer rich scene and task diversity, and prior work has shown that retargeting and rendering such videos into robot-format data can yield effective per-task policies at small scale. However, whether this approach can provide pretraining benefits for vision-language-action models at scale remains unexplored. We present \textbf{Ego2Robot}, a scalable pipeline that converts egocentric human manipulation videos into robot training data through action retargeting, robot-arm visual synthesis, and multi-level quality curation. Ego2Robot supports both curated datasets and in-the-wild videos, producing 18,561 hours of robot training data spanning 15 robot morphologies, making it the largest ego-to-robot dataset to date. To evaluate generalization, we extend RoboTwin2.0 with disentangled perturbation axes covering visual appearance, scene layout, embodiment morphology, and task semantics. Experiments show that joint pretraining on Ego2Robot-synthesized and robot data consistently improves out-of-distribution generalization across multiple perturbation types, with benefits validated on real-robot deployment. Project page: https://www-ye.github.io/ego2robot_blog/

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2608.02580 by Anzhe Chen, Chenxi Xiao, Haoqi Yuan, Haoyang Li, Jie Zhang, Pei Lin, Qin Jin, Tao Zhang, Tong Zhang, Xiong-Hui Chen, Ye Wang, Yiyang Huang, Zhixuan Liang, Zixing Lei, Ziyuan Jiao.

Figure 1
Figure 1. Figure 1: Ego2Robot pipeline. Converting egocentric video into 18,561h robot training data across 15 morphologies through action alignment, visual alignment, and quality curation. contain transferable interaction regularities that can complement robot data if properly aligned. Based on this observation, we propose Ego2Robot, an end-to-end pipeline that converts egocentric human manipulation data into embodiment-spec… view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. Figure 2: Evaluation framework. Four generalization dimensions with 12 evaluation settings. Dashed borders: settings decoupled from bundled randomization for independent testing. Solid borders: newly introduced evaluation axes. Gray border: external benchmark (EBench). where Dscene is obtained from depth sensors or estimated via monocular depth. This process is applied independently for each of 15 robot morphologies… view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. Figure 3: Pipeline value and embodiment scaling. Success rate on RoboTwin Randomized [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p007_3.png] view at source ↗
Figure 4
Figure 4. Figure 4: Real robot results. Success rates (%) on five tasks on the ARX ACone platform [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p008_4.png] view at source ↗
Figure 5
Figure 5. Figure 5: Real robot rollouts. Key frames from five evaluation tasks on the ARX ACone platform. 15-morphology Ego2R data yields a further jump to 37.3%—the raw ego data effectively acts as a 16th “morphology” with slightly different visual appearance and action distribution, further enriching the pretraining diversity. 5.4 Real Robot Experiments We evaluate on an ARX ACone platform across five long-horizon tasks ( … view at source ↗
Figure 6
Figure 6. Figure 6: 15 supported robot morphologies. 3D models of all 15 robots. A.7 Supported Robot Morphologies [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p017_6.png] view at source ↗
Figure 7
Figure 7. Figure 7: Pretraining data composition. Slices show per-source sampling weights (training mix); panel titles give the total data volume. (a) Robot (∼6,565 h). (b) Ego2R (∼18,561 h). sources (ANT 7 h, EgoDex 732 h, ViTRA 249 h, EgoVerse 954 h, totaling ∼1,940 h before process￾ing) rendered across 15 morphologies, yielding 18,561 h after pipeline processing and quality cu￾ration. The mixing ratios (1:3, 3:1, 1:1 Ego2R… view at source ↗
Figure 8
Figure 8. Figure 8: Ego play → Ego2R synthesis on real-world scenes. Top: original egocentric human manipulation. Bottom: Ego2R pipeline output with ACone robot overlay [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p021_8.png] view at source ↗
Figure 9
Figure 9. Figure 9: Comparison with Pi0.5 across RoboTwin settings. F.2 Per-Task Results [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p022_9.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

55 extracted references · 30 linked inside Pith

  1. [1]

    Zitkovich, T

    B. Zitkovich, T. Yu, S. Xu, P. Xu, T. Xiao, F. Xia, J. Wu, P. Wohlhart, S. Welker, A. Wahid, et al. Rt-2: Vision-language-action models transfer web knowledge to robotic control. In Conference on Robot Learning, pages 2165–2183. PMLR, 2023

    2023

  2. [2]

    M. J. Kim, K. Pertsch, S. Karamcheti, T. Xiao, A. Balakrishna, S. Nair, R. Rafailov, E. Foster, G. Lam, P. Sanketi, et al. Openvla: An open-source vision-language-action model.arXiv preprint arXiv:2406.09246, 2024

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2024

  3. [3]

    Black, N

    K. Black, N. Brown, D. Driess, A. Esmail, M. Equi, C. Finn, N. Fusai, L. Groom, K. Hausman, B. Ichter, et al.pi 0: A vision-language-action flow model for general robot control.arXiv preprint arXiv:2410.24164, 2024

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2024

  4. [4]

    Intelligence, K

    P. Intelligence, K. Black, N. Brown, J. Darpinian, K. Dhabalia, D. Driess, A. Esmail, M. Equi, C. Finn, N. Fusai, et al.pi {0.5}: a vision-language-action model with open-world general- ization.arXiv preprint arXiv:2504.16054, 2025

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2025

  5. [5]

    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

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2025

  6. [6]

    O’Neill, A

    A. O’Neill, A. Rehman, A. Maddukuri, A. Gupta, A. Padalkar, A. Lee, A. Pooley, A. Gupta, A. Mandlekar, A. Jain, et al. Open x-embodiment: Robotic learning datasets and rt-x models: Open x-embodiment collaboration 0. In2024 IEEE International Conference on Robotics and Automation (ICRA), pages 6892–6903. IEEE, 2024

    2024

  7. [7]

    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

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2024

  8. [8]

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

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2025

  9. [9]

    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.arXiv preprint arXiv:2402.10329, 2024

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2024

  10. [10]

    T. Z. Zhao, V . Kumar, S. Levine, and C. Finn. Learning fine-grained bimanual manipulation with low-cost hardware.arXiv preprint arXiv:2304.13705, 2023

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2023

  11. [11]

    P. Wu, Y . Shentu, Z. Yi, X. Lin, and P. Abbeel. Gello: A general, low-cost, and intuitive teleoperation framework for robot manipulators. In2024 IEEE/RSJ International Conference on Intelligent Robots and Systems (IROS), pages 12156–12163. IEEE, 2024

    2024

  12. [12]

    Hoque, P

    R. Hoque, P. Huang, D. J. Yoon, M. Sivapurapu, and J. Zhang. Egodex: Learning dexterous manipulation from large-scale egocentric video.arXiv preprint arXiv:2505.11709, 2025

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2025

  13. [13]

    Punamiya, S

    R. Punamiya, S. Kareer, Z. Liu, J. Citron, R.-Z. Qiu, X. Cai, A. Gavryushin, J. Chen, D. Li- conti, L. Y . Zhu, et al. Egoverse: An egocentric human dataset for robot learning from around the world.arXiv preprint arXiv:2604.07607, 2026

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2026

  14. [14]

    Lepert, J

    M. Lepert, J. Fang, and J. Bohg. Phantom: Training robots without robots using only human videos. InConference on Robot Learning, pages 4545–4565. PMLR, 2025

    2025

  15. [15]

    Kareer, D

    S. Kareer, D. Patel, R. Punamiya, P. Mathur, S. Cheng, C. Wang, J. Hoffman, and D. Xu. Egomimic: Scaling imitation learning via egocentric video. In2025 IEEE International Con- ference on Robotics and Automation (ICRA), pages 13226–13233. IEEE, 2025. 10

    2025

  16. [16]

    T. Chen, Z. Chen, B. Chen, Z. Cai, Y . Liu, Z. Li, Q. Liang, X. Lin, Y . Ge, Z. Gu, et al. Robotwin 2.0: A scalable data generator and benchmark with strong domain randomization for robust bimanual robotic manipulation.arXiv preprint arXiv:2506.18088, 2025

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2025

  17. [17]

    N. M. M. Shafiullah, A. Rai, H. Etukuru, Y . Liu, I. Misra, S. Chintala, and L. Pinto. On bringing robots home.arXiv preprint arXiv:2311.16098, 2023

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2023

  18. [18]

    L. Pei, H. Yuzhe, L. Wanlin, X. Chenxi, and J. Ziyuan. Dexmove: Learning tactile-guided non-prehensile manipulation with dexterous hands. InThe Fourteenth International Con- ference on Learning Representations, 2026. URLhttps://openreview.net/forum?id= dT3ZciXvNX

    2026

  19. [19]

    S. Nair, A. Rajeswaran, V . Kumar, C. Finn, and A. Gupta. R3m: A universal visual represen- tation for robot manipulation.arXiv preprint arXiv:2203.12601, 2022

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2022

  20. [20]

    Radosavovic, T

    I. Radosavovic, T. Xiao, S. James, P. Abbeel, J. Malik, and T. Darrell. Real-world robot learning with masked visual pre-training. InConference on Robot Learning, pages 416–426. PMLR, 2023

    2023

  21. [21]

    Y . J. Ma, S. Sodhani, D. Jayaraman, O. Bastani, V . Kumar, and A. Zhang. Vip: Towards universal visual reward and representation via value-implicit pre-training.arXiv preprint arXiv:2210.00030, 2022

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2022

  22. [22]

    A. S. Chen, S. Nair, and C. Finn. Learning generalizable robotic reward functions from” in- the-wild” human videos.arXiv preprint arXiv:2103.16817, 2021

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2021

  23. [23]

    C. Wang, L. Fan, J. Sun, R. Zhang, L. Fei-Fei, D. Xu, Y . Zhu, and A. Anandkumar. Mimicplay: Long-horizon imitation learning by watching human play.arXiv preprint arXiv:2302.12422, 2023

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2023

  24. [24]

    M. Xu, Z. Xu, Y . Xu, C. Chi, G. Wetzstein, M. Veloso, and S. Song. Flow as the cross-domain manipulation interface.arXiv preprint arXiv:2407.15208, 2024

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2024

  25. [25]

    J. Ren, P. Sundaresan, D. Sadigh, S. Choudhury, and J. Bohg. Motion tracks: A unified repre- sentation for human-robot transfer in few-shot imitation learning. In2025 IEEE International Conference on Robotics and Automation (ICRA), pages 8802–8810. IEEE, 2025

    2025

  26. [26]

    Zheng, D

    R. Zheng, D. Niu, Y . Xie, J. Wang, M. Xu, Y . Jiang, F. Casta˜neda, F. Hu, Y . L. Tan, L. Fu, et al. Egoscale: Scaling dexterous manipulation with diverse egocentric human data.arXiv preprint arXiv:2602.16710, 2026

    arXiv 2026

  27. [27]

    H. Luo, Y . Feng, W. Zhang, S. Zheng, Y . Wang, H. Yuan, J. Liu, C. Xu, Q. Jin, and Z. Lu. Being-h0: vision-language-action pretraining from large-scale human videos.arXiv preprint arXiv:2507.15597, 2025

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2025

  28. [28]

    H. Luo, Y . Wang, W. Zhang, S. Zheng, Z. Xi, C. Xu, H. Xu, H. Yuan, C. Zhang, Y . Wang, et al. Being-h0. 5: Scaling human-centric robot learning for cross-embodiment generalization. arXiv preprint arXiv:2601.12993, 2026

    arXiv 2026

  29. [29]

    Q. Li, Y . Deng, Y . Liang, L. Luo, L. Zhou, C. Yao, L. Zeng, Z. Feng, H. Liang, S. Xu, et al. Scalable vision-language-action model pretraining for robotic manipulation with real-life hu- man activity videos.arXiv preprint arXiv:2510.21571, 2025

    arXiv 2025

  30. [30]

    Zhang, S

    T. Zhang, S. Xia, Y . Wang, and Q. Jin. Easymimic: A low-cost framework for robot imitation learning from human videos.arXiv preprint arXiv:2602.11464, 2026

    arXiv 2026

  31. [31]

    Mandlekar, S

    A. Mandlekar, S. Nasiriany, B. Wen, I. Akinola, Y . Narang, L. Fan, Y . Zhu, and D. Fox. Mimicgen: A data generation system for scalable robot learning using human demonstrations. arXiv preprint arXiv:2310.17596, 2023. 11

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2023

  32. [32]

    Nasiriany, A

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

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2024

  33. [33]

    L. Y . Chen, C. Xu, K. Dharmarajan, M. Z. Irshad, R. Cheng, K. Keutzer, M. Tomizuka, Q. Vuong, and K. Goldberg. Rovi-aug: Robot and viewpoint augmentation for cross- embodiment robot learning.arXiv preprint arXiv:2409.03403, 2024

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2024

  34. [34]

    L. Y . Chen, K. Hari, K. Dharmarajan, C. Xu, Q. Vuong, and K. Goldberg. Mirage: Cross- embodiment zero-shot policy transfer with cross-painting.arXiv preprint arXiv:2402.19249, 2024

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2024

  35. [35]

    G. Ji, H. Polavaram, L. Y . Chen, S. Bajamahal, Z. Ma, S. Adebola, C. Xu, and K. Goldberg. Oxe-auge: A large-scale robot augmentation of oxe for scaling cross-embodiment policy learn- ing.arXiv preprint arXiv:2512.13100, 2025

    arXiv 2025

  36. [36]

    Y . Mu, T. Chen, Z. Chen, S. Peng, Z. Lan, Z. Gao, Z. Liang, Q. Yu, Y . Zou, M. Xu, et al. Robotwin: Dual-arm robot benchmark with generative digital twins. InProceedings of the computer vision and pattern recognition conference, pages 27649–27660, 2025

    2025

  37. [37]

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

    2023

  38. [38]

    O. Mees, L. Hermann, E. Rosete-Beas, and W. Burgard. Calvin: A benchmark for language- conditioned policy learning for long-horizon robot manipulation tasks.IEEE Robotics and Automation Letters, 7(3):7327–7334, 2022

    2022

  39. [39]

    James, Z

    S. James, Z. Ma, D. R. Arrojo, and A. J. Davison. Rlbench: The robot learning benchmark & learning environment.IEEE Robotics and Automation Letters, 5(2):3019–3026, 2020

    2020

  40. [40]

    X. Li, K. Hsu, J. Gu, K. Pertsch, O. Mees, H. R. Walke, C. Fu, I. Lunawat, I. Sieh, S. Kir- mani, et al. Evaluating real-world robot manipulation policies in simulation.arXiv preprint arXiv:2405.05941, 2024

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2024

  41. [41]

    J. Gu, F. Xiang, X. Li, Z. Ling, X. Liu, T. Mu, Y . Tang, S. Tao, X. Wei, Y . Yao, et al. Maniskill2: A unified benchmark for generalizable manipulation skills.arXiv preprint arXiv:2302.04659, 2023

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2023

  42. [42]

    S. Tao, F. Xiang, A. Shukla, Y . Qin, X. Hinrichsen, X. Yuan, C. Bao, X. Lin, Y . Liu, T.-k. Chan, et al. Maniskill3: Gpu parallelized robotics simulation and rendering for generalizable embodied ai.arXiv preprint arXiv:2410.00425, 2024

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2024

  43. [43]

    Pumacay, I

    W. Pumacay, I. Singh, J. Duan, R. Krishna, J. Thomason, and D. Fox. The colosseum: A bench- mark for evaluating generalization for robotic manipulation.arXiv preprint arXiv:2402.08191, 2024

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2024

  44. [44]

    S. Fei, S. Wang, J. Shi, Z. Dai, J. Cai, P. Qian, L. Ji, X. He, S. Zhang, Z. Fei, et al. Libero-plus: In-depth robustness analysis of vision-language-action models.arXiv preprint arXiv:2510.13626, 2025

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2025

  45. [45]

    X. Zhou, Y . Xu, G. Tie, Y . Chen, G. Zhang, D. Chu, P. Zhou, and L. Sun. Libero-pro: To- wards robust and fair evaluation of vision-language-action models beyond memorization.arXiv preprint arXiv:2510.03827, 2025

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2025

  46. [46]

    S. A. Laboratory. Ebench: Elemental mobile manipulation benchmark, 2026. URLhttps: //internrobotics.github.io/EBench-doc/. Preprint coming soon. 12

    2026

  47. [47]

    R. A. Potamias, J. Zhang, J. Deng, and S. Zafeiriou. Wilor: End-to-end 3d hand localization and reconstruction in-the-wild. InProceedings of the Computer Vision and Pattern Recognition Conference, pages 12242–12254, 2025

    2025

  48. [48]

    C. Si, Y . Liu, B. Ai, J. Xie, R. A. Potamias, C. Zheng, and H. Su. Anyhand: A large-scale synthetic dataset for rgb (-d) hand pose estimation.arXiv preprint arXiv:2603.25726, 2026

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2026

  49. [49]

    Z. Yu, S. Zafeiriou, and T. Birdal. Dyn-hamr: Recovering 4d interacting hand motion from a dynamic camera. InProceedings of the Computer Vision and Pattern Recognition Conference, pages 27716–27726, 2025

    2025

  50. [50]

    Q. Team. Qwen3. 5: Accelerating productivity with native multimodal agents, february 2026. URL https://qwen. ai/blog

    2026

  51. [51]

    Carion, L

    N. Carion, L. Gustafson, Y .-T. Hu, S. Debnath, R. Hu, D. Suris, C. Ryali, K. V . Alwala, H. Khedr, A. Huang, et al. Sam 3: Segment anything with concepts.arXiv preprint arXiv:2511.16719, 2025

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2025

  52. [52]

    S. Zhou, C. Li, K. C. Chan, and C. C. Loy. Propainter: Improving propagation and transformer for video inpainting. InProceedings of the IEEE/CVF international conference on computer vision, pages 10477–10486, 2023

    2023

  53. [53]

    Todorov, T

    E. Todorov, T. Erez, and Y . Tassa. Mujoco: A physics engine for model-based control. In2012 IEEE/RSJ international conference on intelligent robots and systems, pages 5026–5033. IEEE, 2012

    2012

  54. [54]

    K. Zakka. Mink: Python inverse kinematics based on MuJoCo, Feb. 2026. URLhttps: //github.com/kevinzakka/mink

    2026

  55. [55]

    {task desc}

    Y . Tian, Y . Yang, Y . Xie, Z. Cai, X. Shi, N. Gao, H. Liu, X. Jiang, Z. Qiu, F. Yuan, et al. Interndata-a1: Pioneering high-fidelity synthetic data for pre-training generalist policy.arXiv preprint arXiv:2511.16651, 2025. 13 Ego2Robot Appendix A Ego2Robot Pipeline Details 14 B Evaluation Framework Details 17 C Model Architecture Details 19 D Training De...

    arXiv 2025