Pith. sign in

REVIEW 3 major objections 6 minor 2 cited by

Deep Sensorimotor Control by Imitating Predictive Models of Human Motion

T0 review · 3 major / 6 minor · reviewed 2026-08-05 · deepseek-v4-flash

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

Pith's one-line read A predictive model of human motion, trained once on human interaction data, can be applied zero-shot to robot data as a tracking reward, letting sparse-reward reinforcement learning match hand-designed dense rewards in dexterous manipulatio

desk verdict Clean idea and solid sim results, but the paper's core claim that a human motion predictor is what makes the tracking reward work is not yet isolated; one ablation away from a strong paper. read the letter →

arxiv 2508.18691 v1 pith:TX7GKLU6 submitted 2025-08-26 cs.RO

Himanshu Gaurav Singh , Pieter Abbeel , Jitendra Malik , Antonio Loquercio This is my paper
classification cs.RO
keywords dexterousmanipulationhumanmotionpredictionreinforcementlearningkeypointabstractionzero-shotembodimenttransfersparse-rewardRLhuman-sceneinteractiondatasets
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

Human hands and modern robot hands share enough structure that the 3D positions of fingertip keypoints move in similar ways. The paper's central claim is that this shared keypoint geometry lets a single predictive model of human motion—trained once on a dataset of humans interacting with objects—be used zero-shot to guide robot policies. The model, a causal transformer, takes a history of robot fingertip positions and a scene point cloud and predicts where human fingertips would go next; the policy is rewarded for matching those predictions, on top of a sparse task reward. In simulation, this tracking reward lets reinforcement learning solve four dexterous manipulation tasks across three robot hands, roughly matching a separately tuned dense-reward baseline, while a sparse-reward-only policy fails. If correct, the method turns large, diverse human-scene interaction datasets into training signal without per-sample kinematic retargeting or adversarial losses.

What carries the argument

The central machinery is the keypoint abstraction: the 3D positions of fingertips, defined once as a fixed mapping from human fingertips to robot fingertips and assumed to move similarly across embodiments. Carrying the argument is Πh, a six-layer, eight-head causal transformer with a PointNet encoder for point clouds, trained with mean-squared error and with Gaussian noise injected into the input keypoints to mitigate closed-loop distribution drift. The tracking reward of Eq. (2) uses Πh's closed-loop predictions on robot state history as a target and is added with a fixed weight to the sparse task reward. This machinery turns a static dataset of human interactions into a dense, embodiment-

What would settle it

Run the predictor in closed loop on rollouts from a policy trained with it, and compare its next-keypoint error or the resulting success rate against a constant-velocity keypoint predictor used in the same tracking reward. If the constant-velocity target matches the learned predictor's success, the human prior is not carrying the load; if the predictor's error on robot rollouts is much larger than on held-out human data, the claimed zero-shot transfer is not occurring.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

The paper's discovery is that the value of a human motion prior can be harvested through a predictive interface rather than a retargeting or adversarial one. Instead of mapping each human demonstration to robot coordinates, the authors train a causal transformer, Πh, to predict the next 3D positions of fingertip keypoints from a history of keypoints and object point clouds. Because the keypoint abstraction transfers across embodiments, Πh can be run on robot data even though it never saw robot trajectories; its predictions define a tracking reward r_track = -||k̂h_{t+1} - k^r_{t+1}||². The policy is trained with PPO to maximize a sparse task reward plus this tracking reward. Empirically, thi

Load-bearing premise

The central bet is that a model trained only on human hand motion, when fed robot finger positions and robot-observed point clouds it never saw in training, still predicts targets that are informative and physically sensible for the robot; if those predictions degrade, the tracking reward stops shaping the policy usefully.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • In the paper's simulation experiments, sparse task rewards plus this tracking reward match a hand-designed dense reward baseline across all four tasks, so per-task reward engineering can in principle be replaced by one shared motion prior.
  • The same predictor transfers zero-shot across three robot hands and four tasks, so human datasets do not need to be re-processed for each embodiment.
  • The human dataset is not needed during policy optimization, so the memory cost of training is decoupled from the scale of the human data.
  • The predictor also helps on a task absent from its training data, so the motion prior covers a neighborhood of behaviors beyond the exact demonstrations it saw.
  • Under sparse rewards, adversarial distribution matching and retargeting-then-RL baselines fail while tracking the predictor succeeds; the predictive interface is what makes the difference.

Reading between the lines

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

  • Editorial: because the predictor is frozen and cheap to evaluate, it should slot into sim-to-real pipelines as a fixed reward module; the paper does not test this, but notes that human-like behaviors may ease real-world transfer.
  • Editorial: the noise-injection trick is a testable control: sweep its amplitude and measure closed-loop prediction drift on policy rollouts, not just open-loop training loss, to see whether zero-shot transfer holds away from the human-data distribution.
  • Editorial: the fingertip-keypoint argument should extend to whole-body or tool-tip keypoints for other humanoid morphologies, although the paper limits itself to anthropomorphic hands; a learned keypoint map would be needed for non-anthropomorphic end-effectors.
  • Editorial: a sharper test of the human prior's added value is to compare Πh against a model trained on the robot's own successful trajectories; if both work equally well, the contribution is the keypoint abstraction, not the human data per se.
Share X Bluesky LinkedIn Reddit HN

Editorial analysis

A structured set of objections, weighed in public.

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

Referee Report

3 major / 6 minor

Summary. The paper proposes a method for robot RL in which a human motion predictor (a causal transformer Π_h trained on DexYCB human keypoint trajectories and scene point clouds) is applied zero-shot to robot keypoint histories to produce a tracking reward r_track = -||Π_h(...) - k^r_{t+1}||^2. This reward is added to a task reward, and PPO trains policies for three anthropomorphic hands across four manipulation tasks. The authors report that this simple reward augmentation matches or exceeds a privileged dense-reward PPO baseline, while PPO trained only on the task reward fails, and that the same Π_h transfers across embodiments and tasks. They also compare against AMP-style adversarial motion matching and retargeting-plus-demonstration-guided RL baselines.

Significance. If the central claim holds, the paper is significant: it suggests that a single human motion prior, trained once on human interaction data, can provide dense, embodiment-agnostic guidance for robot manipulation without per-task retargeting, adversarial training, or dense reward engineering. The paper is refreshingly simple in its formulation, releases code/data, and evaluates across multiple hands and tasks, which is a strength. The empirical results are encouraging but, as detailed below, the attribution of the gains to the specifically human-trained predictive model is not established, and the task reward used as the 'sparse' baseline is not actually sparse in a strict sense. These issues are load-bearing for the paper's main claims.

major comments (3)
  1. [Sec. 6.1, Eq. (4), Fig. 4] The central claim is that a human-trained predictor Π_h provides useful zero-shot targets for robot policies. The experiments vary the task reward, the embodiment, and the baseline algorithm, but never replace Π_h with a non-human predictor. Since Π_h is trained with heavy input noise and evaluated on robot trajectories far from its human training distribution, it is plausible that its closed-loop predictions degrade into a smoothness or reach-toward-object shaping signal that carries little human-specific structure. In that case, Eq. (2) would be a smooth tracking reward, and the reported success would not demonstrate that imitating human motion is what makes the method work. The Limitation section acknowledges the keypoint-similarity assumption but does not address this attribution problem. I request an ablation that replaces Π_h with a non-human predictive model (e.g., a linear extrap
  2. [Sec. 6, Fig. 3, Fig. 6] The paper repeatedly describes r_task as a 'sparse task reward,' but the reward defined for Grasp and Lift and Lift and Throw is rrask = (objz > 0.1) * ReLU(dt(goal,obj) - dt-1(goal,obj)), which becomes a continuous potential-based reward once the object is above a height threshold. It is not a success-only sparse reward. The claim that tracking Π_h 'substitutes for carefully designed dense rewards' is therefore weaker than stated: the PPO-TaskReward baseline is not purely sparse, and the comparison conflates the effect of the tracking signal with the effect of this shaped task reward. Please either use a genuinely sparse success reward for the task-reward-only baseline, or explicitly characterize r_task as a partially shaped reward and adjust the claim accordingly.
  3. [Sec. 6.1, Eq. (4)] All empirical comparisons are presented as learning curves without error bars or confidence intervals, and the text states only that runs are averaged over 3 seeds. The main experimental conclusions are 'our approach achieves comparable performance' and 'outperforms existing baselines by a large margin,' but with n=3 and no variance reporting, it is impossible to assess whether the observed differences are meaningful. This is particularly important for the cross-embodiment experiments, where PPO hyperparameters are tuned per embodiment. Please report per-seed curves or error bars, and where possible report the number of seeds used for each condition. This is a standard requirement for empirical RL papers and is needed to support the strength of the claims.
minor comments (6)
  1. [Sec. 4.1] Equation (2) writes Π(f(st), ..., f(st-L)) but the predictor also consumes the scene point cloud o_t and the goal label g, as described in Sec. 4.1 and Figure 1. Please make the inputs explicit in Eq. (2) to avoid confusion about what is conditioned on at test time.
  2. [Sec. 4.1] The dimensional notation is confusing: x_t ∈ R^d is the robot's proprioceptive state, but human keypoints are later written as k^h_t ∈ R^{3×d} with d described as the number of hand keypoints. These two uses of d are inconsistent. Use separate symbols (e.g., n for the number of keypoints) and be careful about whether the keypoint tensor is d×3 or 3×d.
  3. [Sec. 4.1] The training loss in Sec. 4.1 has a duplicated token in the dataset definition ((k^{h(i)}_2, o^{(i)}_2, k^{h(i)}_2, ...)) and an unbalanced parenthesis in the loss expression. Please proofread equations.
  4. [Sec. 5] The paper says λ is fixed across tasks but no value or sensitivity analysis is given. Since λ weights the tracking reward against the task reward, its value is likely important; at minimum report it and ideally show robustness to λ.
  5. [Sec. 6.2] The statement that the PPO max learning rate is decreased as DOF increases because 'KL divergence is proportional to the dimension of the action space' is a heuristic and is not a quantitative justification. Please either provide the actual hyperparameters used or describe the tuning protocol more precisely.
  6. [Abstract] Typo in the abstract: 'human datazero-shot' should be 'human data zero-shot'.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 0.0 of 10

No significant circularity: the tracking reward is anchored to an independently trained human motion predictor and task success is measured by an independent sparse reward.

full rationale

The central claim is that a human motion predictor Πh, trained on the external DexYCB dataset, can be applied zero-shot to robot keypoint histories as a tracking reward (Eq. 2). This is not circular by construction: Πh is fit to human keypoint predictions with an MSE loss on human data, and no parameter of Πh is fitted to robot task data. The task reward rtask is a separate sparse goal reward, and the reported success rates are measured by task completion, not by tracking error. Thus the positive results are not logically forced by the definition of rtrack. The paper does not ablate Πh against a non-human predictor, which is an attribution limitation, but a missing ablation is not the same as an equation reducing to its input. The only self-citation ([8]) is used as one of several references for the keypoint abstraction design and is not load-bearing for the method's validity. The Limitations section explicitly acknowledges the keypoint-similarity assumption, which is an empirical premise rather than a circular definition. Overall, the derivation chain is self-contained with respect to circularity, though the empirical attribution of the gains to human-specific structure remains untested.

Assumptions & free parameters 4 free parameters · 3 assumptions · 0 invented entities

The central claim rests on the zero-shot transfer of a human motion predictor to robot embodiments, plus the sufficiency of a fixed fingertip-to-fingertip mapping. These are domain assumptions, not derived results; the paper's empirical success is the only evidence for them.

free parameters (4)
  • lambda (task reward weight)
    Weight balancing r_track and r_task; stated as fixed across tasks but value not given; chosen by hand or tuning in Sec. 6.1.
  • PPO max learning rate per embodiment
    Tuned per embodiment (decreased with higher DOF) in Sec. 6.2; affects KL divergence and training stability.
  • Context length L = 16
    Chosen as sufficient in Sec. 4.1; not swept.
  • Input keypoint noise magnitude
    Zero-mean Gaussian noise injected into Pi_h inputs to mitigate closed-loop drift; magnitude not specified in Sec. 4.1.
assumptions (3)
  • domain assumption Human and robot hand keypoints follow similar trajectories for anthropomorphic hands.
    Stated as the key insight in Sec. 4 and repeated in Limitations; underpins the zero-shot use of Pi_h.
  • domain assumption The human motion predictor transfers zero-shot to robot data without adaptation.
    Used in Eq. 2 where robot state history is passed to Pi_h; the paper relies on this for all tasks and embodiments.
  • domain assumption DexYCB human grasping data is sufficient to train a predictor that guides the four downstream manipulation tasks.
    Pi_h is trained only on DexYCB (Sec. 5); generalization to e.g. cabinet opening is assumed without task-specific data.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Deep Sensorimotor Control by Imitating Predictive Models of Human Motion." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/TX7GKLU6

@misc{pith2026250818691,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Deep Sensorimotor Control by Imitating Predictive Models of Human Motion},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/TX7GKLU6}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2508.18691}
}
read the original abstract

As the embodiment gap between a robot and a human narrows, new opportunities arise to leverage datasets of humans interacting with their surroundings for robot learning. We propose a novel technique for training sensorimotor policies with reinforcement learning by imitating predictive models of human motions. Our key insight is that the motion of keypoints on human-inspired robot end-effectors closely mirrors the motion of corresponding human body keypoints. This enables us to use a model trained to predict future motion on human data \emph{zero-shot} on robot data. We train sensorimotor policies to track the predictions of such a model, conditioned on a history of past robot states, while optimizing a relatively sparse task reward. This approach entirely bypasses gradient-based kinematic retargeting and adversarial losses, which limit existing methods from fully leveraging the scale and diversity of modern human-scene interaction datasets. Empirically, we find that our approach can work across robots and tasks, outperforming existing baselines by a large margin. In addition, we find that tracking a human motion model can substitute for carefully designed dense rewards and curricula in manipulation tasks. Code, data and qualitative results available at https://jirl-upenn.github.io/track_reward/.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2508.18691 by the authors.

Figure 1
Figure 1. Method. We use a dataset of humans interacting with their scene to train a motion prediction model Πh. Such model, instantiated as a causal transformer, takes as input a history of previous 3D keypoints k h t:t−L, i.e., the location of the human’s fingertips, and observations ot:t−L, i.e., the objects’ pointcloud, to predict the future human keypoint location kˆh t+1. For anthropomorphic robots, thanks to the abstra… view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. Mapping between human and robot hands Anthropomorphic hands allow an intuitive mapping of robot links to human hand keypoints. It is defined once and remains consistent across tasks. Here, we show the mapping of the human hand to three different morphologies: an Allegro hand [61] (left), an Xhand [62] (center), and an SVH hand [63](right). Conceptually, Eq. 1 is straightforward and has been explored in prior works t… view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. Comparison across tasks Tracking the predictions of Πh enables tractable reinforcement learning with a sparse task reward. Our approach is comparable to the privileged baseline: PPO with dense rewards across all tasks, whereas PPO with the sparse task reward only fails to learn. Runs are averaged across 3 seeds. 6.1 Can tracking Πh make up for carefully engineered rewards? Reward design for robot control involves ca… view at source ↗
Figures from the paper (3 more)
Figure 5
Figure 5. Figure 5: Qualitative Results. A policy trained with our approach successfully picking up two objects. The colored points show the next predictions of Πh. Such predictions are temporally smooth and guide the policy towards fast grasping and lifting. Better seen at our webpage ht…
Figure 4
Figure 4. Figure 4: Comparison of sparse and dense step-wise rewards for the Grasp and Lift task over expert policy rollouts. The sparse reward activates only after the object is grasped and moves toward the target (≈step 130), while the dense reward provides continuous shaping throughout…
Figure 6
Figure 6. Figure 6: (top) We evaluate our approach on a diverse set of multi-fingered hand embodiments. Our approach performs comparably to the privileged baseline:PPO with dense rewards across three such robots. (bottom) Our approach outperforms existing methods that use human data to gu…

Discussion (0). Sign in to comment.

Forward citations

Cited by 2 Pith papers

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

  1. EgoExo-WM: Unlocking Exo Video for Ego World Models

    cs.CV 2026-05 unverdicted novelty 6.0 of 10

    Converting exocentric video to egocentric format via body-pose extraction and kinematics prior enables training of action-conditioned egocentric world models that improve prediction quality and goal-directed planning.

  2. EgoExo-WM: Unlocking Exo Video for Ego World Models

    cs.CV 2026-05 unverdicted novelty 6.0 of 10

    Method converts exocentric videos to egocentric format via body-pose extraction and kinematics to improve egocentric world-model prediction and planning.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

77 extracted references · 54 canonical work pages · cited by 1 Pith paper

  1. [1]

    Reconstructing hands in 3D with transformers,

    G. Pavlakos, D. Shan, I. Radosavovic, A. Kanazawa, D. Fouhey, and J. Malik, “Reconstructing hands in 3D with transformers,” inCVPR, 2024

    work page 2024

  2. [2]

    Humansin4d: Reconstructing and tracking humans with transformers,

    S.Goel,G.Pavlakos,J.Rajasegaran,A.Kanazawa,andJ.Malik,“Humansin4d: Reconstructing and tracking humans with transformers,” inProceedings of the IEEE/CVF International Conference on Computer Vision, 2023, pp. 14783–14794

    work page 2023

  3. [3]

    4d gaussian splatting for real-time dynamic scene rendering,

    G. Wu, T. Yi, J. Fang, L. Xie, X. Zhang, W. Wei, W. Liu, Q. Tian, and X. Wang, “4d gaussian splatting for real-time dynamic scene rendering,” inProceedings of the IEEE/CVF Conference on Computer Vision and Pattern Recognition, 2024, pp. 20310–20320

    work page 2024

  4. [4]

    3d gaussian splatting for real-time radiance field rendering

    B. Kerbl, G. Kopanas, T. Leimkühler, and G. Drettakis, “3d gaussian splatting for real-time radiance field rendering.”ACM Trans. Graph., vol. 42, no. 4, pp. 139–1, 2023

    2023

  5. [5]

    HMD^2: Environment-aware Motion Generation from Single Egocentric Head-Mounted Device

    V. Guzov, Y. Jiang, F. Hong, G. Pons-Moll, R. Newcombe, C. K. Liu, Y. Ye, and L. Ma, “Hmd2: Environment-aware motion generation from single egocentric head-mounted device,”arXiv preprint arXiv:2409.13426, 2024. 10

    work page Pith review arXiv 2024

  6. [6]

    Nymeria: A massive collection of multimodal egocentric daily motion in the wild,

    L. Ma, Y. Ye, F. Hong, V. Guzov, Y. Jiang, R. Postyeni, L. Pesqueira, A. Gamino, V. Baiyya, H. J. Kimet al., “Nymeria: A massive collection of multimodal egocentric daily motion in the wild,” inEuropean Conference on Computer Vision. Springer, 2024, pp. 445–465

    work page 2024

  7. [7]

    Dexmv: Imitation learning for dexterous manipulation from human videos,

    Y. Qin, Y.-H. Wu, S. Liu, H. Jiang, R. Yang, Y. Fu, and X. Wang, “Dexmv: Imitation learning for dexterous manipulation from human videos,” inECCV, 2022

    work page 2022

  8. [8]

    Hand-object interaction pretraining from videos,

    H. G. Singh, A. Loquercio, C. Sferrazza, J. Wu, H. Qi, P. Abbeel, and J. Malik, “Hand-object interaction pretraining from videos,” inInternational Conference on Robotics and Automation (ICRA). IEEE, 2025

    work page 2025

Show all 77 references
  1. [9]

    Humanoid locomotion as next token prediction,

    I.Radosavovic,B.Zhang,B.Shi,J.Rajasegaran,S.Kamat,T.Darrell,K.Sreenath,andJ.Malik, “Humanoid locomotion as next token prediction,”arXiv:2402.19469, 2024

    2024 arXiv

  2. [10]

    Learning continuous grasping function with a dexterous hand from human demonstrations,

    J. Ye, J. Wang, B. Huang, Y. Qin, and X. Wang, “Learning continuous grasping function with a dexterous hand from human demonstrations,”RA-L, 2023

    2023

  3. [11]

    Videodex: Learningdexterity frominternetvideos,

    K. Shaw, S. Bahl, andD. Pathak, “Videodex: Learningdexterity frominternetvideos,” inCoRL, 2022

    2022

  4. [12]

    Contact edit: Artist tools for intuitive modeling of hand-object interactions,

    A. S. Lakshmipathy, N. Feng, Y. X. Lee, M. Mahler, and N. Pollard, “Contact edit: Artist tools for intuitive modeling of hand-object interactions,”Transactions on Graphics, 2023

    2023

  5. [13]

    Kinematic motion retargeting for contact-rich anthropomorphic manipulations,

    A. S. Lakshmipathy, J. K. Hodgins, and N. S. Pollard, “Kinematic motion retargeting for contact-rich anthropomorphic manipulations,”arXiv:2402.04820, 2024

    2024 arXiv

  6. [14]

    Learning agile robotic locomotion skills by imitating animals,

    X. B. Peng, E. Coumans, T. Zhang, T.-W. Lee, J. Tan, and S. Levine, “Learning agile robotic locomotion skills by imitating animals,”arXiv preprint arXiv:2004.00784, 2020

    2004 arXiv

  7. [15]

    Amp: Adversarial motion priors for stylized physics-based character control,

    X. B. Peng, Z. Ma, P. Abbeel, S. Levine, and A. Kanazawa, “Amp: Adversarial motion priors for stylized physics-based character control,”Transactions on Graphics, 2021

    2021

  8. [16]

    Adversarial motion priors make good substitutes for complex reward functions,

    A. Escontrela, X. B. Peng, W. Yu, T. Zhang, A. Iscen, K. Goldberg, and P. Abbeel, “Adversarial motion priors make good substitutes for complex reward functions,” in2022 IEEE/RSJ International Conference on Intelligent Robots and Systems (IROS). IEEE, 2022, pp. 25–32

    2022

  9. [17]

    Learningcomplexdexterousmanipulationwithdeepreinforcementlearninganddemonstrations,

    A. Rajeswaran, V. Kumar, A. Gupta, G. Vezzani, J. Schulman, E. Todorov, and S. Levine, “Learningcomplexdexterousmanipulationwithdeepreinforcementlearninganddemonstrations,” arXiv preprint arXiv:1709.10087, 2017

    2017 arXiv

  10. [18]

    Efficient online reinforcement learning with offline data,

    P. J. Ball, L. Smith, I. Kostrikov, and S. Levine, “Efficient online reinforcement learning with offline data,” inInternational Conference on Machine Learning. PMLR, 2023, pp. 1577–1594

    2023

  11. [19]

    Hand posture subspaces for dexterous robotic grasping,

    M. T. Ciocarlie and P. K. Allen, “Hand posture subspaces for dexterous robotic grasping,”IJRR, 2009

    2009

  12. [20]

    Dimensionality reduction for hand-independent dexterous robotic grasping,

    M. Ciocarlie, C. Goldfeder, and P. Allen, “Dimensionality reduction for hand-independent dexterous robotic grasping,” in2007 IEEE/RSJ International Conference on Intelligent Robots and Systems. IEEE, 2007, pp. 3270–3275

    2007

  13. [21]

    R+ x: Retrieval and execution from everyday human videos,

    G. Papagiannis, N. Di Palo, P. Vitiello, and E. Johns, “R+ x: Retrieval and execution from everyday human videos,”arXiv preprint arXiv:2407.12957, 2024

    2024 arXiv

  14. [22]

    Dexvip: Learning dexterous grasping with human hand pose priors from video,

    P. Mandikal and K. Grauman, “Dexvip: Learning dexterous grasping with human hand pose priors from video,” inConference on Robot Learning, 2022, pp. 651–661

    2022

  15. [23]

    From human to robot grasping,

    J. Romero, “From human to robot grasping,” Ph.D. dissertation, KTH Royal Institute of Technology, 2011

    2011

  16. [24]

    Physics-based dexterous manipulations with estimated hand poses and residual reinforcement learning,

    G. Garcia-Hernando, E. Johns, and T.-K. Kim, “Physics-based dexterous manipulations with estimated hand poses and residual reinforcement learning,” in2020 IEEE/RSJ International Conference on Intelligent Robots and Systems (IROS). IEEE, 2020, pp. 9561–9568

    2020

  17. [25]

    Task-oriented hand motion retargeting for dexterous manipulation imitation,

    D. Antotsiou, G. Garcia-Hernando, and T.-K. Kim, “Task-oriented hand motion retargeting for dexterous manipulation imitation,” inProceedings of the European conference on computer vision (ECCV) workshops, 2018, pp. 0–0

    2018

  18. [26]

    Egomimic: Scaling imitation learning via egocentric video,

    S. Kareer, D. Patel, R. Punamiya, P. Mathur, S. Cheng, C. Wang, J. Hoffman, and D. Xu, “Egomimic: Scaling imitation learning via egocentric video,”arXiv preprint arXiv:2410.24221, 2024. 11

    2024 arXiv

  19. [27]

    Motiontracks: Aunifiedrepresen- tationforhuman-robottransferinfew-shotimitationlearning,

    J.Ren,P.Sundaresan,D.Sadigh,S.Choudhury,andJ.Bohg,“Motiontracks: Aunifiedrepresen- tationforhuman-robottransferinfew-shotimitationlearning,” arXivpreprintarXiv:2501.06994 , 2025

    2025

  20. [28]

    Mimicplay: Long-horizon imitation learning by watching human play,

    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

    2023 arXiv

  21. [29]

    Object-centric dexterous manipulation from human motion data,

    Y. Chen, C. Wang, Y. Yang, and C. K. Liu, “Object-centric dexterous manipulation from human motion data,”arXiv preprint arXiv:2411.04005, 2024

    2024 arXiv

  22. [30]

    Affordances from human videos as a versatile representation for robotics,

    S. Bahl, R. Mendonca, L. Chen, U. Jain, and D. Pathak, “Affordances from human videos as a versatile representation for robotics,” inCVPR, 2023

    2023

  23. [31]

    Dexterousroboticgraspingwithobject-centricvisualaffordances,

    P.MandikalandK.Grauman,“Dexterousroboticgraspingwithobject-centricvisualaffordances,” arXiv preprint arXiv:2009.01439, vol. 1, no. 2, p. 4, 2020

    2009 arXiv

  24. [32]

    Learning generalizable dexterous manipulation from human grasp affordance,

    Y.-H. Wu, J. Wang, and X. Wang, “Learning generalizable dexterous manipulation from human grasp affordance,” inConference on Robot Learning. PMLR, 2023, pp. 618–629

    2023

  25. [33]

    Learning task-oriented grasping from human activity datasets,

    M. Kokic, D. Kragic, and J. Bohg, “Learning task-oriented grasping from human activity datasets,”IEEE Robotics and Automation Letters, vol. 5, no. 2, pp. 3352–3359, 2020

    2020

  26. [34]

    General flow as foundation affordance for scalable robot learning,

    C. Yuan, C. Wen, T. Zhang, and Y. Gao, “General flow as foundation affordance for scalable robot learning,”arXiv preprint arXiv:2401.11439, 2024

    2024 arXiv

  27. [35]

    Flow as the cross-domain manipulation interface,

    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

    2024 arXiv

  28. [36]

    Imitation from observation: Learning to imitate behaviors from raw video via context translation,

    Y. Liu, A. Gupta, P. Abbeel, and S. Levine, “Imitation from observation: Learning to imitate behaviors from raw video via context translation,” in2018 IEEE international conference on robotics and automation (ICRA). IEEE, 2018, pp. 1118–1125

    2018

  29. [37]

    Human-to-robot imitation in the wild,

    S. Bahl, A. Gupta, and D. Pathak, “Human-to-robot imitation in the wild,” inRSS, 2022

    2022

  30. [38]

    Track2act: Predictingpointtracksfrom internet videos enables generalizable robot manipulation,

    H.Bharadhwaj,R.Mottaghi,A.Gupta,andS.Tulsiani,“Track2act: Predictingpointtracksfrom internet videos enables generalizable robot manipulation,”arXiv preprint arXiv:2405.01527, 2024

    2024 arXiv

  31. [39]

    Ditto: Demonstrationimitation by trajectory transformation,

    N.Heppert, M.Argus, T.Welschehold, T.Brox, andA.Valada, “Ditto: Demonstrationimitation by trajectory transformation,”arXiv preprint arXiv:2403.15203, 2024

    2024 arXiv

  32. [40]

    Any-point trajectory modeling for policy learning,

    C. Wen, X. Lin, J. So, K. Chen, Q. Dou, Y. Gao, and P. Abbeel, “Any-point trajectory modeling for policy learning,” inRSS, 2023

    2023

  33. [41]

    Avid: Learning multi-stage tasks via pixel-level translation of human videos,

    L. Smith, N. Dhawan, M. Zhang, P. Abbeel, and S. Levine, “Avid: Learning multi-stage tasks via pixel-level translation of human videos,” inRSS, 2020

    2020

  34. [42]

    Learning by watching: Physical imitation of manipulation skills from human videos,

    H. Xiong, Q. Li, Y.-C. Chen, H. Bharadhwaj, S. Sinha, and A. Garg, “Learning by watching: Physical imitation of manipulation skills from human videos,” in2021 IEEE/RSJ International Conference on Intelligent Robots and Systems (IROS). IEEE, 2021, pp. 7827–7834

    2021

  35. [43]

    Gen2act: Human video generation in novel scenarios enables generalizable robot manipulation,

    H. Bharadhwaj, D. Dwibedi, A. Gupta, S. Tulsiani, C. Doersch, T. Xiao, D. Shah, F. Xia, D. Sadigh, and S. Kirmani, “Gen2act: Human video generation in novel scenarios enables generalizable robot manipulation,”arXiv preprint arXiv:2409.16283, 2024

    2024 arXiv

  36. [44]

    Towards generalizable zero-shot manipulation via translating human interaction plans,

    H. Bharadhwaj, A. Gupta, V. Kumar, and S. Tulsiani, “Towards generalizable zero-shot manipulation via translating human interaction plans,” in2024 IEEE International Conference on Robotics and Automation (ICRA). IEEE, 2024, pp. 6904–6911

    2024

  37. [45]

    Dextrous manipulation from a grasping pose,

    C. K. Liu, “Dextrous manipulation from a grasping pose,” inACM SIGGRAPH 2009 papers, 2009, pp. 1–6

    2009

  38. [46]

    Synthesis of detailed hand manipulations using contact sampling,

    Y. Ye and C. K. Liu, “Synthesis of detailed hand manipulations using contact sampling,”ACM Transactions on Graphics (ToG), vol. 31, no. 4, pp. 1–10, 2012

    2012

  39. [47]

    Dextransfer: Realworldmulti-fingereddexterousgraspingwithminimalhumandemonstrations,

    Z. Q. Chen, K. Van Wyk, Y.-W. Chao, W. Yang, A. Mousavian, A. Gupta, and D. Fox, “Dextransfer: Realworldmulti-fingereddexterousgraspingwithminimalhumandemonstrations,” arXiv:2209.14284, 2022

    2022 arXiv

  40. [48]

    Deepmimic: Example-guided deep reinforcement learning of physics-based character skills,

    X. B. Peng, P. Abbeel, S. Levine, and M. Van de Panne, “Deepmimic: Example-guided deep reinforcement learning of physics-based character skills,”ACM Transactions On Graphics (TOG), vol. 37, no. 4, pp. 1–14, 2018. 12

    2018

  41. [49]

    Sfv: Reinforcement learning of physical skills from videos,

    X. B. Peng, A. Kanazawa, J. Malik, P. Abbeel, and S. Levine, “Sfv: Reinforcement learning of physical skills from videos,”Transactions On Graphics, 2018

    2018

  42. [50]

    Contact-aware retargeting of skinned motion,

    R. Villegas, D. Ceylan, A. Hertzmann, J. Yang, and J. Saito, “Contact-aware retargeting of skinned motion,” inProceedings of the IEEE/CVF International Conference on Computer Vision, 2021, pp. 9720–9729

    2021

  43. [51]

    Retargeting human-object interaction to virtual avatars,

    Y. Kim, H. Park, S. Bang, and S.-H. Lee, “Retargeting human-object interaction to virtual avatars,”Transactions on Visualization and Computer Graphics, 2016

    2016

  44. [52]

    Aura mesh: Motion retargeting to preserve the spatial relationships between skinned characters,

    T. Jin, M. Kim, and S.-H. Lee, “Aura mesh: Motion retargeting to preserve the spatial relationships between skinned characters,” inComputer Graphics Forum, vol. 37, no. 2. Wiley Online Library, 2018, pp. 311–320

    2018

  45. [53]

    Skeleton- aware networks for deep motion retargeting,

    K. Aberman, P. Li, D. Lischinski, O. Sorkine-Hornung, D. Cohen-Or, and B. Chen, “Skeleton- aware networks for deep motion retargeting,”ACM Transactions on Graphics (TOG), vol. 39, no. 4, pp. 62–1, 2020

    2020

  46. [54]

    Exbody2: Advanced expressive humanoid whole-body control,

    M. Ji, X. Peng, F. Liu, J. Li, G. Yang, X. Cheng, and X. Wang, “Exbody2: Advanced expressive humanoid whole-body control,”arXiv preprint arXiv:2412.13196, 2024

    2024 arXiv

  47. [55]

    Open-television: Teleoperationwithimmersive active visual feedback,

    X.Cheng,J.Li,S.Yang,G.Yang,andX.Wang,“Open-television: Teleoperationwithimmersive active visual feedback,”arXiv preprint arXiv:2407.01512, 2024

    2024 arXiv

  48. [56]

    Humanplus: Humanoid shadowing and imitation from humans,

    Z. Fu, Q. Zhao, Q. Wu, G. Wetzstein, and C. Finn, “Humanplus: Humanoid shadowing and imitation from humans,”arXiv preprint arXiv:2406.10454, 2024

    2024 arXiv

  49. [57]

    Generative adversarial imitation from observation,

    F. Torabi, G. Warnell, and P. Stone, “Generative adversarial imitation from observation,”arXiv preprint arXiv:1807.06158, 2018

    2018 arXiv

  50. [58]

    Hp-gan: Probabilistic 3dhuman motion predictionvia gan,

    E. Barsoum, J.Kender, and Z.Liu, “Hp-gan: Probabilistic 3dhuman motion predictionvia gan,” in Proceedings of the IEEE conference on computer vision and pattern recognition workshops, 2018, pp. 1418–1427

    2018

  51. [59]

    Ganimator: Neuralmotion synthesis from a single sequence,

    P.Li,K.Aberman,Z.Zhang,R.Hanocka,andO.Sorkine-Hornung,“Ganimator: Neuralmotion synthesis from a single sequence,”ACM Transactions on Graphics (TOG), vol. 41, no. 4, pp. 1–12, 2022

    2022

  52. [60]

    Closd: Closing the loop between simulation and diffusion for multi-task character control,

    G.Tevet, S.Raab, S.Cohan, D.Reda, Z.Luo, X.B.Peng, A.H.Bermano, andM.vandePanne, “Closd: Closing the loop between simulation and diffusion for multi-task character control,” arXiv preprint arXiv:2410.03441, 2024

    2024 arXiv

  53. [61]

    Allegrohand,

    WonikRobotics, “Allegrohand,” https://www.wonikrobotics.com/, 2013

    2013

  54. [62]

    Robotera, “Xhand1,” https://www.robotera.com/en/goods1/4.html, 2013

    2013

  55. [63]

    Shunk, “Svhand,” https://schunk.com/us/en/gripping-systems/special-gripper/svh/c/PGR_3161, 2013

    2013

  56. [64]

    Pointnet: Deep learning on point sets for 3d classification and segmentation,

    C. R. Qi, H. Su, K. Mo, and L. J. Guibas, “Pointnet: Deep learning on point sets for 3d classification and segmentation,” inProceedings of the IEEE conference on computer vision and pattern recognition, 2017, pp. 652–660

    2017

  57. [65]

    Proximal policy optimization algorithms,

    J. Schulman, F. Wolski, P. Dhariwal, A. Radford, and O. Klimov, “Proximal policy optimization algorithms,”arXiv:1707.06347, 2017

    2017 arXiv

  58. [66]

    Champion-level drone racing using deep reinforcement learning,

    E. Kaufmann, L. Bauersfeld, A. Loquercio, M. Müller, V. Koltun, and D. Scaramuzza, “Champion-level drone racing using deep reinforcement learning,”Nature, vol. 620, no. 7976, pp. 982–987, 2023

    2023

  59. [67]

    Learningquadrupedallocomotion over challenging terrain,

    J.Lee,J.Hwangbo,L.Wellhausen,V.Koltun,andM.Hutter,“Learningquadrupedallocomotion over challenging terrain,”Science robotics, vol. 5, no. 47, p. eabc5986, 2020

    2020

  60. [68]

    General in-hand object rotation with vision and touch,

    H. Qi, B. Yi, S. Suresh, M. Lambeta, Y. Ma, R. Calandra, and J. Malik, “General in-hand object rotation with vision and touch,” inCoRL, 2023

    2023

  61. [69]

    Dextreme: Transfer of agile in-hand manipulation from simulation to reality,

    A. Handa, A. Allshire, V. Makoviychuk, A. Petrenko, R. Singh, J. Liu, D. Makoviichuk, K. Van Wyk, A. Zhurkevich, B. Sundaralingam, Y. Narang, J.-F. Lafleche, D. Fox, and G. State, “Dextreme: Transfer of agile in-hand manipulation from simulation to reality,” inICRA, 2023

    2023

  62. [70]

    Isaacgym: Highperformancegpu-basedphysicssimulation for robot learning,

    V. Makoviychuk, L. Wawrzyniak, Y. Guo, M. Lu, K. Storey, M. Macklin, D. Hoeller, N. Rudin, A.Allshire,A.Handa,andG.State,“Isaacgym: Highperformancegpu-basedphysicssimulation for robot learning,” inNeurIPS Datasets and Benchmarks, 2021. 13

    2021

  63. [71]

    Dexpbt: Scaling up dexterous manipulation for hand-arm systems with population based training,

    A. Petrenko, A. Allshire, G. State, A. Handa, and V. Makoviychuk, “Dexpbt: Scaling up dexterous manipulation for hand-arm systems with population based training,” inRSS, 2023

    2023

  64. [72]

    Shadowrobot,

    ShadowRobot, “Shadowrobot,” https://www.robotera.com/en/goods1/4.html, 2013

    2013

  65. [73]

    Dexycb: A benchmark for capturing hand grasping of objects,

    Y.-W. Chao, W. Yang, Y. Xiang, P. Molchanov, A. Handa, J. Tremblay, Y. S. Narang, K. V. Wyk, U. Iqbal, S. Birchfield, J. Kautz, and D. Fox, “Dexycb: A benchmark for capturing hand grasping of objects,”CVPR, 2021

    2021

  66. [74]

    Sapg: Splitandaggregatepolicygradients,

    J.Singla,A.Agarwal,andD.Pathak,“Sapg: Splitandaggregatepolicygradients,”in Forty-first International Conference on Machine Learning. 14 10 Supplementary Material 10.1 Analysing the behavior learnt by our policies Visuallyinspectingthebehaviourslearntbytheagentprovidesmoreinsig...

  67. [75]

    How does our prediction model guide policy training? Predictions of our keypoint model direct the robot hand towards reasonable grasp poses of the object

  68. [76]

    What is the impact of the hand form factor on learning? While all robots successfully complete the task, the motion of the robot is more humanlike for hands whose form factor more closely resembles that of humans, such as the X-Hand

  69. [77]

    How does our approach perform on multiple tasks? With the right sparse task reward, our prediction model can guide the robot to do multiple, although similar, tasks. 10.2 Performance of baselines with dense rewards Approach Success Rate AMP with dense reward 0.193 ± 0.051 DAPG...

Pith tools

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