Pith. sign in

REVIEW 4 major objections 5 minor 1 cited by

Running flow matching in a learned continuous latent action space, rather than raw control space, decouples global motion structure from low-level noise and yields near-single-step, smooth, long-horizon imitation for robot manipulation.

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

2026-08-03 06:13 UTC pith:OZB7D6Z7

load-bearing objection A solid, well-engineered latent flow policy for manipulation with strong speed and success numbers, but the smoothness gains are partly trained into the system and the real-world comparison is confounded by an extra camera input; the core mechanism claim needs a cleaner test. the 4 major comments →

arxiv 2601.23087 v5 pith:OZB7D6Z7 submitted 2026-01-30 cs.RO

CoLA-Flow Policy: Temporally Coherent Imitation Learning via Continuous Latent Action Flow Matching for Robotic Manipulation

Wu Songwei , Jiang Zhiduo , Sun Wandong , Xie Guanghu , Zhao Rui , Liu Hong , Liu Yang This is my paper
classification cs.RO
keywords continuous latent action spaceflow matchingimitation learningrobotic manipulationtrajectory smoothnessreal-time policy inferencepoint cloud conditioningFiLM conditioning
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.

CoLA-Flow Policy is an imitation-learning framework for robotic manipulation that performs flow matching not on raw joint actions but on a learned continuous latent action trajectory. The paper's central claim is that changing the generation space in this way suppresses high-frequency jitter and error amplification during trajectory generation, while keeping flow matching's fast, near-single-step inference. In simulation and on a physical robot, the method reports higher task success than raw-action-space flow and diffusion baselines, smoother trajectories, and inference around 7-9 ms per control step. The design also adds geometry-aware point-cloud conditioning and execution-time visual modulation through a wrist camera, which the authors argue improves real-world robustness without disturbing latent trajectory generation.

Core claim

We propose a trajectory-level latent action flow policy. Instead of generating controls directly, we encode action chunks into continuous latent trajectories with a recurrent (GRU) encoder and a variational regularizer, learn a consistency flow in that latent space, and decode generated latent trajectories into executable actions with FiLM conditioning. We show that this decoupling reduces amplification of modelling errors during generation, producing measurably smoother trajectories (up to 93.7% smoother than raw-action flow in real-world mean smoothness) and higher success (77.5% average real-world vs 52.5% for raw action-space flow), at 7.5 ms simulation and 8.59 ms real-world per-step in

What carries the argument

The central object is a continuous latent action trajectory: short action chunks are mapped through a GRU encoder into history-dependent latent codes forming a smooth manifold, regularized by a KL term and a smoothness penalty. A consistency flow-matching ODE is learned in this latent space, with a time-dependent input normalization and a velocity field predicting the path from base noise to target latent codes; generated latent trajectories are decoded into control commands by an MLP modulated with FiLM features from wrist-camera images, while a dual-branch point-cloud encoder injects local and global geometric context into the flow network.

Load-bearing premise

The load-bearing premise is that gains come from performing flow in a temporally coherent latent space, which presumes a controlled comparison: the latent encoder also receives an explicit smoothness penalty, and the real-world model additionally receives a wrist-camera FiLM signal that the baselines do not.

What would settle it

Train a version of the proposed policy without the smoothness penalty in the latent encoder, or add the same wrist-camera FiLM conditioning to the raw-action-space flow baseline, and compare real-world success and smoothness; if the gaps disappear, latent-space flow matching is not the operative cause.

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

If this is right

  • Near-single-step latent flow generation keeps inference in a real-time regime (7.5 ms simulation, 8.59 ms real world), roughly 7.5x faster than the diffusion baseline used in the paper.
  • Latent-space flow substantially reduces trajectory jerk and high-frequency spectral energy in executed joint trajectories (up to 93.7% real-world smoothness reduction vs raw action-space flow).
  • Task success improves over raw-action-space flow by +17.3 points simulated and +25 points real-world average, while remaining faster than diffusion-based policies.
  • Decoupling latent trajectory planning from decoding means execution-time sensory modalities can be added (e.g., wrist-camera FiLM) without changing the generative flow model.
  • Ablations attribute most of the stability gain to latent action modelling, with geometry-aware point-cloud conditioning contributing additional success.

Where Pith is reading between the lines

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

  • The paper's headline mechanism claim would be stronger with component-level ablations: the latent encoder is trained with an explicit smoothness penalty, and the real-world model uses a wrist-camera FiLM signal the baselines lack, so the reported gains may not isolate flow-in-latent-space as the cause.
  • A direct testable extension is to train the same architecture without the smoothness penalty, or provide the wrist-camera signal to the raw-action flow baseline; if success and smoothness gaps persist, the latent-space mechanism is confirmed.
  • The latent action flow idea is not tied to flow matching: the same temporally coherent latent representation could plausibly reduce jitter in diffusion- or RL-based policies, a connection the paper leaves implicit.
  • Since smoothness is measured by the paper's own jerk-plus-spectral-energy metric, its magnitudes (e.g., 93.7%) are not directly comparable to smoothness metrics defined by other work; standardization would help.

Editorial analysis

A structured set of objections, weighed in public.

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

Referee Report

4 major / 5 minor

Summary. The paper proposes CoLA-Flow Policy, a trajectory-level imitation learning framework that performs consistency flow matching in a learned continuous latent action space, conditioned on 3D point-cloud geometry and with execution-time FiLM-based decoding from a wrist-camera image. The central claim is that operating the flow in a temporally coherent latent action space decouples global motion structure from low-level control noise, enabling near-single-step inference while reducing trajectory jitter and improving long-horizon success. The manuscript reports simulation results on Adroit and Meta-World (78.3% vs. 61.0% average success over the raw-action Flow Policy baseline, 7.5 ms per-step latency) and real-world results on a Franka/LEAP Hand platform (77.5% vs. 52.5% average success over Flow Policy, up to 93.7% smoothness improvement), together with ablations of the geometry-aware perception and latent-action components.

Significance. If the central attribution is correct, this is a practically relevant contribution: it would show that latent-space flow matching can reconcile the expressiveness of generative policies with real-time control and stable execution, a trade-off that has limited diffusion- and flow-based manipulation policies. The paper has notable strengths: real-robot deployment with a high-dimensional dexterous hand, evaluation across 37 simulated tasks, comparisons against several recent baselines (DP3, iDP3, RDP, Flow Policy), and an ablation study that decomposes the contribution of geometry-aware perception and latent action modelling. However, as detailed below, the evidence does not yet isolate the mechanism claimed — flow matching in latent space — from the effects of the explicitly trained smoothness penalty and the additional wrist-camera input given only to the proposed method. These are load-bearing concerns for the paper's central claim, not presentation issues.

major comments (4)
  1. [Sec. IV-A, Eq. (13); Sec. III-A-d] The evaluation smoothness metric S_smooth is directly minimized by the latent encoder-decoder training objective. Eq. (13) is a weighted sum of discrete-time jerk and high-frequency spectral energy, and Sec. III-A-d states that the latent encoder-decoder is trained with 'a lightweight smoothness constraint' on the same quantities. The weights alpha=0.25, beta=0.75 are chosen after 'extensive empirical evaluation'. Unless the exact penalty form and weight are reported and an ablation without the smoothness penalty is provided, the headline smoothness improvements (77.2% simulated, 93.7% real) are at least partly a direct effect of the training objective, not evidence for latent-space flow matching. Please specify the penalty, its weight, the cutoff frequency f_c, and include a no-smoothness-penalty control.
  2. [Sec. IV-D, Fig. 8] The ablation toggles the entire latent-action pipeline (L-Flow vs. Flow), not the choice of generative model in the latent space. The reader cannot tell whether flow matching in latent space is responsible for the gains, or whether any one-step regressor (e.g., an MLP or transformer mapping from noise/observation to the same latent trajectory) would perform comparably. A no-flow baseline in the same latent space, with the same latent encoder-decoder, same smoothness penalty, and same conditioning, is required to support the paper's central mechanism claim that 'latent flow suppresses error amplification during generation' (Sec. III-B-a). Without it, the contribution of flow matching per se is untested.
  3. [Sec. IV-C-1-a, Table II] The real-world comparison is confounded by input modality. The proposed method's decoder receives wrist-camera RGB via FiLM at execution time, while DP3 and Flow Policy baselines do not receive this signal (RDP receives wrist images in place of tactile inputs). The paper itself acknowledges that wrist-camera observations may contribute to success (Sec. IV-C-2-b). Thus the real-world success improvement (77.5% vs. 52.5% over Flow Policy) cannot be attributed to latent-space flow matching. Please provide an ablation of the wrist-camera input for CoLA-Flow Policy and, where feasible, run the baselines with the same wrist-camera conditioning.
  4. [Sec. III-A-d / Sec. IV-A] Several hyperparameters that directly shape the 'temporally coherent' latent space are unreported, including the KL weight, the smoothness-penalty weight, the cutoff frequency f_c in Eq. (12), the chunk size c, the horizon H, and the latent dimension. These are essential for reproduction and for assessing how much temporal coherence is imposed by construction rather than learned by the flow. Reporting them would also allow the reader to evaluate whether the latent space is 'continuous' by design or only by regularization strength.
minor comments (5)
  1. [Table I caption] The caption says ΔSuccess/ΔTime denote 'relative changes w.r.t. DP3', but the values are absolute differences (percentage points for success, milliseconds for time). For example, CoLA-Flow Policy's ΔTime is -48.4, which is 7.5 - 55.9 ms, not a relative change. Please correct the caption or the table values.
  2. [Fig. 4 and Fig. 6] The legend label 'Combined Score' is not defined in the text. It appears to denote mean and max of S_smooth over tasks; please make this explicit in the captions.
  3. [Author affiliation] The footnote contains a typo: 'All authors are with with the State Key Laboratory...'.
  4. [Sec. IV-B-2-a] The first sentence says 'Quantitative real-world results are summarized...' in the simulation results section; this should read 'simulation results'.
  5. [Eq. (4)-(6)] The function f_theta is alternatively called a 'flow function' and a 'consistency flow'; the relationship to the consistency flow matching objective of [32] is not fully specified. Please clarify the training loss and how Eq. (4) is supervised.

Circularity Check

1 steps flagged

Smoothness improvements are fitted by construction; success-rate claims remain externally grounded.

specific steps
  1. fitted input called prediction [Sec. III-A-d / Fig. 2 (smoothness penalty) vs. Sec. IV-A Eq. (13) (evaluation metric) and Sec. IV-C-2 (claim)]
    "The final trajectory smoothness metric is given by Ssmooth=α Sjerk+β Sfreq, where lower values indicate smoother trajectories with reduced abrupt variations and high-frequency oscillations. Based on extensive empirical evaluation and normalization of the two terms, we set α=0.25 and β=0.75 in all experiments. The latent action encoder–decoder is first trained using a variational objective with reconstruction, KL regularization, and a lightweight smoothness constraint to learn a temporally coherent latent space."

    The headline smoothness result is not an emergent property of latent-space flow matching: the model is explicitly trained with a 'smoothness constraint' (also labeled 'Smoothness Penalty' in Fig. 2) and then evaluated with Ssmooth, which is the same weighted combination of jerk and high-frequency spectral energy defined in Eq. (13). The metric weights α=0.25 and β=0.75 were fixed only after 'extensive empirical evaluation,' and no reported ablation removes the smoothness penalty while retaining latent-space flow matching. Thus the claimed improvements ('up to 93.7%' smoother) measure an objective the method was explicitly optimized against; the specific claim that latent flow matching suppresses error amplification is not independently tested. The success-rate and latency comparisons use e

full rationale

The main success-rate and latency claims are grounded in external baselines (DP3, iDP3, RDP, Flow Policy), so the central empirical story is not circularly derived from self-citations: the equations for flow matching (Eqs. 3–6) are standard CFM machinery, and the point-cloud conditioning is tested against external methods. The clearest circular step is the smoothness evaluation: the method's training objective includes an explicit smoothness penalty, while the reported evaluation metric is a weighted combination of jerk and high-frequency spectral energy (Eq. 13), with weights chosen post hoc. Reporting this as a discovered improvement is a fitted-input-called-prediction pattern. The real-world comparison also includes a decoder FiLM conditioning channel for CoLA-Flow Policy that Flow Policy does not receive; that is a confound for attribution, not a definitional circularity. Similarly, the lack of a no-flow latent baseline is an experimental gap rather than an equation-level reduction. Overall, the paper has partial circularity concentrated in the smoothness contribution, but the success-rate and speed results retain independent content.

Axiom & Free-Parameter Ledger

5 free parameters · 5 axioms · 0 invented entities

The central claim rests on three categories of external input: (1) the CFM generative machinery [32] assumed correct; (2) an implicit smoothness assumption about the learned latent manifold that is asserted but never measured; (3) a custom evaluation metric whose weights were set after the fact. None is fatal, but together they mean the paper's contribution is a system-level empirical result rather than a derivation of smoothness from latent flow structure.

free parameters (5)
  • Smoothness metric weights alpha, beta = alpha=0.25, beta=0.75
    Chosen after 'extensive empirical evaluation' (Sec. IV-A) to define the composite metric that backs the headline 93.7% smoothness claim; the latent encoder's smoothness penalty directly targets this quantity.
  • KL regularization weight
    Controls how close the posterior is to N(0,1), which the one-step sampling in Eq. (6) assumes; never reported in Sec. III-A or Sec. IV.
  • Smoothness penalty weight
    The term that suppresses high-frequency content in decoded actions; its value is never reported, so the mechanism and the smoothness gain cannot be reproduced.
  • Smoothness cutoff frequency f_c
    Defines the high-frequency energy ratio (Eq. 12) that makes up 75% of the smoothness metric; value not reported.
  • Chunk size c, horizon H, latent dimension
    Hand-chosen structural hyperparameters of the trajectory-level latent representation (Sec. III-A) that are never specified in the paper.
axioms (5)
  • standard math Consistency flow matching (CFM; Eqs. 3-5) provides a valid one-step generative model for the latent action distribution.
    Assumed correct from [32]; the paper's fast-inference story rests on the CFM objective and the c_in normalization. The reference's first author plausibly matches the corresponding author Liu Yang (unverified), but the method itself is published.
  • domain assumption Samples from the standard normal prior at inference (Eq. 6) land on the latent manifold and decode to executable actions.
    Requires the unreported KL weight to be sufficiently large; if the latent space is not approximately Gaussian, one-step generation produces off-manifold codes and jittery actions.
  • domain assumption The GRU encoder's history dependence plus the smoothness penalty make the latent trajectory space smooth enough that one-step flow integration does not amplify noise.
    This is the paper's central mechanism, asserted qualitatively ('strong temporal inductive bias that suppresses high-frequency variations', Sec. III-A-a) without a quantitative characterization of latent-space smoothness.
  • ad hoc to paper The author-defined smoothness metric (Eq. 13) is a valid proxy for execution quality.
    The weighted combination of jerk and spectral energy with hand-set weights is defined in this paper and is not validated against any external measure of execution quality.
  • domain assumption 30 demonstrations per task (heuristic policies in simulation, human teleoperation in the real world) suffice to train the latent encoder plus flow policy.
    Standard for this literature but load-bearing here: only 30 demos per task are collected (Secs. IV-B-1-c, IV-C-1-c) yet high success is reported (e.g., 76% average on Adroit), which depends on demo quality and task coverage.

pith-pipeline@v1.3.0-alltime-deepseek · 4814 in / 4967 out tokens · 257046 ms · 2026-08-03T06:13:55.730255+00:00 · methodology

0 comments
read the original abstract

Learning long-horizon robotic manipulation requires jointly achieving expressive behavior modeling, real-time inference, and stable execution, which remains challenging for existing generative policies. Diffusion-based approaches offer strong modeling capacity but incur high inference latency, while flow matching enables fast, near-single-step generation yet often suffers from unstable execution when operating directly in the raw action space. We propose Continuous Latent Action Flow Policy (CoLA-Flow Policy), a trajectory-level imitation learning framework that performs flow matching in a continuous latent action space. By encoding action sequences into temporally coherent latent trajectories and learning an explicit latent-space flow, CoLA-Flow Policy decouples global motion structure from low-level control noise, enabling smooth and reliable long-horizon execution. The framework further integrates geometry-aware point cloud conditioning and execution-time multimodal modulation, using visual cues as a representative modality to enhance real-world robustness. Experiments in simulation and on real robots show that CoLA-Flow Policy achieves near-single-step inference, improves trajectory smoothness by up to 93.7% and task success by up to 25 percentage points over raw action-space flow baselines, while remaining significantly faster than diffusion-based policies.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2601.23087 by Jiang Zhiduo, Liu Hong, Liu Yang, Sun Wandong, Wu Songwei, Xie Guanghu, Zhao Rui.

Figure 1
Figure 1. Figure 1: Overall architecture of the proposed CoLA-Flow Policy. The system first encodes point cloud observations into geometry-aware scene features, then [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p002_1.png] view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. Figure 2: Trajectory-level latent action representation with recurrent encoding and [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p003_2.png] view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. Figure 3: Geometry-aware point cloud encoder. Local neighborhoods around [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p004_3.png] view at source ↗
Figure 4
Figure 4. Figure 4: Trajectory smoothness comparison across simulated manipulation tasks. [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p005_4.png] view at source ↗
Figure 5
Figure 5. Figure 5: Real-world experimental setup and observations. Left: Franka Emika Panda robot with a LEAP Hand and the visual sensing setup (global L515 and [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p006_5.png] view at source ↗
Figure 6
Figure 6. Figure 6: Trajectory smoothness comparison across real-world manipulation tasks. [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p006_6.png] view at source ↗
Figure 7
Figure 7. Figure 7: Comparison of real-world joint trajectories under identical initial con [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p007_7.png] view at source ↗
Figure 8
Figure 8. Figure 8: Ablation study on trajectory smoothness and task success rate in real [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p007_8.png] view at source ↗

Review history (3 revisions) →

discussion (0)

Sign in with ORCID, Apple, or X to comment. Anyone can read and Pith papers without signing in.

Forward citations

Cited by 1 Pith paper

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

  1. EDAR: Learning Environment-Dependent Action Representations for Robotic Manipulation

    cs.RO 2026-07 conditional novelty 6.0

    Action latents supervised by both control reconstruction and environment-conditioned visual consequences outperform trajectory-centric tokenizers for robotic manipulation, especially long-horizon tasks.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

35 extracted references · 7 linked inside Pith · cited by 1 Pith paper

  1. [1]

    Diffusion policy: Visuomotor policy learning via action diffusion,

    C. Chi, Z. Xu, S. Feng, E. Cousineau, Y. Du, B. Burchfiel, R. Tedrake, and S. Song, “Diffusion policy: Visuomotor policy learning via action diffusion,”The International Journal of Robotics Research, vol. 44, no. 10-11, pp. 1684–1704, 2025

    2025

  2. [2]

    Vo-dp: Semantic-geometric adaptive diffusion policy for vision- only robotic manipulation,

    Z. Ni, Y. He, L. Qian, J. Mao, F. Fu, W. Sui, H. Su, J. Peng, Z. Wang, and B. He, “Vo-dp: Semantic-geometric adaptive diffusion policy for vision- only robotic manipulation,”arXiv preprint arXiv:2510.15530, 2025

    arXiv 2025

  3. [3]

    3d diffusion policy: Generalizable visuomotor policy learning via simple 3d representations,

    Y. Ze, G. Zhang, K. Zhang, C. Hu, M. Wang, and H. Xu, “3d diffusion policy: Generalizable visuomotor policy learning via simple 3d representations,” inProceedings of Robotics: Science and Systems (RSS), 2024

    2024

  4. [4]

    Dexcap: Scalable and portable mocap data collection system for dexterous manipulation,

    C. Wang, H. Shi, W. Wang, R. Zhang, L. Fei-Fei, and C. K. Liu, “Dexcap: Scalable and portable mocap data collection system for dexterous manipulation,” inProceedings of Robotics: Science and Systems (RSS), 2024

    2024

  5. [5]

    Hierarchical diffusion policy: ma- nipulation trajectory generation via contact guidance,

    D. Wang, C. Liu, F. Chang, and Y. Xu, “Hierarchical diffusion policy: ma- nipulation trajectory generation via contact guidance,”IEEE Transactions on Robotics, 2025

    2025

  6. [6]

    Flow matching for generative modeling,

    Y. Lipman, R. T. Chen, H. Ben-Hamu, M. Nickel, and M. Le, “Flow matching for generative modeling,”arXiv preprint arXiv:2210.02747, 2022

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2022

  7. [7]

    Flow matching on general geometries,

    R. T. Chen and Y. Lipman, “Flow matching on general geometries,”arXiv preprint arXiv:2302.03660, 2023

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2023

  8. [8]

    Adaptive flow matching for resolving small- scale physics,

    S. Fotiadis, N. D. Brenowitz, T. Geffner, Y. Cohen, M. Pritchard, A. Vahdat, and M. Mardani, “Adaptive flow matching for resolving small- scale physics,” inForty-second International Conference on Machine Learning, 2025

    2025

  9. [9]

    Flowpolicy: Enabling fast and robust 3d flow-based policy via consistency flow matching for robot manipulation,

    Q. Zhang, Z. Liu, H. Fan, G. Liu, B. Zeng, and S. Liu, “Flowpolicy: Enabling fast and robust 3d flow-based policy via consistency flow matching for robot manipulation,” inProceedings of the AAAI Conference on Artificial Intelligence, vol. 39, no. 14, 2025, pp. 14 754–14 762

    2025

  10. [10]

    Fast and robust visuomotor riemannian flow matching policy,

    H. Ding, N. Jaquier, J. Peters, and L. Rozo, “Fast and robust visuomotor riemannian flow matching policy,”IEEE Transactions on robotics, 2025

    2025

  11. [11]

    Riemannian flow matching policy for robot motion learning,

    M. Braun, N. Jaquier, L. D. Rozo, and T. Asfour, “Riemannian flow matching policy for robot motion learning,”2024 IEEE/RSJ International Conference on Intelligent Robots and Systems (IROS), pp. 5144–5151, 2024

    2024

  12. [12]

    Generalizable humanoid manipulation with 3d diffusion policies,

    Y. Ze, Z. Chen, W. Wang, T. Chen, X. He, Y. Yuan, X. B. Peng, and J. Wu, “Generalizable humanoid manipulation with 3d diffusion policies,” in2025 IEEE/RSJ International Conference on Intelligent Robots and Systems (IROS). IEEE, 2025, pp. 2873–2880

    2025

  13. [13]

    Reactive diffusion policy: Slow-fast visual-tactile policy learning for contact-rich manipulation,

    H. Xue, J. Ren, W. Chen, G. Zhang, Y. Fang, G. Gu, H. Xu, and C. Lu, “Reactive diffusion policy: Slow-fast visual-tactile policy learning for contact-rich manipulation,” inProceedings of Robotics: Science and Systems (RSS), 2025

    2025

  14. [14]

    Denoising diffusion probabilistic models,

    J. Ho, A. Jain, and P. Abbeel, “Denoising diffusion probabilistic models,” Advances in neural information processing systems, vol. 33, pp. 6840– 6851, 2020

    2020

  15. [15]

    Denoising diffusion implicit models,

    J. Song, C. Meng, and S. Ermon, “Denoising diffusion implicit models,” inInternational Conference on Learning Representations, 2021

    2021

  16. [16]

    Implicit behavioral cloning,

    P. Florence, C. Lynch, A. Zeng, O. A. Ramirez, A. Wahid, L. Downs, A. Wong, J. Lee, I. Mordatch, and J. Tompson, “Implicit behavioral cloning,” inConference on robot learning. PMLR, 2022, pp. 158–168

    2022

  17. [17]

    Deep residual learning for image recognition,

    K. He, X. Zhang, S. Ren, and J. Sun, “Deep residual learning for image recognition,” inProceedings of the IEEE conference on computer vision and pattern recognition, 2016, pp. 770–778

    2016

  18. [18]

    An image is worth 16x16 words: Transformers for image recognition at scale,

    A. Dosovitskiy, L. Beyer, A. Kolesnikov, D. Weissenborn, X. Zhai, T. Un- terthiner, M. Dehghani, M. Minderer, G. Heigold, S. Gelly, J. Uszkoreit, and N. Houlsby, “An image is worth 16x16 words: Transformers for image recognition at scale,”ICLR, 2021

    2021

  19. [19]

    Dexgraspnet: A large-scale robotic dexterous grasp dataset for general objects based on simulation,

    R. Wang, J. Zhang, J. Chen, Y. Xu, P. Li, T. Liu, and H. Wang, “Dexgraspnet: A large-scale robotic dexterous grasp dataset for general objects based on simulation,”arXiv preprint arXiv:2210.02697, 2022

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2022

  20. [20]

    Dexgraspnet 2.0: Learning generative dexterous grasping in large-scale synthetic cluttered scenes,

    J. Zhang, H. Liu, D. Li, X. Yu, H. Geng, Y. Ding, J. Chen, and H. Wang, “Dexgraspnet 2.0: Learning generative dexterous grasping in large-scale synthetic cluttered scenes,” in8th Annual Conference on Robot Learning, 2024

    2024

  21. [21]

    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

  22. [22]

    Fast-grasp’d: Dexterous multi-finger grasp generation through differentiable simulation,

    D. Turpin, T. Zhong, S. Zhang, G. Zhu, E. Heiden, M. Macklin, S. Tsogkas, S. Dickinson, and A. Garg, “Fast-grasp’d: Dexterous multi-finger grasp generation through differentiable simulation,” inICRA, 2023

    2023

  23. [23]

    Neural discrete representation learning,

    A. Van Den Oord, O. Vinyalset al., “Neural discrete representation learning,”Advances in neural information processing systems, vol. 30, 2017

    2017

  24. [24]

    Genie: Generative interactive environments,

    J. Bruce, M. D. Dennis, A. Edwards, J. Parker-Holder, Y. Shi, E. Hughes, M. Lai, A. Mavalankar, R. Steigerwald, C. Appset al., “Genie: Generative interactive environments,” inForty-first International Conference on Machine Learning, 2024

    2024

  25. [25]

    Agibot world colosseo: A large-scale manipulation platform for scalable and intelligent embodied systems,

    Q. Bu, J. Cai, L. Chen, X. Cui, Y. Ding, S. Feng, X. He, X. Huanget al., “Agibot world colosseo: A large-scale manipulation platform for scalable and intelligent embodied systems,” in2025 IEEE/RSJ International Conference on Intelligent Robots and Systems (IROS). IEEE, 2025

    2025

  26. [26]

    Adaworld: Learning adaptable world models with latent actions,

    S. Gao, S. Zhou, Y. Du, J. Zhang, and C. Gan, “Adaworld: Learning adaptable world models with latent actions,” inInternational Conference on Machine Learning (ICML), 2025

    2025

  27. [27]

    Como: Learning continuous latent motion from internet videos for scalable robot learning,

    J. Yang, Y. Shi, H. Zhu, M. Liu, K. Ma, Y. Wang, G. Wu, T. He, and L. Wang, “Como: Learning continuous latent motion from internet videos for scalable robot learning,”arXiv preprint arXiv:2505.17006, 2025

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2025

  28. [28]

    Latent action learning requires supervision in the pres- ence of distractors,

    A. Nikulin, I. Zisman, D. Tarasov, N. Lyubaykin, A. Polubarov, I. Kiselev, and V. Kurenkov, “Latent action learning requires supervision in the pres- ence of distractors,” inInternational Conference on Machine Learning (ICML), 2025

    2025

  29. [29]

    Auto-encoding variational bayes,

    D. P. Kingma and M. Welling, “Auto-encoding variational bayes,”arXiv preprint arXiv:1312.6114, 2013

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2013

  30. [30]

    Film: Visual reasoning with a general conditioning layer,

    E. Perez, F. Strub, H. De Vries, V. Dumoulin, and A. Courville, “Film: Visual reasoning with a general conditioning layer,” inProceedings of the AAAI conference on artificial intelligence, vol. 32, no. 1, 2018

    2018

  31. [31]

    Momentum contrast for unsupervised visual representation learning,

    K. He, H. Fan, Y. Wu, S. Xie, and R. Girshick, “Momentum contrast for unsupervised visual representation learning,” inProceedings of the IEEE/CVF conference on computer vision and pattern recognition, 2020, pp. 9729–9738

    2020

  32. [32]

    Consistency flow matching: Defining straight flows with velocity consistency,

    L. Yang, Z. Zhang, Z. Zhang, X. Liu, M. Xu, W. Zhang, C. Meng, S. Ermon, and B. Cui, “Consistency flow matching: Defining straight flows with velocity consistency,”arXiv preprint arXiv:2407.02398, 2024

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2024

  33. [33]

    Learning complex dexterous manipulation with deep reinforcement learning and demonstrations,

    A. Rajeswaran, V. Kumar, A. Gupta, G. Vezzani, J. Schulman, E. Todorov, and S. Levine, “Learning complex dexterous manipulation with deep reinforcement learning and demonstrations,”arXiv preprint arXiv:1709.10087, 2017

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2017

  34. [34]

    Meta-world: A benchmark and evaluation for multi-task and meta reinforcement learning,

    T. Yu, D. Quillen, Z. He, R. Julian, K. Hausman, C. Finn, and S. Levine, “Meta-world: A benchmark and evaluation for multi-task and meta reinforcement learning,” inConference on robot learning. PMLR, 2020, pp. 1094–1100

    2020

  35. [35]

    Mujoco: A physics engine for model- based control,

    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. IEEE, 2012, pp. 5026–5033

    2012