Pith. sign in

REVIEW 3 major objections 6 minor 1 cited by

A tactile-aware world model turns real robot failures into imagined video-and-force corrections that raise contact-rich VLA success by 44 percent.

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 · grok-4.5

2026-07-12 06:40 UTC pith:VJWSS2BC

load-bearing objection Solid systems paper: real multi-task contact gains from a tactile Recognize–Imagine–Label loop, with the main open bet being whether imagined forces are truly executable recoveries. the 3 major comments →

arxiv 2607.02840 v1 pith:VJWSS2BC submitted 2026-07-03 cs.RO

TACO: TActile World Model as a Self-COrrector forScalable VLA Post-Training

Shengbang Liu , Yueru Jia , Yuyang Yan , Jiaming Liu , Xinran Zhang , Qiuxuan Feng , Yandong Guo , Shiji Zhou
show 2 more authors
Boxin Shi Shanghang Zhang
This is my paper
classification cs.RO
keywords vision-language-actiontactile sensingworld modelsrobotic manipulationcontact-rich taskspolicy post-trainingforce-torque feedback
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.

Vision-language-action robot policies still fail at contact-rich work because small force errors are nearly invisible in camera images and often unrecoverable once they start. Human recovery demos are too expensive to collect at scale, and vision-only world models invent trajectories that look right but have the wrong contact physics. TACO runs a Recognize–Imagine–Label loop: a progress model finds where the task stalls, a joint video-force generator imagines short local recoveries, and the same progress-action model labels executable corrective actions. Those imagined recoveries retrain only the action expert while the pretrained vision-language backbone is frozen, so language and pre-contact skills stay intact. On six real Franka contact-rich tasks, two autonomous rounds lift average success from 38 percent to 82 percent.

Core claim

TACO establishes that localized contact failures in VLA policies can be repaired at scale without repeated human intervention by converting real rollouts into imagined visuo-tactile corrections: failure-adjacent states are recognized from progress estimates, local video-and-force recovery segments are generated by joint denoising, those segments are labeled with corrective actions, and the resulting supervision is fed back through knowledge-insulated, advantage-conditioned post-training that preserves pretrained visual-language priors.

What carries the argument

The tactile-aware world model—a visuo-tactile generator that jointly denoises future video and 12-D force via temporal RoPE alignment, plus a unified progress-action model that both detects progress stalls and labels corrective actions—together with knowledge-insulated tactile adaptation that routes tactile learning only into the action expert.

Load-bearing premise

The imagined video-and-force corrections must be contact-consistent enough that the actions labeled from them actually recover the real robot rather than inventing force patterns the hardware cannot execute.

What would settle it

On held-out real recovery trajectories, measure force prediction error of the imagined segments and whether the labeled corrective actions execute successfully on the robot; systematic force inconsistency at contact transitions plus low real execution success would falsify the claim that offline imagination yields valid recovery supervision.

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

If this is right

  • Contact-rich VLA post-training can run as a closed real-to-imagine-to-real loop without continuous human recovery demos.
  • Tactile signals must participate in both imagination and action labeling; vision-only imagination collapses real recovery performance.
  • Freezing the pretrained vision-language backbone while training only the action expert is required to keep pre-contact approach and grounding intact.
  • Increasing the ratio of imagined corrections to real data continues to raise success rates on the evaluated tasks.

Where Pith is reading between the lines

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

  • The same offline imagination loop could transfer to multi-arm or mobile platforms once a comparable force channel is available.
  • If online generation during deployment becomes practical, recovery could close without waiting for the next post-training round.
  • Progress-based anchor selection may serve as a cheap failure detector even when full corrective imagination is unavailable.

Editorial analysis

A structured set of objections, weighed in public.

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

Referee Report

3 major / 6 minor

Summary. TACO proposes a tactile-aware world-model framework for scalable post-training of Vision-Language-Action (VLA) policies on contact-rich manipulation. From real rollouts, a Recognize–Imagine–Label loop uses a unified progress-action model to locate failure-adjacent states, a visuo-tactile generation model (joint video–force denoising with temporal RoPE and first-frame force anchoring) to synthesize local correction segments, and the same progress-action model to label corrective actions with binary advantage. Post-training combines knowledge-insulated tactile adaptation (stop-gradient on the VLM backbone; tactile/advantage conditioning only in the action expert) with advantage-conditioned flow matching. On six real Franka tasks (40 episodes each, two iterations), TACO reports average success rate rising from 0.38 (base π0.5) to 0.82, a 44% absolute gain and 32% over the same pipeline without knowledge insulation, with supporting ablations on tactile generation/labeling, data scaling, advantage conditioning, and anchor selection, plus OOD and action-distribution analyses.

Significance. Contact-rich recovery remains a clear bottleneck for VLAs, and human corrective intervention does not scale. If the reported gains hold under stronger validation of imagined contact dynamics, TACO offers a practical closed loop that turns real failures into tactile-aware corrective supervision without repeated teleoperation. The combination of joint visuo-tactile imagination, knowledge-insulated adaptation of a strong pretrained VLA (π0.5), and advantage-conditioned offline RL is a coherent systems contribution with real-robot evidence across six tasks, ablations, and OOD probes. Strengths include multi-task physical evaluation, explicit insulation of VLM priors, and component ablations that separate tactile generation, tactile labeling, KI, advantage, and anchor selection. The work is of clear interest to robot learning and embodied foundation-model communities.

major comments (3)
  1. [§3.1–3.2, Fig. 5, Appendix C.1] §3.1–3.2 and the abstract treat contact-consistent imagined force trajectories as load-bearing for the self-corrector claim, yet validation is only indirect. Appendix C.1 reports force prediction loss F on held-out real segments and Fig. 5 shows SR drops without tactile generation (0.28) or tactile labeling (0.65), but there is no direct comparison of imagined force sequences (or contact-event timing) against real recovery trajectories at failure-adjacent anchors, nor open-loop replay of labeled actions on the Franka. Without such checks, the 44% SR gain in Table 1 could be driven largely by KI, advantage conditioning, and extra data volume rather than faithful tactile self-correction. Please add quantitative force/contact consistency metrics (e.g., force RMSE, contact onset timing) and/or replay success of labeled corrections, or clearly scope the claim to empirical post-training gains.
  2. [Table 1, §4.2] Table 1 reports point success rates over 40 episodes per task with no standard errors, confidence intervals, or statistical tests across methods or iterations. Given that the headline claims are absolute SR deltas of 44% and 32%, and that several per-task jumps are large (e.g., Move Hanoi Rings 0.08→0.79), the central comparison needs uncertainty quantification (binomial CIs or bootstrap over episodes) and, where possible, a simple significance test between TACO, TACO (w/o KI), and Filtered BC. Without this, it is hard to judge robustness of the ranking, especially for intermediate Iteration-1 results where some tasks are closer.
  3. [§3.1–3.2, Appendix B.5, C.1, C.4] The Recognize step (§3.2) and UPA training (§3.1) depend on manually annotated task-stage progress labels and a stall criterion (window Δ, threshold ε). Appendix B.5 further notes up to 10 anchors per failed trajectory and binary advantage assignment from the first recognized onset. This makes failure localization and advantage labels partly human-defined rather than fully autonomous. Please report sensitivity of SR to ε/Δ and to the number of anchors, and clarify how much of the Recognize quality (FL in Appendix C.1) is driven by the manual stage taxonomy versus the learned progress head. If manual stage labels are required per task, the scalability claim relative to human intervention should be qualified.
minor comments (6)
  1. [Figure 5] Fig. 5 mixes a table-like ablation with a scaling plot; axis labels, sample sizes for Val. Loss / VOC / FL, and whether Real SR is after one or two iterations should be stated in the caption.
  2. [§3.1, §3.3] Notation reuses λ_f for both the force term in L_joint (§3.1) and the force conditioning weight in L_π (§3.3); rename one of them to avoid confusion.
  3. [Table 1] Completion steps (CS) in Table 1 are averaged only over successful episodes; note this explicitly in the main text so lower CS is not misread as always-faster execution including failures.
  4. [§2] Related Work cites many concurrent arXiv world-model/VLA papers; a short positioning paragraph against the closest tactile world models [61,62] and knowledge-insulation [30] would help readers separate TACO’s loop from prior components.
  5. [Appendix B.2] Algorithm 1 in the supplement is useful; consider moving a condensed version or a pointer into the main §3.2 so the iterative real-to-imagine-to-real loop is fully specified without the supplement.
  6. [Title, Table 1] Typos/formatting: title spacing “forScalable”; Table 1 Iteration-2 TACO (w/o KI) cell “0.65510.52” appears concatenated; fix for camera-ready.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged

No circular derivation: TACO is an empirical robotics pipeline whose success claims are measured on physical rollouts, not reduced to fitted identities or self-citation theorems.

full rationale

The paper's load-bearing claim is an empirical success-rate gain (Table 1: base 0.38 → TACO 0.82 avg SR after two iterations; +32% vs TACO w/o KI) measured on 40 real Franka episodes per task with randomized object positions. That outcome is not derived from an equation that reuses its own fit. Progress targets for the unified progress-action model come from manually annotated task-stage labels (Sec. 3.1), not from the quantity later reported as success. Advantage labels are assigned by construction (y=1 for expert demos, successful rollouts, and imagined corrections; y=0 for failed segments after the first progress-stall anchor; Algorithm 1 / Sec. 3.2–3.3)—this is an offline RL training design choice, not a claimed first-principles prediction of advantage. The visuo-tactile generator is trained with joint flow-matching on real video-force data and evaluated via held-out force loss, VOC, FL, and real SR ablations (Fig. 5, App. C.1); none of these equate a fitted parameter to a reported prediction. Knowledge insulation and advantage-conditioned flow cite external work ([30], [31], [32]), not author-only uniqueness theorems. The Recognize–Imagine–Label loop is standard iterative self-improvement (policy → real rollouts → synthetic supervision → policy), which is self-dependent as a training procedure but not circular in the sense that a claimed derivation collapses to its inputs. Weaknesses (e.g., limited direct force-consistency checks of imagined recoveries) are correctness/validation risks, not circularity.

Axiom & Free-Parameter Ledger

6 free parameters · 5 axioms · 3 invented entities

Load-bearing content is mostly engineering assumptions and free hyperparameters, not new physical entities. The claim rests on domain assumptions about localized contact failures, the sufficiency of offline short-horizon imagination, and insulation of VLM gradients, plus many training/selection knobs (ε, Δ, T, λ_f, data ratios, manual progress stages).

free parameters (6)
  • progress stall threshold ε and window Δ
    Define which timesteps are failure-adjacent anchors for imagination; chosen for the Recognize step and not derived from first principles.
  • correction horizon T=49
    Fixed imagined segment length tied to force token alignment (T=4Nv+1); design choice that bounds what recoveries can be represented.
  • force loss weight λ_f and advantage/force conditioning weights λ_f, λ_a
    Balance joint denoising and adaRMS conditioning; set by training recipe rather than theory.
  • real-to-imagined data ratio (≈1:4–1:8, up to 1:10 in ablations)
    Controls how much imagined correction data enters post-training; scaling curves show SR depends on this ratio.
  • manual task-stage progress labels for UPA training
    Progress targets p_t come from human stage annotations; free supervisory structure that drives both Recognize and advantage labeling.
  • CFG null-condition dropout probability 0.1 and positive-advantage inference condition
    Training/inference knobs for advantage-conditioned flow matching that steer recovery behavior.
axioms (5)
  • domain assumption Contact-rich VLA failures are primarily localized contact-state errors rather than task-level semantic errors, so local corrective post-training is sufficient.
    Stated in Introduction/Abstract as motivation for focusing supervision on contact-sensitive stages.
  • domain assumption Vision-only imagined rollouts can be contact-inconsistent; joint video–force generation is necessary for useful corrections.
    Core design premise of §3.1; supported by ablation drop when tactile generation is removed (SR 0.28).
  • domain assumption Stop-gradient knowledge insulation of the VLM backbone preserves pre-contact visual-language priors while allowing the action expert to absorb tactile corrections.
    §3.3 and baseline TACO (w/o KI); empirical support in Table 1 but not proven generally.
  • ad hoc to paper Binary advantage labels (y∈{0,1}) on failed vs corrective segments are an adequate offline RL signal for recovery.
    Advantage-conditioned objective in §3.3; ablation shows drop without it, but the binary construction is a paper-specific choice.
  • ad hoc to paper Dense progress from a unified progress-action model reliably localizes failure-adjacent anchors (stall/decrease criterion).
    Recognize step §3.2; uniform-anchor ablation shows large SR drops, so the claim depends on this localization quality.
invented entities (3)
  • TACO Recognize–Imagine–Label loop with tactile-aware world model no independent evidence
    purpose: Convert real failures into labeled visuo-tactile corrective segments for iterative VLA post-training without human intervention.
    Central methodological construct; evidence is internal ablations and real-robot SR, not independent external validation.
  • Visuo-tactile joint denoising generation with temporal RoPE force–video alignment and first-frame force anchor no independent evidence
    purpose: Produce contact-aware imagined futures by co-denoising video latents and 12-D force sequences.
    Architectural invention built on Wan2.2; independent evidence limited to paper metrics/visualizations.
  • Unified progress-action model (UPA) for joint progress and corrective action prediction no independent evidence
    purpose: Recognize stalls and label imagined segments with actions and progress for advantage training.
    Shared model for Recognize and Label; trained with SmoothL1 + progress MSE on annotated stages.

pith-pipeline@v1.1.0-grok45 · 26116 in / 3859 out tokens · 39459 ms · 2026-07-12T06:40:47.091060+00:00 · methodology

0 comments
read the original abstract

Vision-Language-Action (VLA) models have shown promising generalization in robotic manipulation, but they still struggle with contact-rich tasks, where minor contact perturbations can cause unrecoverable failures that are hard to detect from vision alone. Since these failures are localized rather than task-level semantic errors, tactile-aware corrective post-training offers an efficient way to improve recovery. However, scaling such supervision through human intervention is costly. Recent works have explored world models to synthesize imagined rollouts for policy improvement, but vision-only world models may produce visually plausible yet contact-inconsistent trajectories. We therefore introduce TACO, a tactile-aware world-model-driven framework for scalable VLA post-training in contact-rich manipulation. Given real robot rollouts, TACO follows a Recognize-Imagine-Label loop with a tactile-aware world model: a unified progress-action model recognizes failure-adjacent states using progress estimates, a visuo-tactile generation model imagines local correction segments, and the progress-action model labels them with executable corrective actions. To incorporate tactile corrective supervision into VLA post-training, TACO combines knowledge-insulated tactile adaptation with advantage-conditioned training, enabling the policy to learn from imagined corrections without degrading pretrained visual-language priors. These components enable TACO to convert real-world failures into imagined visuo-tactile corrections for iterative VLA post-training. Experiments on real-world contact-rich manipulation tasks show that TACO achieves 44% absolute success rate improvement over the base policy and 32% over the policy without knowledge-insulated tactile adaptation.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2607.02840 by Boxin Shi, Jiaming Liu, Qiuxuan Feng, Shanghang Zhang, Shengbang Liu, Shiji Zhou, Xinran Zhang, Yandong Guo, Yueru Jia, Yuyang Yan.

Figure 1
Figure 1. Figure 1: Overview. TACO is a tactile-aware world-model-driven framework for scalable VLA post-training. Given real-world rollouts, TACO follows a Recognize–Imagine–Label loop to identify failure-adjacent states, generate local visuo-tactile corrections, and label corrective actions. These corrections are used for advantage-conditioned post-training with knowledge-insulated tactile adap￾tation, improving contact rec… view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. Figure 2: TACO framework. TACO follows an iterative Recognize–Imagine–Label loop over real￾world rollouts: it identifies failure-adjacent states, imagines visuo-tactile recovery segments with a tactile-aware world model, and labels the corresponding actions. The resulting supervision is used for advantage-conditioned post-training through knowledge-insulated tactile adaptation. 2 Related Work World Models for Robot … view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. Figure 3: Tactile-Aware World Model architecture. The world model imagines visuo-tactile cor￾rection segments through joint denoising, aligns force tokens with video latent tokens via temporal RoPE, and converts the imagined rollouts into corrective actions. a dense progress score pt at each timestep. We then select correction anchors as S (k) anchor = {(τ, t) | τ ∈ D(k) roll, pt+∆ − pt < ϵ}, where ∆ is a short wind… view at source ↗
Figure 4
Figure 4. Figure 4: Visualization of imagined correction data. The tactile-aware world model generates locally consistent imagined corrections (bottom) that recover failed contact interactions (top). Setting Visuo-Tactile Generation Progress-Action Model Val. Loss Progress Eval. Real SR ↑ Input Output Input Output F ↓ A ↓ VOC ↑ FL ↑ w/o tactile generation V V V A + R + F 0.004 0.025 0.78 0.87 0.28 w/o tactile labeling V + F V… view at source ↗
Figure 5
Figure 5. Figure 5: Ablation Study. Left: Generation of Imagined Correction Data. V , F, A, and R denote video, force, action, and progress, respectively. Validation losses are reported for force prediction (F) and action prediction (A). VOC denotes Video frame-wise progress rank correlation, FL denotes failure localization accuracy, and Real SR denotes the real-world success rate. Right: Scaling of Imagined Correction Data. … view at source ↗
Figure 6
Figure 6. Figure 6: Action Distribution Analysis. We project the end-effector poses (X-Y dimensions) from 40 successful rollouts under different configurations in Insert Flower task [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p008_6.png] view at source ↗
Figure 7
Figure 7. Figure 7: Generalization Performance. Generalization experiments under unseen backgrounds, unseen objects, and unseen object positions. Scaling of Imagined Correction Data. As shown in [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p008_7.png] view at source ↗
Figure 8
Figure 8. Figure 8: Real-world robot setup and experimental assets. We use a single-arm Franka Research 3 (FR3) platform equipped with a parallel-jaw gripper and fingertip-mounted Xense tactile sensors for 6D force/torque sensing. A front-view Intel RealSense D455 camera provides global RGB ob￾servations of the workspace, together with the object assets used across our real-world contact-rich manipulation tasks. controller, w… view at source ↗
Figure 9
Figure 9. Figure 9: Robot execution progress in real-world tasks. We visualize key frames of the robot’s execution process from the front camera view in real-world tasks. Dataset Robot Arm / Platform Number of Trajectories DROID Franka Panda 201,119 AgiBot AgiBot G1 3,017 RoboMIND Franka / UR / Ark / Agilex / TienKung 1,721,985 [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p017_9.png] view at source ↗
Figure 10
Figure 10. Figure 10: Additional ablation studies. (a) Scaling of imagined correction data on Toast Bread: success rate improves as the real-to-imagined ratio increases. (b) Effect of advantage-conditioned training. (c) Effect of failure-adjacent anchor selection. Results in (b) and (c) are reported on Insert Flower and Wipe Whiteboard. Action validation loss (A). We report the validation loss of the unified progress-action mo… view at source ↗
Figure 11
Figure 11. Figure 11: Failure case analysis. Representative rollouts of Filtered BC, TACO (w/o KI), and TACO on Wipe Whiteboard, Move Hanoi Rings, and Twist Bottle Cap. The two baselines fail at contact transitions in complementary ways, whereas TACO completes all three tasks [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p022_11.png] view at source ↗
Figure 12
Figure 12. Figure 12: Additional generalization experiment. Generalization experiments under unseen back￾grounds, unseen objects, and unseen object positions for Insert Flower. contact-transition failures rarely self-correct within a rollout, they never enter the filtered successful set, so Filtered BC keeps reproducing the same incomplete behavior. TACO (w/o KI): degraded pre-contact perception. TACO (w/o KI) learns from the … view at source ↗
Figure 13
Figure 13. Figure 13: Visualization of imagined correction data. The tactile-aware world model generates locally consistent imagined corrections (bottom) that recover failed contact interactions (top). E Additional Visualization E.1 Additional Imagined Corrections Visualizations Beyond the two representative tasks shown in the main text, we further visualize imagined correc￾tions for the remaining four contact-rich tasks in [… view at source ↗

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. {\tau}: Learning Touch-Augmented Vision-Language-Action Models from Future Visual Supervision

    cs.RO 2026-07 conditional novelty 6.0

    Action-conditioned JEPA-style future-visual latent prediction yields dynamics-aware tactile tokens that lift contact-rich VLA success rates from ~30% to ~70% average on four real tasks.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

74 extracted references · 33 linked inside Pith · cited by 1 Pith paper

  1. [1]

    Brohan, N

    A. Brohan, N. Brown, J. Carbajal, Y . Chebotar, J. Dabis, C. Finn, K. Gopalakrishnan, K. Haus- man, A. Herzog, J. Hsu, et al. Rt-1: Robotics transformer for real-world control at scale.arXiv preprint arXiv:2212.06817, 2022

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2022

  2. [2]

    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

  3. [3]

    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

  4. [4]

    O. M. Team, D. Ghosh, H. Walke, K. Pertsch, K. Black, O. Mees, S. Dasari, J. Hejna, T. Kreiman, C. Xu, et al. Octo: An open-source generalist robot policy.arXiv preprint arXiv:2405.12213, 2024

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2024

  5. [5]

    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

  6. [6]

    Black, N

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

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2024

  7. [7]

    Intelligence, K

    P. Intelligence, K. Black, N. Brown, J. Darpinian, K. Dhabalia, D. Driess, A. Esmail, M. Equi, C. Finn, N. Fusai, et al.π 0.5: a vision-language-action model with open-world generalization. arXiv preprint arXiv:2504.16054, 2025. 9

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2025

  8. [8]

    Intelligence, B

    P. Intelligence, B. Ai, A. Amin, R. Aniceto, A. Balakrishna, G. Balke, K. Black, G. Bokinsky, S. Cao, T. Charbonnier, et al.π 0.7 : a steerable generalist robotic foundation model with emergent capabilities.arXiv preprint arXiv:2604.15483, 2026

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2026

  9. [9]

    Q. Li, Y . Liang, Z. Wang, L. Luo, X. Chen, M. Liao, F. Wei, Y . Deng, S. Xu, Y . Zhang, et al. Cogact: A foundational vision-language-action model for synergizing cognition and action in robotic manipulation.arXiv preprint arXiv:2411.19650, 2024

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2024

  10. [10]

    S. Liu, L. Wu, B. Li, H. Tan, H. Chen, Z. Wang, K. Xu, H. Su, and J. Zhu. Rdt-1b: a diffu- sion foundation model for bimanual manipulation. InInternational Conference on Learning Representations, volume 2025, pages 29982–30009, 2025

    2025

  11. [11]

    J. Wen, Y . Zhu, M. Zhu, Z. Tang, J. Li, Z. Zhou, X. Liu, C. Shen, Y . Peng, and F. Feng. Diffusionvla: Scaling robot foundation models via unified diffusion and autoregression. In Forty-second International Conference on Machine Learning, 2025

    2025

  12. [12]

    Y . Jia, J. Liu, S. Liu, R. Zhou, W. Yu, Y . Yan, X. Chi, Y . Guo, B. Shi, and S. Zhang. Video2act: A dual-system video diffusion policy with robotic spatio-motional modeling.arXiv preprint arXiv:2512.03044, 2025

    arXiv 2025

  13. [13]

    Z. Liu, J. Liu, H. Chen, J. Yu, Z. Guo, C. Hou, C. Gu, X. Mi, R. Zhang, K. Wu, et al. Last {0}: Latent spatio-temporal chain-of-thought for robotic vision-language-action model.arXiv preprint arXiv:2601.05248, 2026

    arXiv 2026

  14. [14]

    S. Ross, G. Gordon, and D. Bagnell. A reduction of imitation learning and structured predic- tion to no-regret online learning. InProceedings of the fourteenth international conference on artificial intelligence and statistics, pages 627–635. JMLR Workshop and Conference Pro- ceedings, 2011

    2011

  15. [15]

    Hoque, A

    R. Hoque, A. Mandlekar, C. Garrett, K. Goldberg, and D. Fox. Intervengen: Interventional data generation for robust and data-efficient robot imitation learning. In2024 IEEE/RSJ In- ternational Conference on Intelligent Robots and Systems (IROS), pages 2840–2846. IEEE, 2024

    2024

  16. [16]

    Korkmaz and E

    Y . Korkmaz and E. Bıyık. Mile: Model-based intervention learning. In2025 IEEE Interna- tional Conference on Robotics and Automation (ICRA), pages 15673–15679. IEEE, 2025

    2025

  17. [17]

    X. Xu, Y . Hou, Z. Liu, and S. Song. Compliant residual dagger: Improving real-world contact- rich manipulation with human corrections.Advances in Neural Information Processing Sys- tems, 38:139559–139581, 2026

    2026

  18. [18]

    Y . Wang, R. Syed, F. Wu, M. Zhang, A. Onol, J. Barreiros, H. Nayyeri, T. Dear, H. Zhang, and Y . Li. Interactive world simulator for robot policy training and evaluation.arXiv preprint arXiv:2603.08546, 2026

    arXiv 2026

  19. [19]

    Y . Li, Z. Zhou, Y . Chen, Y . Guo, J. Liu, S. Zhang, J. Chen, and Y . Zhu. Hi-wm: Human-in- the-world-model for scalable robot post-training.arXiv preprint arXiv:2604.21741, 2026

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2026

  20. [20]

    Q. Xu, J. Liu, R. Zhou, S. Shi, N. Han, Z. Liu, C. Gu, S. Gu, Y . Yue, G. Huang, et al. Twinrl- vla: Digital twin-driven reinforcement learning for real-world robotic manipulation.arXiv preprint arXiv:2602.09023, 2026

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2026

  21. [21]

    W. Yu, J. Lv, Z. Ying, Y . Jin, C. Wen, and C. Lu. Armada: Autonomous online failure detection and human shared control empower scalable real-world deployment and adaptation.arXiv preprint arXiv:2510.02298, 2025

    arXiv 2025

  22. [22]

    S. Zhou, Y . Du, J. Chen, Y . Li, D.-Y . Yeung, and C. Gan. Robodreamer: Learning composi- tional world models for robot imagination.arXiv preprint arXiv:2404.12377, 2024. 10

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2024

  23. [23]

    Y . Li, X. Wei, X. Chi, Y . Li, Z. Zhao, H. Wang, N. Ma, M. Lu, and S. Zhang. Manip- dreamer: Boosting robotic manipulation world model with action tree and visual guidance. InICASSP 2026-2026 IEEE International Conference on Acoustics, Speech and Signal Pro- cessing (ICASSP), pages 12027–12031. IEEE, 2026

    2026

  24. [24]

    Y . Guo, T. Lee, L. X. Shi, J. Chen, P. Liang, and C. Finn. Vlaw: Iterative co-improvement of vision-language-action policy and world model.arXiv preprint arXiv:2602.12063, 2026

    arXiv 2026

  25. [25]

    F. Zhu, Z. Yan, Z. Hong, Q. Shou, X. Ma, and S. Guo. Wmpo: World model-based policy optimization for vision-language-action models.arXiv preprint arXiv:2511.09515, 2025

    arXiv 2025

  26. [26]

    J. Yang, K. Lin, J. Li, W. Zhang, T. Lin, L. Wu, Z. Su, H. Zhao, Y .-Q. Zhang, L. Chen, et al. Rise: Self-improving robot policy with compositional world model.arXiv preprint arXiv:2602.11075, 2026

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2026

  27. [27]

    Jiang, S

    Z. Jiang, S. Zhou, Y . Jiang, Z. Huang, M. Wei, Y . Chen, T. Zhou, Z. Guo, H. Lin, Q. Zhang, et al. Wovr: World models as reliable simulators for post-training vla policies with rl.arXiv preprint arXiv:2602.13977, 2026

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2026

  28. [28]

    J. Jang, S. Ye, Z. Lin, J. Xiang, J. Bjorck, Y . Fang, F. Hu, S. Huang, K. Kundalia, Y .-C. Lin, et al. Dreamgen: Unlocking generalization in robot learning through video world models. arXiv preprint arXiv:2505.12705, 2025

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2025

  29. [29]

    A. Yu, Z. Chen, P. Song, Z. Hong, H. Wang, D. Zhang, T. He, Y . Ding, and D. Zhang. Wm- dagger: Enabling efficient data aggregation for imitation learning with world models.arXiv preprint arXiv:2604.11351, 2026

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2026

  30. [30]

    Driess, J

    D. Driess, J. Springenberg, B. Ichter, L. Yu, A. Li-Bell, K. Pertsch, A. Ren, H. Walke, Q. Vuong, L. X. Shi, et al. Knowledge insulating vision-language-action models: Train fast, run fast, generalize better.Advances in Neural Information Processing Systems, 38:102867– 102888, 2026

    2026

  31. [31]

    Frans, S

    K. Frans, S. Park, P. Abbeel, and S. Levine. Diffusion guidance is a controllable policy im- provement operator.arXiv preprint arXiv:2505.23458, 2025

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2025

  32. [32]

    Intelligence, A

    P. Intelligence, A. Amin, R. Aniceto, A. Balakrishna, K. Black, K. Conley, G. Connors, J. Darpinian, K. Dhabalia, J. DiCarlo, et al.π 0.6: a vla that learns from experience.arXiv preprint arXiv:2511.14759, 2025

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2025

  33. [33]

    Q. Feng, J. Yu, J. Liu, Y . Jia, Z. Wu, H. Chen, Z. Qian, S. Gu, P. Jia, S. Ma, et al. Harmowam: Harmonizing generalizable and precise manipulation via adaptive world action models.arXiv preprint arXiv:2605.10942, 2026

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2026

  34. [34]

    H. Tan, Y . Feng, X. Mao, S. Huang, G. Liu, Z. Hao, H. Su, and J. Zhu. Anypos: Automated task-agnostic actions for bimanual manipulation.arXiv preprint arXiv:2507.12768, 2025

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2025

  35. [35]

    W. Mi, Y . Bao, X. Chi, X. Ju, Z. Qin, K. Ge, K. Tang, P. Jia, S. Zhang, and J. Tang. Tc- idm: Grounding video generation for executable zero-shot robot motion.arXiv preprint arXiv:2601.18323, 2026

    arXiv 2026

  36. [36]

    K. Li, Z. Jing, X. Wang, Z. Zhu, Y . Zhou, G. Huang, D. Li, Q. Yang, and H. Huang. Stableidm: Stabilizing inverse dynamics model against manipulator truncation via spatio-temporal refine- ment.arXiv preprint arXiv:2604.17887, 2026

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2026

  37. [37]

    Y . J. Ma, V . Kumar, A. Zhang, O. Bastani, and D. Jayaraman. Liv: Language-image repre- sentations and rewards for robotic control. InInternational Conference on Machine Learning, pages 23301–23320. PMLR, 2023

    2023

  38. [38]

    T. Lee, A. Wagenmaker, K. Pertsch, P. Liang, S. Levine, and C. Finn. Roboreward: General- purpose vision-language reward models for robotics.arXiv preprint arXiv:2601.00675, 2026. 11

    arXiv 2026

  39. [39]

    J. Lv, H. Li, J. Li, Y . Nie, F. Kong, Y . Wang, X. Wang, Z. Zhu, C. Ni, Q. Deng, et al. Viva: A video-generative value model for robot reinforcement learning.arXiv preprint arXiv:2604.08168, 2026

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2026

  40. [40]

    H. Tan, S. Chen, Y . Xu, Z. Wang, Y . Ji, C. Chi, Y . Lyu, Z. Zhao, X. Chen, P. Co, et al. Robo- dopamine: General process reward modeling for high-precision robotic manipulation.arXiv preprint arXiv:2512.23703, 2025

    arXiv 2025

  41. [41]

    Liang, Y

    A. Liang, Y . Korkmaz, J. Zhang, M. Hwang, A. Anwar, S. Kaushik, A. Shah, A. S. Huang, L. Zettlemoyer, D. Fox, et al. Robometer: Scaling general-purpose robotic reward models via trajectory comparisons.arXiv preprint arXiv:2603.02115, 2026

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2026

  42. [42]

    Jiang, K

    Z. Jiang, K. Liu, Y . Qin, S. Tian, Y . Zheng, M. Zhou, C. Yu, H. Li, and D. Zhao. World4rl: Diffusion world models for policy refinement with reinforcement learning for robotic manipu- lation.arXiv preprint arXiv:2509.19080, 2025

    arXiv 2025

  43. [43]

    J. Xiao, Y . Yang, X. Chang, R. Chen, F. Xiong, M. Xu, W.-S. Zheng, and Q. Zhang. World- env: Leveraging world model as a virtual environment for vla post-training.arXiv preprint arXiv:2509.24948, 2025

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2025

  44. [44]

    A. K. Sharma, Y . Sun, N. Lu, Y . Zhang, J. Liu, and S. Yang. World-gymnast: Training robots with reinforcement learning in a world model.arXiv preprint arXiv:2602.02454, 2026

    arXiv 2026

  45. [45]

    X. Liu, Z. Bai, H. Ci, K. Y . Ma, and M. Z. Shou. World-vla-loop: Closed-loop learning of video world model and vla policy.arXiv preprint arXiv:2602.06508, 2026

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2026

  46. [46]

    G. Team, B. Wang, B. Li, C. Ni, G. Huang, G. Zhao, H. Li, J. Li, J. Lv, J. Liu, et al. Gigabrain- 0.5 m*: a vla that learns from world model-based reinforcement learning.arXiv preprint arXiv:2602.12099, 2026

    arXiv 2026

  47. [47]

    Z. Liu, J. Liu, J. Xu, N. Han, C. Gu, H. Chen, K. Zhou, R. Zhang, K. C. Hsieh, K. Wu, et al. Mla: A multisensory language-action model for multimodal understanding and forecasting in robotic manipulation.arXiv preprint arXiv:2509.26642, 2025

    arXiv 2025

  48. [48]

    J. Yu, H. Liu, Q. Yu, J. Ren, C. Hao, H. Ding, G. Huang, G. Huang, Y . Song, P. Cai, et al. Forcevla: Enhancing vla models with a force-aware moe for contact-rich manipulation.Ad- vances in Neural Information Processing Systems, 38:93409–93439, 2026

    2026

  49. [49]

    Y . Li, H. Jiang, J. Xia, H. Zhang, J. Du, Y . Zhou, J. Zeng, C. Hao, J. Ren, Q. Yu, et al. Forcevla2: Unleashing hybrid force-position control with force awareness for contact-rich ma- nipulation.arXiv preprint arXiv:2603.15169, 2026

    arXiv 2026

  50. [50]

    Huang, S

    J. Huang, S. Wang, F. Lin, Y . Hu, C. Wen, and Y . Gao. Tactile-vla: unlocking vision- language-action model’s physical knowledge for tactile generalization.arXiv preprint arXiv:2507.09160, 2025

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2025

  51. [51]

    Cheng, Y

    Z. Cheng, Y . Zhang, W. Zhang, H. Li, K. Wang, L. Song, and H. Zhang. Omnivtla: Vision-tactile-language-action model with semantic-aligned tactile sensing.arXiv preprint arXiv:2508.08706, 2025

    arXiv 2025

  52. [52]

    Morissette, A

    C. Morissette, A. Abyaneh, W.-D. Chang, A. Houssaini, D. Meger, H.-C. Lin, J. Tremblay, and G. Dudek. Tactile modality fusion for vision-language-action models.arXiv preprint arXiv:2603.14604, 2026

    arXiv 2026

  53. [53]

    Zhang, H

    K. Zhang, H. Zhang, Z. Xu, Z. Zhang, M. R. I. Prince, X. Li, X. Han, Y . Zhou, A. Ajoudani, and Y . She. Tacvla: Contact-aware tactile fusion for robust vision-language-action manipulation. arXiv preprint arXiv:2603.12665, 2026. 12

    arXiv 2026

  54. [54]

    Huang, P

    Y . Huang, P. Lin, W. Li, D. Li, J. Li, J. Jiang, C. Xiao, and Z. Jiao. Tactile-force alignment in vision-language-action models for force-aware manipulation.arXiv preprint arXiv:2601.20321, 2026

    arXiv 2026

  55. [55]

    J. Bi, K. Y . Ma, C. Hao, M. S. Zheng, and H. Soh. Vla-touch: Enhancing vision-language- action model with dual-level tactile feedback.IEEE Robotics and Automation Letters, 2026

    2026

  56. [56]

    S. Yu, K. Lin, A. Xiao, J. Duan, and H. Soh. Octopi: Object property reasoning with large tactile-language models.arXiv preprint arXiv:2405.02794, 2024

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2024

  57. [57]

    Z. Wang, Y . Wang, M. Ren, P. Li, Y . Liu, Y . Nie, L. Long, Y . Ye, X. Wang, Z. Zhu, et al. Tacmamba: A tactile history compression adapter bridging fast reflexes and slow vla reasoning. arXiv preprint arXiv:2603.01700, 2026

    arXiv 2026

  58. [58]

    Huang, Y

    B. Huang, Y . Wang, X. Yang, Y . Luo, and Y . Li. 3d-vitac: Learning fine-grained manipulation with visuo-tactile sensing.arXiv preprint arXiv:2410.24091, 2024

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2024

  59. [59]

    Gubernatorov, M

    K. Gubernatorov, M. Sannikov, I. Mikhalchuk, E. Kuznetsov, M. Artemov, O. F. Ouwatobi, M. Fernando, A. Asanov, Z. Guo, and D. Tsetserukou. Hapticvla: Contact-rich manipula- tion via vision-language-action model without inference-time tactile sensing.arXiv preprint arXiv:2603.15257, 2026

    arXiv 2026

  60. [60]

    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.arXiv preprint arXiv:2503.02881, 2025

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2025

  61. [61]

    Zheng, S

    Y . Zheng, S. Gu, W. Li, Y . Zheng, Y . Zang, S. Tian, X. Li, C. Hao, C. Gao, S. Liu, et al. Omnivta: Visuo-tactile world modeling for contact-rich robotic manipulation.arXiv preprint arXiv:2603.19201, 2026

    arXiv 2026

  62. [62]

    Higuera, S

    C. Higuera, S. Arnaud, B. Boots, M. Mukadam, F. R. Hogan, and F. Meier. Visuo-tactile world models.arXiv preprint arXiv:2602.06001, 2026

    arXiv 2026

  63. [63]

    X. Li, M. Cai, J. Xu, J. Zhu, H. Fan, Y . Shen, G. Ren, and H. Dong. At-vla: Adaptive tactile injection for enhanced feedback reaction in vision-language-action models.arXiv preprint arXiv:2605.07308, 2026

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2026

  64. [64]

    T. Wan, A. Wang, B. Ai, B. Wen, C. Mao, C.-W. Xie, D. Chen, F. Yu, H. Zhao, J. Yang, et al. Wan: Open and advanced large-scale video generative models.arXiv preprint arXiv:2503.20314, 2025

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2025

  65. [65]

    Oquab, T

    M. Oquab, T. Darcet, T. Moutakanni, H. V o, M. Szafraniec, V . Khalidov, P. Fernandez, D. Haz- iza, F. Massa, A. El-Nouby, et al. Dinov2: Learning robust visual features without supervision. arXiv preprint arXiv:2304.07193, 2023

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2023

  66. [66]

    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

  67. [67]

    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

  68. [68]

    K. Wu, C. Hou, J. Liu, Z. Che, X. Ju, Z. Yang, M. Li, Y . Zhao, Z. Xu, G. Yang, et al. Robomind: Benchmark on multi-embodiment intelligence normative data for robot manipulation.arXiv preprint arXiv:2412.13877, 2024. 13 TACO: TActile World Model as a Self-COrrector for Scalable VLA Post-Training Supplementary Material We provide additional details, as wel...

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2024

  69. [69]

    S1: insert the flower into the vase

    Insert Flower.The robot picks up a flower from a random location on the table and inserts it into a vase. S1: insert the flower into the vase. S1 is considered successful if the robot securely inserts the flower into the vase without dropping it or knocking over the vase

  70. [70]

    S1: grasp the eraser; S2: wipe off the star

    Wipe Whiteboard.The robot picks up an eraser and wipes off a star drawn at a random location on a whiteboard. S1: grasp the eraser; S2: wipe off the star. S1 is considered successful if the robot securely grasps and lifts the eraser. S2 is considered successful if the robot completely erases the star from the whiteboard

  71. [71]

    S1: grasp the bottle cap; S2: twist open and lift the cap

    Twist Bottle Cap.The robot grasps the cap of a water bottle, applies a twisting motion to loosen it, and then lifts the cap away from the bottle. S1: grasp the bottle cap; S2: twist open and lift the cap. S1 is considered successful if the robot securely grips the cap with stable contact and without displacing the bottle. S2 is considered successful if th...

  72. [72]

    S1: strike the 1st key; S2: strike the 3rd key; S3: strike the 5th key; S4: strike the 8th key

    Play Xylophone.The robot picks up a mallet and sequentially strikes the 1st, 3rd, 5th, and 8th keys of an eight-key xylophone in order. S1: strike the 1st key; S2: strike the 3rd key; S3: strike the 5th key; S4: strike the 8th key. Each stage is considered successful if the robot accurately strikes the designated key with the mallet tip, while following t...

  73. [73]

    S1: grasp the first slice; S2: insert the first slice into the toaster; S3: grasp the second slice; S4: insert the second slice

    T oast Bread.The robot sequentially picks up two slices of bread from a box and inserts them into a toaster. S1: grasp the first slice; S2: insert the first slice into the toaster; S3: grasp the second slice; S4: insert the second slice. Each stage is considered successful if the corresponding action is completed without dropping the bread or misaligning ...

  74. [74]

    S1: grasp the top ring; S2: place the top ring on the left peg; S3: grasp the second ring; S4: place the second ring on the right peg

    Move Hanoi Rings.The robot moves the top ring from the middle peg of a Hanoi tower (where all rings are initially stacked in size order) to the left empty peg, then moves the next ring to the right empty peg. S1: grasp the top ring; S2: place the top ring on the left peg; S3: grasp the second ring; S4: place the second ring on the right peg. S1 is conside...