arXiv:2606. 17046v1 Announce Type: cross Abstract: Generalist robot policies must follow user instructions while reasoning about how objects, cameras, and robot actions interact in the 3D physical world.
By Jisang Han, Seonghu Jeon, Jaewoo Jung, Ren\'e Zurbr\"ugg, Honggyu An, Tifanny Portela, Marco Hutter, Marc Pollefeys, Seungryong Kim, Sunghwan Hong
arXiv:2607. 00836v1 Announce Type: cross Abstract: World models are increasingly used in embodied intelligence and generative simulation, yet their scope remains ambiguous across communities.
By Xiaoxiong Zhang, Xiong Zeng, Wei Zhang
arXiv:2610.00899v1 Announce Type: cross
Abstract: Autoregressive Vision-Language-Action models often represent continuous robot actions as discrete token sequences, enabling action prediction with st...
By Keisuke Shirai, Tomohiro Motoda, Hanbit Oh, Ryoichi Nakajo, Roman Mykhailyshyn, Ryo Hanai, Shotaro Miwa, Yukiyasu Domae
Prioritized Rollouts for Efficient World Model-based Vision-Language-Action Policy Optimization introduces U‑GROW, a lightweight sampling layer that directs more model rollouts toward states with high policy uncertainty, identified as decision‑sensitive stages where small action differences can alter task outcomes. By modifying only the branched‑start distribution, U‑GROW can be integrated into existing model‑based reinforcement learning pipelines without changing the policy optimization objective. Experiments on simulated and real‑world manipulation tasks demonstrate that U‑GROW improves the efficiency and effectiveness of policy optimization for Vision‑Language‑Action models.
By Yifei Sheng, Haoxiang Ren, Zhilong Zhang, Haonan Wang, Runjie Xu, Yihao Sun, Nan Tang, Zhichao Wu, Lei Yuan, Haoxin Lin, Yang Yu
arXiv:2606. 15768v1 Announce Type: cross Abstract: Vision-Language-Action models (VLAs) leverage large-scale vision-language pretraining for semantic robot control, but often lack explicit foresight into how robot actions change the scene.
By Jialei Chen, Kai Wang, Kang Chen, Shuaihang Chen, Feng Gao, Wenhao Tang, Zhiyuan Li, Weilin Liu, Zhuyu Yao, Boxun Li, Yuanbo Xu, Chao Yu
The survey "World-Action Models for Robot Learning and Control" reviews recent advances in coupling future world prediction with executable action generation for robots in open environments. It clarifies the scope of World-Action Models (WAMs) relative to conventional world models, model-based RL, and Vision‑Language‑Action policies, and organizes existing methods through a unified taxonomy covering representations, transition modeling, action interfaces, architectures, training pipelines, data modalities, and scaling strategies. The paper also surveys applications in manipulation, navigation, and autonomous driving, summarizes datasets, benchmarks, and metrics, and discusses key challenges such as action alignment, spatial consistency, long‑horizon memory, and efficient inference.
By Zuxing Lu, Hongjia Zhai, Guanzhi Wang, Huajian Zeng, Jiaqi Yang, Jingyu Liu, Lei Cheng, Yuantai Zhang, Yuheng Qiu, Zezhou Cheng, Ivan Laptev, Danfei Xu, Benjamin Riviere, Giuseppe Loianno, Eric Xing, Xingxing Zuo
AtomEgo investigates how to integrate large-scale egocentric human interaction data into embodied foundation model pre‑training. The study uses a curated 2,659‑hour corpus and a scalable data pipeline to evaluate three co‑training paradigms across vision‑language‑action and world‑action architectures. Results show that the benefit of egocentric data depends on both its scale and the quality of alignment with robotic embodiment, offering practical guidance for scalable ego‑robot pre‑training.
By Di Wu, Dongchen Zheng, Junhe Sheng, Zhongxing Wei, Songxin Zhang, Zejian Xie, Xiaoquan Sun, Junyang Zheng, Zhuoyang Song, Jiaxing Zhang, Jiayu Chen
arXiv:2607. 11643v1 Announce Type: cross Abstract: Recent foundation image and video generation models offer strong generalization and controllability, but their direct application to embodied scenarios is limited by requirements for multi-view consistency, geometric coherence, and robot embodiment constraints.
By Xinghang Li, Jun Guo, Qiwei Li, Long Qian, Hang Lai, Yueze Wang, Hongyu Yan, Jiahang Cao, Xi Chen, Jingen Qu, Jiaxi Song, Nan Sun, Hanye Zhao, Futeng Liu, Wanli Peng, Heyun Wang, Yunhong Wang, Caoyu Xia, Jack Zhao, Diyun Xiang, Hangjun Ye, Heng Qu, Huaping Liu, Jason Li
PDRVLA is a Vision‑Language‑Action model that incorporates a lightweight Physical Dynamics Module to extract physical tokens from vision‑language features, enabling action generation without online video synthesis. The module predicts future RGB, depth, and optical‑flow features, guided by auxiliary supervision from a frozen pretrained video world model. Trained solely on publicly available data augmented with human‑to‑robot synthesis, subtask annotation, and embodied chain‑of‑thought (ECoT) annotation, PDRVLA achieves high success rates across four simulation benchmarks, with ablations demonstrating the benefits of world‑model supervision and various conditioning strategies.
By Hanqing Wang, Zhaotian Cai, Ruichuan An, Bohan Zeng, Tao Zhang, Yilin Chen, Xu Jiang, Kaiquan Chen, Chongyang Wu, Haoran Li, Fan Yang, Mingan Lin, Wentao Zhang, Zenan Zhou, Youzheng Wu
Generalizable robot manipulation requires policies that can anticipate how visual scenes evolve while executing language instructions. While recent Vision-Language-Action models benefit from large-scale pretraining, their predominantly static pretraining objectives provide limited supervision for physical dynamics and temporal causality, leaving control-relevant knowledge to be learned from downstream robot demonstrations.
arXiv:2607. 02542v1 Announce Type: new Abstract: General-purpose embodied agents must understand multimodal instructions, anticipate how their environment will evolve, and produce precise control actions over extended horizons.
By Yuan Zhang, Jingfei Ni, Guanchen Lu, Shiqi Zhang, Qingshan Xu, Chi Liu, Xin Nie, Wenjie Xu, Lin Gao, Zhiyuan Cheng, Mingxin Zhou, Jiajia Wu, Diyuan Liu, Jia Pan, Chao Ji
Vision-Language-Action (VLA) models are commonly treated as end-to-end action policies conditioned on natural-language task descriptions. In practice, however, their behavior often depends sharply on how the instruction is phrased, suggesting that language is not merely a task label but an optimizable conditioning input.