arXiv Science⌕ Search
Home/Archive/arXiv

arXiv · 2506.23351

Benchmarking Generalizable Bimanual Manipulation: RoboTwin Dual-Arm Collaboration Challenge at CVPR 2025 MEIS Workshop

Tianxing Chen·Kaixuan Wang·Zhaohui Yang·Yuhao Zhang·Zanxin Chen·Baijun Chen·Wanxi Dong·Ziyuan Liu·Dong Chen·Tianshuo Yang·Haibao Yu·Xiaokang Yang·Yusen Qin·Zhiqiang Xie·Yao Mu·Ping Luo·Tian Nian·Weiliang Deng·Yiheng Ge·Yibin Liu·Zixuan Li·Dehui Wang·Zhixuan Liang·Haohui Xie·Rijie Zeng·Yunfei Ge·Peiqing Cong·Guannan He·Zhaoming Han·Ruocheng Yin·Jingxiang Guo·Lunkai Lin·Tianling Xu·Hongzhe Bi·Xuewu Lin·Tianwei Lin·Shujie Luo·Keyu Li·Ziyan Zhao·Ke Fan·Heyang Xu·Bo Peng·Wenlong Gao·Dongjiang Li·Feng Jin·Hui Shen·Jinming Li·Chaowei Cui·Yu Chen·Yaxin Peng·Lingdong Zeng·Wenlong Dong·Tengfei Li·Weijie Ke·Jun Chen·Erdemt Bao·Tian Lan·Tenglong Liu·Jin Yang·Huiping Zhuang·Baozhi Jia·Shuai Zhang·Zhengfeng Zou·Fangheng Guan·Tianyi Jia·Ke Zhou·Hongjiu Zhang·Yating Han·Cheng Fang·Yixian Zou·Chongyang Xu·Qinglun Zhang·Shen Cheng·Xiaohe Wang·Ping Tan·Haoqiang Fan·Shuaicheng Liu·Jiaheng Chen·Chuxuan Huang·Chengliang Lin·Kaijun Luo·Boyu Yue·Yi Liu·Jinyu Chen·Zichang Tan·Liming Deng·Shuo Xu·Zijian Cai·Shilong Yin·Hao Wang·Hongshan Liu·Tianyang Li·Long Shi·Ran Xu·Huilin Xu·Zhengquan Zhang·Congsheng Xu·Jinchang Yang·Feng Xu
View original source ↗Read source document ↗Export metadata ↓

Abstract

Embodied Artificial Intelligence (Embodied AI) is an emerging frontier in robotics, driven by the need for autonomous systems that can perceive, reason, and act in complex physical environments. While single-arm systems have shown strong task performance, collaborative dual-arm systems are essential for handling more intricate tasks involving rigid, deformable, and tactile-sensitive objects. To advance this goal, we launched the RoboTwin Dual-Arm Collaboration Challenge at the 2nd MEIS Workshop, CVPR 2025. Built on the RoboTwin Simulation platform (1.0 and 2.0) and the AgileX COBOT-Magic Robot platform, the competition consisted of three stages: Simulation Round 1, Simulation Round 2, and a final Real-World Round. Participants totally tackled 17 dual-arm manipulation tasks, covering rigid, deformable, and tactile-based scenarios. The challenge attracted 64 global teams and over 400 participants, producing top-performing solutions like SEM and AnchorDP3 and generating valuable insights into generalizable bimanual policy learning. This report outlines the competition setup, task design, evaluation methodology, key findings and future direction, aiming to support future research on robust and generalizable bimanual manipulation policies. The Challenge Webpage is available at https://robotwin-benchmark.github.io/cvpr-2025-challenge/.

Explore related subjects

cs.ROcs.AIcs.LGcs.MA

Keep this discovery

BibTeXRIS

Tianxing Chen, Kaixuan Wang, Zhaohui Yang, Yuhao Zhang, Zanxin Chen, Baijun Chen, Wanxi Dong, Ziyuan Liu, Dong Chen, Tianshuo Yang, Haibao Yu, Xiaokang Yang, Yusen Qin, Zhiqiang Xie, Yao Mu, Ping Luo, Tian Nian, Weiliang Deng, Yiheng Ge, Yibin Liu, Zixuan Li, Dehui Wang, Zhixuan Liang, Haohui Xie, Rijie Zeng, Yunfei Ge, Peiqing Cong, Guannan He, Zhaoming Han, Ruocheng Yin, Jingxiang Guo, Lunkai Lin, Tianling Xu, Hongzhe Bi, Xuewu Lin, Tianwei Lin, Shujie Luo, Keyu Li, Ziyan Zhao, Ke Fan, Heyang Xu, Bo Peng, Wenlong Gao, Dongjiang Li, Feng Jin, Hui Shen, Jinming Li, Chaowei Cui, Yu Chen, Yaxin Peng, Lingdong Zeng, Wenlong Dong, Tengfei Li, Weijie Ke, Jun Chen, Erdemt Bao, Tian Lan, Tenglong Liu, Jin Yang, Huiping Zhuang, Baozhi Jia, Shuai Zhang, Zhengfeng Zou, Fangheng Guan, Tianyi Jia, Ke Zhou, Hongjiu Zhang, Yating Han, Cheng Fang, Yixian Zou, Chongyang Xu, Qinglun Zhang, Shen Cheng, Xiaohe Wang, Ping Tan, Haoqiang Fan, Shuaicheng Liu, Jiaheng Chen, Chuxuan Huang, Chengliang Lin, Kaijun Luo, Boyu Yue, Yi Liu, Jinyu Chen, Zichang Tan, Liming Deng, Shuo Xu, Zijian Cai, Shilong Yin, Hao Wang, Hongshan Liu, Tianyang Li, Long Shi, Ran Xu, Huilin Xu, Zhengquan Zhang, Congsheng Xu, Jinchang Yang, Feng Xu. 2025-06-29. Benchmarking Generalizable Bimanual Manipulation: RoboTwin Dual-Arm Collaboration Challenge at CVPR 2025 MEIS Workshop. https://arxiv.org/abs/2506.23351

Cite the original work for its findings. Save a collection to share your selection of sources.

KEEP EXPLORING

Related papers

arXiv2026

IMLE-VLA: Fast Single-Step Action Generation for Vision-Language-Action Policies

Vision-language-action (VLA) policies leverage pretrained vision-language backbones to achieve strong cross-task generalization. A leading design couples this backbone with a dedicated continuous action head trained via diffusion or flow matching. However, such heads rely on iterative multi-step sampling, for example 10 Euler steps in $\pi_{0.5}$. This creates an inference bottleneck that produces stop-and-go movement in the robot and slower task completion. We introduce IMLE-VLA, which replaces the iterative action head with a single-step conditional generator trained via conditional Implicit Maximum Likelihood Estimation (cIMLE). The cIMLE objective promotes multimodal action coverage, avoiding the mode collapse of naive regression heads while eliminating multi-step sampling entirely. When IMLE-VLA is applied to $\pi_{0.5}$, it increases inference frequency 3.67x (55 Hz vs. 15 Hz), enabling up to 11x higher action throughput. On the 40-task LIBERO benchmark, IMLE-VLA achieves the highest average success rate (98.0%) among all baselines while leading in inference frequency. Under the test-time perturbations of LIBERO-plus, IMLE-VLA retains $\pi_{0.5}$'s robustness while other baselines degrade sharply, confirming that the cIMLE head preserves generalization. Real-world experiments on a Franka Emika Panda across four tasks demonstrate smoother motion (2.2x to 3.0x lower jerk) and faster task completion, with IMLE-VLA outperforming $\pi_{0.5}$ on every task and reducing average VLA inference time per episode by 3.9x to 6.6x. Videos and code are available at https://kianhk6.github.io/IMLE-VLA/

cs.RO↗
arXiv2026

ObstaDiff: Generalizable Diffusion Policy Learning via Obstacle-aware Representations

Imitation learning has achieved impressive results in robotic manipulation, yet most existing approaches assume clean backgrounds and lack explicit mechanisms for obstacle-aware motion generation. Extending such policies to cluttered, real-world scenes with unstructured obstacles remains a key generalization challenge. We present ObstaDiff, a decomposed diffusion-policy framework with a lightweight obstacle-aware visual encoder. ObstaDiff extracts a structured target-obstacle-background representation, enabling the downstream alignment policy to generate end-effector trajectories toward a target-centered bottleneck pose while reasoning about surrounding obstacles. We evaluate ObstaDiff on 61 real-robot greenhouse trials per method (366 executions in total). ObstaDiff achieves 75.41% average task success and 8.20% average obstacle collision rate, outperforming representative imitation-learning baselines and improving generalization in cluttered agricultural scenes.

cs.RO↗
arXiv2026

Testing Between the Test Cases: Proving End-to-End Steering in Conditions You Never Drove

AI-based automated vehicle testing is challenging because a model that passes every test condition can still fail in the real world. Formal verification offers a way to directly address this gap. On a simulated highway and an arterial road we trained two small end-to-end steering networks each in CARLA, one on clear conditions alone and one on clear, fog, night and low sun. All four models were driven against a 2.19 ft lane-departure budget. Without driving again, we used bound propagation, a formal method that reads the trained weights, to compute how far steering can drift at every disturbance strength between two captured images. One calculation covers more than a campaign could drive: on the arterial it spans 133 poses, where ten intensities each would be 10^133 combinations, in minutes on one GPU. Not only did formal verification find conditions that broke the clear-trained policy without simulation testing, it provided some preliminary evidence for potential failures between the test cases. Our overall conclusion is that formal verification is a viable complement to simulation, and could be adopted as a part of verification and validation for automated driving.

cs.RO↗