arXiv Science⌕ Search
Home/Archive/arXiv

arXiv · 2606.21406

Robot Self-Improvement via Human-Video Dynamics Models

Hanzhi Chen·Anran Zhang·Simon Schaefer·Kejia Chen·Shi Chen·Daniel Cremers·Oier Mees·Stefan Leutenegger
View original source ↗Read source document ↗Export metadata ↓

Abstract

A central question in robot learning is how to acquire skills from the kinds of data that humans learn from: passive observation, embodied practice, and the experience of failure. Human videos provide the first of these in abundance, and prior work has shown they can initialize useful policies. Far less clear is whether they can support the second and third: whether priors extracted from human videos can ground a robot's own attempts well enough to evaluate them, correct them, and improve from them. In this work, we show that human videos can be used to learn embodiment-agnostic action, dynamics, and value representations that transfer across robot embodiments, providing the predictive foundation required for robots to autonomously improve from their own rollouts and failures. We introduce Dynamics-Guided Action Correction (DGAC), a training-free approach that leverages these adapted models to repair failed states: each failure becomes a query for which the learned models propose and rank corrective actions, turning failures into supervision for the next policy update. Across seven real-world manipulation tasks spanning both a mobile manipulator and a static manipulator arm, our approach improves success rates from 40% to 81% across multiple policy backbones, demonstrating cross-embodiment robot self-improvement from human-video priors. These results show that human priors and robot failures can be combined to enable scalable autonomous policy improvement. Project page: https://ethz-mrl.github.io/robot-self-improvement-website/.

Explore related subjects

cs.ROcs.CV

Keep this discovery

BibTeXRIS

Hanzhi Chen, Anran Zhang, Simon Schaefer, Kejia Chen, Shi Chen, Daniel Cremers, Oier Mees, Stefan Leutenegger. 2026-06-19. Robot Self-Improvement via Human-Video Dynamics Models. https://arxiv.org/abs/2606.21406

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↗