Representing Positional Information in Generative World Models for Object Manipulation
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Object manipulation capabilities are essential skills that set apart embodied agents engaging with the world, especially in the realm of robotics. The ability to predict outcomes of interactions with objects is paramount in this setting. Although model-based control methods have started to be employed to tackle manipulation tasks, they have faced challenges in accurately manipulating objects. As we analyze the causes of this limitation, we identify the cause of underperformance in the way current world models represent crucial positional information, especially about the target’s goal specification for object positioning tasks. We introduce a general approach that empowers world model-based agents to effectively solve object positioning tasks. We propose two declinations of this approach for generative world models: position-conditioned (PCP) and latent-conditioned (LCP) policy learning. In particular, LCP employs object-centric latent representations that explicitly capture object positional information for goal specification. This naturally leads to the emergence of multimodal capabilities, enabling the specification of goals through spatial coordinates or a visual goal. Our methods are rigorously evaluated across several manipulation environments, showing favorable performance compared to current model-based control approaches.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.004 | 0.001 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".