Grounding Video Models to Actions through Goal Conditioned Exploration

Authors: Yunhao Luo, Yilun Du
Primary area: applications to robotics, autonomy, planning
Keywords: Embodied AI, Decision Making, Robotics, Video Model

Abstract:
Large video models, pretrained on massive quantities of amount of Internet video,  provide a rich source of physical knowledge about the dynamics and motions of objects and tasks.
However, video models are not grounded in the embodiment of an agent, and do not describe how to actuate the world to reach the visual states depicted in a video.
To tackle this problem, current methods use a separate vision-based inverse dynamic model trained on embodiment-specific data to map image states to actions. 
Gathering data to train such a model is often expensive and challenging, and this model is limited to visual settings similar to the ones in which data is available.
In this paper, we investigate how to directly  ground video models to continuous actions through self-exploration in the embodied environment -- using generated video states as visual goals for exploration.
We propose a framework that uses trajectory level action generation in combination with video guidance to
enable an agent to solve complex tasks without any external supervision, e.g., rewards, action labels, or segmentation masks.
We validate the proposed approach on 8 tasks in Libero, 6 tasks in MetaWorld, 4 tasks in Calvin, and 12 tasks in iThor Visual Navigation. 
We show how our approach is on par with or even surpasses multiple behavior cloning baselines trained on expert demonstrations while without requiring any action annotations.

Decision: accept (spotlight)
Reviewer scores: 8, 6, 8

Reviews and discussion:
<thread>
creation date:
1730578063133

thread_type:
official_review

<thread_object>
creator: reviewer_afd8

<content>
summary:
This paper proposes leveraging video guidance to learn goal-conditioned policies without access to any external supervision. By leveraging pre-trained task conditioning video generative models, they propose sampling a sequence of frames demonstrating how to complete a task. These frames serve as sub-goal supervision for training a downstream goal-conditioned policy. The policy is initialized via behavior cloning with random action bootstrapping, and then proceeds to improve by sampling the video model to generate more conditioning data for the policy. The self-supervised learning proceeds by collecting the rollouts in the replay-buffer and fine-tuning the policy on the replay-buffer. The video generative model is trained with just image pairs and no action labeled data and can be replaced with large internet-scale pre-trained models in the future. 

Overall, this paper could be a significant contribution in combining self-supervised learning with video generative models to enable agents to solve complex tasks. But currently, there is confusion regarding the success of this method when random action bootstrapping fails. If addressed sufficiently, the rating can be increased.

strengths:
The paper has several strengths including:
1. The work is well-motivated, well-written, and clear
2. The method is unique in proposing video models as a way to enable strong goal conditioning for the policy without needing action labels. 
3. The idea of self-learning is unique compared to current RL approaches
4. Good set of ablations performed in the main paper and supplement to analyze the method well 
5. The authors sufficiently addressed most of the limitations of their work. Despite these limitations, the method is still very interesting.

weaknesses:
Some weaknesses of the paper include:
1. There is a lot of confusion around random action bootstrapping. Mainly, I am confused if it is possible to learn a policy without any successful actions (assuming random action bootstrapping does not result in any successful trajectories). Please see the first 6 points under ‘questions’ to know what needs to be added to the paper to address this weakness. 
2. The cost of training this kind of model compared to BC is not mentioned in the limitation section. (The number of rollouts and iterations during self-training is high compared to the number of expert demonstrations for a BC policy). 
3. A real world experiment is not provided. Seems that such an experiment would be high cost, maybe that is why it is not shown? Would be good to discuss if there is a way then to transfer easily from sim2real, but I acknolwedge sim2real is an existing open question, so possibly ok to not address this.
4. Unsure if 3.3 is a novel contribution. Diffusion policy generates action chunks already. What is the new ‘mean sampling’ proposing beyond the standard diffusion policy action generation scheme? Lines 239-242 are unclear.

questions:
Key questions that should be addressed:
1. Maybe I have misunderstood, but how is it possible that without any ‘good’ actions ever given, the model can find actions that satisfy the goal eventually? Is it relying on the fact that at some point during random action bootstrapping there must be a few success cases? If so, how many successes in random action bootstrapping is required to learn the policy? Also, what is the performance of the policy with just random action bootstrapping (after line 3 of Algo 1) compared to performance after fine tuning with the video model in the self-supervised learning stage?
2. It is mentioned that random action bootstrapping is also performed at periodic intervals during training, but this is not indicated in Algorithm 1 (Algo 1 only shows random action bootstrapping before the loop starts). Please add that to the algorithm.  
3. How is random action bootstrapping implemented in experiments? Specifically, what values are used a_low and a_high in equation 3 for all the different experiments? These details seem important to include in main or supplemental given that w/o random has a 0% success rate. 
4. How frequently is the random action bootstrapping done? Would be a good point to add to the method (Sec 3.2) if this is a consistent number, or to the experiments if this is a hyperparameter.
5. Please provide details on how 'random extra' is performed. How many times extra do you do the random action bootstrapping? 
6. For each experiment, it would be good to note the number of iterations of self-supervised exploration used (N in Algorithm 1). 
7. If time permits, it would be good to understand the dependency of the policy during training on the model: What happens if the video model changes the sample rate it produces frames after the policy has been trained? For example, once the policy is trained, if the video model that is used changes to a pretrained model, does the policy produce viable actions? A simple experiment to run for this would be to just use the current trained policy, and replace the video model at test time, and see if the policy can still work. 

Additional minor comments:
1. Would be good to include more details in the caption for Figure 2. What are these pairs of images showing (the start and goal image of the task or something else)?
2. Please mention the metric you use to evaluate the ‘success’ or ‘failure’ of a rollout? Is there some check in the simulation environment? 
3. Typo line #147: should say ‘benefits both sides’
4. Typo line #423: should say ‘natural’ not ‘nature’
5. Line #314: Sure the video-model is zero-shot but the policy requires self-supervised training afterwards, so just change this sentence so it doesn't over-claim.
</content>
</thread_object>

</thread>
<thread>
creation date:
1730622685052

thread_type:
official_review

<thread_object>
creator: reviewer_foxm

<content>
summary:
This paper introduces a method to "distill" a video-diffusion model to a goal-conditioned  policy for robot manipulation. The authors proposed to leverage the conditional generation capability of video generative models to sample future trajectories as goals for refining the goal-conditioned policy, which can gradually align its action prediction with the actual ground truth. The resulting method achieves state-of-the-art results on several commonly-used benchmarks.

strengths:
The paper is clearly written and easy to follow, the method proposed achieves state-of-the-art results on several commonly used datasets with consistent improvement. The ablation study does show the effect of each designed module.

weaknesses:
One concern about the proposed method lies in the selection of video-guidance. As assumed in this paper, a good enough conditional video generative model is key in improving the goal-conditioned policy in the iterative refining process. This leads to questions on the availability of such models for specific tasks with limited demonstrations. Though the authors mentioned leveraging pre-trained text-to-video models could be discussed in the future, it seems necessary even at the current scope (or if there is other work arounds or model performance guarantees on the data needed for a good enough task specific video generator).

questions:
See the weakness section.
</content>
</thread_object>

</thread>
<thread>
creation date:
1730669859065

thread_type:
official_review

<thread_object>
creator: reviewer_bejr

<content>
summary:
This paper presents a framework for grounding large pretrained video models to actions within an embodied environment through self-exploration. By generating visual goals from video states, the authors propose a goal-conditioned exploration strategy that allows agents to solve complex tasks without needing external supervision like rewards or action labels. A set of methods, including chunked action prediction and exploration with randomized exploration, are proposed to enable robust exploration. The proposed method is validated on several simulated environments, such as Libero, MetaWorld, Calvin, and iTHOR, where it demonstrates performance on par with or exceeding that of behavior cloning baselines trained on expert demonstrations.

strengths:
1. The unsupervised grounding of video models to actions eliminates the dependency on expensive action annotations, efficiently addressing the problem of mapping video-based observations to actionable policies.
2. The proposed method achieves strong performances across multiple evaluation environments, outperforming supervised methods in quantitative and qualitative resutls. Besides, the method show adaptability across different domains, from robotic manipulation to visual navigations, demonstrating the robustness and generalization ability.
3. The ablation studies are comprehensive, demonstrating the effectiveness of the each proposed components.
4. Video-guided exploration allows the agent to focus on task-relevant state spaces, resulting in more targeted exploration and more effective data collection. This targeted approach enables the model to gather high-quality training data efficiently, especially for complex, long-horizon tasks that would otherwise require extensive manual annotation.

weaknesses:
This paper is well-written with strong motivation and comprehensive evluation results. I only have some minor weakness and questions.

1. The reliance on random exploration may not be able to achieve high performance in tasks requiring high precision, such as tasks involving fine-grained manipulation or exact positioning. This approach may struggle to find optimal actions in environments where precise control is crucial, limitations is applications.
2. The proposed method is highly rely on the quality and generalization ability of the pretrained video generation models. If these models fail to generalize well to new environments, the effectiveness of the approach could be significantly constrained, especially in dynamic or unfamiliar settings.
3. The computational requirements might be high due to the chunk-level action prediction.
4. In algorithm 1, line 10-12 lacks an indentation, making it hard to read what is the condition and what is the content of the end-if sentence.

questions:
1. Would the computational efficiency be improved by using distilled video diffusion models, which could generate videos in a very fast manner? Would the distilled models affect the performance of the proposed method?
2. Given the reliance on the pretrained video generation model, how does the framework handle cases where the video model’s generalization is limited? Are there specific techniques that could be employed to improve the model’s adaptability to novel or dynamic environments?
</content>
</thread_object>

</thread>
<thread>
creation date:
1732762948015

thread_type:
official_comment

<thread_object>
creator: authors

<content>
title:
General Response by Authors

comment:
Dear Reviewers,

We sincerely thank all reviewers for the detailed reviews as well as positive and constructive feedback. As the discussion period is drawing to a close, we would like to summarize the changes we have made to our paper:

1. We conducted experiments on policy robustness by using video models of different sampling rates at test time. Experiment results and analysis are detailed in Appendix A.8.
2. We provided comprehensive implementation details of random action bootstrapping with the specific hyperparameters used for each environment. These details can be found in Appendix D.3.
3. We added the description of the task success metric in Appendix D.4.
4. We revised Algorithm 1 accordingly to improve clarity.
5. We fixed all the identified typos and updated the manuscript in line with each writing suggestion.

We believe that these revisions along with the per reviewer response have adequately addressed each listed concern. We deeply appreciate your time and effort in reviewing our manuscript and reading our response. Your feedback is invaluable for us to improve our manuscript. Please let us know if you have any further questions -- we would be very happy to  discuss and address them.



Thanks,  
Paper Authors
</content>
</thread_object>

</thread>


Metareview:
metareview:
The paper proposes a novel approach to grounding video models to actions through goal-conditioned exploration, which is a good contribution to the field of embodied AI. The authors have addressed most of the concerns raised by the reviewers in a satisfactory manner.  The proposed method has shown good performance and potential for further development. Minor remaining issues do not outweigh the paper's strengths and contributions. Therefore, the paper is recommended for acceptance.