WM-DAgger: Enabling Efficient Data Aggregation for Imitation Learning with World Models
Authors: Anlan Yu, Zaishu Chen, Peili Song, Zhiqing Hong, Haotian Wang, Desheng Zhang, Tian He, Yi Ding, +1 more
Organizations: Peking University, Beijing, China · JD Logistics, China · Nankai University, Tianjin, China · The Hong Kong University of Science and Technology (Guangzhou), China · Rutgers University, Piscataway, USA · the University of Texas at Dallas, Richardson, TX, USA · Institut Polytechnique de Paris, France
Imitation learning is a powerful paradigm for training robotic policies, yet its performance is limited by compounding errors: minor policy inaccuracies could drive robots into unseen out-of-distribution (OOD) states in the training set, where the policy could generate even bigger errors, leading to eventual failures. While the Data Aggregation (DAgger) framework tries to address this issue, its reliance on continuous human involvement severely limits scalability. In this paper, we propose WM-DAgger, an efficient data aggregation framework that leverages World Models to synthesize OOD recovery data without requiring human involvement. Specifically, we focus on manipulation tasks with an eye-in-hand robotic arm and only few-shot demonstrations. To avoid synthesizing misleading data and overcome the hallucination issues inherent to World Models, our framework introduces two key mechanisms: (1) a Corrective Action Synthesis Module that generates task-oriented recovery actions to prevent misleading supervision, and (2) a Consistency-Guided Filtering Module that discards physically implausible trajectories by anchoring terminal synthesized frames to corresponding real frames in expert demonstrations. We extensively validate WM-DAgger on multiple real-world robotic tasks. Results that our method significantly improves success rates, achieving a 93.3% success rate in soft bag pushing with only five demonstrations. The source code is publicly available at https://github.com/czs12354-xxdbd/WM-Dagger.
Figures & tables
Fig. 1 : WM-DAgger mitigates the compounding errors of standard Behavioral Cloning (BC) by generating massive recovery supervision with a world model. (e.g., visual transitions a→b→c and d→e→f ).
Fig. 2 : Overall pipeline of our WM-DAgger framework.
Fig. 3 : EAC-WM Architecture.
Fig. 4 : Corrective Action Synthesis Module.
Fig. 5 : Consistency-Guided Filtering Module and Visualization of Real, Filtered, and Retained Frames. Frames with morphing and incorrect object position are filtered.
Fig. 6 : Experimental setup and manipulation tasks. (a) Hardware configuration for data collection, featuring a handheld gripper integrated with a GoPro camera for visual observations and an HTC Vive Tracker for high-precision 6-DoF trajectory tracking. (b–e) The four evaluation tasks: (b) Soft Bag Pushing, (c) Pick-and-Place, (d) Ballot Insertion, and (e) Towel Folding.
Fig. 7 : Visualization results of EAC-WM-generated frames. Each row depicts a specific task, starting from the real expert frame It (first column). Subsequent columns ( I^t+k ) show synthesized observations conditioned on action sequences in six cardinal directions (right, left, up, down, forward, and backward).
Fig. 8 : Visual evaluation of EAC-WM versus DMD in generating soft bag pushing data. EAC-WM exhibits superior structural and physical consistency. Notably, at t=16, EAC-WM accurately simulates the dynamics of the bag dropping.
Method
1-shot
3-shot
5-shot
10-shot
20-shot
Standard BC
6.7
20.0
26.7
30.0
30.0
DMD [ 6 ]
13.3
33.3
40.0
53.3
56.7
Ours
73.3
86.7
93.3
93.3
96.7
TABLE I : Success Rates(%) for Task 1: Soft Bag Pushing across varying numbers of expert demonstrations.
Synthesized Samples
300
900
1500
3000
Success Rate (%)
46.7
63.3
96.7
96.7
TABLE II: Policy Performance vs. Data Scaling.
Method / Variant
Success Rate (%)
WM-DAgger (Ours Full)
96.7
Data Ablation
w/o Play Data
83.3
Module Ablation
w/o Filter
66.7
w/o Dir.
0.0
TABLE III : Ablation Studies for 20-shot Soft Bag Pushing.
Seen
Unseen
Method
O1
O2
O3
O4
O5
Standard BC
13.3
13.3
6.7
0.0
10.0
DMD
33.3
36.7
26.7
6.8
16.7
Ours
83.3
90.0
80.0
63.3
76.7
TABLE IV : Success Rates(%) for Task 2: Pick-and-Place.