While the shortage of explicit action data limits Vision-Language-Action (VLA) models, human action videos offer a scalable yet unlabeled data source. A critical challenge in utilizing large-scale human video datasets lies in transforming visual signals into ontology-independent representations, known as latent actions. However, the capacity of latent action representation to derive robust control from visual observations has yet to be rigorously evaluated. We introduce the Latent Action Representation Yielding (LARY) Benchmark, a unified framework for evaluating latent action representations on both high-level semantic actions (what to do) and low-level robotic control (how to do). The comprehensively curated dataset encompasses over one million videos (1,000 hours) spanning 151 action categories, alongside 620K image pairs and 595K motion trajectories across diverse embodiments and environments. Our experiments reveal two crucial insights: (i) General visual foundation models, trained without any action supervision, consistently outperform specialized embodied latent action models. (ii) Latent-based visual space is fundamentally better aligned to physical action space than pixel-based space. These results suggest that general visual representations inherently encode action-relevant knowledge for physical control, and that semantic-level abstraction serves as a fundamentally more effective pathway from vision to action than pixel-level reconstruction.
Figures & tables
Figure 1: LARYBench evaluates vision-to-action transformation on both action generalization and robotic control.
Figure 2: Overall pipeline of our benchmark LARY. First, (a) we construct a comprehensive dataset featuring both atomic and composite actions across varied domains to support classification and regression tasks. Next, (b) we extract the continuous latent action z using various representation paradigms, also highlighting the integration of pre-trained general vision encoders within the VQ-VAE training architecture. Finally, (c) we evaluate these representations utilizing probe-based classification and latent-conditioned regression to quantify their semantic separability (Accuracy) and physical dynamics modeling capabilities (MSE), respectively.
Figure 3: Data curation process for LARY-Bench. To efficiently transform diverse raw videos into standardized evaluation tasks, we integrate a Vision-Language Model (VLM) with robust spatio-temporal video understanding capabilities. The VLM serves as the core reasoning agent for temporal video segmentation and semantic action alignment.
Model
Paradigm
Params(M)
Classification Accuracy ↑
Avg.
Atomic Robot
Composite Human
Composite Robot
V-JEPA2 ( Assran et al., 2025 )
Semantic Encoder
303.89
76.62
79.09
80.35
70.43
DINOv3 ( Siméoni et al., 2025 )
303.13
68.68
60.79
76.19
69.06
Wan2.2 ( Wan et al., 2025 )
Pixel Encoder
704.69
49.36
14.91
67.77
65.39
FLUX.2-dev ( Labs, 2024 )
84.05
47.48
51.95
46.12
44.36
LAPA ( Ye et al., 2024 )
Embodied LAM
343.80
20.17
22.27
14.61
23.64
Table 1: Action Classification results of latent action representations. Avg. denotes the mean accuracy across Atomic Robot, Composite Human, and Composite Robot. Best results are in bold and second best are underlined .
Model
Paradigm
Params(M)
Regression MSE ↓
Avg.
CALVIN
VLABench
RoboCOIN
AgiBotWorld-Beta
V-JEPA 2 ( Assran et al., 2025 )
Semantic Encoder
303.89
0.25
0.27
0.07
0.32
0.33
DINOv3 ( Siméoni et al., 2025 )
303.13
0.19
0.22
0.06
0.22
0.24
Wan2.2 ( Wan et al., 2025 )
Pixel Encoder
704.69
0.30
0.39
0.09
0.34
0.39
FLUX.2-dev ( Labs, 2024 )
84.05
0.35
0.25
0.04
0.47
0.62
LAPA ( Ye et al., 2024 )
Embodied LAM
343.80
0.97
0.96
0.95
0.96
1.00
Table 2: Action Regression results of latent action representations. Avg. is the mean MSE across all datasets. Best results are in bold and second best are underlined .
Figure 4: Performance Evolution of Latent Action Models. The (*) denotes the default quantization settings for LAPA-DINOv3 ( cs=8,sl=16,dim=32 ). cs , sl , and dim represent Codebook Size, Sequence Length and Latent Dimension respectively. Composite Human classification on the left and AgiBotWorld-Beta AgiBot-World-Contributors et al. (2025) regression on the right.
Codebook Size
Recon Loss
Codebook Utilization (%)
Accuracy (Composite task) ↑
MSE (AgiBotWorld-Beta) ↓
Human
Robot
8
0.00808
100.0
71.31
64.89
0.88
64
0.00751
100.0
70.15
64.04
0.83
256
0.00758
89.5
69.84
63.82
0.85
Table 3: Ablation on Codebook Size. Default settings are Sequence Length = 49, Latent Dimension = 256. Best results are in bold and second best are underlined .
Sequence Length
Recon Loss
Codebook Utilization (%)
Accuracy (Composite task) ↑
MSE (AgiBotWorld-Beta) ↓
Human
Robot
16
0.00908
1.6
69.23
63.33
0.79
49
0.00751
100.0
70.15
64.04
0.83
64
0.00773
79.7
71.37
64.70
0.72
Table 4: Ablation on Sequence Length. Default settings are Codebook Size = 64, Latent Dimension = 256. Best results are in bold and second best are underlined .
Latent Dimension
Recon Loss
Codebook Utilization (%)
Accuracy (Composite task) ↑
MSE (AgiBotWorld-Beta) ↓
Human
Robot
32
0.01141
3.1
60.94
57.69
0.87
64
0.00967
100.0
66.94
63.07
0.83
256
0.00751
100.0
70.15
64.04
0.83
512
0.00732
1.6
71.25
64.97
0.80
1024
0.00670
84.4
72.55
65.78
0.81
Table 5: Ablation on Latent Dimension. Default settings are Codebook Size = 64, Sequence Length = 49. Best results are in bold and second best are underlined .
Figure 5: Action classification performance across the long-tail distribution of the Composite Human dataset. The background histogram indicates the number of samples per action class, sorted by descending frequency. Solid lines represent the moving average F1 scores, while transparent scatters denote exact class-wise scores.
Figure 6: Cross-attention heatmaps of the temporal pooler across various models for a 9-frame pour sequence. The spatial sequence length ( SL ) dictates visual granularity: SL=14∗14 yield fine-grained 14×14 heatmaps, whereas LAMs ( SL∈{4,16} ) produce blocky 2×2 or 4×4 attention regions. Temporally, T=9 models compute frame-by-frame attention; T=8 models extract pairwise latent actions (leaving the 9th frame unmodified); and models with temporal compression ( T∈{3,4} ) duplicate attention maps across their corresponding frame groups.
Model
Paradigm
Params(M)
Regression MSE ↓
stride=5
stride=15
stride=30
Avg.
V-JEPA 2 ( Assran et al., 2025 )
Semantic Encoder
303.89
0.07
0.13
0.16
0.12
DINOv3 ( Siméoni et al., 2025 )
303.13
0.06
0.20
0.25
0.17
Wan2.2 ( Wan et al., 2025 )
Pixel Encoder
704.69
0.09
0.16
0.24
0.16
FLUX.2-dev ( Labs, 2024 )
84.05
0.04
0.57
0.62
0.41
LAPA ( Ye et al., 2024 )
Embodied LAM
343.80
0.95
0.87
0.77
0.86
Table 6: Ablation study on VLABench ( Zhang et al., 2025b ) sampling stride. We report the regression MSE with sampling strides of 5, 15, and 30, and their average. Best results are in bold and second best are underlined .
Appendix figures & tables12 assets
Supplementary material from the paper’s appendix.
Appendix
Figure 1: Left: Overall composition of the LARYBench dataset. Reg. and Classi. represent regression and classification. Ego and Exo represent Egocentric and Exocentric. AgiBot-B, EPIC, and SSv2 represent AgiBotWorld-Beta [ Gao et al., 2025 ] , EPIC-KITCHENS [ Damen et al., 2020 ] , and Something-Somethingv2 [ Goyal et al., 2017 ] . Right: Duration distribution of all videos (Composite tasks).
Figure 2: Distribution of the action categories of the Atomic Robot , Composite Human , and Composite Robot datasets.
Figure 3: Word clouds illustrating the semantic diversity of the LARYBench dataset annotations. (a) Highlights the wide variety of actionable verbs indicating the interaction types, while (b) showcases the extensive range of nouns representing the manipulated objects across both human and robotic domains.
Figure 4: Representative examples of Kinematic Atomic Primitives from the Atomic Robot subset. The visualizations demonstrate precise, discrete end-effector movements and gripper state changes in structured exocentric environments.
Figure 5: Representative examples of Composite Human Behaviors.
Figure 6: Representative examples of Composite Robot Behaviors sourced from AgiBotWorld-Beta [ AgiBot-World-Contributors et al., 2025 ] .
Source Dataset
Domain
Viewpoint
Task Allocation
Data Format
Count
Proportion
Classification Track
LIBERO [ Liu et al., 2023 ]
Robot
Exo
Atomic
Image Pairs
25,940
2.1%
EgoDex [ Hoque et al., 2025 ]
Human
Ego
Composite
Video Clips
502,752
41.3%
SSv2 [ Goyal et al., 2017 ]
Human
Ego
Composite
Video Clips
106,911
8.8%
Ego4D [ Grauman et al., 2022 ]
Human
Ego
Composite
Video Clips
22,744
1.9%
HoloAssist [ Wang et al., 2023 ]
Human
Ego
Composite
Video Clips
10,825
0.9%
Appendix
Table 1: Detailed composition and statistics of the LARY Benchmark dataset. The dataset is divided into two primary tracks: Classification (including both composite videos and atomic image pairs) and Regression. Proportions are calculated independently for each track.
Figure 7: Cross-domain performance gap analysis across shared action categories. The heatmap visualizes the F1 score discrepancy ( ΔF1=Robot−Human ) between human and robot domains. Red regions highlight superior performance on human actions, whereas blue regions indicate better performance on the corresponding robot actions. Absolute F1 scores for Human (H) and Robot (R) are explicitly reported within each cell.
Figure 8: A case for the action catch .
Figure 9: A case for the action compress .
Figure 10: A case for the action plug .All models failed.
Visual-language action (VLA) models enable robots to predict actions directly from observations and language instructions, but their performance depends on large-scale, high-quality data and is limited by the scarcity of real-world robot action datasets. To facilitate VLA model learning with abundant unlabeled human videos, Latent Action Models (LAM) learn latent action representations from visual dynamics to provide additional supervision for VLA learning. However, LAM and VLA are typically trained separately, leaving LAM ungrounded during VLA training and VLA models constrained by frozen LAM representations. To address these issues, we propose Latent Action Representation Alignment (LARA), a plug-and-play framework that jointly optimizes LAM and VLA via representation alignment. This enables reciprocal benefits where LAMs learn with action trajectories to avoid spurious visual changes, while VLAs are regularized by forward dynamics learned within LAMs to reduce hallucinations of functionally ineffective trajectories. We demonstrate LARA versatility and effectiveness for pre-training, post-training enhancement of pre-trained VLA models, and LAM refinement, achieving an average of ~10%, ~5%, and ~15% improvement over 3 simulation and 1 meticulously designed real-world robotic manipulation benchmarks.
Mengya Liu, Baoxiong Jia, Jiangyong Huang +2
State Key Laboratory of General Artificial Intelligence, BIGAI · Peking University · Delta Intelligence
Latent actions serve as an intermediate representation that enables consistent modeling of vision-language-action (VLA) models across heterogeneous datasets. However, approaches to supervising VLAs with latent actions are fragmented and lack a systematic comparison. This work structures the study of latent action supervision from two perspectives: (i) regularizing the trajectory via image-based latent actions, and (ii) unifying the target space with action-based latent actions. Under a unified VLA baseline, we instantiate and compare four representative integration strategies. Our results reveal a formulation-task correspondence: image-based latent actions benefit long-horizon reasoning and scene-level generalization, whereas action-based latent actions excel at complex motor coordination. Furthermore, we find that directly supervising the VLM with discrete latent action tokens yields the most effective performance. Finally, our experiments offer initial insights into the benefits of latent action supervision in mixed-data, suggesting a promising direction for VLA training. Code is available at https://github.com/RUCKBReasoning/From_Pixels_to_Tokens.
Yihan Lin, Haoyang Li, Yang Li +4
School of Information, Renmin University of China, Beijing, China · Key Laboratory of Data Engineering and Knowledge Engineering, Beijing, China · Engineering Research Center of Database and Business Intelligence, Beijing, China
Recent progress in generalizable embodied control has been driven by large-scale pretraining of Vision-Language-Action (VLA) models. However, most existing approaches rely on large collections of robot demonstrations, which are costly to obtain and tightly coupled to specific embodiments. Human videos, by contrast, are abundant and capture rich interactions, providing diverse semantic and physical cues for real-world manipulation. Yet, embodiment differences and the frequent absence of task-aligned annotations make their direct use in VLA models challenging. This survey provides a unified view of how human videos are transformed into effective knowledge for VLA models. We categorize existing approaches into four classes based on the action-related information they derive: (i) latent action representations that encode inter-frame changes; (ii) predictive world models that forecast future frames; (iii) explicit 2D supervision that extracts image-plane cues; and (iv) explicit 3D reconstruction that recovers geometry or motion. Beyond this taxonomy, we highlight three key open challenges in this area: structuring unstructured videos into training-ready episodes, grounding video-derived supervision into robot-executable actions under embodiment and viewpoint heterogeneity, and designing evaluation protocols that better predict real-world deployment performance and transfer efficiency, thereby informing future research directions. A curated list of papers and resources is available at https://github.com/AaronFengZY/HumanCentricToVLA-Survey.
Zhiyuan Feng, Qixiu Li, Huizhi Liang +12
1Tsinghua University · 5Microsoft Research Asia · 2HKUST +4