The Embodiment Gap in Robot Foundation Models
Organizations: National Institute of Advanced Industrial Science and Technology (AIST), Japan
Abstract
Robot foundation models (RFMs), including vision-language-action (VLA) policies, are often discussed through a scaling view: more data, larger models, and broader benchmarks should improve generalization. In robotics, however, a model can generalize while work still remains before it can run on a robot with a particular body. The work required differs across methods and target robots, and those differences affect practical deployment. We call the gap between reusable models, representations, or data and their use in execution on the target robot the embodiment gap. This survey examines what can be reused across robot embodiments and what must still be implemented on a new robot. We place existing methods on a two-axis map that shows the type of shared structure and the stage at which adaptation is needed for execution on the target robot. We then examine recent work through three overlapping research directions: sharing semantics and perception, sharing robot data and interfaces, and learning correspondence across embodiments. We also propose a reporting framework for adaptation work that success rate alone does not reveal. The framework identifies the work that should be checked when comparing cross-embodiment learning and highlights work that remains on a new robot and questions for future study.
Figures & tables
| Item | What to report | Why it matters |
|---|---|---|
| Source robot(s) / source setting | Robot(s), sensors, control system, pretraining setting | Establishes the source conditions |
| Target robot | Body, sensors, task environment | Establishes the execution conditions |
| Shared structure | Plans, representations, skills | Shows what is reused |
| Modified components | Head, adapter, decoder, control system | Shows what is changed for the target robot |
| Target-robot data | Demonstrations, adaptation trials, recovery data | Shows experience used for adaptation |
| Model updates | Frozen components, adapter/LoRA, full fine-tuning | Shows the scope and cost of updating |
| System | Shared structure and connection to target robot | Target data / model update | Setup / operation | Safety / intervention / recovery | Visible work on target robot |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| RT-X / OXE | Multi-robot data robot-specific actions | Large mixed dataset; shared policy | Data and control conventions | Resets and safety mostly N/R | Differences across robots and adaptation costs remain visible |
| Octo | Generalist policy target interface | Target data and adaptation | Controller alignment | Intervention and recovery N/R | Connection to the target robot remains |
| OpenVLA | 7B VLA + action tokens FT/LoRA | 10–150 demonstrations; full FT or LoRA | Control rate partly reported | Qualitative recovery; counts N/R | Decoder and control-rate work |
| RoboCat / | Generalist backbone robot/task adaptation | RoboCat: 100–1000 examples; : FT data | Setup N/R | Safety and resets N/R | Zero-shot and fine-tuned regimes are mixed |
| Track2Act | Point tracks and object motion residual policy | 400 Spot teleoperation trajectories; residual-policy BC | Depth and transform fitting | Failure modes reported; counts N/R | A target-robot residual policy is still required |
| MOTIF | Action motifs few-shot transfer | 1–50 shots; motif-conditioned policy | Setup largely N/R | Operation and safety N/R | Operating cost remains a reporting question |
Appendix figures & tables8 assets
Supplementary material from the paper’s appendix.
Appendix
| Boundary case | Why the case is near the boundary | Treatment in this survey |
|---|---|---|
| Body Transformer | This policy uses body structure and sits outside the usual VLA definition. | Included as morphology-aware sharing of actions and skills. |
| GET-Zero | It generates policies conditioned on a body graph. | Included as a morphology-aware method. |
| RodriNet | This kinematic mechanism lies outside a narrow definition of an RFM. | Included as a correspondence mechanism close to execution. |
| Tactile and force methods | These methods may lie outside VLA and directly address contact information. | Included because they make contact-rich execution visible. |
| Common APIs and control interfaces | These infrastructure components determine whether shared structure can be executed. | Included as connections needed to run shared structure on a target robot. |
| Object flow and point tracking | They can be read as visual cues or as correspondence across embodiments. | Included as methods that share changes in objects or scenes. |
| Concept | Example outside the main scope | Example treated as part of the embodiment gap |
|---|---|---|
| Domain shift | Only lighting, background, or object appearance changes on the same robot. | A different robot changes appearance together with reach, grasp, or control conditions. |
| Task adaptation | The same robot learns a new procedure or task. | The same goal requires a different grasp or motion on another body. |
| Sim-to-real | The same robot is transferred from simulation to hardware and only the physical domain changes. | Sim-to-real transfer is combined with transfer to a different robot embodiment, together with changes in the control interface or contact conditions. |
| System integration | General wiring, configuration, and implementation. | Calibration, control connection, and safety checks needed to run a shared policy or representation on a new robot. |
| Action-space mismatch | Only the output format differs. | The same action representation produces different contact or recovery problems on another robot. |
| Transfer learning | General reuse across domains or tasks. | Transferred structure must be made executable again under the body and control system of the target robot. |
| Stage | What is primarily shared | Interpretation for placement |
|---|---|---|
| Semantic / Task | Goals, instructions, plans | The desired outcome is shared, while the physical action remains unspecified. |
| Perception / Affordance | Cues about objects and places for action | The target or location is known, but it must be converted into motion on the target robot. |
| Object Interaction | How manipulation should change an object or scene | The desired change is shared, while the action and contact that produce it depend on the embodiment. |
| Action / Skill | Latent actions, action tokens, skills, trajectories | Action structure close to execution is shared, but it must be connected to the target robot’s action space. |
| Morphology-Aware Sharing | Body graphs, kinematics, body-specific conditions | Body differences are represented inside the policy to generate actions closer to the target robot. |
| Stage | Work that primarily remains |
|---|---|
| Skill / API Connection | Connect plans or meaning to skills, functions, or planners that the target robot can actually call. |
| Calibration / Control Interface Alignment | Convert model outputs into commands that have the intended meaning in the action space and controller of the target robot. |
| Contact / Force Execution | Turn a spatially valid motion into physical contact, such as grasping or insertion, and correct deviations during contact. |
| Safety / Recovery | Stop safely after failures or disturbances and continue through retrying or recovery. |
| System / method group | Primary shared structure | Where work remains | Research direction | Placement rationale |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| SayCan | Semantic / Task | Skill / API Connection | Semantics and perception | Shares language-level task structure; the target robot still needs to connect each candidate to an executable skill. |
| RT-2 / PaLM-E | Semantic / Task | Skill / API Connection | Semantics and perception | Shares semantic and vision-language knowledge from web data; the target robot still needs to connect that knowledge to available actions or skills. |
| CLIPort / PerAct | Perception / Affordance | Calibration / Control Interface Alignment | Semantics and perception | Shares spatial cues about objects and places for action; the target robot still needs to align the output with motion generation and its control interface. |
| RT-Affordance / RoboPoint / VoxPoser | Perception / Affordance | Contact / Force Execution | Semantics and perception | Shares affordances or spatial cues for interaction; the target robot still needs to realize those cues as a stable grasp or contact. |
| VPP / FlowDreamer | Perception / Affordance | Calibration / Control Interface Alignment | Semantics and perception / cross-embodiment correspondence | Shares visual temporal change predicted from video or flow; the target robot still needs to convert it into executable actions and align them with its controller. |
| DROID / LeRobot / RoboMIND | Action / Skill | Calibration / Control Interface Alignment | Robot data and interfaces | Reuses robot experience and trajectories in common formats; the target robot still needs to map the action representation in the data to its own control system. |
| Item | Information to report when available |
|---|---|
| Target-robot data | Demonstrations, adaptation trials, failure and recovery data |
| Model updates | Frozen components, adapter/LoRA, decoder, full fine-tuning |
| Calibration and setup | Cameras, coordinate frames, gripper, control rate, workspace |
| Real-robot operation | Robot time, resets, reruns |
| Safety, intervention, and recovery | Stops, unsafe contact, manual or autonomous recovery |
| Evaluation rollouts | Held-out rollouts, tasks, seeds, success criteria |
| Item | Information identifiable from public materials | Reading through the embodiment gap |
|---|---|---|
| Source robot(s) / source setting | Pretraining on Open X-Embodiment and reported out-of-box settings | Starting point of the shared VLA backbone and action tokens |
| Target robot | Fine-tuning setting on Franka | Conditions for execution on the target robot |
| Shared structure | 7B VLA backbone and tokenized actions | Components reused across settings |
| Modified components | Full fine-tuning or LoRA adaptation | Components changed for the target robot |
| Target-robot data | 10–150 demonstrations per Franka task across seven tasks | Target-robot experience used for adaptation |
| Model updates | Full fine-tuning or LoRA; rank-32 LoRA trains a subset of parameters | Update cost is partly visible |
| Observed failure | Primary cause | Secondary cause |
|---|---|---|
| Object flow is correct, but the gripper slips | Execution on the target robot | Correspondence across embodiments |
| The predicted interaction point is outside the reachable workspace | Correspondence across embodiments | Execution on the target robot |
| The action token does not match the control rate | Robot data and interfaces | Execution on the target robot |
| The task plan is correct, but no usable skill is available | Semantics and perception | Skill / API connection |