Learning general-purpose robot policies requires large-scale real-world interaction data, yet collecting robot demonstrations remains expensive and difficult to scale. Egocentric videos offer abundant human interaction experience with task-relevant semantics for robotic manipulation, but direct transfer is challenging for two reasons: latent actions inferred from frame reconstruction can be dominated by nuisance variation such as ego-camera motion, and human and robot behaviors often exhibit different temporal dynamics. We propose WING (World Action Learning via INteraction-Centric Spectral Latent Guidance), a framework for transferring interaction knowledge from egocentric videos to robot policies. WING first separates observer-induced motion from hand-object interaction and distills the interaction-centric component into latent actions. It then exploits the observation that cross-embodiment task semantics are concentrated in slowly varying temporal structures, identifying shared low-frequency components between egocentric latent actions and robot behaviors in the spectral domain and using them to guide action generation. WING achieves average success rates of 99.20% on LIBERO, 93.80% on RoboTwin 2.0, and 57.7% on RoboCasa-GR1, and also performs strongly across four real-world manipulation tasks under diverse generalization settings. These results show that interaction-centric spectral guidance provides an effective and scalable way to transfer physical interaction knowledge from human egocentric video to robot control. Project page: https://mikuz12.github.io/wing/
Figures & tables
Figure 1: (a) Motivation: Egocentric videos provide rich interaction experience, but transferring this knowledge to robot policies remains challenging. We aim to extract transferable latent actions from egocentric data for robot learning. (b) Method: WING learns interaction-centric latent actions, extracts low-frequency temporal structure in the frequency domain, and uses it as guidance for robot action generation. (c) Performance: WING consistently achieves strong performance among the compared methods across simulation and real-world benchmarks.
Figure 2: Overview of WING. WING first learns interaction-centric latent actions that reduce observer-induced variation while preserving interaction dynamics. It then extracts low-frequency temporal structure with stronger correspondence across human and robot executions and predicts this structure from the current context as guidance for robot action generation.
Figure 3: Characterizing interaction structure in egocentric latent actions. (a) Camera-motion and interaction-motion decodability measured by MLP-probe R2 . (b) Normalized latent sensitivity under progressively stronger camera-motion perturbations. (c) Average action-category classification accuracy using frozen latent representations across the LARYBench ( Nie et al., 2026 ) egocentric datasets. (d) Cross-embodiment semantic similarity of low-frequency, high-frequency, and full latent-action trajectories for semantically matched and mismatched human–robot pairs.
Method
Avg. SR
GR00T-N1.6
47.6
StarVLA-OFT
48.8
DiT4DiT
50.8
LDA-1B
55.4
Being-H0.7
49.2
FastWAM †
51.9
Table 1: RoboCasa–GR1 Tabletop. Best in bold ; second-best underlined . † denotes our reproduced results.
Method
Spatial
Object
Goal
Long
Avg.
VLAs
π0 ( Black et al., 2024 )
98.00
96.80
94.40
88.40
94.40
π0.5 ( Intelligence et al., 2025 )
98.80
98.20
98.00
92.40
96.90
Latent-Action Based Methods
LAPA ( Ye et al., 2025 )
73.80
74.60
58.80
55.40
65.70
UniVLA ( Bu et al., 2025 )
96.50
96.80
95.60
92.00
95.20
Table 2: Simulation results on LIBERO and RoboTwin 2.0. Success rate (%). The best and second-best results in each column are shown in bold and underline , respectively.
Figure 4: Real-world task evaluation results. We evaluate different robot foundation models on both standard and generalization settings across four real-world manipulation tasks. Our method achieves consistently strong performance, achieving the strongest standard-setting performance and remaining competitive under generalization.
Method
LIBERO
Real-World
WING-LAM
DCT
Spatial
Object
Goal
Long
Base
Gen.
✗
✗
99.2
97.2
96.2
92.6
65.0
36.0
✓
✗
98.0
99.2
95.6
94.2
67.5
40.3
✗
✓
99.2
98.2
98.0
96.2
71.3
43.0
✓
✓
99.6
100.0
99.2
96.2
72.5
45.0
Table 3: Ablation on LIBERO and Real-World. We report SR on these tasks.
Figure 5: Analysis of spectral guidance and egocentric pretraining strategies. (a) Effect of the number of retained DCT components K on latent guidance. (b) Comparison of different egocentric pretraining strategies including video-only pretraining, hand-pose supervision, direct latent-action pretraining, and spectral latent guidance, with additional variants to evaluate the effect of interaction-centric debiasing, across LIBERO and real-world tasks.
Figure 6: Examples of matched ego–robot interaction pairs. Each group shows two frames from an egocentric clip and two frames from its semantically matched robot clip.
Figure 7: Real-world tasks setup. The left panel shows the robot platform and sensing setup; the remaining panels show base-setting executions of Pack Objects, Stack Cups, Battery Insertion, and Long-Horizon Battery Assembly.
Task
Sub-goals
Score
Pack Objects
Pack one object
3.0
Pack two objects
6.0
Pack three objects
10.0
Stack Cups
Place the left base cup
3.0
Place the right base cup
5.0
Place the top cup
7.5
Appendix
Table 5: Stage-wise scores distinguish partial progress from task completion. Each task receives a maximum score of 10.
Ridge
MLP
RFF
Representation
Rcam2
Rint2
Rcam2
Rint2
Rcam2
Rint2
EgoDex
DreamDojo
0.32 ± 0.04
0.12 ± 0.08
0.70 ± 0.05
0.25 ± 0.04
0.54 ± 0.08
0.17 ± 0.02
CD-LAM
0.54 ± 0.03
0.12 ± 0.00
0.71 ± 0.05
0.21 ± 0.02
0.56 ± 0.08
0.17 ± 0.03
LAPA
-0.23 ± 0.05
0.02 ± 0.07
-0.27 ± 0.04
-0.03 ± 0.01
-0.23 ± 0.00
0.02 ± 0.00
VILLA-X
-0.03 ± 0.06
-0.41 ± 0.05
0.07 ± 0.02
-0.32 ± 0.06
-0.03 ± 0.01
-0.59 ± 0.01
Appendix
Table 6: WING-LAM provides complementary camera- and interaction-factor readout across datasets. We report held-out R2 for camera and interaction targets using Ridge, MLP, and RFF probes. WING-LAM’s representations exhibit weak camera readout while retaining strong interaction readout, whereas its camera representation exhibits the opposite pattern. Camera targets are ground-truth 6D head pose for EgoDex and image-space camera-motion proxies for EgoVerse and Ego4D. Each ± value denotes the half-width of a 95% grouped-bootstrap confidence interval. Among interaction representations, bold and underlined values mark the lowest and second-lowest Rcam2 and the highest and second-highest Rint2 , respectively, within each dataset and probe.
Model
WING-LAM
DreamDojo
CD-LAM
LAPA
UniVLA
VILLA-X
Ego4D
64.13
60.92
60.67
21.02
15.22
14.80
EPIC-KITCHENS
40.57
40.65
41.19
17.58
9.95
10.35
HoloAssist
48.41
46.23
48.95
22.40
15.84
20.69
EgoDex
68.77
65.92
62.95
22.56
17.43
17.20
Avg.
55.47
53.43
53.44
20.89
14.61
15.76
Appendix
Table 7: Comparison of different latent action models across four datasets.
Figure 8: Qualitative visualization of interaction motion decoded from WING-LAM.
Figure 9: Bandwidth gap between egocentric and robot data.
Figure 10: Action-semantic organization across temporal frequency bands.
Method
Median
P95
π0.5
90.6
93.8
GR00T
63.4
67.3
FastWAM
229.0
234.2
FastWAM-Joint
510.1
515.4
Cosmos-Policy
845.6
852.3
Motus
1532.8
1551.6
Appendix
Table 8: Policy inference latency on a single NVIDIA RTX 4090 GPU. We report the median and P95 latency over repeated runs. All values are in milliseconds.
Figure 12: Downstream data efficiency. We compare downstream performance with and without egocentric pretraining using different fractions of robot training data. Pretraining consistently improves success rates on both LIBERO and the real-world standard setting, with larger gains as the amount of downstream data decreases.
Task
GR00T-N1.6
StarVLA-OFT
DiT4DiT
LDA-1B
FastWAM †
Ours
BottleToCabinetClose
51.5
30.0
48.0
76.0
76.0
66.0
CanToDrawerClose
13.0
76.0
74.0
71.0
78.0
90.0
CupToDrawerClose
8.5
44.0
52.0
41.0
22.0
44.0
MilkToMicrowaveClose
14.0
44.0
50.0
52.0
68.0
58.0
PotatoToMicrowaveClose
41.5
32.0
36.0
41.0
46.0
38.0
WineToCabinetClose
16.5
36.0
42.0
57.0
70.0
62.0
Appendix
Table 10: Full RoboCasa–GR1 tabletop results. Per-task success rate (%). Published per-task baseline entries are transcribed from the corresponding method papers. † denotes our FastWAM reproduction.
π0.5
FastWAM
GigaWorld-Policy
LingBot-VA
Motus
LaWAM
Ours
Task
Clean
Rand.
Clean
Rand.
Clean
Rand.
Clean
Rand.
Clean
Rand.
Clean
Rand.
Clean
Rand.
Adjust Bottle
100
99
100
100
100
100
90
94
89
93
100
100
100
100
Beat Block Hammer
96
93
99
97
86
86
96
98
95
88
90
93
99
98
Blocks Ranking RGB
92
85
100
100
92
96
99
98
99
97
97
100
99
99
Blocks Ranking Size
49
26
94
98
44
48
94
96
75
63
93
89
87
82
Click Alarmclock
98
89
100
100
100
100
99
100
100
100
100
100
100
100
Appendix
Table 11: RoboTwin 2.0 per-task success rates. Clean and randomized success rates (%) across 50 tasks, evaluated over 100 trials per task under each setting.
Task
Generalization Setting
FastWAM
GR00T-N1.7
π0.5
Ours
SR (%)
Score
SR (%)
Score
SR (%)
Score
SR (%)
Score
Battery Insertion
Background
50.0
7.30
40.0
6.00
70.0
8.75
60.0
8.50
Appearance
10.0
3.60
5.0
3.00
35.0
7.00
40.0
8.00
Spatial Layout
20.0
4.50
15.0
4.00
60.0
8.50
50.0
8.00
Avg.
26.7
5.13
20.0
4.33
55.0
8.08
50.0
8.17
Battery Assembly
Background
10.0
3.00
5.0
2.50
10.0
4.60
10.0
5.00
Appendix
Table 12: Detailed real-world generalization results. We report success rate (SR, %) and average task score under different visual and spatial generalization settings.
Figure 13: Qualitative results under the standard setting. From top to bottom, we illustrate four base tasks: Pack Objects, Stack Cups, Battery Insertion, and Battery Assembly.
Figure 14: Qualitative results for Pack Objects under generalization settings.
Figure 15: Qualitative results for Stack Cups under generalization settings.
Figure 16: Qualitative results for Battery Insertion under generalization settings.
Figure 17: Qualitative results for Battery Assembly under generalization settings.
Human egocentric video captures rich manipulation demonstrations without any robot hardware, yet transferring these skills to robots remains challenging due to the embodiment gap between human and robot in both visual appearance and kinematics. We present HumanEgo, a framework that bridges the embodiment gap by lifting each human demonstration to an entity-level representation of hand-object interaction, and training a flow matching policy with dense auxiliary objectives that amplify supervision from every trajectory. HumanEgo is robot-data-free, hardware-agnostic, data-efficient, and zero-shot human-to-robot transferable. With only 30 minutes of human videos per task, HumanEgo achieves 92.5% average success across four real-world tasks (75% with just 15 minutes), outperforms matched-time robot teleoperation by 41%, and robustly transfers zero-shot across novel robots, cameras, and environments. We release HumanEgo as an easy-to-use, open-source framework for learning robot policies directly from human data: https://github.com/TX-Leo/HumanEgo
Robot data is scarce, so generalist policies need to learn from heterogeneous sources, including human egocentric video, simulation, and real robots, which differ in supervision and embodiment, with action labels missing or mutually incompatible. Human egocentric data scale best but sit farthest from robot data, and naive pooling causes negative transfer rather than knowledge sharing. We propose JoyAI-RA 0.5, a generalist Vision-Language-World-Action (VLWA) framework that couples physical world-dynamics priors with visual semantics and scales manipulation learning across such data via dual action alignment. Implicit action alignment infers latent actions from visual transitions, enabling action-free human, simulation, and robot data to guide a latent-action-conditioned world model in learning physical dynamics. Explicit alignment grounds reliable human and robot trajectories in a unified physical action space through a canonical action representation and camera-frame chunk-relative end-effector actions. An inner-outer-loop reinforcement stage then pairs efficient task adaptation with foundation-policy improvement. On a real-world AgiBot benchmark, JoyAI-RA performs strongly on both seen tasks and unseen variations. The task score improves consistently as the volume of human egocentric pretraining data increases and shows no sign of plateauing at our largest scale. This suggests that abundant but weakly labeled human experience can be converted into a transferable training signal, making human video not merely a weak auxiliary source but a primary axis along which manipulation capability can be scaled. Project page can be found at https://joyai-ra-05.github.io/.
Egocentric human data offer a path to scaling robot learning beyond costly robot demonstrations, yet the embodiment gap makes raw human trajectories a poor supervisory target for control. Our key insight is that, although low-level actions are embodiment-specific, their underlying motion intent can capture task-relevant structure that transfers across humans and robots. We introduce EgoLAP, a VLA pre-training framework that jointly learns from human and robot trajectories through a shared language-based action chain-of-thought. EgoLAP expresses motion intent as structured, temporally abstracted language actions and pairs them with motion-level reasoning grounded in scene geometry, physics, and object affordances. Across extensive real-world and simulated experiments, EgoLAP transfers human experience to robot control more effectively than alternative action representations and reaches 80.1% mean real-world task progress, a 2.3x performance gain over alternative action representations. Motion-level reasoning also outperforms a composite reasoning format that combines subtask, object-box, and visual-trace reasoning.
Lihan Zha, Shresth Grover, Tenny Yin +7
Princeton University · Toyota Research Institute · Physical Intelligence