RESTA: Time-Scaling Augmentation for Data-Efficient Robot Imitation Learning
Authors: Yunpeng Jiang, Jianshu Hu, Han Fang, Zhiyuan Guan, Paul Weng, Yutong Ban
Organizations: Global College, Shanghai Jiao Tong University, Shanghai, China · Shanghai Institute of Physical Intelligence and Robotics (PAIR), Shanghai, China · Duke Kunshan University, Jiangsu, China
Robot manipulation policies trained through imitation learning commonly rely on costly demonstrations recorded in one task direction and at one temporal resolution. We propose Reversal and Stride-based Trajectory Augmentation (RESTA), which exploits time-scaling data augmentation to improve data efficiency through trajectory reversal and temporal resampling. Trajectory-reversal augmentation reverses and relabels demonstrations between paired tasks with opposite objectives, reusing recorded rollouts without additional environment interaction. Because contact-rich manipulation is not exactly reversible, we treat reversal as an approximate paired-task prior rather than a physical symmetry. Temporal-stride augmentation varies observation and action sampling strides and conditions the policy on the resulting offsets, enabling fixed or randomized temporal schedules. Experiments across 16 paired bimanual manipulation tasks show that trajectory reversal is particularly effective in the low-data regime and that temporal-stride augmentation improves success under randomized temporal schedules. With 25 and 50 independently collected demonstrations per task, RESTA achieves 78.4% and 85.2% average success, respectively, matching or exceeding baselines trained with twice as many demonstrations (77.3% and 85.4%). These results show that RESTA can improve data efficiency in robot imitation learning.
Figures & tables
Figure 1: Overview and aggregate results for RESTA. Left: Open Laptop and Close Laptop trajectories illustrate a reversible task pair. Middle: time scaling is illustrated through trajectory reversal, which connects representative states across forward and reversed time, and temporal-stride augmentation, which samples a shared timeline uniformly or variably. Right: bars report mean evaluation success and approximate simulated duration over the 16-task suite; higher success and lower duration are preferred. Bn denotes DP3 trained with n native demonstrations per task, and RESTAn adds trajectory-reversal and temporal-stride augmentation.
Figure 2: Overview of RESTA. (a): paired task directions provide demonstrations that are reversed and relabeled to construct augmented datasets. (b): during training, sampled temporal offsets determine the observation and action samples and condition the policy. (c): at inference, a schedule selects action offsets, and the executed action chunk determines the observation spacing for the next policy cycle.
Task
B25
RESTA25
B50
RESTA50
B100
Place Fan
23
43
34
55
65
Remove Fan
87
96
92
99
99
Place Object Stand
43
58
61
79
80
Remove Object Stand
64
75
82
76
87
Place Empty Cup
47
77
77
91
93
Remove Empty Cup
91
97
90
100
100
Table 1: Main results on all 16 paired tasks at 3,000 training epochs. Bn is DP3 trained on n native trajectories. RESTAn is DP3 trained on the same n native trajectories and their offline time-reversed counterparts, with temporal-stride augmentation and observation-offset conditioning. The subscript counts independently collected trajectories; B2n is DP3 trained on 2n native trajectories. Bold text with blue shading marks the best result at each current budget; B100 is a reference upper bound and is not highlighted. Values are success rates (%). Higher is better.
Measure
B25
RESTA25
B50
RESTA50
B100
Policy actions
217.8
100.3
209.2
99.3
196.4
Physics steps
14251.3
9337.0
13223.3
9063.5
12879.4
Table 2: Average execution steps over the sixteen paired tasks. Each task mean uses all successful episodes. RESTA uses the rand offset schedule. Lower is better.
Appendix figures & tables8 assets
Supplementary material from the paper’s appendix.
Appendix
Component
Setting
Inputs
1,024 point-cloud points; 14-D robot state and action
Table 3: Model, optimization, and temporal-offset settings. The settings are shared across data budgets; augmentation is enabled only for the corresponding method variants.
Task pair
Forward task
Reverse task
Fan manipulation
Place Fan
Remove Fan
Object-stand manipulation
Place Object Stand
Remove Object Stand
Empty-cup manipulation
Place Empty Cup
Remove Empty Cup
Mug manipulation
Hang Mug
Unhang Mug
QR-code manipulation
Rotate QR Code
Rotate QR Code Back
Block handover
Handover Block
Handover Block Back
Appendix
Table 4: Forward tasks selected from RoboTwin 2.0 and their independently implemented reverse-task counterparts. Direction: not applicable; this table lists task correspondences.
Figure 3: Four-frame expert demonstrations for all sixteen tasks, arranged as eight paired rows with the two task directions side by side.
Task
B25
TR25
TSAO25
RESTA25
B50
TR50
TSAO50
RESTA50
B100
Place Fan
23
34
30
43
34
58
38
55
65
Remove Fan
87
82
100
96
92
85
100
99
99
Place Object Stand
43
61
50
58
61
72
67
79
80
Remove Object Stand
64
67
68
75
82
80
85
76
87
Place Empty Cup
47
83
71
77
77
74
85
91
93
Remove Empty Cup
91
94
95
97
90
98
99
100
100
Appendix
Table 5: Per-task data-efficiency comparison at 3,000 training epochs. Bn is DP3 trained with n native trajectories per task. TRn adds n time-reversed trajectories, while TSAOn uses only the n native trajectories with temporal-stride augmentation and observation-offset conditioning. RESTAn combines trajectory reversal with this augmentation. TSAO and RESTAn use the rand inference schedule. B100 is the larger-data reference and is not highlighted. Bold text with blue shading indicates the best result at each current budget. Values are success rates (%). Higher is better.
Task
B50
offset1
offset2
offset3
Place Fan
34
33
34
32
Remove Fan
92
100
100
100
Place Object Stand
61
66
67
63
Remove Object Stand
82
78
84
82
Place Empty Cup
77
79
85
87
Remove Empty Cup
90
97
97
98
Appendix
Table 6: Per-task success rates for the inference-schedule sweep in the n=50 setting, where n is the number of native trajectories per task. The baseline is DP3; the remaining columns use TSAO and the indicated inference schedule. Bold and blue shading indicate the best result for each task or average across both blocks. Values are success rates (%). Higher is better.
Task
B25
TSA25
TSAO25
B50
TSA50
TSAO50
Place Fan
23
18
30
34
30
38
Remove Fan
87
100
100
92
100
100
Place Object Stand
43
55
50
61
67
67
Remove Object Stand
64
66
68
82
81
85
Place Empty Cup
47
69
71
77
80
85
Remove Empty Cup
91
95
95
90
97
99
Appendix
Table 7: Per-task effect of temporal-stride augmentation and observation-offset conditioning at two trajectory budgets. The TSA and TSAO entries are the selected rand inference results from the corresponding budget-specific evaluations. For each n∈{25,50} , Bn is the baseline, TSAn uses temporal-stride augmentation with consecutive observations, and TSAOn additionally conditions on observation offsets. Bold text with blue shading indicates the best result within each budget for each task or average across tasks. Values are success rates (%). Higher is better.
Task
B25
RESTA25
B50
RESTA50
B100
Place Fan
131.5
71.9
143.8
68.7
139.3
Remove Fan
140.1
70.4
135.9
65.9
117.9
Place Object Stand
132.9
86.7
129.9
64.9
130.9
Remove Object Stand
159.2
60.9
131.8
63.2
112.7
Place Empty Cup
149.6
63.0
139.8
58.0
144.0
Remove Empty Cup
135.5
63.4
142.1
65.9
119.3
Appendix
Table 8: Mean policy actions per successful episode for baseline and RESTA checkpoints on the 16-task paired suite. RESTA uses the rand schedule; each task mean is based on all successful episodes. For each task and for the average across tasks, bold text with blue shading marks the lower value within each n=25 and n=50 baseline/RESTA pair. Lower is better.
Task
B25
RESTA25
B50
RESTA50
B100
Place Fan
10734.4
7908.4
10897.0
7406.1
10494.5
Remove Fan
11734.1
5995.5
9287.3
6789.6
9386.8
Place Object Stand
10198.1
8883.6
9574.5
6259.4
9130.2
Remove Object Stand
13009.2
6246.6
9436.0
6097.9
8730.4
Place Empty Cup
9728.8
5878.8
8935.4
5460.3
8629.3
Remove Empty Cup
9251.7
5984.6
9447.8
6354.0
8864.5
Appendix
Table 9: Mean simulator physics steps per successful episode for baseline and RESTA checkpoints on the 16-task paired suite. Physics steps include low-level interpolation. RESTA uses the rand schedule; each task mean is based on all successful episodes. For each task and for the average across tasks, bold text with blue shading marks the lower value within each n=25 and n=50 baseline/RESTA pair. Lower is better.
Imitation learning enables robots to acquire complex manipulation skills from demonstrations, but its effectiveness is limited by the cost of collecting high-quality data. Trajectory-level data augmentation methods alleviate this challenge by recombining expert demonstrations under varied initial states. However, such methods typically insert interpolations or other non-expert transition segments between disjoint parts, and such non-expert segments could reduce the quality of the generated data. This paper introduces Minimizing Interpolation (MinInter), an effective trajectory selection method that, for each sampled initial configuration, chooses the source demonstration requiring the least interpolation to form a complete trajectory. By explicitly minimizing interpolations during data generation, MinInter produces higher-quality synthetic demonstrations while remaining compatible with existing data generation frameworks. Experiments on 12 manipulation tasks with 26 variants from the MimicGen benchmark show that MinInter consistently improves both data generation success rates and policy success rates, with the largest gains on contact-rich, long-horizon and high-variance settings. Compared to the recent SkillGen framework, MinInter achieves higher policy success rates despite its conceptual simplicity, underscoring the value of interpolation minimization for data augmentation.
Qingyang Wang, Xingang Liu, Changwei Yao +4
School of Automation and Intelligent Manufacturing, Southern University of Science and Technology, Shenzhen 518055, China · Pengcheng Laboratory, Shenzhen 518000, China · Carnegie Mellon University, Pittsburgh, PA 15213, USA
Imitation learning for robotic manipulation relies on large sets of human demonstration trajectories, which are often noisy and temporally irregular due to variable operator speed, intermittent pauses, and inconsistent action density. A common preprocessing strategy is time-uniform downsampling to shorten sequences, but it cannot effectively remove speed-induced non-uniformity or redundant pauses. This mismatch degrades data quality and hinders policy learning. To address this issue, we propose Information-Standardized Trajectory Resampling (ISR), an offline preprocessing method for effective imitation learning. ISR resamples each trajectory by enforcing approximately equal information distance between adjacent points. Specifically, we map trajectories onto an information-modulated Riemannian manifold and perform geodesic-equidistant parameterization. We construct an information-intensity field from velocity and acceleration norms: the velocity term removes small-motion redundancy, while the acceleration term preserves high-curvature and fine-manipulation phases. We evaluate ISR on three real-world manipulation tasks with mainstream imitation learning policies. Compared with the baseline time-uniform 3x downsampling, ISR improves task success rates by about 25%, remains robust across datasets collected from different operators, and reduces both dataset size and training cost. The code and videos are publicly available at https://d-robotics-ai-lab.github.io/isr.page.
Licheng Yang, Lingfeng Qian, Fei Zheng +4
State Key Laboratory of Multimodal Artificial Intelligence Systems (MAIS), Institute of Automation, Chinese Academy of Sciences · D-Robotics
Data scaling has revolutionized fields like natural language processing and computer vision, providing models with remarkable generalization capabilities. In this paper, we investigate whether similar data scaling laws exist in robotics, particularly in robotic manipulation, and whether appropriate data scaling can yield single-task robot policies that can be deployed zero-shot for any object within the same category in any environment. To this end, we conduct a comprehensive empirical study on data scaling in imitation learning. By collecting data across numerous environments and objects, we study how a policy's generalization performance changes with the number of training environments, objects, and demonstrations. Throughout our research, we collect over 40,000 demonstrations and execute more than 15,000 real-world robot rollouts under a rigorous evaluation protocol. Our findings reveal several intriguing results: the generalization performance of the policy follows a roughly power-law relationship with the number of environments and objects. The diversity of environments and objects is far more important than the absolute number of demonstrations; once the number of demonstrations per environment or object reaches a certain threshold, additional demonstrations have minimal effect. Based on these insights, we propose an efficient data collection strategy. With four data collectors working for one afternoon, we collect sufficient data to enable the policies for two tasks to achieve approximately 90% success rates in novel environments with unseen objects.
Fanqi Lin, Yingdong Hu, Pingyue Sheng +3
Tsinghua University · Shanghai Qi Zhi Institute · Shanghai Artificial Intelligence Laboratory