Pretrained Vision-Language-Action (VLA) policies provide a strong starting point for deployment, but adapting them to a target robot and environment still requires costly embodiment-specific demonstrations. Human demonstrations are far easier to collect, yet directly leveraging them is challenging due to the substantial human-robot embodiment gap, particularly when the underlying VLA has been pretrained primarily on robot data. We introduce H2RB (Human-To-Robot Bridge), a human-robot co-training framework for adapting pretrained VLA policies from unpaired human and robot demonstrations. H2RB bridges the embodiment gap at both interfaces: geometry-anchored alignment grounds human and robot observations in a compatible representation, while a decoupled-decoder tokenizer shares action latents without forcing both domains through a single action mapping. This design allows human demonstrations to provide useful behavioral supervision while retaining the rich visual, semantic, and control priors of the pretrained VLA. Across real-world tasks, H2RB substantially improves object transfer performance from 8.0 to 51.8 and enables skill transfer to score 62.7, in settings where co-train baselines totally fail to transfer human-demonstrated skills. The benefit also persists under object-placement shifts, improving out-of-distribution transfer from 6.0 to 45.3. H2RB suggests a way for human demonstrations to serve as a scalable supervision source for adapting pretrained robotic policies, reducing the dependence on costly target-robot data collection.
Figures & tables
Figure 1: Human-to-robot task transfer with H2RB. H2RB transfers task experience from human videos to robots using pretrained VLAs by bridging the cross-embodiment perception and action gaps, without target-robot demonstrations or paired demonstrations.
Figure 2: Overview of H2RB. (a) A shared temporal encoder maps human and robot action chunks into a common latent action space, while embodiment-specific decoders reconstruct actions for each domain. (b) Hand geometry-anchored alignment grounds VLA conditioning across embodiments, while the frozen encoder provides latent action targets.
Figure 3: Qualitative human-to-robot transfer rollouts. (a) H2RB is trained jointly on human and robot demonstrations. (b) The trained policy executes target tasks introduced through human demonstrations, including object transfer on box, followed by skill transfer on opening.
Robot in-domain
Human transfer
Method
Box PnP
Open
Close
Avg.
Base policy human-only
0.0
36.0
22.0
29.0
Base policy in-domain-only
80.5
0.0
0.0
0.0
Base policy co-train
16.5
0.0
0.0
0.0
+ HaWoR-shared action ( Zhang et al., 2025a )
19.5
0.0
0.0
0.0
+ Ego-Pi-shared action ( Kim et al., 2026b )
70.5
0.0
0.0
0.0
Table 2: Human-to-robot skill transfer. Robot in-domain reports performance on a robot-data-trained task, while Human transfer evaluates target tasks introduced through human demonstrations. Each entry is the weighted task score (0-100).
Figure 5
Table 3: Analysis of the decoupled-decoder latent tokenizer. (a) Effect of the action tokenizer and cross-domain latent regression on object transfer, skill transfer, and normalized human-robot latent gap. (b) Motion speed and average success of embodiment-specific reconstruction decoders.
Figure 8: Failure case analysis of human-to-robot transfer. (a) Fails to complete the grasp. (b) Unrelated to the target object location. (c) Fails to produce a hand pose suitable for grasping. (d) Executes a robot-observed pick-and-place motion in human-observed task environment.
Figure 9: PCA visualization of cross-embodiment representation adaptation. (a) Vision-language conditioning features with hand geometry-anchored alignment alone (left) and H2RB (right). Arrows show adapter-induced displacements for the same observation. (b) Action-tokenizer latents without (left) and with (right) cross-domain latent regression, using per-tokenizer PCA. Human I and II denote human tasks trained in within-skill object transfer and skill transfer, respectively.
Appendix figures & tables16 assets
Supplementary material from the paper’s appendix.
Appendix
Component
Configuration
Backbone
RLDX-1-IMG ( Kim et al., 2026a )
Policy inputs
One current egocentric RGB frame, proprioceptive state, and instruction
Table 5: Optimization settings for tokenizer training, task-specific OpenArm fine-tuning (FT), and heterogeneous training (HT).
Module
OpenArm FT
HT
Vision encoder
Frozen
Frozen
Language model
Frozen
Top four layers trainable
Cognition-token parameters
Frozen
Trainable
Geometry adapter / readout
Trainable / Trainable
Trainable / Trainable
Tokenizer encoder / decoders
Frozen
Frozen where used
Appendix
Table 6: Parameter updates during policy learning. Tokenizer training is a separate stage; its encoder and decoders are frozen during OpenArm FT.
Item
Object transfer
Skill transfer
Human target tasks
Box / Ball / Towel PnP
Air-fryer Open / Close
Robot in-domain evaluation
Doll PnP
Box PnP
Exact robot training task list
Bottle / Cup / Doll / Snack PnP
Box / Ball / Towel PnP
Retained robot episodes
208 (64 / 48 / 32 / 64)
300 (100 / 100 / 100)
Retained human episodes per task
Box: 100; Ball: 100; Towel: 100
Open: 50; Close: 50
Appendix
Table 7: Task and training-data conditions. PnP denotes pick-and-place. Policy FT uses all retained demonstrations without a held-out validation split; evaluation uses robot rollouts.
Condition
Adaptation sources
Action / conditioning interface
Base policy human-only
Human targets
Human demonstrations only, using HaWoR-extracted fingertip and wrist motions as the action representation.
Base policy in-domain-only
Source robot
Robot demonstrations only, using the native LeRobot robot action representation.
Base policy co-train
Source robot + human targets
Human and robot data retain their respective action interfaces and use separate embodiment IDs; the target robot ID is used at inference.
HaWoR-shared action ( Zhang et al., 2025a )
Source robot + human targets
Shared fingertip and wrist actions. Human actions come from HaWoR, while robot actions are mapped through forward kinematics; both use the same action decoder.
Ego-Pi-shared action ( Kim et al., 2026b )
Source robot + human targets
Shared physical wrist–hand actions without geometry grounding or a latent tokenizer.
Ego-Pi-shared action ( Kim et al., 2026b ) + hand geometry-anchored alignment
Source robot + human targets
Shared wrist–hand actions with our hand geometry-anchored alignment.
Appendix
Table 8: Baseline and variant definitions for the main comparison.
wi
Pick-and-place
Open
Close
0.0
Failure
Failure
Failure
0.3
Reach to object
Reach to handle
Reach to handle
0.6
Valid grasping of object
Total grasp of handle
Total grasp of handle
0.8
The object lifted up
Opened halfway
Closed halfway
1.0
Complete task
Complete task
Complete task
Appendix
Table 9: Task-progress weights and milestones.
Evaluation group
ID
OOD
Total
I: Object transfer
Object target: Box PnP
20
10
30
Object target: Ball PnP
20
10
30
Object target: Towel PnP
20
10
30
Object target subtotal
60
30
90
Robot in-domain: Doll PnP
Separate source-task evaluation
20
Appendix
Table 10: Evaluation counts per policy in the main transfer comparison. The robot in-domain trials are separate from the target-task averages.
Figure 10: OpenArm robot setup and evaluation distributions. (a) OpenArm robot platform used for real-world evaluation. (b) For object transfer, in-distribution (ID) rollouts are sampled from four workspace quadrants (right-upper, right-lower, left-upper, and left-lower), with five rollouts per quadrant and randomized object orientation. Out-of-distribution (OOD) rollouts are sampled outside the ID placement region (red area), again with randomized orientation. For skill transfer, the initial openness of the air fryer is randomized for all 30 trials.
Policy
n
R≥0.3
R≥0.6
R≥0.8
R=1.0
Sw
I: Object transfer
Ego-Pi-shared action
90
68.9
12.2
12.2
2.2
27.2
H2RB
90
95.6
46.7
33.3
12.2
51.8
H2RB + HT
90
96.7
60.0
30.0
21.1
57.2
II: Skill transfer
Ego-Pi-shared action
30
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
Appendix
Table 11: Cumulative target-task progress (%) and weighted task scores (0-100). R≥0.3 , R≥0.6 , R≥0.8 , and R=1.0 denote increasing completion thresholds; the last is full-task success.
Robot in-domain
Human transfer
Method
Doll PnP
ID
OOD
Avg.
Base policy co-train + Ego-Pi-shared action ( Kim et al., 2026b )
30.0
30.2
21.3
27.2
+ Ego-Pi-shared action ( Kim et al., 2026b ) + Hand geometry-anchored alignment
47.5
36.0
32.0
34.7
+ H2RB (Ours)
49.0
55.0
45.3
51.8
Appendix
Table 12: Effect of geometry grounding on object transfer. Robot in-domain evaluates the familiar Doll PnP task, while human transfer reports weighted task scores under in-distribution (ID) and out-of-distribution (OOD) object placements. All values are weighted task scores (0-100).
Reconstruction decoder
Box
Ball
Towel
Avg.
Robot decoder
37.0
16.0
45.0
32.7
Human decoder
53.0
49.0
53.3
51.8
Appendix
Table 13: Inference-decoder selection for the within-skill object transfer latent policy. Values are weighted task scores (0-100).
Figure 11: Qualitative transferred-task rollouts. Representative successful H2RB executions on box, ball, towel, open, and close, spanning both object-level and skill-level transfer.
Data source
Episodes
Frames
EgoDex ( Hoque et al., 2026 )
10,000
1,714,342
In-house human data
2,410
1,754,308
Single-hand OpenArm
1,035
236,751
Bimanual OpenArm
623
249,488
In-house ALLEX robot data
480
1,059,641
Total
14,548
5,014,530
Appendix
Table 14: Heterogeneous training data by collection source.
Robot in-domain
Human transfer
Method
Doll
Box
Ball
Towel
Avg.
H2RB
49.0
53.0
49.0
53.3
51.8
HT + H2RB
69.5
56.7
53.3
61.7
57.2
Appendix
Table 15: Effect of heterogeneous training on object transfer. Robot in-domain reports performance on a robot-data-trained task, while Human transfer evaluates target tasks introduced through human demonstrations. Each entry is the weighted task score (0-100).
Robot in-domain
Human transfer
Method
Box PnP
Open
Close
Avg.
H2RB
81.0
50.7
74.7
62.7
HT + H2RB
80.5
64.7
98.7
81.7
Appendix
Table 16: Effect of heterogeneous training on skill transfer. Robot in-domain reports performance on a robot-data-trained task, while Human transfer evaluates target tasks introduced through human demonstrations. Each entry is the weighted task score (0-100).
Figure 12: RB-Y1 experimental setup. (a) Bimanual robot platform. (b) Boxes and polybags used for parcel handling.
Post-training vision-language-action (VLA) models for specific robots and tasks requires in-domain demonstrations, yet collecting diverse robot data is costly. Egocentric human demonstrations provide a scalable alternative, but directly mixing human and robot data can introduce cross-embodiment discrepancies and degrade policy performance. To address this challenge, we introduce ReWeight, a framework that incorporates human data into VLA post-training through demonstration-level retrieval and sample-level weighting. ReWeight learns a cross-embodiment visuomotor representation that combines visual observations with future actions to measure behavioral similarity between human and robot demonstrations. Based on optimal transport, it retrieves human demonstrations relevant to the target robot data and assigns larger weights to samples with smaller cross-embodiment discrepancies. We evaluate ReWeight using π0.5 across eight simulation tasks and four real-world tasks under both clean and randomized settings. In simulation, ReWeight improves the average success rate of post-trained π0.5 from 39% with only robot data and 44% with randomly mixed human-robot data to 57%. In the physical experimental setting, it achieves an average success rate of 68.8%, outperforming the baselines by 28.8% and 13.8%, respectively. Overall, ReWeight provides an effective paradigm for transforming abundant egocentric human experience into transferable supervision for robot learning. (Project webpage: https://reweight-vla.github.io/)
Chenwei Wang, Dianye Huang, Match W. L. Ko +2
Department of mechanical Engineering, The University of Hong Kong, Hong Kong SAR, China · Institute of Artificial Intelligence (TeleAI), China Telecom, Shanghai 200232, China · Shenzhen Research Institute of Northwestern Polytechnical University, Xi’an 710072, China
Learning generalizable vision-language-action (VLA) models from large-scale human videos is promising but challenging due to cross-embodiment discrepancies in both visual observations and executable actions. While latent action models reduce the action execution gap by learning action abstractions, they still rely on visual features. Thus, misaligned human and robot visual representations can lead to inconsistencies in policy inputs and induce domain-dependent latent actions, hindering effective co-training with human videos.To address this, we propose HARP, a human-robot aligned representation learning framework for more effective VLA pretraining from human videos. Specifically, HARP uses paired human-robot demonstrations as cross-embodiment bridges and abundant unpaired human and robot videos as a scalable dynamics supervision data source. It trains a robot-adapted visual encoder and a latent action model with manipulation-centric auxiliary cues and a source-relative pair-discriminative alignment loss, which adapts robot representations toward human semantics while preserving pair-level discrimination. The learned aligned vision encoder and latent action model provide a unified vision and action representation for VLA-style policy learning, where human and robot videos provide vision-language-to-latent-action supervision and a lightweight robot action head grounds latent actions into executable commands. Experiments on feature visualization, simulation, and real-world manipulation show improved human-robot alignment and downstream policy performance, achieving 4.481 average length on CALVIN ABC→D and a 7.1 percentage-point improvement in real-world success rate over the strongest evaluated baseline. Code, videos, and demos are available at https://puzhenyuan.github.io/HARP-VLA-website/.
Xiang Zhu, Puzhen Yuan, Yichen Liu +1
Institute for Interdisciplinary Information Sciences, Tsinghua University, China · Shanghai Qi Zhi Institute, China
Vision-language models (VLMs) are powerful general-purpose reasoners, yet converting them into robot control policies (VLAs) is surprisingly difficult. The root cause is a two-fold gap: VLMs are trained on internet-scale images with language-understanding objectives, while VLAs must perceive robot scenes and predict motor actions. Fine-tuning a VLM directly on robot action data forces the model to cross both gaps at once -- the learning curve is steep and the rich generalizations learned during pretraining tend to degrade rather than transfer. We argue that this gap can be bridged gradually with the right intermediate data. We introduce embodied trajectory-coupled (ETC) data -- vision-language supervision derived from the same robot scenes and trajectories used for action learning. Because ETC data shares the visual context of robot operation while retaining familiar language-understanding objectives, it provides a natural stepping stone between VLM pretraining and VLA fine-tuning. Building on this, we design a three-stage training recipe. Distribution Bridging first adapts the VLM to embodied visual-language semantics. Objective Bridging then gradually shifts the model toward action prediction while preserving the acquired representations. Retentive Adaptation finally specializes the policy to the target deployment domain. We further show that mixing task-relevant out-of-distribution ETC data with a small amount of action data enables the model to generalize to novel visual-language conditions without requiring additional robot demonstrations. Simulation and real-robot experiments confirm that this gradual bridging strategy is the key to transferring VLM generalization into robust, deployable robot policies.
Linqi Yin, Shiduo Zhang, Shenling Qiu +11
1Fudan University · 2Shanghai Innovation Institute