We took our robotics hardware to @SolanaEvents AI Accelerate Day. Live teleoperation and egocentric data were recorded — with good coffee, Rubik's cube fun, and a community that showed up. 👇

🤖 Expensive robot data is scarce, so why not learn from our everyday first-person videos? This work turns human hand motion into robot actions to pretrain VLA models. 📰 Title: ACE-Ego-0: Unifying Egocentric Human and Robotic Data for VLA Pretraining 🔗 URL: 💡 Overview ACE-Ego-0 unifies robot demonstrations with egocentric human videos (Ego4D, EPIC-KITCHENS, and more) to pretrain Vision-Language-Action (VLA) models, trained on over 6,000 hours of combined data. 🔍 Challenges Solved Robot demonstrations are costly to collect, while human videos are cheap and abundant. But the two differ in action space, embodiment structure, temporal dynamics, and supervision quality, so naively mixing them breaks training. 🛠 Methodology & Proposed Approach ・Unifies actions in head-camera coordinates with 6D rotations, treating the human hand as an end-effector ・Encodes robot URDFs into morphology tokens via a GNN to absorb structural differences ・Chunks actions by consistent physical duration instead of fixed steps for temporal alignment ・Applies a reliability-weighted loss to noisy human videos, focusing on trustworthy position channels 📊 Use Cases / Results On RoboCasa it hits 72.8% average success (vs GR00T-N1.6 at 47.6%) and ~91% on RoboTwin 2.0. On a real bimanual robot it reaches 78.3% average (π0.5: 71.7%). Strikingly, on a task with only 34 robot demos, adding 419 human video episodes lifted success from 10% to 40%, a 4x gain. #RobotLearning# #VLA#

🕶️ Walk through a first-person world with your own body motion, and explicitly specify what exists at a given location with an image and pose, including how it evolves over time. Meet AnchorWorld, an embodied egocentric world model. Title: AnchorWorld: Embodied Egocentric World Simulation with View-based Evolution Customization URL: 📝 Overview AnchorWorld generates first-person video controlled by full-body human motion. With "anchor views," it lets you explicitly specify what exists at a given 3D location and how it changes over time. ❓ Challenges Solved Existing world models struggle to supervise full-body motion from egocentric video alone, and define environments only implicitly. They lacked both natural embodied control and localized world customization. 💡 Methodology & Proposed Approach ・Since most of the body is invisible in first person, it uses third-person video as auxiliary supervision to learn body-environment positioning ・An anchor has three parts: an RGB image, a 6-DoF viewpoint pose, and an evolution prompt that specify local appearance and temporal change ・3D RoPE spatially distinguishes multiple anchors, and masked cross-attention enables anchor-specific text control ・It trains in four stages (third-person, first-person, static anchors, dynamic evolution), built on Wan 2.2 TI2V 5B 🎯 Use Cases It applies to embodied VR apps, first-person game environment design, embodied-AI training scenarios, and interactive video generation with localized control. 📊 Experimental Results ・On egocentric static scenes it reaches CLIP-V 0.885 and camera accuracy ATE 0.112m, beating PlayerOne and others ・On egocentric dynamic scenes, text alignment (VideoAlign-TA) is 0.717, far above CaM-Ego's 0.385 ・It generalizes strongly to out-of-distribution UE and real-world scenes with little visual overlap between the initial view and anchors #WorldModel# #EmbodiedAI#

🗺️ Even frontier GPT-5 succeeds on just 14.4% of real-world spatial tasks. A new benchmark goes beyond staring at a static image and exposes how weak AI agents still are at active spatial reasoning. Title: SpatialWorld: Benchmarking Interactive Spatial Reasoning of Multimodal Agents in Real-World Tasks URL: 📝 Overview SpatialWorld measures whether multimodal LLMs can solve tasks by actively exploring 3D environments from a vision-only, egocentric viewpoint. It unifies eight different simulators across indoor, outdoor, and digital-game settings under a shared protocol, and evaluates 15 frontier models on 760 human-annotated tasks. The agent gets no prior map and no reference solution; it has to look, move, and decide on its own. ❓ Challenges Solved Prior spatial-reasoning benchmarks relied on passive evaluation via static VQA or pre-recorded video. That can't capture the interactive spatial understanding the real world demands, where an agent must move its own viewpoint to gather visual evidence and replan on the fly under partial observability. There was a large gap between recognizing a static scene and actually moving through an unfamiliar space to get a task done. 💡 Methodology & Proposed Approach ・The task is framed as a vision-only POMDP (Partially Observable Markov Decision Process) ・The agent receives only a natural-language goal and a single native-resolution egocentric RGB image, with no depth, maps, or semantic metadata ・Actions are issued through a high-level text interface covering navigation, viewpoint control, object interaction, and task completion ・It integrates eight backends: indoor (AI2-THOR, ProcTHOR, VirtualHome), outdoor (CARLA, EmbodiedCity), and digital games (Block3D, Snake3D, Rubik's Cube) ・Success is judged by whether the final terminal state satisfies the goal, not by matching the trajectory, and is validated by human annotators ・Beyond success rate, it measures step efficiency against human reference trajectories to surface inefficient behavior 🎯 Use Cases It offers a unified, fair way to evaluate the spatial abilities of home robots and autonomous agents before real-world deployment. It can systematically diagnose where long-horizon tasks that combine navigation and manipulation break down, serving as a rigorous testbed for improving spatial-reasoning models. 📊 Experimental Results ・Across 15 frontier models, physical-task success was 14.4% for GPT-5, 12.2% for Qwen-3.5-397B, 9.2% for Gemini-3.1-Pro, and 9.2% for Kimi-K2.5 ・On digital games, Gemini-3.1-Pro led at 39.0%, followed by GPT-5 at 36.4% ・By complexity, interaction-only tasks averaged 50.2%, navigation-only dropped to 8.6%, and combined navigation-and-interaction collapsed to just 4.2% ・Models with similar success rates showed very different efficiency scores, revealing heavy reliance on trial-and-error exploration ・Model rankings shifted dramatically across environments, with no single model dominating every category #AIAgents# #SpatialReasoning#