ROPES: Robotic Pose Estimation via Score-Based Causal Representation Learning
Pranamya Kulkarni, Puranjay Datta, Burak Var{\i}c{\i}, Emre Acart\"urk, Karthikeyan Shanmugam, Ali Tajer

TL;DR
This paper introduces ROPES, an unsupervised score-based causal representation learning method for robot pose estimation, successfully disentangling controllable latent factors from raw images without labeled data, bridging theory and practice in robotics.
Contribution
The paper presents ROPES, a novel unsupervised framework applying interventional causal representation learning to robot pose estimation, demonstrating high-fidelity disentanglement of latent factors using only distributional changes.
Findings
Successfully disentangles latent factors in manipulator experiments
Achieves high fidelity without labeled data
Outperforms semi-supervised baseline
Abstract
Causal representation learning (CRL) has emerged as a powerful unsupervised framework that (i) disentangles the latent generative factors underlying high-dimensional data, and (ii) learns the cause-and-effect interactions among the disentangled variables. Despite extensive recent advances in identifiability and some practical progress, a substantial gap remains between theory and real-world practice. This paper takes a step toward closing that gap by bringing CRL to robotics, a domain that has motivated CRL. Specifically, this paper addresses the well-defined robot pose estimation -- the recovery of position and orientation from raw images -- by introducing Robotic Pose Estimation via Score-Based CRL (ROPES). Being an unsupervised framework, ROPES embodies the essence of interventional CRL by identifying those generative factors that are actuated: images are generated by intrinsic and…
Peer Reviews
Decision·Submitted to ICLR 2026
1. The paper considers the usage of causal representation learning into the robotics domain, considering a popular and reasonable question of whether CRL can work in practice. This is an important and timely problem in the area 2. The proposed method is clearly presented, including theoretical insights and an end-to-end design with two autoencoders and a log-density ratio estimator. The math formulation is easy to follow.
1. The proposed method largely applies well-known score-based CRL results to the robot application. There is no significant theoretical or algorithmic advance beyond adapting the framework to robot pose estimation. 2. All the experiments are performed in the Panda-Gym system with grayscale synthetic images. However, the authors claim that they bridged the theory and practice. This is overstated without real visual data for validation. A small real-world test would be better to support this claim
1. The paper builds on solid theoretical foundations from score-based CRL and bridges the theory–practice gap by applying it to a robotics problem. As also discussed by the authors, the pose estimation problem has various applications within the robotics domain. 2. The empirical results are strong, and the evaluation is fairly comprehensive (with some limitations noted below), covering multiple conditions, ablations, and comparisons against a SOTA method.
1. While the authors claim their method is completely label-free (L161), I have doubts about this. The method requires knowing which joint was intervened on for each dataset, which creates a form of weak supervision. Moreover, in the linear calibration step, a small labeled dataset of ground truth samples is required. Additionally, the interventional distributions need to be sufficiently distinct, probably requiring careful design of the experiments by the authors. Overall, the claim of being en
* Exploration of causality-based representation learning in robotics and general machine learning is highly needed. * The method design reads reasonable and not hard to grasp. * The results look promising under certain experiment conditions.
* The main technical methods are from existing causal learning literature, which might be fine from an application perspective but nonetheless compromises the originality of the paper. * It is hard to tell whether the proposed causal learning is consistently better than baselines, especially when 100% labels are available as in Table 2. This questions the significance of the results from an empirical perspective. * The occlusion experiment condition looks a bit artificial and not rooted from a
Videos
No videos yet. Explain this paper in a talk, walkthrough, or lecture? Add one.
Taxonomy
TopicsRobot Manipulation and Learning · Human Pose and Action Recognition · Prosthetics and Rehabilitation Robotics
