Abstract:Internet videos constitute the largest reservoir of embodied human manipulation knowledge, yet converting arbitrary RGB footage into actionable robot training data remains a major bottleneck. Existing lab- or factory-collected datasets are narrow in scale and diversity, limiting open-world robot learning. Instead of proposing a static dataset, we introduce EgoInfinity, a universal 4D hand-object interaction data engine that enables web-scale data generation for robot retargeting and learning. EgoInfinity is a modular engine integrating perception, segmentation, reconstruction, interaction-aware refinement, and retargeting to automate this traditionally unscalable video-to-action problem without human-in-the-loop annotation. Its modular design lets the engine continuously benefit from advances in any incorporated component. With EgoInfinity, in-the-wild human manipulation videos are lifted into agent-agnostic, metric 4D hand-object representations, including hand trajectories, 6-DoF object poses, and contact-relevant states. Rather than naively connecting standalone components, EgoInfinity combines cross-module metric calibration with interaction-aware refinement to improve physical reliability, reducing drift and contact inconsistencies common in pure visual reconstruction. We further propose a novel motion retargeter that compiles the recovered 3D hand motions into executable joint trajectories for diverse robot morphologies, enabling video-to-action retargeting on any robot from arbitrary viewpoints and shot sizes (e.g., the human body is only partially visible). We validate EgoInfinity across perception fidelity, kinematic feasibility, contact consistency, cross-embodiment generalization, and real-robot skill acquisition (e.g., grasping, cutting, wiping, and pouring), demonstrating a scalable bridge from internet videos to executable robot behavior for open-world robot learning.
Abstract:Computer-aided decision making--where a human decision-maker is aided by a computational classifier in making a decision--is becoming increasingly prevalent. For instance, judges in at least nine states make use of algorithmic tools meant to determine "recidivism risk scores" for criminal defendants in sentencing, parole, or bail decisions. A subject of much recent debate is whether such algorithmic tools are "fair" in the sense that they do not discriminate against certain groups (e.g., races) of people. Our main result shows that for "non-trivial" computer-aided decision making, either the classifier must be discriminatory, or a rational decision-maker using the output of the classifier is forced to be discriminatory. We further provide a complete characterization of situations where fair computer-aided decision making is possible.