1Kim Jaechul Graduate School of AI, KAIST, Daejeon, Republic of Korea 2KT Corporation, Seoul, Republic of Korea 3Daedong AI Lab
*Equal contribution
WACV 2027 · Applications Track
EgoDelta turns the scene change left behind by a human removal demonstration into 3D attachment targets and robot-ready trajectories for harvesting and deleafing.
Agricultural tasks such as fruit harvesting and deleafing require removing components at their attachment targets: the 3D locations where they connect to the plant. These targets are often occluded and need not coincide with component centers. Egocentric video captures human removal demonstrations without requiring robot hardware, but provides neither 3D target labels nor robot-executable motion. The persistent scene change produced by a completed removal nevertheless provides spatial evidence of both the removed component and its former connection. We introduce EgoDelta, an integrated pipeline that recovers attachment targets from this evidence without attachment-target annotations and converts the demonstrations into robot-specific supervision. EgoDelta reconstructs the pre- and post-action scene states with 2D Gaussian Splatting and scores each pre-action surface using geometric and appearance changes weighted by observation reliability. It uses these scores to localize the removed component and retains them together with evidence from nearby remaining plant surfaces to recover the former connection. Recovered targets supervise an attachment-target predictor, while target-anchored robot-specific trajectories adapted from tracked hand motion supervise a target-conditioned policy. Across 160 targets from 60 interventions, EgoDelta achieves 92.83% F1 at a 3 cm matching tolerance. Across 180 physical robot trials, executing EgoDelta-generated trajectories without policy learning succeeds in 100% of trials, compared with 43.3% for direct human-motion retargeting. The learned policy succeeds in 91.7% of trials.
Headline numbers from the paper's main tables: 30 tomato-vine scenes, 60 harvesting and deleafing interventions, 160 attachment targets and 180 physical robot trials. Hover a bar for the per-setting breakdown.
| Harvesting | Deleafing | Overall | ||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Method | IoU (%) ↑ | F1 (%) ↑ | IoU (%) ↑ | F1 (%) ↑ | IoU (%) ↑ | F1 (%) ↑ |
| Point-cloud residual | 29.6 | 43.1 | 51.3 | 67.6 | 40.4 | 55.4 |
| YOLOE-Seg | 26.2 | 40.9 | 6.1 | 11.0 | 16.1 | 26.0 |
| SAM 3 | 28.8 | 43.7 | 30.3 | 46.0 | 29.6 | 44.8 |
| 3DGS-CD | 27.1 | 32.0 | 4.9 | 8.2 | 16.0 | 20.1 |
| GS-DIFF | 11.2 | 19.7 | 34.0 | 50.2 | 22.6 | 35.0 |
| MV3DCD | 33.1 | 45.5 | 36.7 | 50.6 | 34.9 | 48.0 |
| EgoDelta (ours) | 62.4 | 75.8 | 71.5 | 83.2 | 67.0 | 79.5 |
All methods are evaluated against the same 720 reference masks; the point-cloud residual receives only MPS semi-dense point clouds. Best results per column are in bold.
| Harvesting | Deleafing | Overall | ||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Method | IoU (%) ↑ | F1 (%) ↑ | IoU (%) ↑ | F1 (%) ↑ | IoU (%) ↑ | F1 (%) ↑ |
| Appearance only | 60.0 | 71.9 | 68.8 | 81.2 | 64.4 | 76.6 |
| Geometry only | 49.3 | 59.8 | 71.2 | 82.9 | 60.2 | 71.4 |
| No observability weight | 49.6 | 64.6 | 70.7 | 82.6 | 60.2 | 73.6 |
| No shared-view filter | 62.6 | 75.9 | 70.7 | 82.7 | 66.7 | 79.2 |
| Fixed-radius match | 52.2 | 63.0 | 70.9 | 82.8 | 61.5 | 72.9 |
| EgoDelta (full) | 62.4 | 75.8 | 71.5 | 83.2 | 67.0 | 79.5 |
Each variant changes one scene-comparison choice; all values are percentages under the 720-mask protocol of Table 1. Best results per column are in bold.
| Method | Harvesting F1@3 cm (%) ↑ | Deleafing F1@3 cm (%) ↑ | Overall F1@3 cm (%) ↑ | Median error (cm) ↓ |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Binary removed-component input | ||||
| Point-cloud residual + binary recovery | 37.10 | 24.38 | 26.32 | 1.79 |
| YOLOE-Seg + binary recovery | 14.29 | 14.07 | 14.15 | 2.03 |
| SAM 3 + binary recovery | 13.42 | 3.99 | 5.07 | 1.98 |
| 3DGS-CD + binary recovery | 11.57 | 6.48 | 8.15 | 2.38 |
| GS-DIFF + binary recovery | 7.95 | 21.61 | 16.50 | 1.88 |
| MV3DCD + binary recovery | 1.73 | 6.13 | 4.15 | 1.89 |
| EgoDelta + binary recovery | 35.05 | 27.56 | 28.71 | 1.84 |
| Continuous scene-change evidence | ||||
| EgoDelta (full) | 94.44 | 92.02 | 92.83 | 1.17 |
Binary-input rows use the same fixed recovery procedure within each interaction setting; full EgoDelta retains continuous removal scores and remaining-surface evidence. Median error uses matched predictions only; F1 also penalizes unmatched predictions and targets. Best results per column are in bold.
| Method | Harvesting F1@3 cm (%) ↑ | Deleafing F1@3 cm (%) ↑ | Overall F1@3 cm (%) ↑ | Median error (cm) ↓ |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Component centroid | 76.64 | 0.00 | 25.62 | 2.31 |
| Score-weighted centroid | 76.64 | 0.00 | 25.62 | 2.33 |
| Closest to remaining surface | 52.34 | 73.24 | 66.25 | 1.27 |
| PCA endpoint | 3.74 | 78.87 | 53.75 | 1.35 |
| EgoDelta selection | 94.44 | 92.02 | 92.83 | 1.17 |
Rules share proposals and pre-action geometry; scene-change scores are used when required. Best results per column are in bold.
| Method | Harvesting | Deleafing |
|---|---|---|
| Direct human-motion retargeting | 12/30 | 14/30 |
| EgoDelta trajectories (no policy learning) | 30/30 | 30/30 |
| EgoDelta learned policy | 28/30 | 27/30 |
Successful trials out of 30 per interaction setting; any rejection or interruption counts as a failure. Best results per column are in bold.
A completed removal leaves a persistent change in the scene. EgoDelta compares 3D reconstructions from before and after the action to find what was removed and where it was attached, then turns that target into robot supervision. No attachment-target annotations are needed.
A worker wearing Project Aria glasses records one continuous removal. Aria MPS provides camera poses and semi-dense scene points; frames sampled before and after the action form two view sets that need not share viewpoints.
The plant is reconstructed independently before and after removal with 2D Gaussian Splatting in a common scene frame, so geometry removed by the action is absent from the post-action model.
Each pre-action surface primitive is scored by its geometric and appearance mismatch, weighted by how reliably it was observed. Continuous scores and remaining-surface evidence then locate the former connection.
The target anchors the robot's contact point while tracked hand motion supplies approach and manipulation directions, yielding feasible trajectories that also supervise a target-conditioned policy.
Qualitative comparison on one harvesting and one deleafing example, with the RGB overlay on top and the binary prediction below. Competing methods often respond to foliage or reconstruction artifacts, while EgoDelta keeps the thin extent of the removed component.
Each tab follows one demonstration recorded with Project Aria glasses. The middle panel illustrates what EgoDelta does with it: reconstruct both scene states, score the removed component, place the attachment target, and plan a robot trajectory that reaches it.
A fixed-base RB-Y1 with one 7-DoF arm and an interaction-specific end effector, tested on held-out arrangements disjoint from the perception benchmark. A trial succeeds only if the intended component is removed without contacting another target, damaging the plant, triggering a safety stop, or requiring intervention.
The target-conditioned policy acting from the robot's own RGB-D observations.
@inproceedings{egodelta2027,
title = {{EgoDelta}: From Egocentric Scene Change to 3D Attachment Targets for Agricultural Manipulation},
author = {Koh, Nam Ho and Jang, Junyoung and Oh, Chaeyoung and Yoo, Changwoo and Lee, Jongho and Kim, Kee-Eung},
booktitle = {Proceedings of the IEEE/CVF Winter Conference on Applications of Computer Vision (WACV)},
year = {2027}
}