Pith. sign in

REVIEW 5 major objections 5 minor 35 references

Integrating Active Sensing and Rearrangement Planning for Efficient Object Retrieval from Unknown, Confined, Cluttered Environments

T0 review · 5 major / 5 minor · reviewed 2026-08-12 · deepseek-v4-flash

Challenge this review Re-run · record.json Download PDF Read on arXiv ↗ Review JSON

Pith's one-line read Retrieving objects from unknown, cluttered, confined spaces is best treated as one loop in which the planner tells the camera what to look at and the camera tells the planner where it can move things.

desk verdict A genuinely integrated sensing-planning loop with solid ablations, but the headline 95% success rate is a planning metric, not physical retrieval, and the closest prior baseline is missing. read the letter →

arxiv 2411.11733 v1 pith:2D5KCPS3 submitted 2024-11-18 cs.RO

Junyong Kim , Hanwen Ren , Ahmed H. Qureshi This is my paper · ORCID
classification cs.RO
keywords objectretrievalactivesensingrearrangementplanningMonte-Carlotreesearchconfinedclutteredenvironmentsin-handcameraunknownrobotmanipulation
verification ladder T0 review T1 audit T2 compute T3 formal

The pith

A machine-rendered reading of the paper's core claim, the machinery that carries it, and where it could break.

The reading

This paper claims that the right way to retrieve a target object from an unknown, cluttered, confined space is to run active sensing and rearrangement planning as one feedback loop, not as separate phases. A robot arm with a single in-hand camera starts sensing, detects the target, and then lets its rearrangement planner decide which still-unobserved regions are worth looking at, observing the regions that would unblock the planner's most promising partial plan. Across 100 randomly generated simulated cabinet-like scenes, the integrated system finds a feasible retrieval plan in 95% of trials, while the best baseline that separates sensing from planning succeeds in 27% to 79% of scenarios. If the result carries to real hardware, it would let service robots fetch objects from refrigerators, cabinets, and shelves without external cameras or exhaustive pre-scanning of the space.

What carries the argument

The carrying mechanism is the OR-MCTS planner and the three-stage Multi-objective Active Sensing loop. OR-MCTS is a Monte-Carlo-tree-search planner whose nodes are scene configurations linked by pick-and-place actions; it minimizes total relocation distance, treats unobserved voxels as obstacles, and, unlike its predecessor, permits temporary placement of objects inside the target-retrieval swept volume. When a search fails, the region-specific sensing policy clusters the unobserved space, scores each cluster by how much additional feasible relocation area it would open for the remaining blocking objects, and observes the best cluster with a greedy, centroid-focused viewpoint heuristic. That observed volume is fed back into a new search, repeating until a plan is found or the scene is fully seen.

What would settle it

Run the plans returned by this system end-to-end on a physical arm (or in a physics simulator with contact) across the same 100 random confined, cluttered scenes and count actual retrievals; if successful execution falls well below 95% because planned paths collide, grasps fail, or unmodeled object interactions occur, the central claim fails. A cheaper check is to count how often the segmentation step misses an object in low-light clutter, since the paper already reports such failures in real scenes.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

The paper's central claim is that bidirectional feedback between a multi-objective active sensor and a Monte-Carlo-tree-search retrieval planner is the decisive factor for object retrieval from unknown confined clutter. The sensor has three stages: it maximizes scene coverage until the target is seen, then senses the robot's swept volumes so the planner does not mistake the robot's own future paths for obstacles, and finally, when the planner fails, it senses the unobserved region whose observation would open the most relocation space for the remaining blocking objects. The planner, for its part, is allowed to place non-target objects inside the target's swept volume when that is the only way to reach other blockers, and it returns the most promising failed node to guide the next sensing step. In simulation this system achieves a 95% success rate over 100 random scenes and outperforms its own ablations and three state-of-the-art retrieval planners; in five real cabinet scenes, the paper reports similar average statistics, with one detailed demonstration, and notes that segmentation can fail in cluttered, low-light conditions.

Load-bearing premise

The load-bearing assumption is that a plan that passes the planner's swept-volume, motion, and grasp checks will also succeed when physically executed; the simulated success rate measures plan feasibility before the scene is fully observed, and real-world support is one detailed demonstration among five, with segmentation failures acknowledged in cluttered, low-light scenes.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • Success no longer requires dense pre-scanning: the 95% success rate is reached with an average of 3.71 viewpoints, whereas dense sensing to 95% coverage succeeds in only 27% of scenes.
  • Planner feedback is the main driver: removing feedback-based sensing drops success from 95% to 61%, while keeping feedback but removing swept-volume sensing keeps success at 92% but increases failed planning attempts from 1.41 to 3.97.
  • Allowing temporary placement of objects inside the target's swept volume matters: the same perception pipeline with a planner that forbids this succeeds in 78% rather than 95% of scenes.
  • The integrated approach finds plans faster and with fewer retries than the baselines, with mean planning time 10.20 seconds versus 14.54 to 18.58 seconds for the other planners.

Reading between the lines

Editorial extensions of the paper, not claims the author makes directly.

  • The 'sense what the failed plan needs' principle should transfer to other manipulation-under-uncertainty tasks, such as shelf stocking, surgical tool fetch, or disaster debris clearing, wherever an in-hand sensor and a planner share a workspace.
  • The method's success metric is plan feasibility, not executed retrieval; a natural test is to run the output plans end-to-end in a physics simulator, where swept-volume approximations and grasp feasibility can be checked before committing to hardware.
  • Performance beyond the tested regime is untested: scenes with more than eight blocking objects, heavy occlusion between objects, or non-convex obstacles could stress the MCTS branching factor and the region-growing cluster scoring, so scaling behavior is the clearest open question.
  • A direct comparison against an oracle with full scene knowledge would quantify how much of the remaining 5% failure is due to sensing choices rather than rearrangement difficulty.
Share X Bluesky LinkedIn Reddit HN

Editorial analysis

A structured set of objections, weighed in public.

Desk editor's note, referee report, and a circularity audit.

Referee Report

5 major / 5 minor

Summary. The paper proposes an integrated system, MAS+OR-MCTS, for retrieving target objects from unknown, confined, cluttered environments. MAS combines three active-sensing stages—initial target detection, sensing of robot swept volumes, and feedback-based sensing from a failed plan—while OR-MCTS performs rearrangement planning with MCTS. The authors evaluate the approach in 100 randomly generated simulated scenarios and five real cabinet scenes, reporting a 95% planning-level success rate for the full system and favorable comparisons against ablations and three planner baselines. The paper claims that bidirectional feedback between active sensing and rearrangement planning is the decisive factor for efficient object retrieval.

Significance. If the empirical claims hold, the paper makes a useful contribution by demonstrating that coupling task-driven active sensing with rearrangement planning can substantially improve planning-level success in partially observed confined spaces. The evaluation design has strengths: a 100-scenario simulation suite, a reasonable ablation set (MAS, IAS+SAS, IAS+FAS, IAS), external planner baselines (SS-MCTS, TSAD, WTL), and a real-robot demonstration. The central limitation is that success is measured as generating a feasible plan, not executing it, and the real-world evidence is limited to one detailed instance. The contribution is plausible and potentially valuable, but the strength of the current claims exceeds the evidence.

major comments (5)
  1. [IV-A and IV-C] The success metric in Section IV-A defines success as 'generate a feasible object retrieval plan before the scene is entirely observed,' not as physically executing that plan and retrieving the target. Consequently, the 95% success rate in Tables I and II is a planning-feasibility rate under a geometric model: simulated plans are not executed, and grasp success, closed-loop tracking, and pick-and-place errors are not scored. The only evidence for execution transfer is one detailed real-world instance in Fig. 2, and Section IV-C itself reports segmentation failures in cluttered, low-light conditions. The Section V claim that the method 'solves object retrieval problems' is therefore stronger than the evidence supports; either report end-to-end execution success rates in simulation and across all five real scenes, or restrict the claims to planning-level success.
  2. [IV-A, Tables I-II] The paper repeatedly states that the proposed method outperforms baselines 'by a significant margin,' but no statistical test, confidence interval, or paired comparison is reported. With N=100 scenarios, large mean differences in success rate (e.g., 95% vs. 92% vs. 61%) may or may not be statistically meaningful, especially for smaller differences such as MAS vs. IAS+FAS in planning time (10.20 ± 9.71 vs. 9.71 ± 9.57). Please report p-values or bootstrap confidence intervals for all pairwise comparisons, or remove the word 'significant.'
  3. [IV-B] The comparison against 'state-of-the-art' methods omits reference [20], Ren and Qureshi (2024), which addresses exactly the same problem—object retrieval from confined spaces with a robot's in-hand RGB-D sensor—and is from the same group. Because [20] is cited in the related work but not included in Table II, the claim of outperforming state-of-the-art baselines is incomplete. Add this method as a baseline or justify its exclusion in the text.
  4. [III-B-2 and Algorithm 1] OR-MCTS is described only in prose: there is no pseudo-code, no definition of the tree policy beyond 'tuned Upper Confidence Bound,' and no values for the UCB exploration constant, the 30-second time budget distribution, the number of expansions or rollouts, or the stopping criterion for node evaluation. These details are required to reproduce the method and to assess whether the reported planning times depend on favorable tuning; please provide a full algorithm listing and a table of hyperparameters.
  5. [IV-C] The real-robot section reports only one detailed instance (Fig. 2) and says, without quantitative support, that results are 'similar in statistics' to simulation. No table lists per-scene success, planning time, number of attempts, or the segmentation failures mentioned in the final paragraph. Please provide a full table for the five scenes and report the failure count and failure modes.
minor comments (5)
  1. [Algorithm 1] Line 6 of Algorithm 1 uses 'Si' in the while condition, but this variable is not defined in the algorithm's notation; it should likely be S'_I or Senv.
  2. [IV-A] The text refers to 'DSAI' in two places where the baseline name 'DIAS' is meant; these typos should be corrected.
  3. [Algorithm 1] The comment 'Initilization' in Algorithm 1 is misspelled and should be 'Initialization.'
  4. [III-A] The description of S as an element of R^4 with dx, dy, dz and a fourth dimension is confusing; the notation in Eq. (1) suggests a voxel grid whose cells are marked observed or unobserved, so the scene representation should be clarified accordingly.
  5. [III-B-2] The objective function for OR-MCTS defines a as the action sequence but does not explicitly state that a must respect pick-and-place feasibility within the current observed scene; this constraint should be stated formally.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 0.0 of 10

No circularity: the claimed gains are established by ablations and external baselines, not by construction or self-citation.

full rationale

The central claim that coupling task-driven active sensing with retrieval planning improves object retrieval is an empirical system claim, not a derived identity. The success metric, defined as generating a feasible object retrieval plan before the scene is entirely observed (Sec. IV), is a planning-generation criterion and is a separate evaluation-validity concern, not circularity; the metric does not define success as whatever OR-MCTS outputs, since the planner can and does fail (e.g., IAS=4%, IAS+SAS=61%). Table I ablations show each sensing stage contributes, and Table II compares OR-MCTS against independently published planners (TSAD, WTL) and the authors' own SS-MCTS under the same MAS perception. The reused author prior works, VPFormer [5] for initial sensing and SS-MCTS [31] as the backbone, are named building blocks; the paper does not invoke any theorem from those papers that would force its result, nor does it fit the reported success rates to any parameter of VPFormer or SS-MCTS. Therefore no step in the paper reduces, by construction, to its own input. The acknowledged limitations, including only one detailed real-robot scene and segmentation failures in low-light conditions, affect external validity and sim-to-real transfer, not circularity.

Assumptions & free parameters 4 free parameters · 5 assumptions · 0 invented entities

The central claim rests on standard robotics assumptions about rigid objects, graspability, accurate motion planning, and a faithful simulator. No new physical entities are introduced. The main free parameters are MCTS tuning constants and experimental thresholds that are either unreported or hand-chosen, limiting reproducibility.

free parameters (4)
  • MCTS UCB exploration constant = not reported (tuned)
    Section III-B states a 'tuned Upper Confidence Bound (UCB)' is used; the numerical value is not given and affects search behavior.
  • OR-MCTS planning time budget per attempt = 30 seconds
    Section IV defines # attempts as failures within a time budget of 30 seconds; this limit affects success rates and number of attempts.
  • DIAS coverage threshold = 95%
    Baseline dense sensing stops at at least 95% scene coverage; this is a hand-chosen threshold that affects DIAS performance.
  • random viewpoint samples in region-specific sensing = not specified
    The policy pi_rs samples random viewpoint poses and selects the best; the number of samples is not reported, affecting coverage and time.
assumptions (5)
  • domain assumption Unobserved regions are treated as obstacles
    Section III-B: the planner treats unobserved areas as obstacles; this motivates the need for active sensing and shapes the feedback loop.
  • domain assumption Objects are rigid, graspable, and detectable by Contact-GraspNet and segmentation
    Section III-B and IV-C rely on pre-trained Contact-GraspNet [32] and object segmentation; if segmentation fails (acknowledged in IV-C), the pipeline can fail.
  • domain assumption Robot motion planning with RRT-Connect and swept-volume computation via forward kinematics are accurate
    Section III-B: feasibility of paths and blocking-object detection rely on these computations; no analysis of planner error is provided.
  • standard math Pinhole camera model coverage metric phi accurately models the in-hand camera observations
    Equation (1) defines coverage based on a pinhole model; this is a standard mathematical model.
  • domain assumption The simulation environment faithfully models real robot physics and sensing
    Section IV claims sim-to-real generalization based on one cabinet; the simulator is not named and no domain randomization is reported.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Integrating Active Sensing and Rearrangement Planning for Efficient Object Retrieval from Unknown, Confined, Cluttered Environments." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/2D5KCPS3

@misc{pith2026241111733,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Integrating Active Sensing and Rearrangement Planning for Efficient Object Retrieval from Unknown, Confined, Cluttered Environments},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/2D5KCPS3}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2411.11733}
}
read the original abstract

Retrieving target objects from unknown, confined spaces remains a challenging task that requires integrated, task-driven active sensing and rearrangement planning. Previous approaches have independently addressed active sensing and rearrangement planning, limiting their practicality in real-world scenarios. This paper presents a new, integrated heuristic-based active sensing and Monte-Carlo Tree Search (MCTS)-based retrieval planning approach. These components provide feedback to one another to actively sense critical, unobserved areas suitable for the retrieval planner to plan a sequence for relocating path-blocking obstacles and a collision-free trajectory for retrieving the target object. We demonstrate the effectiveness of our approach using a robot arm equipped with an in-hand camera in both simulated and real-world confined, cluttered scenarios. Our framework is compared against various state-of-the-art methods. The results indicate that our proposed approach outperforms baseline methods by a significant margin in terms of the success rate, the object rearrangement planning time consumption and the number of planning trials before successfully retrieving the target. Videos can be found at https://youtu.be/tea7I-3RtV0.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2411.11733 by the authors.

Figure 1
Figure 1. Depiction of cluttered example testing environments. [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p004_1.png] view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. Our method, MAS+OR-MCTS, solves the object retrieval task in the confined, real-world cabinet environment [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p006_2.png] view at source ↗

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

35 extracted references · 30 canonical work pages

  1. [20]

    Neural Rearrangement Planning for Object Retrieval from Confined Spaces Perceivable by Robot's In-hand RGB-D Sensor

    H. Ren and A. H. Qureshi, “Neural rearrangement planning for object retrieval from confined spaces perceivable by robot’s in-hand rgb-d sensor,” 2024. [Online]. Available: https://arxiv.org/abs/2402.06976

    work page Pith review arXiv 2024

  2. [1]

    View planning for 3d object reconstruction with a mobile manipulator robot,

    J. I. Vasquez-Gomez, L. E. Sucar, and R. Murrieta-Cid, “View planning for 3d object reconstruction with a mobile manipulator robot,” in 2014 IEEE/RSJ International Conference on Intelligent Robots and Systems . IEEE, 2014, pp. 4227–4233

    work page 2014

  3. [2]

    Receding horizon

    A. Bircher, M. Kamel, K. Alexis, H. Oleynikova, and R. Siegwart, “Receding horizon” next-best-view” planner for 3d exploration,” in 2016 IEEE international conference on robotics and automation (ICRA). IEEE, 2016, pp. 1462–1468

    2016

  4. [3]

    Pc-nbv: A point cloud based deep network for efficient next best view planning,

    R. Zeng, W. Zhao, and Y .-J. Liu, “Pc-nbv: A point cloud based deep network for efficient next best view planning,” in 2020 IEEE/RSJ International Conference on Intelligent Robots and Systems (IROS) . IEEE, 2020, pp. 7050–7057

    work page 2020

  5. [4]

    Supervised learning of the next-best-view for 3d object reconstruction,

    M. Mendoza, J. I. Vasquez-Gomez, H. Taud, L. E. Sucar, and C. Reta, “Supervised learning of the next-best-view for 3d object reconstruction,” Pattern Recognition Letters , vol. 133, pp. 224–231, 2020

    work page 2020

  6. [5]

    Robot active neural sensing and planning in unknown cluttered environments,

    H. Ren and A. H. Qureshi, “Robot active neural sensing and planning in unknown cluttered environments,” IEEE Transactions on Robotics, vol. 39, no. 4, pp. 2738–2750, 2023

    work page 2023

  7. [6]

    Occlusion- aware search for object retrieval in clutter,

    W. Bejjani, W. C. Agboh, M. R. Dogar, and M. Leonetti, “Occlusion- aware search for object retrieval in clutter,” in 2021 IEEE/RSJ International Conference on Intelligent Robots and Systems (IROS) , 2021, pp. 4678–4685

    work page 2021

  8. [7]

    Soft tracking using contacts for cluttered objects to perform blind object retrieval,

    S. Zhong, N. Fazeli, and D. Berenson, “Soft tracking using contacts for cluttered objects to perform blind object retrieval,” IEEE Robotics and Automation Letters , vol. 7, no. 2, pp. 3507–3514, 2022

    work page 2022

Show all 35 references
  1. [8]

    Autonomous two-stage object retrieval using supervised and reinforcement learning,

    T. Rouillard, I. Howard, and L. Cui, “Autonomous two-stage object retrieval using supervised and reinforcement learning,” in 2019 IEEE International Conference on Mechatronics and Automation (ICMA) . IEEE, 2019, pp. 780–786

    2019

  2. [9]

    Retrieving objects from clutter using a mobile robotic manipulator,

    K. Kim, J. Lee, C. Kim, and C. Nam, “Retrieving objects from clutter using a mobile robotic manipulator,” in 2019 16th International Conference on Ubiquitous Robots (UR) . IEEE, 2019, pp. 44–48

    2019

  3. [10]

    Visual foresight trees for object retrieval from clutter with nonprehensile rearrangement,

    B. Huang, S. D. Han, J. Yu, and A. Boularias, “Visual foresight trees for object retrieval from clutter with nonprehensile rearrangement,” IEEE Robotics and Automation Letters , vol. 7, no. 1, pp. 231–238, 2021

    2021

  4. [11]

    Mechan- ical search: Multi-step retrieval of a target object occluded by clut- ter,

    M. Danielczuk, A. Kurenkov, A. Balakrishna, M. Matl, D. Wang, R. Mart´ın-Mart´ın, A. Garg, S. Savarese, and K. Goldberg, “Mechan- ical search: Multi-step retrieval of a target object occluded by clut- ter,” in 2019 International Conference on Robotics and Automation (ICRA), 20...

    2019

  5. [12]

    Online planning for target object search in clutter under partial observability,

    Y . Xiao, S. Katt, A. ten Pas, S. Chen, and C. Amato, “Online planning for target object search in clutter under partial observability,” in 2019 International Conference on Robotics and Automation (ICRA). IEEE, 2019, pp. 8241–8247

    2019

  6. [13]

    An integrated approach for determining objects to be relocated and their goal posi- tions inside clutter for object retrieval,

    J. Ahn, J. Lee, S. H. Cheong, C. Kim, and C. Nam, “An integrated approach for determining objects to be relocated and their goal posi- tions inside clutter for object retrieval,” in 2021 IEEE International Conference on Robotics and Automation (ICRA) , 2021, pp. 6408– 6414

    2021

  7. [14]

    Planning for target retrieval using a robotic manipulator in cluttered and occluded environments,

    C. Nam, J. Lee, Y . Cho, J. Lee, D. H. Kim, and C. Kim, “Planning for target retrieval using a robotic manipulator in cluttered and occluded environments,” arXiv preprint arXiv:1907.03956 , 2019

    1907 arXiv

  8. [15]

    Occlusion- aware search for object retrieval in clutter,

    W. Bejjani, W. C. Agboh, M. R. Dogar, and M. Leonetti, “Occlusion- aware search for object retrieval in clutter,” in 2021 IEEE/RSJ International Conference on Intelligent Robots and Systems (IROS) . IEEE, 2021, pp. 4678–4685

    2021

  9. [17]

    Object rearrangement planning for target retrieval in a confined space with lateral view,

    M. Kang, J. Kim, H. Kee, and S. Oh, “Object rearrangement planning for target retrieval in a confined space with lateral view,” in 2023 IEEE/RSJ International Conference on Intelligent Robots and Systems (IROS), 2023, pp. 2004–2009

    2023

  10. [18]

    Where to relocate?: Object rearrangement inside cluttered and confined environments for robotic manipulation,

    S. Hun Cheong, B. Y . Cho, J. Lee, C. Kim, and C. Nam, “Where to relocate?: Object rearrangement inside cluttered and confined environments for robotic manipulation,” in 2020 IEEE International Conference on Robotics and Automation (ICRA) , 2020, pp. 7791– 7797

    2020

  11. [19]

    Fast and resilient manipulation planning for object retrieval in cluttered and confined environments,

    C. Nam, S. H. Cheong, J. Lee, D. H. Kim, and C. Kim, “Fast and resilient manipulation planning for object retrieval in cluttered and confined environments,” IEEE Transactions on Robotics , vol. 37, no. 5, pp. 1539–1552, 2021

    2021

  12. [21]

    Selective object rearrangement in clutter,

    B. Tang and G. S. Sukhatme, “Selective object rearrangement in clutter,” in Conference on Robot Learning. PMLR, 2023, pp. 1001– 1010

    2023

  13. [22]

    Object rearrangement planning for target retrieval in a confined space with lateral view,

    M. Kang, J. Kim, H. Kee, and S. Oh, “Object rearrangement planning for target retrieval in a confined space with lateral view,” in 2023 IEEE/RSJ International Conference on Intelligent Robots and Systems (IROS). IEEE, 2023, pp. 2004–2009

    2023

  14. [23]

    Dealing with difficult instances of object rearrangement

    A. Krontiris and K. E. Bekris, “Dealing with difficult instances of object rearrangement.” in Robotics: Science and Systems , vol. 1123, 2015

    2015

  15. [24]

    Optimal arrangement and rearrangement of objects on shelves to minimize robot retrieval cost,

    L. Y . Chen, H. Huang, and K. Goldberg, “Optimal arrangement and rearrangement of objects on shelves to minimize robot retrieval cost,” IEEE Transactions on Automation Science and Engineering , 2023

    2023

  16. [25]

    Nerp: Neural rearrangement planning for unknown objects,

    A. H. Qureshi, A. Mousavian, C. Paxton, M. C. Yip, and D. Fox, “Nerp: Neural rearrangement planning for unknown objects,” arXiv preprint arXiv:2106.01352, 2021

    2021 arXiv

  17. [26]

    Monte-carlo tree search for efficient visually guided rearrangement planning,

    Y . Labb ´e, S. Zagoruyko, I. Kalevatykh, I. Laptev, J. Carpentier, M. Aubry, and J. Sivic, “Monte-carlo tree search for efficient visually guided rearrangement planning,” IEEE Robotics and Automation Letters, vol. 5, no. 2, pp. 3715–3722, 2020

    2020

  18. [27]

    Large-scale multi-object rearrangement,

    E. Huang, Z. Jia, and M. T. Mason, “Large-scale multi-object rearrangement,” in 2019 International Conference on Robotics and Automation (ICRA), 2019, pp. 211–218

    2019

  19. [28]

    Rearrangement planning using object-centric and robot-centric action spaces,

    J. E. King, M. Cognetti, and S. S. Srinivasa, “Rearrangement planning using object-centric and robot-centric action spaces,” in 2016 IEEE International Conference on Robotics and Automation (ICRA) , 2016, pp. 3940–3947

    2016

  20. [29]

    Lazy rearrangement planning in confined spaces,

    R. Wang, K. Gao, J. Yu, and K. Bekris, “Lazy rearrangement planning in confined spaces,” in Proceedings of the International Conference on Automated Planning and Scheduling , vol. 32, 2022, pp. 385–393

    2022

  21. [30]

    Monte-carlo tree search: A new framework for game ai,

    G. Chaslot, S. Bakkes, I. Szita, and P. Spronck, “Monte-carlo tree search: A new framework for game ai,” in Proceedings of the AAAI Conference on Artificial Intelligence and Interactive Digital Entertainment, vol. 4, no. 1, 2008, pp. 216–217

    2008

  22. [31]

    Multi-stage monte carlo tree search for non-monotone object rearrangement planning in narrow confined environments,

    H. Ren and A. H. Qureshi, “Multi-stage monte carlo tree search for non-monotone object rearrangement planning in narrow confined environments,” 2024. [Online]. Available: https://arxiv.org/abs/2305.17175

    2024 arXiv

  23. [32]

    Contact- graspnet: Efficient 6-dof grasp generation in cluttered scenes,

    M. Sundermeyer, A. Mousavian, R. Triebel, and D. Fox, “Contact- graspnet: Efficient 6-dof grasp generation in cluttered scenes,” in2021 IEEE International Conference on Robotics and Automation (ICRA) . IEEE, 2021, pp. 13 438–13 444

    2021

  24. [33]

    Rrt-connect: An efficient approach to single-query path planning,

    J. Kuffner and S. LaValle, “Rrt-connect: An efficient approach to single-query path planning,” in Proceedings 2000 ICRA. Millennium Conference. IEEE International Conference on Robotics and Automa- tion. Symposia Proceedings (Cat. No.00CH37065) , vol. 2, 2000, pp. 995–1001 vol.2

    2000

  25. [34]

    Monte-carlo tree search,

    G. M. J.-B. C. Chaslot, “Monte-carlo tree search,” 2010

    2010

  26. [35]

    A survey of monte carlo tree search methods,

    C. B. Browne, E. Powley, D. Whitehouse, S. M. Lucas, P. I. Cowling, P. Rohlfshagen, S. Tavener, D. Perez, S. Samothrakis, and S. Colton, “A survey of monte carlo tree search methods,” IEEE Transactions on Computational Intelligence and AI in games , vol. 4, no. 1, pp. 1–43, 2012

    2012

  27. [36]

    Image segmentation using seeded region growing,

    M. Mary Synthuja Jain Preetha, L. Padma Suresh, and M. John Bosco, “Image segmentation using seeded region growing,” in 2012 In- ternational Conference on Computing, Electronics and Electrical Technologies (ICCEET), 2012, pp. 576–583

    2012

Pith tools

Reviewed August 12, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.