Pith. sign in

REVIEW 3 major objections 5 minor 1 cited by

Aim My Robot: Precision Local Navigation to Any Object

T0 review · 3 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 A vision-based navigation system claims centimeter-level precision to any object in a room, without maps or CAD models.

desk verdict A solid, well-engineered precision navigation system whose 'any object' claim outruns its goal parametrization. read the letter →

arxiv 2411.14770 v2 pith:GYAQKWIE submitted 2024-11-22 cs.RO

Xiangyun Meng , Xuning Yang , Sanghun Jung , Fabio Ramos , Srid Sadhan Jujjavarapu , Sanjoy Paul , Dieter Fox This is my paper · ORCID
classification cs.RO
keywords aim-my-robotprecisionlocalnavigationobject-centricsim-to-realtransferRGB-DLiDARtransformerpolicyimitationlearning
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

The paper introduces Aim-My-Robot (AMR), a local navigation system that claims to position a robot to a specified side, distance, and angle of any nearby object with centimeter-level accuracy. It uses only a masked reference image of the target object and streams of RGB-D and LiDAR data, requiring neither a metric map nor an object 3D model. The authors report a median final error of 3 cm and 1 degree on unseen objects in simulation, with little degradation when deployed on a real robot in a kitchen. If this holds, it would close the gap between standard navigation success (within 1 m) and the precision needed for docking, inspection, and manipulation.

What carries the argument

The key machinery is a goal parametrization plus a transformer-based policy: the target object is specified by a masked reference image (the mask identifies the instance), and the desired pose is given as C = {S, d, theta} where S is one of four sides relative to the most visible side in the reference image, d is the approach distance, and theta is the approach angle. The policy encodes RGB and depth as tokens (depth is injected as a 3D positional embedding for the RGB patches), encodes LiDAR as directional-bin tokens, fuses them with the goal and robot footprint in a multi-modal context encoder, and decodes a base trajectory autoregressively using multi-token classification with residual predictions to preserve precision after discretization. The data pipeline generates precise demonstrations with AIT* planning in Isaac Sim using the HSSD scene dataset, and training is augmented with DAgger. The architecture is designed to track the target object with a learned mask decoder and to reason about robot size, which the ablations show reduces collision rates.

What would settle it

Take a cylindrical or spherical object with no planar sides, render a reference image from a 45-degree angle, request a 'front' approach at 1.0 m, and measure the robot's final pose across many runs: if the robot consistently chooses the wrong side or the median distance error exceeds the claimed 3 cm, the dominant-front parametrization fails.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

The central claim is that an end-to-end learned policy can map multi-modal observations and an object-centric goal specification directly to precise base trajectories and camera tilt commands, eliminating the need for maps and object 3D models. The goal is specified by a reference image with a target mask and a relative pose parameterized by approach side (front, back, left, right), distance (0.1-1.0 m), and angle (0, plus or minus 15, plus or minus 30 degrees). The model is trained entirely in simulation on 500k trajectories across 54 photorealistic scenes, and achieves a median error of 3 cm and 1 degree on 2000 navigation tasks in unseen environments, including objects never seen during training. In a real kitchen, the robot completed most runs with distance errors between 1.8 and 3.1 cm for four of six objects, and it succeeded in closing a fridge drawer and aligning a forklift to a pallet for open-loop insertion.

Load-bearing premise

The goal specification assumes the target object has a dominant front side defined as the most visible side in the reference image, so the requested approach side and angle are unambiguous; for objects without a dominant side, such as cylinders, or when the reference image is oblique, the robot may aim at the wrong side.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • AMR can be interfaced with high-level planners that output a mask and pose parameters, making it a modular precision layer for task planning systems.
  • The robot can perform downstream manipulation using its body as an end effector, demonstrated by closing a fridge drawer in open loop after reaching the goal.
  • The system adapts to different robot kinematics: it runs on an omnidirectional base and, after fine-tuning with about 500 demonstrations, on a simulated forklift with Ackermann steering.
  • The robot can navigate to objects that are initially out of view, with a 90.4% completion rate in simulation, which exceeds what a classical pose-estimation baseline can do since that baseline requires initial visibility.
  • The centimeter-level endpoint accuracy makes open-loop final actions feasible, such as driving the forklift forward so the fork fully inserts into a pallet.

Reading between the lines

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

  • If this level of precision generalizes, the 1-meter success radius used in many navigation benchmarks becomes an outdated metric, and a new benchmark should measure endpoint pose error in centimeters.
  • The dominant-front parametrization could be extended to a full 6-DoF goal specification, such as a desired camera view direction, which would handle objects without a dominant side like cylinders or spheres.
  • The depth-as-positional-embedding design for RGB-D fusion is a transferable architectural idea that could reduce token counts in other vision-language-action models.
  • The recipe of photorealistic simulation plus model-based planner demonstrations may generalize to other precise behaviors beyond navigation, such as docking and alignment tasks, but this is not claimed by the paper.
Share X Bluesky LinkedIn Reddit HN

Signed reviews

No signed human review yet.

Editorial analysis

A structured set of objections, weighed in public.

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

Referee Report

3 major / 5 minor

Summary. The paper presents AMR (Aim My Robot), an end-to-end learned local navigation system that, given a reference image of a target object with a mask and a relative pose specification C={S,d,θ}, outputs base waypoints and camera tilt commands to position the robot at the desired pose with claimed centimeter-level precision. The system is trained in Isaac Sim on 500k trajectories from HSSD scenes using behavior cloning and DAgger, with a transformer that combines MAE-encoded RGB, depth-as-positional-encoding, LiDAR tokens, and autoregressive waypoint decoding. The evaluation covers 2,000 tasks in 5 held-out HSSD scenes with 166 unseen objects, plus real-kitchen trials on 6 objects; the paper reports median distance errors of roughly 2–4 cm and angular errors under about 2° in most conditions, with a 95.9% completion rate when the object is initially visible. Qualitative demonstrations include closing a fridge drawer and a forklift pallet-loading task.

Significance. If the reported precision holds, AMR is a significant step beyond conventional 1-m-goal navigation: it is map-free, CAD-free, trained entirely in simulation, and explicitly conditions on a target side, distance, and angle rather than just a point or image goal. The evaluation is unusually thorough for a systems paper, with large-scale photorealistic training and testing, held-out unseen objects, a meaningful ablation study, and real-robot deployment with downstream manipulation demonstrations. The central caveat is that the universal 'any object' claim is not supported for objects without a dominant side or for oblique reference images, and the paper's own failure analysis and real-world sink/cup results illustrate this limitation.

major comments (3)
  1. [§II, Fig. 2c] The goal parametrization defines the approach side S ∈ {front, back, left, right} relative to the 'most visible side' in the reference image, assuming 'common objects have 4 dominant sides.' For cylindrical or symmetric objects, or when the reference image is taken from an oblique angle such as 45°, two or more sides are equally visible and the same specification C={S,d,θ} does not determine a unique physical goal pose. This is acknowledged as a failure mode in Fig. 7c(4) ('a robot may go to the wrong side when there is no dominantly visible side'), and the real-kitchen cup and sink results in Table III (8.7 cm and 14.8 cm mean distance errors, versus 1.8–3.1 cm for the other objects) are consistent with this fragility. The abstract's 'reach any object' claim is therefore overstated; the paper should restrict the scope to objects with a well-defined dominant side or require a near-frontal reference image, and say so explicitly.
  2. [§V, 'We consider a run complete...'] The headline median errors (3 cm, 1°) are computed only over completed runs; Fig. 6 reports completion rates of 95.9% (visible) and 90.4% (invisible). The expected error over all attempted runs is therefore higher than the reported conditional median, and incomplete runs may have arbitrarily large final pose error. The paper already includes all runs in the ablation plot (Fig. 8, caption: 'We consider both complete and incomplete runs'), so the main quantitative evaluation should do the same, or the abstract and Section V should explicitly qualify the errors as completion-conditional.
  3. [§V-C, Table III] The real-world claim of 'little degradation' rests on only 3 runs per object, with hand-measured ground truth, and the sink and cup exceptions (14.8 cm and 8.7 cm distance errors) are mentioned only in the table caption. These exceptions should be discussed in the main text, because they are the largest deviations and directly bear on the generality of the method. With n=3, reporting only the mean also obscures the run-to-run spread; per-run values or a scatter plot should be provided so the reader can assess consistency.
minor comments (5)
  1. [§I, first paragraph] There is a typo: 'navigate to objects with precisely' should read 'navigate to objects with precision.'
  2. [§III-B2] The symbol C is used both for the goal condition (Section II) and for the classifier output in Section III-B3 ('C(·)'); this notational collision should be resolved to avoid confusion.
  3. [§III-A, Trajectory generation] The DAgger procedure is described in one sentence in Section IV ('identified failures... and used DAgger to augment the dataset') with no details on the number of iterations, the failure criteria, or how the expert labels the augmented states; this hampers reproducibility of the training pipeline.
  4. [§V, first paragraph and Fig. 8 caption] The text states that the error distribution contains final pose error for only the completed runs, while the Fig. 8 caption says 'We consider both complete and incomplete runs'; clarify which protocol applies in each figure and table.
  5. [§VI, last sentence] The final sentence of Related Work is incomplete: 'As of today, the most general and capable mobile manipulation systems' ends without a predicate. Finish the sentence or remove it.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 0.0 of 10

No significant circularity: AMR's precision claims are supported by held-out simulation and real-robot evaluations, not by fitted parameters or self-citations.

full rationale

The paper is an empirical system paper. The central claim—centimeter-level positioning to a user-specified object-centric pose—is supported by training on 500k simulated trajectories (49 HSSD scenes) and evaluating on 5 held-out scenes with 275 test objects (160 unseen), plus real-kitchen trials with hand-measured ground truth. No equation defines the claimed error in terms of a fitted parameter, and no 'prediction' is the residual of a fit to the evaluation data. The goal specification C = {S, d, theta} with 'front = most visible side in IR' is a task-definition convention, not a circular derivation; the paper explicitly acknowledges its failure mode for ambiguous viewpoints (Fig. 7c(4): 'a robot may go to the wrong side when there is no dominantly visible side') and reports larger real-world distance errors for sink and cup (14.8 cm and 8.7 cm). Reporting pose errors only for completed runs while separately reporting completion rates is a metric choice, not a constructional equivalence. The only self-citations ([1], [28]) are contextual prior work and a standard Monte Carlo localization measurement, respectively; neither is load-bearing for the paper's central result. Thus the derivation chain is self-contained and no circular step is present.

Assumptions & free parameters 3 free parameters · 5 assumptions · 0 invented entities

No new physical entities or mediators are introduced. The 'goal parametrization' is a representation, not an entity. The free parameters listed are hand-chosen design choices in the data pipeline and evaluation; they are not fitted to test data but they affect the interpretation of the reported precision.

free parameters (3)
  • Training goal distance range = 0.1 m to 0.5 m
    Chosen by hand for data generation; the real-world experiments use 1.0 m and the forklift uses 2.0 m, which are outside this range, yet the paper does not flag this distribution shift.
  • Goal angle set = {0, +/-15, +/-30} degrees
    Discrete set chosen by hand to simplify goal specification; not justified by task requirements.
  • Completion threshold = 1.0 m radius
    Used to classify runs as complete; error distributions in Fig. 6 include only completed runs, so the reported precision is conditional on reaching within 1 m.
assumptions (5)
  • domain assumption The target object has a dominant most-visible side in the reference image that defines 'front'.
    Sec. II and Fig. 2c; the goal parametrization assumes four dominant sides and uses the most visible side as front. Failure case in Fig. 7c(4) shows ambiguity for oblique viewpoints.
  • domain assumption The reference image and object mask are provided by an external system (e.g., SAM or LLM).
    Problem definition: 'we assume G is provided by another system.' This assumption is reasonable but means AMR does not solve instance identification without a mask.
  • domain assumption The robot is a cylindrical rigid body with a centered tilt camera.
    Sec. III-A data generation and Sec. VII limitations; the model is trained for this shape, limiting applicability to other robots.
  • domain assumption Simulation in Isaac Sim with HSSD scenes is sufficiently photorealistic for sim2real transfer.
    Sec. III-A; the claim of strong sim2real transfer rests on this, and is only verified in one real kitchen.
  • domain assumption The robot has accurate odometry to compute camera extrinsics between time steps.
    Sec. III-B1; depth position embeddings use odometry; no ablation on odometry noise.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Aim My Robot: Precision Local Navigation to Any Object." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/GYAQKWIE

@misc{pith2026241114770,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Aim My Robot: Precision Local Navigation to Any Object},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/GYAQKWIE}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2411.14770}
}
read the original abstract

Existing navigation systems mostly consider "success" when the robot reaches within 1m radius to a goal. This precision is insufficient for emerging applications where the robot needs to be positioned precisely relative to an object for downstream tasks, such as docking, inspection, and manipulation. To this end, we design and implement Aim-My-Robot (AMR), a local navigation system that enables a robot to reach any object in its vicinity at the desired relative pose, with centimeter-level precision. AMR achieves high precision and robustness by leveraging multi-modal perception, precise action prediction, and is trained on large-scale photorealistic data generated in simulation. AMR shows strong sim2real transfer and can adapt to different robot kinematics and unseen objects with little to no fine-tuning.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2411.14770 by the authors.

Figure 1
Figure 1. Overview of AMR. Given a masked image describing the target object and an object-centric pose (relative position and orientation), AMR tracks the object while moving, avoids obstacles, and aligns the robot to the target object with centimeter-level precision without maps or object 3D models. robot pose can be derived. But this usually requires specific object information such as 3D models [13], and the object being … view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. Problem setup. We specify the target object via a reference image IR taken in the scene and an object mask M (in green). The goal condition C is defined as the relative side and pose of the object in IR. A robot needs to navigate to the object conditioned on C and tilt its camera to gaze at the object. Note the reference image does not represent the final image captured by the robot at the desired goal. II. PROBLEM … view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. Example rendered images of HSSD scenes in Isaac Sim. [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p003_3.png] view at source ↗
Figures from the paper (8 more)
Figure 4
Figure 4. Figure 4: Sample objects in the scenes. We consider all objects, including those that are not semantically labeled. each feasible path, we render the camera observations along the path with a distance gap of 0.2m or an angular gap of 5 ◦ . The camera tilt angle is set such that …
Figure 5
Figure 5. Figure 5: Network architecture. The reference image IR and the robot’s RGB-D observations It are tokenized with MAE. The current LiDAR scan is tokenized by grouping points into directional bins. Image and LiDAR tokens are input into the multi-modal context encoder jointly with t…
Figure 6
Figure 6. Figure 6: Navigation error distribution in the test scenes for various object distances for completed runs. AMR outperforms the classical baseline for when objects are initially visible; and AMR also outperforms classical pose estimation when the object is initially out-of-view.…
Figure 7
Figure 7. Figure 7: Qualitative examples: (a) object initially visible (b) object initially out of view. The initial masks (green) are specified in the reference images . Cyan masks are predicted by the model. Trajectory accommodates the robot radius R for obstacle avoidance. (c) Typical …
Figure 8
Figure 8. Figure 8: Ablation study demonstrating effects of various choices on [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p006_8.png]
Figure 9
Figure 9. Figure 9: Real kitchen experiments. Left: reference images and contours of target object masks. While the fridge is partially out of view, the model can still reach the fridge. Middle: Initial view of the scene through the tilt camera. Right: robot observations after reaching ea…
Figure 10
Figure 10. Figure 10: Real-world qualitative experiments in new scenes. Left: reference image with target object highlighted by the green mask. Remaining columns: robot’s camera view while moving. The tracked object is highlighted by the cyan mask. The tasks are: (a) Go to the back of the …
Figure 11
Figure 11. Figure 11: Using AMR for mobile manipulation tasks. Left: closing a fridge drawer by pushing the robot body towards the drawer. Right: forklift loading a pallet. AMR accurately tracks the target objects throughout. are still modular [16], [17], and they require mapping the envir…

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Forward citations

Cited by 1 Pith paper

Reviewed papers in the Pith corpus that reference this work. Sorted by Pith novelty score. Full citation record

  1. MoTo: A Zero-shot Plug-in Interaction-aware Navigation for General Mobile Manipulation

    cs.RO 2025-09 conditional novelty 4.0 of 10

    MoTo turns existing fixed-base manipulation models into mobile manipulators by using VLM-picked contact keypoints and trajectory optimization to find docking points, with no training of MoTo itself.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

41 extracted references · 21 canonical work pages · cited by 1 Pith paper

  1. [1]

    Scaling local control to large-scale topological navigation,

    X. Meng, N. Ratliff, Y . Xiang, and D. Fox, “Scaling local control to large-scale topological navigation,” in IEEE International Conference on Robotics and Automaton (ICRA) , 2020

    work page 2020

  2. [2]

    Imitating shortest paths in simulation enables effective navigation and manipulation in the real world,

    K. Ehsani, T. Gupta, R. Hendrix, J. Salvador, L. Weihs, K.-H. Zeng, K. P. Singh, Y . Kim, W. Han, A. Herrasti, et al. , “Imitating shortest paths in simulation enables effective navigation and manipulation in the real world,” arXiv preprint arXiv:2312.02976 , 2023

    arXiv 2023

  3. [3]

    Nomad: Goal masked diffusion policies for navigation and exploration,

    A. Sridhar, D. Shah, C. Glossop, and S. Levine, “Nomad: Goal masked diffusion policies for navigation and exploration,” arXiv preprint arXiv:2310.07896, 2023

    arXiv 2023

  4. [4]

    Saynav: Grounding large language models for dynamic planning to navigation in new environments,

    A. Rajvanshi, K. Sikka, X. Lin, B. Lee, H.-P. Chiu, and A. Velasquez, “Saynav: Grounding large language models for dynamic planning to navigation in new environments,” arXiv preprint arXiv:2309.04077 , 2023

    arXiv 2023

  5. [5]

    Gnm: A general navigation model to drive any robot,

    D. Shah, A. Sridhar, A. Bhorkar, N. Hirose, and S. Levine, “Gnm: A general navigation model to drive any robot,” in 2023 IEEE International Conference on Robotics and Automation (ICRA) . IEEE, 2023, pp. 7226–7233

    work page 2023

  6. [6]

    Learning generalizable feature fields for mobile manipulation,

    R.-Z. Qiu, Y . Hu, G. Yang, Y . Song, Y . Fu, J. Ye, J. Mu, R. Yang, N. Atanasov, S. Scherer, et al. , “Learning generalizable feature fields for mobile manipulation,” arXiv preprint arXiv:2403.07563 , 2024

    arXiv 2024

  7. [7]

    Mopa: Modular object navigation with pointgoal agents,

    S. Raychaudhuri, T. Campari, U. Jain, M. Savva, and A. X. Chang, “Mopa: Modular object navigation with pointgoal agents,” in Proceed- ings of the IEEE/CVF Winter Conference on Applications of Computer Vision, 2024, pp. 5763–5773

    work page 2024

  8. [8]

    Goat: Go to any thing,

    M. Chang, T. Gervet, M. Khanna, S. Yenamandra, D. Shah, S. Y . Min, K. Shah, C. Paxton, S. Gupta, D. Batra, et al., “Goat: Go to any thing,” arXiv preprint arXiv:2311.06430 , 2023

    arXiv 2023

Show all 41 references
  1. [9]

    Navigation with large language models: Semantic guesswork as a heuristic for planning,

    D. Shah, M. R. Equi, B. Osi ´nski, F. Xia, B. Ichter, and S. Levine, “Navigation with large language models: Semantic guesswork as a heuristic for planning,” in Conference on Robot Learning . PMLR, 2023, pp. 2683–2699

    2023

  2. [10]

    Interactive navigation in environments with traversable obstacles using large language and vision-language models,

    Z. Zhang, A. Lin, C. W. Wong, X. Chu, Q. Dou, and K. Au, “Interactive navigation in environments with traversable obstacles using large language and vision-language models,” arXiv preprint arXiv:2310.08873, 2023

    2023 arXiv

  3. [11]

    Instance- specific image goal navigation: Training embodied agents to find object instances,

    J. Krantz, S. Lee, J. Malik, D. Batra, and D. S. Chaplot, “Instance- specific image goal navigation: Training embodied agents to find object instances,” arXiv preprint arXiv:2211.15876 , 2022

    2022 arXiv

  4. [12]

    Habitat challenge 2023,

    K. Yadav, J. Krantz, R. Ramrakhya, S. K. Ramakrishnan, J. Yang, A. Wang, J. Turner, A. Gokaslan, V .-P. Berges, R. Mootaghi, O. Maksymets, A. X. Chang, M. Savva, A. Clegg, D. S. Chaplot, and D. Batra, “Habitat challenge 2023,” https://aihabitat.org/challenge/2023/, 2023

    2023

  5. [13]

    Foundationpose: Unified 6d pose estimation and tracking of novel objects,

    B. Wen, W. Yang, J. Kautz, and S. Birchfield, “Foundationpose: Unified 6d pose estimation and tracking of novel objects,” arXiv preprint arXiv:2312.08344, 2023

    2023 arXiv

  6. [14]

    ViNT: A foundation model for visual navigation,

    D. Shah, A. Sridhar, N. Dashora, K. Stachowicz, K. Black, N. Hirose, and S. Levine, “ViNT: A foundation model for visual navigation,” in CoRL, 2023

    2023

  7. [15]

    Zson: Zero-shot object-goal navigation using multimodal goal embed- dings,

    A. Majumdar, G. Aggarwal, B. Devnani, J. Hoffman, and D. Batra, “Zson: Zero-shot object-goal navigation using multimodal goal embed- dings,” Advances in Neural Information Processing Systems , vol. 35, pp. 32 340–32 352, 2022

    2022

  8. [16]

    Ok- robot: What really matters in integrating open-knowledge models for robotics,

    P. Liu, Y . Orru, C. Paxton, N. M. M. Shafiullah, and L. Pinto, “Ok- robot: What really matters in integrating open-knowledge models for robotics,” arXiv preprint arXiv:2401.12202 , 2024

    2024 arXiv

  9. [17]

    Demonstrating mobile manipulation in the wild: A metrics-driven approach,

    M. Bajracharya, J. Borders, R. Cheng, D. Helmick, L. Kaul, D. Kruse, J. Leichty, J. Ma, C. Matl, F. Michel, et al. , “Demonstrating mobile manipulation in the wild: A metrics-driven approach,” arXiv preprint arXiv:2401.01474, 2024

    2024 arXiv

  10. [18]

    Segment anything,

    A. Kirillov, E. Mintun, N. Ravi, H. Mao, C. Rolland, L. Gustafson, T. Xiao, S. Whitehead, A. C. Berg, W.-Y . Lo,et al., “Segment anything,” in Proceedings of the IEEE/CVF International Conference on Computer Vision, 2023, pp. 4015–4026

    2023

  11. [19]

    Pddlstream: Integrating symbolic planners and blackbox samplers via optimistic adaptive planning,

    C. R. Garrett, T. Lozano-P ´erez, and L. P. Kaelbling, “Pddlstream: Integrating symbolic planners and blackbox samplers via optimistic adaptive planning,” in Proceedings of the international conference on automated planning and scheduling , vol. 30, 2020, pp. 440–448

    2020

  12. [20]

    Code as policies: Language model programs for embodied control,

    J. Liang, W. Huang, F. Xia, P. Xu, K. Hausman, B. Ichter, P. Florence, and A. Zeng, “Code as policies: Language model programs for embodied control,” in 2023 IEEE International Conference on Robotics and Automation (ICRA) . IEEE, 2023, pp. 9493–9500

    2023

  13. [21]

    Habitat synthetic scenes dataset (hssd-200): An analysis of 3d scene scale and realism tradeoffs for objectgoal navigation,

    M. Khanna, Y . Mao, H. Jiang, S. Haresh, B. Schacklett, D. Batra, A. Clegg, E. Undersander, A. X. Chang, and M. Savva, “Habitat synthetic scenes dataset (hssd-200): An analysis of 3d scene scale and realism tradeoffs for objectgoal navigation,” arXiv preprint arXiv:2306.11290, 2023

    2023 arXiv

  14. [22]

    Adaptively informed trees (ait*): Fast asymptotically optimal path planning through adaptive heuristics,

    M. P. Strub and J. D. Gammell, “Adaptively informed trees (ait*): Fast asymptotically optimal path planning through adaptive heuristics,” in 2020 IEEE International Conference on Robotics and Automation (ICRA). IEEE, 2020, pp. 3191–3198

    2020

  15. [23]

    Masked autoencoders are scalable vision learners,

    K. He, X. Chen, S. Xie, Y . Li, P. Doll ´ar, and R. Girshick, “Masked autoencoders are scalable vision learners,” in CVPR, 2022

    2022

  16. [24]

    Nvidia isaac sim,

    NVIDIA, “Nvidia isaac sim,” https://developer.nvidia.com/isaac-sim, 2021

    2021

  17. [25]

    Behavior transformers: Cloning k modes with one stone,

    N. M. Shafiullah, Z. Cui, A. A. Altanzaya, and L. Pinto, “Behavior transformers: Cloning k modes with one stone,” Advances in neural information processing systems , vol. 35, pp. 22 955–22 968, 2022

    2022

  18. [26]

    A reduction of imitation learning and structured prediction to no-regret online learning,

    S. Ross, G. Gordon, and D. Bagnell, “A reduction of imitation learning and structured prediction to no-regret online learning,” in AISTATS, 2011

    2011

  19. [27]

    Implementation of the pure pursuit path’hcking algorithm,

    R. C. Conlter, “Implementation of the pure pursuit path’hcking algorithm,” Camegie Mellon University , 1992

    1992

  20. [28]

    Monte carlo localization: Efficient position estimation for mobile robots,

    D. Fox, W. Burgard, F. Dellaert, and S. Thrun, “Monte carlo localization: Efficient position estimation for mobile robots,” Aaai/iaai, vol. 1999, no. 343-349, pp. 2–2, 1999

    1999

  21. [29]

    A path following control of an unmanned autonomous forklift,

    T. A. Tamba, B. Hong, and K.-S. Hong, “A path following control of an unmanned autonomous forklift,” International Journal of Control, Automation and Systems , vol. 7, no. 1, pp. 113–122, 2009

    2009

  22. [30]

    An optimization-based high- precision flexible online trajectory planner for forklifts,

    Y . Sun, J. Yang, Z. Zhang, and Y . Shu, “An optimization-based high- precision flexible online trajectory planner for forklifts,” in Actuators, vol. 12, no. 4. MDPI, 2023, p. 162

    2023

  23. [31]

    Navigating to objects in the real world,

    T. Gervet, S. Chintala, D. Batra, J. Malik, and D. S. Chaplot, “Navigating to objects in the real world,” Science Robotics , vol. 8, no. 79, p. eadf6991, 2023

    2023

  24. [32]

    Object goal navigation using goal-oriented semantic exploration,

    D. S. Chaplot, D. P. Gandhi, A. Gupta, and R. R. Salakhutdinov, “Object goal navigation using goal-oriented semantic exploration,” Advances in Neural Information Processing Systems , vol. 33, pp. 4247–4258, 2020

    2020

  25. [33]

    Navigating to objects specified by images,

    J. Krantz, T. Gervet, K. Yadav, A. Wang, C. Paxton, R. Mottaghi, D. Batra, J. Malik, S. Lee, and D. S. Chaplot, “Navigating to objects specified by images,” in Proceedings of the IEEE/CVF International Conference on Computer Vision , 2023, pp. 10 916–10 925

    2023

  26. [34]

    Last- mile embodied visual navigation,

    J. Wasserman, K. Yadav, G. Chowdhary, A. Gupta, and U. Jain, “Last- mile embodied visual navigation,” in Conference on Robot Learning . PMLR, 2023, pp. 666–678

    2023

  27. [35]

    Sam-6d: Segment anything model meets zero-shot 6d object pose estimation,

    J. Lin, L. Liu, D. Lu, and K. Jia, “Sam-6d: Segment anything model meets zero-shot 6d object pose estimation,” arXiv preprint arXiv:2311.15707, 2023

    2023 arXiv

  28. [36]

    Nerf-ibvs: visual servo based on nerf for visual localization and navigation,

    Y . Wang, Y . Yan, D. Shi, W. Zhu, J. Xia, T. Jeff, S. Jin, K. Gao, X. Li, and X. Yang, “Nerf-ibvs: visual servo based on nerf for visual localization and navigation,” Advances in Neural Information Processing Systems, vol. 36, 2024

    2024

  29. [37]

    Spin: Simultaneous perception, interaction and navigation,

    S. Uppal, A. Agarwal, H. Xiong, K. Shaw, and D. Pathak, “Spin: Simultaneous perception, interaction and navigation,” CVPR, 2024

    2024

  30. [38]

    Asc: Adaptive skill coordination for robotic mobile manipulation,

    N. Yokoyama, A. Clegg, J. Truong, E. Undersander, T.-Y . Yang, S. Arnaud, S. Ha, D. Batra, and A. Rai, “Asc: Adaptive skill coordination for robotic mobile manipulation,” IEEE Robotics and Automation Letters, vol. 9, no. 1, pp. 779–786, 2023

    2023

  31. [39]

    Mobile aloha: Learning bimanual mobile manipulation with low-cost whole-body teleoperation,

    Z. Fu, T. Z. Zhao, and C. Finn, “Mobile aloha: Learning bimanual mobile manipulation with low-cost whole-body teleoperation,” 2024

    2024

  32. [40]

    Skill transformer: A monolithic policy for mobile manipulation,

    X. Huang, D. Batra, A. Rai, and A. Szot, “Skill transformer: A monolithic policy for mobile manipulation,” in ICCV, October 2023

    2023

  33. [41]

    Causal policy gradient for whole-body mobile manipulation,

    J. Hu, P. Stone, and R. Mart ´ın-Mart´ın, “Causal policy gradient for whole-body mobile manipulation,” 2023

    2023

Pith tools

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