Pith. sign in

REVIEW 4 major objections 5 minor 1 cited by

RoboHanger: Learning Generalizable Robotic Hanger Insertion for Diverse Garments

T0 review · 4 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 This paper reports that a dual-arm robot can insert a hanger into unseen garments by learning four 2D keypoints from depth images and masks, trained entirely in simulation, achieving 75% real-world success without any real-data fine-tuning.

desk verdict A solid sim-to-real pipeline for a genuinely underexplored task—hanger insertion into unseen garments—with a promising 75% real-world result, but the sim success metric and small real trial count keep the headline number provisional. read the letter →

arxiv 2412.01083 v4 pith:SOM42VYN submitted 2024-12-02 cs.RO

Yuxing Chen , Songlin Wei , Bowen Xiao , Jiangran Lyu , Jiayi Chen , Feng Zhu , He Wang This is my paper · ORCID
classification cs.RO
keywords hangerinsertiondeformableobjectmanipulationsim-to-realtransferdual-armrobotactionprimitivesdepthimagepolicygarmentkeypointsclothsimulation
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

Most robotic clothing research stops at flattening or folding; actually pushing a hanger through a garment's neckline is usually done by hand. This paper claims that this step can be learned: train a dual-arm robot in a cloth simulator on synthetic garments, treating the whole long sequence as two short motions — press-and-lift to insert the left end of the hanger, then drag-and-rotate to insert the right end — and let each motion be controlled by just two 2D points chosen from a depth image plus object masks. After training on 120 synthetic garments with no real-world demonstrations or fine-tuning, the policy succeeds in 75% of trials on eight unseen real garments, with an 85.1% success rate in simulation. The practical point is that a contact-rich, two-armed deformable-object skill, which prior robotic-hanging work avoided, may be tractable through low-dimensional action parameterization plus simulator-generated data.

What carries the argument

The load-bearing mechanism is the action-primitive parameterization: each subtask is a single short trajectory defined by two 2D keypoints — press-and-lift uses (press point, lift point) and drag-and-rotate uses (drag point, rotate point) — rather than a long sequence of joint angles. Four image-to-image networks are trained to output value maps whose peaks give these keypoints; the value at each pixel estimates the success probability of executing the primitive with that pixel as the target, so inference is an argmax over a 2D image. Conditioning the second network of each primitive on the first point (via a one-hot map) lets the two networks be trained cooperatively with binary cross-entropy losses. The second pillar is the simulator and data loop: an iterative scheme in which a heuristic policy seeds a dataset, the learned networks collect more trajectories, and the networks are fine-tuned on the combined set, all on synthetic garments and hangers rendered as depth and mask images.

What would settle it

Test the trained policy, without any retraining, on a thin, slippery garment and a visibly flexible hanger—conditions that stress the simulator's simplified grasp model and rigid-hanger assumption. If insertion success falls far below the 75% reported on the original eight garments, the sim-to-real generalization claim is falsified.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

The paper's claim is that hanger insertion, despite its long horizon and high-dimensional cloth state, is solved by reducing it to four 2D keypoint predictions. The robot detects three keypoints on the hanger and three masks (hanger, garment, neckline). The first primitive, press-and-lift, takes a press point and a lift point: the hanger's left tip presses the neckline while the other gripper lifts the fabric, then the tip slides in. The second primitive, drag-and-rotate, takes a drag point and a rotate point: the robot re-grasps the hanger to avoid self-collision, drags the garment sideways, rotates the hanger so its right end aligns with the neckline, and pulls the garment back. Four networks output pixel-wise success maps; the highest-valued pixel in each map is the chosen keypoint, and the z-coordinate is held fixed to avoid depth-sensor noise. The networks are trained in a custom finite-element cloth simulator through an iterative loop of heuristic data followed by online self-collected data, using depth and masks as input to sidestep color and texture variation. The reported result is 85.1% overall success in simulation and 75% on eight unseen garments in the real world with no real-data fine-tuning.

Load-bearing premise

The result stands on the assumption that cloth behavior in the custom simulator—where grabbing a garment is simplified to attaching it to the gripper and the hanger moves as a rigid body—is close enough to real physics that actions learned there work on a real robot.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • A long-horizon deformable manipulation task can be handled by four 2D keypoint predictions rather than dense joint-angle trajectories, which is why the policy transfers across garment types.
  • Because input is depth plus masks rather than color, the policy is insensitive to garment color and pattern; new garment geometries generalize if their depth and mask structure is similar.
  • The iterative online data collection supplies failure samples that improve the final success rate over heuristic-only data (85.1% vs 81.8% in simulation), and the neckline mask adds a further gain.
  • The success of the method is sensitive to hanger properties: in real-world tests, a hanger with a crossbar helps separate cloth layers, while a high-friction hanger wrinkles the garment and lowers success from 75% to 56.2%.
  • With human initialization the real-world success rises to 80%, indicating the policy is somewhat robust to how the garment is laid out.

Reading between the lines

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

  • The same two-point primitive scheme could be reused for other bimanual insertion-through-a-loop tasks, such as threading a belt through loops, inserting a shoelace, or hanging bags by their handles, where the essential problem is guiding one rigid endpoint through a deformable opening.
  • Because the policy reads depth and masks, it may be possible to couple it with a strong open-vocabulary segmentation model and a depth-refinement step in cluttered scenes; whether that preserves the 75% success rate is a testable extension of the paper.
  • The paper's success criterion in simulation is geometric ray coverage rather than physical contact; a real-world closed-loop verifier that confirms actual insertion could enable recovery from failures and improve the right-end insertion rate beyond 80%.
  • The stated limitation that gripper-garment contact is simplified suggests the biggest headroom for improving the method is a more realistic grasp model in simulation; if such a model raises the simulated success rate, the real-world rate would likely follow.
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

4 major / 5 minor

Summary. This paper proposes RoboHanger, a dual-arm robotic system that inserts a clothes hanger into a garment through its neckline using two learned action primitives: press-and-lift for the left endpoint and drag-and-rotate for the right endpoint. Each primitive is parameterized by two 2D keypoints predicted by four U-Net value maps from depth images and object masks. Training data are generated automatically in a custom Taichi/FEM cloth simulator with 144 synthetic garments, using an initial heuristic policy followed by iterative online fine-tuning. The paper reports an overall simulation success rate of 85.1% on held-out garments and a real-world success rate of 75% on 8 unseen garments without real-data fine-tuning, outperforming IL, ACT, DP, SAC, and a fixed-policy baseline in the reported comparisons. The authors explicitly acknowledge limitations in the simulator's grasp modeling and kinematic hanger motion.

Significance. If the reported results hold, this is a useful contribution to deformable-object manipulation. The task decomposition into small action primitives is clean, the automatic data-collection loop in a GPU cloth simulator is scalable, and the 75% sim-to-real transfer without real fine-tuning is a concrete and falsifiable generalization claim. The use of depth and masks is well motivated, and the ablations on online data and neckline masks provide internal evidence that the design choices matter. The main open risk is whether the simulation success metric and the small real-world evaluation actually certify the headline claim; both concerns are addressable with additional calibration and trials.

major comments (4)
  1. [III-D, IV-A] The simulation success criterion is load-bearing but not calibrated to real-world ground truth. Section III-D states that an endpoint is counted as inserted when the fraction of rays hitting the garment mesh exceeds 0.95 for the left endpoint and 0.9 for the right endpoint, and that these thresholds are set manually by inspecting simulated trajectories. Because this same criterion provides training labels for Qpress, Qlift, Qdrag, and Qrotate and also produces the simulation success rates, an over-permissive threshold would reward mesh coverage rather than true insertion through the neckline. I request a validation study comparing the ray-cast coverage score against manually or externally labeled true insertion in sim and real episodes, and a sensitivity analysis around the chosen thresholds.
  2. [IV-A, Table III] The real-world evaluation is too small to support the strength of the claims. Section IV-A reports 16 real trials per condition, and Table III shows 75.0% versus 62.5% for the best baseline; with 16 trials, the difference is only two trials. There are no confidence intervals, no per-garment breakdown, and no stated protocol for checking real-world success. Please report exact trial counts per garment, a written success-checking protocol, confidence intervals, and preferably additional trials per condition.
  3. [III-F, V] The idealized simulator assumptions acknowledged in the Limitations section interact directly with the training and success-checking loop. Section III-F models garment grasping as attaching the garment to the gripper and treats hanger motion as purely kinematic, so all training data, ablations, and simulated success rates are generated under these idealizations. Please provide targeted evidence that the learned keypoints do not exploit sim-only effects, for example by retraining under a more faithful grasp or contact model, or by analyzing real-world failures to attribute them to the known idealizations. At minimum, the discussion should quantify how much of the 25% real-world failure rate is plausibly due to these simplifications.
  4. [IV-B, IV-D] The baseline comparisons are not apples-to-apples on training data. Section IV-B states that ACT and DP are trained on about 10,000 successful trajectories from the heuristic policy, while the proposed method is trained on 18,000 trajectories that include online data collected by the learned policy. The improvements over ACT and DP in Table I could therefore reflect differences in data quantity and selection rather than the action-primitive formulation alone. Please retrain baselines on the same number of trajectories with the same offline/online mix, or include baseline numbers in the Table II data ablations.
minor comments (5)
  1. [III-C] In the press-and-lift description, the sentence 'we then lift the garment at point plift with the other hand without moving the garment' is ambiguous; it should state which object remains stationary.
  2. [III-D] The notation S2 is used for the success of the right-endpoint primitive, but Table III reports S2 as 80.0% even though the overall S is 75.0% when S1 is 93.8%; please define the conditional nature explicitly.
  3. [III-E] The supervision in Eq. (2) and Eq. (5) uses a 0.5 threshold on the max Q value; please justify this choice or note its sensitivity.
  4. [IV-B] The SAC baseline description says the action is first transformed into an image where each pixel value represents the inverse of the distance to that action, but the exact rendering of this action image is not fully specified; a short pseudocode or channel diagram would help reproducibility.
  5. [IV-B, Figure 6] Figure 6 labels hangers with (a.1) and (a.2) in the text of Section IV-B, but Figure 6(a) appears to use numbered hangers; please align the labels.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 0.0 of 10

No circular derivation found; the real-world success claim is independently measured, and self-citations are non-load-bearing components.

full rationale

The claimed derivation chain is a standard sim-to-real learning pipeline, not a tautology. The simulation success criterion (Sec. III-D) is a manually thresholded ray-cast coverage proxy used to label training data and to compute simulation success rates; this is an operational metric, not a learned parameter, and the headline real-world result (Sec. IV-A, 16 trials) is assessed independently of that proxy, so the 75% figure is not produced by the same definition used to train the policy. The loss functions (Eqs. 1-6) train UNets to predict the sim-defined subtask success, with the press/drag networks supervised by the max over the lift/rotate networks; this is a standard bootstrapped value formulation, not a definitional identity between input and output. Online DAgger-style data collection (Sec. III-F) uses environment-generated success labels, so it is not self-confirming. Self-citations [8] and [31] provide an action-primitive concept and a depth-refinement module, but action primitives are also credited to external works [7], [9], [25], and the depth-refinement output is validated by the independent real-world experiments; neither citation imports a uniqueness theorem or forces the paper's architectural choice. The stated limitations (Sec. V) acknowledge idealized gripper-garment attachment and kinematic hanger motion; these are simulator-fidelity concerns, not circular-reasoning concerns. The manually set ray-cast thresholds are a validity concern regarding whether the simulation proxy matches true insertion, but that is a measurement-calibration issue rather than circularity. Therefore no circular step can be exhibited, and score 0 is appropriate.

Assumptions & free parameters 4 free parameters · 6 assumptions · 0 invented entities

The central claim rests on the simulator faithfully representing real cloth and on the chosen success criteria. The free parameters are mostly hand-set thresholds and angles that directly influence the reported success numbers. No new physical entities are introduced.

free parameters (4)
  • simulation success thresholds = 0.95 (left), 0.9 (right)
    Ray-casting coverage ratios manually tuned 'by inspecting many successful and unsuccessful trajectories' (Sec. III-D); they define training labels and simulation success, so they directly influence reported numbers.
  • grasp rotation angle = +45 degrees
    Hand-chosen rotation of the gripper around the hanger axis for grasping (Sec. III-B); not learned or swept.
  • insertion distance after lift = not specified
    The press-and-lift primitive inserts the hanger 'at a fixed distance' (Sec. III-C); the value is not reported, yet it affects success.
  • supervision threshold for Qpress and Qdrag = 0.5
    Equations 2 and 5 use 0.5 as the threshold to convert Qlift and Qrotate max outputs into pseudo-labels; this is a hyperparameter that affects training.
assumptions (6)
  • domain assumption FEM cloth simulation with a single Newton iteration and cubic energy collision response faithfully captures garment behavior relevant to hanger insertion.
    Used throughout training; any systematic deviation from real cloth dynamics would bias all learned primitives (Sec. III-F).
  • domain assumption Rigid and articulated bodies (hanger, robot arms) can be moved kinematically without modeling their dynamics or contact response.
    Section III-F states dynamics and collision handling for rigid and articulated bodies are not simulated; this assumes the hanger's motion is always as commanded and that cloth response via SDF forces is sufficient.
  • ad hoc to paper Garment grasping can be approximated by attaching the garment to the gripper in simulation.
    Explicitly stated in Limitations (Sec. V); the paper acknowledges this simplification limits exploration of strategies and may inflate simulation success.
  • ad hoc to paper Ray-casting coverage of the hanger endpoint by garment mesh is a correct measure of insertion success.
    Success labels in simulation are produced by this criterion with hand-set thresholds (Sec. III-D); if the measure disagrees with real-world insertion, training labels are corrupted.
  • domain assumption Depth images and masks are sufficient observations; appearance gap is negligible with these inputs.
    The policy relies on geometric input only; objects with similar geometry but different appearance are assumed equivalent (Sec. III-H).
  • domain assumption Randomizing camera intrinsics and physics parameters in simulation spans the sim-to-real gap.
    No real fine-tuning is done; the transfer relies on these randomizations (Sec. III-H).

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of RoboHanger: Learning Generalizable Robotic Hanger Insertion for Diverse Garments." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/SOM42VYN

@misc{pith2026241201083,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: RoboHanger: Learning Generalizable Robotic Hanger Insertion for Diverse Garments},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/SOM42VYN}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2412.01083}
}
read the original abstract

For the task of hanging clothes, learning how to insert a hanger into a garment is a crucial step, but has rarely been explored in robotics. In this work, we address the problem of inserting a hanger into various unseen garments that are initially laid flat on a table. This task is challenging due to its long-horizon nature, the high degrees of freedom of the garments and the lack of data. To simplify the learning process, we first propose breaking the task into several subtasks. Then, we formulate each subtask as a policy learning problem and propose a low-dimensional action parameterization. To overcome the challenge of limited data, we build our own simulator and create 144 synthetic clothing assets to effectively collect high-quality training data. Our approach uses single-view depth images and object masks as input, which mitigates the Sim2Real appearance gap and achieves high generalization capabilities for new garments. Extensive experiments in both simulation and reality validate our proposed method. By training on various garments in the simulator, our method achieves a 75\% success rate with 8 different unseen garments in the real world.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2412.01083 by the authors.

Figure 1
Figure 1. RoboHanger: We use a dual-arm robot, where each arm has 7 degrees of freedom (DoF) and is equipped with parallel grippers. A camera is mounted on the robot’s head. Our method is based on visual input, enabling the robot to insert a hanger into the necklines of various garments. Abstract— For the task of hanging clothes, learning how to insert a hanger into a garment is a crucial step, but has rarely been explored in… view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. Robot system in the real world. The dual-arm robot is equipped with parallel grippers on both arms and uses a head-mounted camera for observation. The robot’s waist can be controlled to lean forward. III. METHOD We focus on the task of inserting a hanger into a garment. As illustrated in [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p002_2.png] view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. System Overview. (a) Before each action primitive, our system takes RGB-D observations as input and segments the hanger, the garment, and its neckline. We pre-detect three keypoints of the hanger at the beginning of the policy. (b) The action primitive press-and-lift inserts the left endpoint of the hanger into the target garment. (c) The action primitive drag-and-rotate inserts the right endpoint of the hanger into… view at source ↗
Figures from the paper (5 more)
Figure 4
Figure 4. Figure 4: Action primitive: press-and-lift. b) drag-and-rotate: This action primi￾tive is parametrized by (pdrag, protate) = (xdrag, ydrag, xrotate, yrotate) ∈ R 4 . As illustrated in [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p003_4.png]
Figure 5
Figure 5. Figure 5: Action primitive: drag-and-rotate. D. Success Criteria For each action primitive, the success criterion is whether the hanger’s endpoint (Hl for the first action primitive and Hr for the second) is inserted into the garment. Similarly, if both endpoints are inserted, t…
Figure 6
Figure 6. Figure 6: Real world assets. In the real world, the hangers and garments used for evaluation are as follows: Figure (a) shows the hangers we use, each with a width of approximately 40 cm. These hangers vary in shape and coefficient of friction. Figure (b) shows our test garments…
Figure 7
Figure 7. Figure 7: The figure shows the different garment states after applying each action primitive of RoboHanger system in the real [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p007_7.png]
Figure 8
Figure 8. Figure 8: Results with different hangers in the real world. Issues may arise when changing hangers in reality. Figure (a) and Figure (c) show results with Hanger 1. As shown in Figure (b), when switching to Hanger 2, it becomes difficult to separate the upper and lower layers of…

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. Reactive In-Air Clothing Manipulation with Confidence-Aware Dense Correspondence and Visuotactile Affordance

    cs.RO 2025-09 conditional novelty 6.0 of 10

    A dual-arm robot folds and hangs crumpled shirts in mid-air using confidence-aware visual correspondences and touch-supervised grasp affordance.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

34 extracted references · 19 canonical work pages · cited by 1 Pith paper

  1. [1]

    Speedfolding: Learning efficient bimanual folding of garments,

    Y . Avigal, L. Berscheid, T. Asfour, T. Kr ¨oger, and K. Goldberg, “Speedfolding: Learning efficient bimanual folding of garments,” in 2022 IEEE/RSJ International Conference on Intelligent Robots and Systems (IROS). IEEE, 2022, pp. 1–8

    work page 2022

  2. [2]

    Cloth funnels: Canonicalized-alignment for multi-purpose garment manipulation,

    A. Canberk, C. Chi, H. Ha, B. Burchfiel, E. Cousineau, S. Feng, and S. Song, “Cloth funnels: Canonicalized-alignment for multi-purpose garment manipulation,” in 2023 IEEE International Conference on Robotics and Automation (ICRA) . IEEE, 2023, pp. 5872–5879

    work page 2023

  3. [3]

    Omnihang: Learning to hang arbitrary objects using contact point correspondences and neural collision estimation,

    Y . You, L. Shao, T. Migimatsu, and J. Bohg, “Omnihang: Learning to hang arbitrary objects using contact point correspondences and neural collision estimation,” in 2021 IEEE International Conference on Robotics and Automation (ICRA) . IEEE, 2021, pp. 5921–5927

    work page 2021

  4. [4]

    Sim-to-real reinforcement learning for deformable object manipulation,

    J. Matas, S. James, and A. J. Davison, “Sim-to-real reinforcement learning for deformable object manipulation,” in Conference on Robot Learning. PMLR, 2018, pp. 734–743

    work page 2018

  5. [5]

    Interaction skills for a coat-check robot: Identifying and handling the boundary components of clothes,

    L. Twardon and H. Ritter, “Interaction skills for a coat-check robot: Identifying and handling the boundary components of clothes,” in2015 IEEE International Conference on Robotics and Automation (ICRA) . IEEE, 2015, pp. 3682–3688

    work page 2015

  6. [6]

    Aloha unleashed: A simple recipe for robot dexterity,

    T. Z. Zhao, J. Tompson, D. Driess, P. Florence, K. Ghasemipour, C. Finn, and A. Wahid, “Aloha unleashed: A simple recipe for robot dexterity,” 2024. [Online]. Available: https://arxiv.org/abs/2410.13126

    arXiv 2024

  7. [7]

    Bag all you need: Learning a generalizable bagging strategy for heterogeneous objects,

    A. Bahety, S. Jain, H. Ha, N. Hager, B. Burchfiel, E. Cousineau, S. Feng, and S. Song, “Bag all you need: Learning a generalizable bagging strategy for heterogeneous objects,” in 2023 IEEE/RSJ Inter- national Conference on Intelligent Robots and Systems (IROS) . IEEE, 2023, pp. 960–967

    work page 2023

  8. [8]

    Scissorbot: Learning generalizable scissor skill for paper cutting via simulation, imitation, and sim2real,

    J. Lyu, Y . Chen, T. Du, F. Zhu, H. Liu, Y . Wang, and H. Wang, “Scissorbot: Learning generalizable scissor skill for paper cutting via simulation, imitation, and sim2real,” in 8th Annual Conference on Robot Learning , 2024

    work page 2024

Show all 34 references
  1. [9]

    Unifolding: Towards sample-efficient, scalable, and generalizable robotic garment folding,

    H. Xue, Y . Li, W. Xu, H. Li, D. Zheng, and C. Lu, “Unifolding: Towards sample-efficient, scalable, and generalizable robotic garment folding,” 2023. [Online]. Available: https://arxiv.org/abs/2311.01267

    2023 arXiv

  2. [10]

    U-net: Convolutional networks for biomedical image segmentation,

    O. Ronneberger, P. Fischer, and T. Brox, “U-net: Convolutional networks for biomedical image segmentation,” in Medical Image Computing and Computer-Assisted Intervention–MICCAI 2015: 18th International Conference, Munich, Germany, October 5-9, 2015, Pro- ceedings, Part III 18 ...

    2015

  3. [11]

    Taichi: a language for high-performance computation on spatially sparse data structures,

    Y . Hu, T.-M. Li, L. Anderson, J. Ragan-Kelley, and F. Durand, “Taichi: a language for high-performance computation on spatially sparse data structures,” ACM Transactions on Graphics (TOG) , vol. 38, no. 6, p. 201, 2019

    2019

  4. [12]

    Tiebot: Learning to knot a tie from visual demonstration through a real-to-sim-to-real approach,

    W. Peng, J. Lv, Y . Zeng, H. Chen, S. Zhao, J. Sun, C. Lu, and L. Shao, “Tiebot: Learning to knot a tie from visual demonstration through a real-to-sim-to-real approach,” 2024. [Online]. Available: https://arxiv.org/abs/2407.03245

    2024 arXiv

  5. [13]

    Benchmarking the sim-to-real gap in cloth manipulation,

    D. Blanco-Mulero, O. Barbany, G. Alcan, A. Colom ´e, C. Torras, and V . Kyrki, “Benchmarking the sim-to-real gap in cloth manipulation,” IEEE Robotics and Automation Letters , vol. 9, no. 3, pp. 2981–2988, 2024

    2024

  6. [14]

    Differentiable cloth parameter identification and state estimation in manipulation,

    D. Zheng, S. Yao, W. Xu, and C. Lu, “Differentiable cloth parameter identification and state estimation in manipulation,” IEEE Robotics and Automation Letters , vol. 9, no. 3, pp. 2519–2526, 2024

    2024

  7. [15]

    A practical aerodynamic model for dynamic textile manipulation in robotics,

    F. Coltraro, J. Amor ´os, C. Torras, and M. Alberich-Carrami ˜nana, “A practical aerodynamic model for dynamic textile manipulation in robotics,” Mechanism and Machine Theory , vol. 209, p. 105993, 2025. [Online]. Available: https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/ S...

    2025

  8. [16]

    Adafold: Adapting folding trajectories of cloths via feedback-loop manipula- tion,

    A. Longhini, M. C. Welle, Z. Erickson, and D. Kragic, “Adafold: Adapting folding trajectories of cloths via feedback-loop manipula- tion,” IEEE Robotics and Automation Letters , 2024

    2024

  9. [17]

    Folds- former: Learning sequential multi-step cloth manipulation with space- time attention,

    K. Mo, C. Xia, X. Wang, Y . Deng, X. Gao, and B. Liang, “Folds- former: Learning sequential multi-step cloth manipulation with space- time attention,” IEEE Robotics and Automation Letters , vol. 8, no. 2, pp. 760–767, 2023

    2023

  10. [18]

    Learning keypoints for robotic cloth manipulation using synthetic data,

    T. Lips, V .-L. De Gusseme, and F. Wyffels, “Learning keypoints for robotic cloth manipulation using synthetic data,” IEEE Robotics and Automation Letters, vol. 9, no. 7, pp. 6528–6535, 2024

    2024

  11. [19]

    Learning visible connectivity dynamics for cloth smoothing,

    X. Lin, Y . Wang, Z. Huang, and D. Held, “Learning visible connectivity dynamics for cloth smoothing,” 2022. [Online]. Available: https://arxiv.org/abs/2105.10389

    2022 arXiv

  12. [20]

    Unigarmentmanip: A unified framework for category-level garment manipulation via dense visual correspondence,

    R. Wu, H. Lu, Y . Wang, Y . Wang, and H. Dong, “Unigarmentmanip: A unified framework for category-level garment manipulation via dense visual correspondence,” in Proceedings of the IEEE/CVF Conference on Computer Vision and Pattern Recognition (CVPR) , June 2024

    2024

  13. [21]

    Skt-hang: Hanging everyday objects via object-agnostic semantic keypoint trajectory generation,

    C.-L. Kuo, Y .-W. Chao, and Y .-T. Chen, “Skt-hang: Hanging everyday objects via object-agnostic semantic keypoint trajectory generation,” in 2024 IEEE International Conference on Robotics and Automation (ICRA), 2024, pp. 15 433–15 439

    2024

  14. [22]

    Learning to grasp clothing structural regions for garment manipulation tasks,

    W. Chen, D. Lee, D. Chappell, and N. Rojas, “Learning to grasp clothing structural regions for garment manipulation tasks,” in 2023 IEEE/RSJ International Conference on Intelligent Robots and Systems (IROS). IEEE, Oct. 2023, p. 4889–4895. [Online]. Available: http://dx.doi.org...

    2023

  15. [23]

    Hanging work of t-shirt in consideration of deformability and stretchability,

    Y . Koishihara, S. Arnold, K. Yamazaki, and T. Matsubara, “Hanging work of t-shirt in consideration of deformability and stretchability,” in 2017 IEEE International Conference on Information and Automation (ICIA), 2017, pp. 130–135

    2017

  16. [24]

    Grounded sam: Assembling open-world models for diverse visual tasks,

    T. Ren, S. Liu, A. Zeng, J. Lin, K. Li, H. Cao, J. Chen, X. Huang, Y . Chen, F. Yan, Z. Zeng, H. Zhang, F. Li, J. Yang, H. Li, Q. Jiang, and L. Zhang, “Grounded sam: Assembling open-world models for diverse visual tasks,” 2024

    2024

  17. [25]

    Autobag: Learning to open plastic bags and insert objects,

    L. Y . Chen, B. Shi, D. Seita, R. Cheng, T. Kollar, D. Held, and K. Goldberg, “Autobag: Learning to open plastic bags and insert objects,” 2023. [Online]. Available: https://arxiv.org/abs/2210.17217

    2023 arXiv

  18. [26]

    Robust inside- outside segmentation using generalized winding numbers,

    A. Jacobson, L. Kavan, and O. Sorkine-Hornung, “Robust inside- outside segmentation using generalized winding numbers,” ACM Trans. Graph. , vol. 32, no. 4, Jul. 2013. [Online]. Available: https://doi.org/10.1145/2461912.2461916

    2013

  19. [27]

    Learning particle dynamics for manipulating rigid bodies, deformable objects, and fluids,

    Y . Li, J. Wu, R. Tedrake, J. B. Tenenbaum, and A. Torralba, “Learning particle dynamics for manipulating rigid bodies, deformable objects, and fluids,” arXiv preprint arXiv:1810.01566 , 2018

    2018 arXiv

  20. [28]

    Mujoco: A physics engine for model-based control,

    E. Todorov, T. Erez, and Y . Tassa, “Mujoco: A physics engine for model-based control,” in 2012 IEEE/RSJ International Conference on Intelligent Robots and Systems , 2012, pp. 5026–5033

    2012

  21. [29]

    Large steps in cloth simulation,

    D. Baraff and A. Witkin, “Large steps in cloth simulation,” in Seminal Graphics Papers: Pushing the Boundaries, V olume 2 , 2023, pp. 767– 778

    2023

  22. [30]

    SAPIEN: A simulated part-based interactive environment,

    F. Xiang, Y . Qin, K. Mo, Y . Xia, H. Zhu, F. Liu, M. Liu, H. Jiang, Y . Yuan, H. Wang, L. Yi, A. X. Chang, L. J. Guibas, and H. Su, “SAPIEN: A simulated part-based interactive environment,” in The IEEE Conference on Computer Vision and Pattern Recognition (CVPR), June 2020

    2020

  23. [31]

    D3roma: Disparity diffusion-based depth sensing for material-agnostic robotic manipulation,

    S. Wei, H. Geng, J. Chen, C. Deng, W. Cui, C. Zhao, X. Fang, L. Guibas, and H. Wang, “D3roma: Disparity diffusion-based depth sensing for material-agnostic robotic manipulation,” 2024. [Online]. Available: https://arxiv.org/abs/2409.14365

    2024 arXiv

  24. [32]

    Soft actor-critic: Off- policy maximum entropy deep reinforcement learning with a stochastic actor,

    T. Haarnoja, A. Zhou, P. Abbeel, and S. Levine, “Soft actor-critic: Off- policy maximum entropy deep reinforcement learning with a stochastic actor,” 2018. [Online]. Available: https://arxiv.org/abs/1801.01290

    2018 arXiv

  25. [33]

    Learning fine-grained bimanual manipulation with low-cost hardware,

    T. Z. Zhao, V . Kumar, S. Levine, and C. Finn, “Learning fine-grained bimanual manipulation with low-cost hardware,” 2023. [Online]. Available: https://arxiv.org/abs/2304.13705

    2023 arXiv

  26. [34]

    Diffusion policy: Visuomotor policy learning via action diffusion,

    C. Chi, Z. Xu, S. Feng, E. Cousineau, Y . Du, B. Burchfiel, R. Tedrake, and S. Song, “Diffusion policy: Visuomotor policy learning via action diffusion,” 2024. [Online]. Available: https://arxiv.org/abs/2303.04137

    2024 arXiv

Pith tools

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