Pith. sign in

REVIEW 3 major objections 6 minor 43 references

Demonstrating Multi-Suction Item Picking at Scale via Multi-Modal Learning of Pick Success

T0 review · 3 major / 6 minor · reviewed 2026-08-07 · deepseek-v4-flash

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

Pith's one-line read A multimodal masked-autoencoder vision model, pretrained on unlabeled warehouse images and finetuned on pick outcomes, predicts multi-suction pick success with test AUC 90.60, beating the engineered-feature baseline by about four points.

desk verdict A solid industrial-scale empirical study showing in-domain multimodal pretraining beats engineered features for suction pick success, worth reviewing despite missing data and error bars. read the letter →

arxiv 2506.10359 v1 pith:PJITBWFP submitted 2025-06-12 cs.RO cs.LG

Che Wang , Jeroen van Baar , Chaitanya Mitash , Shuai Li , Dylan Randle , Weiyao Wang , Sumedh Sontakke , Kostas E. Bekris
show 1 more author
Kapil Katyal
This is my paper · ORCID
classification cs.ROcs.LG
keywords multi-suctionpickingpicksuccesspredictionmultimodalmaskedautoencoderMultiMAEself-supervisedpretrainingrobotmanipulationwarehouseautomationopen-setitem
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 tries to establish that a self-supervised multimodal visual encoder, pretrained on unlabeled in-domain RGB, depth, and semantic images and then finetuned on pick success labels, can predict whether a multi-suction robotic pick will succeed — and that this learned predictor beats the previous engineered-feature baseline. If true, it means large industrial picking systems can replace hand-designed picking features with learned representations drawn from data already collected by deployed pickers. The central result is an ROC AUC of 90.60 on the standard item-picking test set, about four points above the expert-feature shallow model, with consistent wins on partially occluded picks and on a package-picking domain. Ablations show which components carry the gain: in-domain multimodal pretraining, encoder finetuning, local crops around the target item, and cross-attention over pick features.

What carries the argument

The load-bearing mechanism is a MultiMAE visual encoder — a multimodal masked autoencoder — pretrained in-domain to reconstruct masked RGB, depth, and semantic patches, then finetuned end-to-end on the pick-success objective. The finetuning stage adds a cross-attention token-weighting module that uses the engineered pick features as a query to weight the image tokens, plus an optional pick-location image and local crops centered on the target item. Cross-attention, local crops, and the pick-location image each contribute to the final 90.60 AUC, with the largest single gains coming from in-domain multimodal pretraining and from finetuning the encoder weights rather than freezing them.

What would settle it

A test set built by attempting multiple different pick candidates per scene and verifying each outcome by an independent method, not by the deployed picker's own labels, would settle whether the model's 90.60 AUC advantage persists when the label distribution is not the trained picker's preferred candidates.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

The paper demonstrates that a MultiMAE encoder, a masked autoencoder that reconstructs randomly masked patches across RGB, depth, and semantic images, can be pretrained on 343K real warehouse scenes and then finetuned with RGB, depth, and an image marking the pick location to predict multi-suction pick success. On the standard test set of 86K picks it reaches 90.60 test AUC, outperforming the shallow expert-feature model by about 4 AUC points and a learn-from-scratch point-cloud transformer baseline by about 6 points. The same finetuned model also outperforms the shallow baseline on a random-pick dataset with partial occlusions and on a package-picking dataset, and a one-week live test of about 17K pick attempts is reported to reduce mispicks by 38% and amnesty by 41% relative to the deployed baseline. The claim is that learned multimodal representations, trained from sparsely labeled production data, can replace engineered pick features in large-scale industrial picking.

Load-bearing premise

The training labels come from a previously deployed picker that usually attempts only one pick per scene, so the model can only learn what that picker's candidate distribution made visible; if those labels are noisy or skewed toward easy picks, the reported edge over the engineered baseline may not hold elsewhere.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • Replacing engineered pick features with the learned multimodal encoder raises test AUC on the standard open-set item dataset from about 86.5 to 90.60, a gain of roughly four points over the previous best shallow model.
  • The advantage transfers to a different pick distribution: the demonstrated model beats the shallow baseline on the partially occluded random-pick dataset under all three finetuning protocols tested.
  • The same architecture, pretrained and finetuned on package-picking data, also beats the shallow model there (88.28 vs 86.50), showing the recipe is not specific to unpackaged items.
  • Finetuning the encoder matters: freezing it costs about 2.7 AUC points, so the gain depends on updating the visual backbone with the pick-success objective after in-domain pretraining.
  • In a real-world week-long test of roughly 17K pick attempts, the approach is reported to reduce mispick by 38%, amnesty by 41%, and multipick by 2% relative to the deployed baseline.

Reading between the lines

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

  • The near-saturation after only 1% of in-domain pretraining data hints that the cost of porting this recipe to a new workcell is mostly the finetuning labels, not the unlabeled pretraining collection: even a few thousand scene images would likely push the model past an engineered baseline.
  • Because the pick-location image and cross-attention give partly overlapping gains, a lower-latency deployment variant could use local crops plus the pick-location image with simple mean pooling and still sit near 90.5 AUC, since the latency appendix shows dropping a modality roughly halves inference time.
  • The same pretrain-then-finetune recipe may extend to other manipulation quality tasks such as damage prediction or targeted item picking, but that is untested by the paper's data.
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

3 major / 6 minor

Summary. The paper presents a pick-success prediction model for multi-suction robotic item picking in an industrial setting. The model uses a MultiMAE encoder pretrained in-domain on RGB, depth, and semantic images, then finetuned with RGB, depth, a pick-location image, and cross-attention over pick features. On a large standard item-picking dataset, the method reaches a test AUC of 90.60, outperforming a shallow engineered-feature baseline by about 4 AUC points; it also outperforms the same baseline on a partially occluded random-pick dataset and on a package-picking dataset. Extensive ablations study the effects of input modalities, in-domain pretraining, local crops, cross-attention, encoder finetuning, augmentation, pretraining epochs and data ratio, and alternative representation-learning methods. The paper additionally reports a one-week real-world deployment of about 17,000 pick attempts.

Significance. If the reported results are sound, the paper makes a valuable systems contribution: it shows that in-domain multimodal self-supervised pretraining plus finetuning can replace hand-engineered features for pick-success prediction at industrial scale. The evidence base is strong in breadth: three datasets, large held-out test sets (86K, 2,644, and 20K examples), several baselines including the prior deployed shallow model, a point-cloud transformer, and multiple self-supervised encoders, and a real-world deployment study. The central claim, however, rests on a small number of AUC point estimates and on an unclear relationship between the pretraining corpus and the test split; these issues need to be resolved before the superiority over the shallow model can be considered established.

major comments (3)
  1. [Section III.A and IV.C-IV.D] The paper does not establish that the 343K pretraining images are disjoint from the 86K test examples at the scene or image level. Section III.A says the standard dataset 'contains 343K multimodal images ... for pretraining' and 'also has nearly 275K training examples', but it does not state how the 69K validation and 86K test examples are carved out, nor whether any pretraining image belongs to a test pick scene. Section IV.C pretrains on 'all 343K examples of deployment data', and Section IV.D only asserts that test data 'have not been seen during both stages of training' without describing the split construction. If pretraining images show the same scenes or near-duplicate frames as test examples, in-domain reconstruction can memorize item appearance and inflate the reported 90.60 AUC and the 4-point gain over the shallow model. Please specify the exact split procedure, confirm disjointness at the scene and frame level, and report a leakage check (e.g., scene identifiers, image hashing, or nearest-neighbor overlap).
  2. [Section V.A.1 and V.B] The 'demonstrated approach' appears to be selected using the test AUC. Section V.A.1 states that the authors 'will adopt the best performing model among the variants of the MultiMAE', and the ablation sections report test-set scores for each variant, with the best highlighted (e.g., padding size in Fig. 9, bold rows in Tables III-VII, pretraining epochs in Table VIII). Choosing the variant with the highest test AUC from many candidates yields an optimistically biased estimate of the method's performance. The 90.60 figure is therefore the maximum of a set of test-set evaluations, not an unbiased estimate for a pre-specified model. Please define a model-selection protocol based on the validation set, or hold out a final untouched test set used only once, and report the test performance of the model selected without that test set.
  3. [Section V, Tables I-XII] All reported AUCs are single point estimates with no standard deviations, confidence intervals, or multiple runs. This is especially problematic for comparisons with small margins, such as the differences among DINO, MOCO-v3, and MAE in Table X (about 0.5-1.0 point), and for assessing whether the claimed 4-point advantage over the shallow model is stable across seeds or split variations. At minimum, report bootstrap confidence intervals for the main test AUCs, and ideally retrain at least the key comparisons (demonstrated approach vs. shallow model) with multiple seeds or data splits.
minor comments (6)
  1. [Section V.A.1, Fig. 6 caption] The text says the demonstrated approach outperforms the shallow model by 'about 4 points', while the Fig. 6 caption says 'about 5%'; please reconcile these numbers.
  2. [Section V.B.9] The text uses 'epoches' instead of 'epochs' in the description of the comparison experiments.
  3. [Section IV.D] Please clarify whether the 69K validation examples are also disjoint from the 343K pretraining images; the same leakage concern applies to validation-based early stopping.
  4. [Section IV.D and V.A] The local crop is centered on the target item's segmentation mask, which is a strong side-information signal. The paper should state explicitly whether this mask is available to the shallow model as well, and whether the claim of replacing engineered features is intended to include this mask-derived preprocessing.
  5. [Section III.A and IV.C] Please list the nine semantic classes used for the semantic segmentation input and describe how the open set of items is mapped to these classes; the current text asserts sufficiency without specifying the classes.
  6. [Section V.C.2] The real-world deployment section reports percentages (multipick, mispick, amnesty) without the baseline counts or denominators; please provide raw counts and the total number of pick attempts for each measurement, along with any confidence intervals.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 2.0 of 10

No circular derivation found: the 90.60 AUC is an in-paper held-out measurement; the only self-citation (baseline [20]) is non-load-bearing, and the pretrain/test disjointness gap is an auditability issue, not a demonstrated circular step.

full rationale

Walk the claimed derivation chain: the paper's contribution is empirical. MultiMAE is pretrained on 343K in-domain images (Sec. IV.C), finetuned with a pick-success objective on 275K labeled examples, and evaluated on 86K test examples that the paper asserts "have not been seen during both stages of training" (Sec. IV.D). The 90.60 test AUC (Fig. 6, Tables III, V) is a held-out measurement, not a quantity defined in terms of its own inputs; no fitted parameter is renamed as a prediction, and choices such as crop padding 50 and 800 pretraining epochs are selected on the 69K validation set, not on test. The only self-citation is the shallow model baseline [20] (Li, Keipour, Jamieson, Hudson, Swan, Bekris; Shuai Li and Kostas Bekris are co-authors here). It is used to establish the engineered-feature baseline and its prior "best to date" status, but the central comparison (90.60 vs ~86.5, about 4 AUC points) is re-measured in-paper on identical test splits, and external baselines (MAE, DINO, MOCO-v3, PTv3 from other groups, Table X and Sec. V.A.1) are re-run under the same protocol; so the argument does not reduce to the self-citation. The skeptic concern that the 343K pretraining images (Sec. III.A) may overlap the 86K test examples is a genuine auditability gap—the paper never documents the split construction—but it is not an exhibited circular reduction, since the paper explicitly asserts disjointness; potential leakage would inflate an empirical result, which is a correctness risk, not a self-referential derivation. Likewise, learning from success/failure labels generated by a previously deployed engineered picker (Sec. III.A, Sec. VII) and the one-or-few-picks-per-scene labeling are data-bias and generalization limitations, not circular structures. Verdict: no significant circularity; score 2 solely for the minor, non-load-bearing self-citation of the baseline.

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

The central claim rests on proprietary data from Amazon workcells, a hand-defined semantic taxonomy, and several hyperparameters tuned on validation. The model itself is a learned function rather than a fitted constant, so these are not physics-style free parameters. No new physical entities are introduced.

free parameters (5)
  • semantic_class_count = 9
    The paper defines nine semantic classes for segmentation pretraining (Section IV.C); this hand-specified taxonomy is an input representation choice that affects what the model can reconstruct.
  • pretrain_epochs = 800
    Chosen as the best endpoint in the epoch ablation (Table VIII); longer pretraining gave diminishing returns, so this value is tuned.
  • crop_padding_px = 50
    Selected from the local-crop padding ablation (Fig. 9) as the best padding value; this hyperparameter is tuned on validation performance.
  • augmentation_shift_px = -25 to 25
    Hand-chosen random shift range for crop augmentation during finetuning (Section V.B.6); no sensitivity analysis for this range is provided.
  • input_resolution = 224x224
    Selected to balance AUC and latency in Table XII; higher resolutions did not improve AUC.
assumptions (4)
  • domain assumption Success/failure labels from the deployed engineered picker are correct ground truth.
    Sections III.A and IV.D state the model is trained on executed picks with success/failure annotations; if these labels are noisy, all reported AUCs shift.
  • ad hoc to paper The nine semantic classes are sufficient to represent the open set of items.
    Section IV.C defines the classes by hand; this taxonomy is specific to this paper's deployment data and may not transfer to other item distributions.
  • domain assumption The held-out test examples were not observed during pretraining or finetuning.
    Section IV.D asserts this split; no external audit is possible with the proprietary pipeline, yet the central comparison depends on it.
  • domain assumption The engineered pick generator provides a representative distribution of candidate picks.
    The model is trained on candidates produced by a heuristic generator (Section III.A); if that generator is biased, the learned predictor inherits the bias.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Demonstrating Multi-Suction Item Picking at Scale via Multi-Modal Learning of Pick Success." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/PJITBWFP

@misc{pith2026250610359,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Demonstrating Multi-Suction Item Picking at Scale via Multi-Modal Learning of Pick Success},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/PJITBWFP}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2506.10359}
}
read the original abstract

This work demonstrates how autonomously learning aspects of robotic operation from sparsely-labeled, real-world data of deployed, engineered solutions at industrial scale can provide with solutions that achieve improved performance. Specifically, it focuses on multi-suction robot picking and performs a comprehensive study on the application of multi-modal visual encoders for predicting the success of candidate robotic picks. Picking diverse items from unstructured piles is an important and challenging task for robot manipulation in real-world settings, such as warehouses. Methods for picking from clutter must work for an open set of items while simultaneously meeting latency constraints to achieve high throughput. The demonstrated approach utilizes multiple input modalities, such as RGB, depth and semantic segmentation, to estimate the quality of candidate multi-suction picks. The strategy is trained from real-world item picking data, with a combination of multimodal pretrain and finetune. The manuscript provides comprehensive experimental evaluation performed over a large item-picking dataset, an item-picking dataset targeted to include partial occlusions, and a package-picking dataset, which focuses on containers, such as boxes and envelopes, instead of unpackaged items. The evaluation measures performance for different item configurations, pick scenes, and object types. Ablations help to understand the effects of in-domain pretraining, the impact of different modalities and the importance of finetuning. These ablations reveal both the importance of training over multiple modalities but also the ability of models to learn during pretraining the relationship between modalities so that during finetuning and inference, only a subset of them can be used as input.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2506.10359 by the authors.

Figure 1
Figure 1. Given RGB, depth, pick location and semantic data for a picking scene as well as features of candidate, multi-suction [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p001_1.png] view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. Example pick scenes from the open-set item manipulation task. Some difficult items are highlighted in white boxes. [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p004_2.png] view at source ↗
Figure 1
Figure 1. Performance (in parenthesis) with local crops is [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p009_1.png] view at source ↗

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

43 extracted references · 24 canonical work pages

  1. [1]

    MultiMAE: Multi-modal Multi-task Masked Autoencoders

    Roman Bachmann, David Mizrahi, Andrei Atanov, and Amir Zamir. MultiMAE: Multi-modal Multi-task Masked Autoencoders. In European Conference on Com- puter Vision, pages 348–367, 2022. doi: 10.1007/978- 3-031-19836-6 20. URL https://www.ecva.net/papers/ eccv 2022/papers ECCV/papers/136970341.pdf

    arXiv 2022

  2. [2]

    Beit: Bert pre-training of image transformers

    Hangbo Bao, Li Dong, Songhao Piao, and Furu Wei. Beit: Bert pre-training of image transformers. arXiv preprint arXiv:2106.08254, 2021

    arXiv 2021

  3. [3]

    SuctionNet-1Billion: A Large-Scale Benchmark for Suc- tion Grasping

    Hanwen Cao, Hao-Shu Fang, Wenhai Liu, and Cewu Lu. SuctionNet-1Billion: A Large-Scale Benchmark for Suc- tion Grasping. IEEE Robotics and Automation Letters , 6 (4):8718–8725, 2021. doi: 10.1109/LRA.2021.3115406. URL https://ieeexplore.ieee.org/document/9547830

    arXiv 2021

  4. [4]

    Emerging Properties in Self-Supervised Vision Transformers

    Mathilde Caron, Hugo Touvron, Ishan Misra, Herv’e J’egou, Julien Mairal, Piotr Bojanowski, and Armand Joulin. Emerging Properties in Self-Supervised Vision Transformers. 2021 IEEE/CVF International Confer- ence on Computer Vision (ICCV) , pages 9630–9640, Oct 2021. doi: 10.1109/ICCV48922.2021.00951. URL https://ieeexplore.ieee.org/document/9709990

    arXiv 2021

  5. [5]

    Spconv: Spatially sparse convolu- tion library

    Spconv Contributors. Spconv: Spatially sparse convolu- tion library. https://github.com/traveller59/spconv, 2022

    work page 2022

  6. [6]

    Correll, K

    N. Correll, K. E. Bekris, D. Berenson, O. Brock, A. Causo, K. Hauser, K. Okada, A. Rodriquez, J. M. Romano, and P. R. Wurman. Analysis and Observations From the First Amazon Picking Challenge. IEEE Trans- actions on Automation Science and Engineering, 15:172– 188, January 2018. doi: 10.1109/TASE.2016.2600527. URL https://ieeexplore.ieee.org/document/7583659

    work page arXiv 2018

  7. [7]

    Dogar and S

    M. Dogar and S. S. Srinivasa. A Planning Framework for Non-Prehensile Manipulation under Clutter and Uncer- tainty. Autonomous Robots, 33:217–236, Jun 2012. doi: 10.1007/s10514-012-9306-z. URL https://link.springer. com/article/10.1007/s10514-012-9306-z

    doi:10.1007/s10514-012-9306-z 2012

  8. [8]

    An Image is Worth 16x16 Words: Transformers for Image Recognition at Scale

    Alexey Dosovitskiy, Lucas Beyer, Alexander Kolesnikov, Dirk Weissenborn, Xiaohua Zhai, Thomas Unterthiner, Mostafa Dehghani, Matthias Minderer, Georg Heigold, Sylvain Gelly, Jakob Uszkoreit, and Neil Houlsby. An Image is Worth 16x16 Words: Transformers for Image Recognition at Scale. In 9th International Conference on Learning Representations (ICLR 2021) ...

    work page 2021

Show all 43 references
  1. [9]

    GraspNet-1Billion: A large-scale benchmark for general object grasping

    Hao-Shu Fang, Chenxi Wang, Minghao Gou, and Cewu Lu. GraspNet-1Billion: A large-scale benchmark for general object grasping. In Proceedings of the IEEE/CVF conference on computer vision and pattern recognition , pages 11441–11450, 2020. doi: 10.1109/CVPR42600. 2020.01146. URL ...

    2020

  2. [10]

    AnyGrasp: Robust and efficient grasp perception in spatial and temporal domains

    Hao-Shu Fang, Chenxi Wang, Hongjie Fang, Minghao Gou, Jirong Liu, Hengxu Yan, Wenhai Liu, Yichen Xie, and Cewu Lu. AnyGrasp: Robust and efficient grasp perception in spatial and temporal domains. IEEE Transactions on Robotics , 39(5):3929–3945, 2023. doi: 10.1109/TRO.2023.3281...

    2023

  3. [11]

    An introduction to ROC analysis

    Tom Fawcett. An introduction to ROC analysis. Pat- tern Recognition Letters , 27(8):861–874, 2006. ISSN 0167-8655. doi: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.patrec.2005.10

    2006 doi

  4. [12]

    URL https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/ pii/S016786550500303X

  5. [13]

    Goldberg and M

    K. Goldberg and M. Mason. Bayesian Grasping. In IEEE International Conference on Robotics and Automation , pages 1264–1269 vol.2, Cincinnati, Ohio, USA, August

  6. [14]

    Girshick

    Kaiming He, Xinlei Chen, Saining Xie, Yanghao Li, Piotr Doll’ar, and Ross B. Girshick. Masked Autoen- coders Are Scalable Vision Learners. 2022 IEEE/CVF Conference on Computer Vision and Pattern Recognition (CVPR), pages 15979–15988, Jun 2022. doi: 10.1109/ CVPR52688.2022.0155...

    2022

  7. [15]

    Gupta and G

    M. Gupta and G. S. Sukhatme. Using manipulation prim- itives for brick sorting in clutter. In IEEE International Conference on Robotics and Automation , pages 3883– 3889, Saint Paul, Minnesota, USA, May 2012. doi: 10.1109/ICRA.2012.6224787. URL https://ieeexplore. ieee.org/doc...

    2012

  8. [16]

    Deep Learn- ing for Detecting Robotic Grasps

    Ashutosh Saxena Ian Lenz, Honglak Lee. Deep Learn- ing for Detecting Robotic Grasps. In Proceedings of Robotics: Science and Systems IX (RSS 2013) , pages 1– 8, Berlin, Germany, June 2013. doi: 10.15607/RSS.2013. IX.012. URL https://www.roboticsproceedings.org/rss09/ p12.html

    2013 doi

  9. [17]

    Hsiao, S

    K. Hsiao, S. Chitta, M. Ciocarlie, and E. G. Jones. Contact-reactive grasping of objects with partial shape information. In 2010 IEEE/RSJ International Conference on Intelligent Robots and Systems , pages 1228–1235, Taipei, Taiwan, Dec 2010. doi: 10.1109/IROS.2010. 5649494. UR...

    2010 doi

  10. [18]

    Language-driven representation learning for robotics

    Siddharth Karamcheti, Suraj Nair, Annie S Chen, Thomas Kollar, Chelsea Finn, Dorsa Sadigh, and Percy Liang. Language-driven representation learning for robotics. In Proceedings of Robotics: Science and Systems XIX (RSS 2023) , pages 1–30, Daegu, Republic of Korea, July 2023. d...

    2023 doi

  11. [19]

    H’enaff, Matthew M

    Andrew Jaegle, Sebastian Borgeaud, Jean-Baptiste Alayrac, Carl Doersch, Catalin Ionescu, David Ding, Skanda Koppula, Andrew Brock, Evan Shelhamer, Olivier J. H’enaff, Matthew M. Botvinick, Andrew Zis- serman, Oriol Vinyals, and Jo˜ao Carreira. Perceiver IO: A General Architect...

    2022

  12. [21]

    Learning Deep Poli- cies for Robot Bin Picking by Simulating Robust Grasp- ing Sequences

    Jeffrey Mahler and Ken Goldberg. Learning Deep Poli- cies for Robot Bin Picking by Simulating Robust Grasp- ing Sequences. In Proceedings of the 1st Annual Con- ference on Robot Learning, volume 78 of Proceedings of Machine Learning Research, pages 515–524, Nov 2017. URL https...

    2017

  13. [22]

    Learning Hand-Eye Coordination for Robotic Grasping with Deep Learning and Large-Scale Data Collection

    Sergey Levine, Peter Pastor Sampedro, Alex Krizhevsky, Julian Ibarz, and Deirdre Quillen. Learning Hand-Eye Coordination for Robotic Grasping with Deep Learning and Large-Scale Data Collection. The International Journal of Robotics Research , 37(4-5):421–436, 2018. doi: 10.117...

    2018 doi

  14. [23]

    Dex-Net 3.0: Comput- ing robust vacuum suction grasp targets in point clouds using a new analytic model and deep learning

    Jeffrey Mahler, Matthew Matl, Xinyu Liu, Albert Li, David Gealy, and Ken Goldberg. Dex-Net 3.0: Comput- ing robust vacuum suction grasp targets in point clouds using a new analytic model and deep learning. In 2018 IEEE International Conference on Robotics and Automation (ICRA)...

    2018

  15. [24]

    Learning ambidextrous robot grasping poli- cies

    Jeffrey Mahler, Matthew Matl, Vishal Satish, Michael Danielczuk, Bill DeRose, Stephen McKinley, and Ken Goldberg. Learning ambidextrous robot grasping poli- cies. Science Robotics , 4(26):eaau4984, 2019. doi: 10.1126/scirobotics.aau4984. URL https://www.science. org/doi/abs/10...

    2019 doi

  16. [25]

    Dex-Net 2.0: Deep Learning to Plan Robust Grasps with Synthetic Point Clouds and Analytic Grasp Metrics

    Jeffrey Mahler, Jacky Liang, Sherdil Niyaz, Michael Laskey, Richard Doan, Xinyu Liu, Juan Aparicio Ojea, and Ken Goldberg. Dex-Net 2.0: Deep Learning to Plan Robust Grasps with Synthetic Point Clouds and Analytic Grasp Metrics. In Proceedings of Robotics: Science and Systems X...

    2017 doi

  17. [26]

    Miller and P

    A. Miller and P. K. Allen. Graspit! A Versatile Simulator for Robotic Grasping. IEEE Robotics and Automation Magazine, 11(4):110–122, Dec. 2004. doi: 10.1109/ MRA.2004.1371616. URL https://ieeexplore.ieee.org/ document/1371616

    2004 arXiv

  18. [27]

    Murray, Z

    R.M. Murray, Z. Li, S.S. Sastry, and S.S. Sastry. A Math- ematical Introduction to Robotic Manipulation . Taylor & Francis, 1994. ISBN 9781315136370. doi: 10.1201/ 9781315136370. URL https://www.taylorfrancis.com/ books/mono/10.1201/9781315136370

    1994 doi

  19. [28]

    Mechanics of robotic manipu- lation

    Matthew T Mason. Mechanics of robotic manipu- lation. MIT Press, Cambridge, Massachusetts, USA,

  20. [29]

    The unsurprising ef- fectiveness of pre-trained vision models for control

    Simone Parisi, Aravind Rajeswaran, Senthil Purush- walkam, and Abhinav Gupta. The unsurprising ef- fectiveness of pre-trained vision models for control. In Proceedings of the 39th International Conference on Machine Learning , pages 17359–17371, Baltimore, Maryland, USA, July ...

    2022

  21. [30]

    A generalist agent

    Scott Reed, Konrad Zolna, Emilio Parisotto, Ser- gio Gomez Colmenarejo, Alexander Novikov, Gabriel Barth-Maron, Mai Gimenez, Yury Sulsky, Jackie Kay, Jost Tobias Springenberg, et al. A generalist agent. Transactions on Machine Learning Research, 2022. URL https://openreview.ne...

    2022

  22. [31]

    Open-world object manipulation using pre-trained vision-language models

    Austin Stone, Ted Xiao, Yao Lu, Keerthana Gopalakrish- nan, Kuang-Huei Lee, Quan Vuong, Paul Wohlhart, Bri- anna Zitkovich, Fei Xia, Chelsea Finn, et al. Open-world object manipulation using pre-trained vision-language models. In Proceedings of The 7th Conference on Robot Lear...

    2023

  23. [32]

    URL https://www.roboticsproceedings.org/rss19/ p032.html

  24. [33]

    R3M: A universal visual representation for robot manipulation

    Suraj Nair, Aravind Rajeswaran, Vikash Kumar, Chelsea Finn, and Abhinav Gupta. R3M: A universal visual representation for robot manipulation. In Proceedings of The 6th Conference on Robot Learning , pages 892– 909, Auckland, New Zealand, December 2022. URL https://proceedings....

    2022

  25. [34]

    M2T2: Multi-Task Masked Trans- former for Object-centric Pick and Place

    Wentao Yuan, Adithyavairavan Murali, Arsalan Mousa- vian, and Dieter Fox. M2T2: Multi-Task Masked Trans- former for Object-centric Pick and Place. In Proceedings of The 7th Conference on Robot Learning , pages 1– 12, Atlanta, Georgia, USA, Nov 2023. URL https: //proceedings.ml...

    2023

  26. [36]

    Point transformer v3: Simpler, faster, stronger

    Xiaoyang Wu, Li Jiang, Peng-Shuai Wang, Zhijian Liu, Xihui Liu, Yu Qiao, Wanli Ouyang, Tong He, and Hengshuang Zhao. Point transformer v3: Simpler, faster, stronger. In CVPR, 2024

    2024

  27. [37]

    Masked visual pre-training for motor control

    Tete Xiao, Ilija Radosavovic, Trevor Darrell, and Ji- tendra Malik. Masked visual pre-training for motor control. arXiv preprint arXiv:2203.06173 , 2022. doi: 10.48550/arXiv.2203.06173. URL https://arxiv.org/abs/ 2203.06173

    2022 doi arXiv

  28. [39]

    For a fair comparison, for each method, we again pretrain for 100 epoches on in- domain data, and keep all finetuning settings and hyperpa- rameters exactly the same

    Scaling Trend with Finetune Dataset Size: In Figure 13 we show how performance scales with different finetune dataset sizes for the demonstrated approach as well as alter- native representation learning methods. For a fair comparison, for each method, we again pretrain for 100...

  29. [40]

    Effect of Stacking Modalities: We also test different representation learning objectives on multi-modal data by channel-wise stacking the R, G, B, D, S inputs. We conducted experiments where we stack these inputs into 5 channels, and finetune MultiMAE, MAE, DINO and MoCoV3 und...

  30. [41]

    The results are shown in Table XII

    Effect of Image Resolution: We now evaluate the impact of different image resolutions. The results are shown in Table XII. We used 224x224 to achieve strong performance with rel- atively low latency, which is important for industrial systems. Resolution and the number of modal...

  31. [42]

    We downloaded a pretrained checkpoint and finetuned using the same setting

    VAE Representations: we also performed experiments testing a BEiT [2] model using V AEs as tokenizers. We downloaded a pretrained checkpoint and finetuned using the same setting. BEiT given RGB only results in 85.61 test AUC, and 87.70 given stacked channels. This is slightly ...

  32. [43]

    This creates a significant distribution shift

    Pretrain on Items, Finetune on Packages: We also tried pretrain on item picking data and then run pick success training on package data. This creates a significant distribution shift. We achieve 87.40 test AUC when further finetuning the encoder on package picking data but 85....

  33. [44]

    Note that the latency will be lower if there are a smaller number of pick candidates

    Latency: On a single NVIDIA A10G GPU with 12 AMD EPYC 7R32 CPU cores for dataloader workers, consider a batch of 128 test data examples (pick candidates) to evaluate, it takes about 197 ms if the input has one visual modality, 409 ms for two, and 687 ms for three modalities. N...

  34. [1990]

    URL https: //ieeexplore.ieee.org/document/126172

    doi: 10.1109/ROBOT.1990.126172. URL https: //ieeexplore.ieee.org/document/126172

    1990

  35. [2001]

    URL https://mitpress.mit.edu/ 9780262133968/

    ISBN 0262133962. URL https://mitpress.mit.edu/ 9780262133968/

Pith tools

Reviewed August 7, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.