Pith. sign in

REVIEW 4 major objections 5 minor 1 cited by

Learning from Planned Data to Improve Robotic Pick-and-Place Planning Efficiency

T0 review · 4 major / 5 minor · reviewed 2026-08-06 · deepseek-v4-flash

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

Pith's one-line read Shared grasps in pick-and-place can be predicted by summing two learned per-pose energy scores, replacing slow inverse-kinematics and collision checks.

desk verdict The compositional EBM for shared grasp prediction gives a real speed-up on known objects, but the shape-agnostic network makes the unseen-object generalization claims unsupported, and the data-efficiency claim is contradicted by Table II. read the letter →

arxiv 2506.15920 v1 pith:4BKW7RJK submitted 2025-06-18 cs.RO

Liang Qin , Weiwei Wan , Jun Takahashi , Ryo Negishi , Masaki Matsushita , Kensuke Harada This is my paper · ORCID
classification cs.RO
keywords sharedgrasppredictionenergy-basedmodelpick-and-placeplanningselectiondataefficiencygeneralizationroboticmanipulationinversekinematicsfeasibility
verification ladder T0 review T1 audit T2 compute T3 formal

The pith

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

The reading

This paper tries to establish that a shared grasp — a grasp pose that stays feasible under both the initial and the goal object poses in a pick-and-place task — can be found by composing two per-pose feasibility scores instead of running inverse-kinematics and collision checks on every candidate. The authors train an energy-based model (EBM) to assign low energy to grasp-pose pairs that satisfy inverse-kinematics and collision constraints, then predict shared grasps as candidates whose summed energies under the initial and goal poses fall below a single threshold. If true, a robot could identify a usable grasp in a few milliseconds rather than tens of milliseconds, with no loss in downstream motion-planning success, and the compositional training would need less data than alternatives that learn the joint initial-goal constraint directly. The paper also claims this compositional prediction generalizes to unseen grasp poses and to similarly shaped objects not seen in training.

What carries the argument

The mechanism is an energy-based model (EBM): a three-layer fully connected network that maps a pose encoding of the object pose $T$, a grasp pose $g$ in the object's canonical frame, and a gripper width $w$ to a scalar energy, trained with a negative-log-likelihood loss, a contrastive loss, and an energy-regularization term. The load-bearing identity is the additive composition in Eqs. (13)–(16): the joint energy of a shared grasp is the sum of the per-pose energies, so a single threshold $h_s$ on that sum defines the predicted shared-grasp set. This identity is what turns two independent feasibility evaluations into a joint predictor and is what the paper's speed and data-efficiency claims rest on.

What would settle it

Train the described EBM on the bottle and mug datasets and test on a geometrically novel object (for example a torus or a deeply concave part) with the same grasp-candidate sampling; if the joint-energy method's shared-grasp F1 is near chance or far below a baseline that conditions on object geometry, the claimed generalization to similarly shaped objects fails.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

The central claim is that the joint feasibility of a grasp under two object poses factorizes through the learned energy: $p(T_{\mathrm{init}}, T_{\mathrm{goal}}, g, w) \propto \exp(-(E_{\varphi}(T_{\mathrm{init}}, g, w) + E_{\varphi}(T_{\mathrm{goal}}, g, w)))$, so the shared-grasp set is obtained by thresholding the sum of per-pose energies (Eq. 16). The same EBM trained for single-pose feasibility, without any shared-grasp labels, therefore yields a shared-grasp predictor, and the compositional form makes training more data-efficient than a model that directly predicts the joint constraint. On a bottle object with 57 to 352 grasp candidates, the learned scorer identifies a shared grasp in 1.7–9.2 ms versus 5.7–34.1 ms for an analytical baseline, with motion-planning success rates of 66–70% versus 58–69%.

Load-bearing premise

The network never sees the object's shape, only the pose, grasp, and gripper width, so its ability to find shared grasps on a new object depends on feasibility patterns transferring across shapes with no direct geometric information.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • Search over grasp candidates shrinks to one batched forward pass of the energy network plus a threshold, replacing per-candidate inverse-kinematics and collision evaluation.
  • A model trained on feasible grasps at single poses can predict shared grasps without collecting labeled shared-grasp examples for training.
  • The compositional joint-energy method (J) needs roughly half the training data of a direct joint model or a per-pose AND model to reach the same F1 score.
  • Motion-planning success is maintained (66–70%) or better than the analytical baseline (58–69%) while the shared-grasp search is several times faster.
  • Increasing the number of grasp candidates in training improves generalization to unseen grasp poses for the joint-energy method.

Reading between the lines

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

  • The additive-energy assumption treats feasibility at the initial pose and at the goal pose as conditionally independent given the grasp; if a real environment couples the two poses (for example through the object's geometry, support surface, or surrounding obstacles), the summed score will systematically mis-order candidates.
  • Because the network's input is only a pose encoding, a grasp pose, and a width, cross-object transfer is really a statement about shared structure in pose-grasp relations; the reported F1 scores of about 3 for a bunny after bottle-only training suggest the geometry signal is weak.
  • The threshold $h_s$ is tuned on a synthetic validation set of analytically labeled shared grasps; the same machinery could rank candidates instead of classifying them, letting a planner trade recall against the number of candidates passed to motion planning.
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

4 major / 5 minor

Summary. This paper proposes an Energy-Based Model (EBM) for predicting shared grasps in pick-and-place tasks, where a shared grasp is feasible at both the initial and goal object poses. The key idea is to learn a per-pose feasibility energy E_phi(T,g,w) and approximate the joint shared-grasp energy as the sum of per-pose energies, followed by thresholding to obtain the shared grasp set. Experiments in simulation on a bottle object compare the proposed joint-estimation method (J) with random and analytical baselines, with two other learned formulations (direct prediction D and logical conjunction L), and with generalization tests on unseen grasp sets and four object shapes. The paper reports large speed-ups over the analytical baseline for the known bottle, but the data-efficiency claim is contradicted by the reported numbers, and the abstract's claim of real-world evaluation is not supported by the experimental section.

Significance. If the speed-up over analytical shared-grasp computation holds, the compositional EBM formulation is a practically useful and interesting contribution to pick-and-place planning, because it replaces per-candidate IK and collision checking at two poses with a single batched forward pass. The paper also proposes a clean decomposition that could reduce training complexity relative to direct joint prediction. However, the significance is currently undercut by three load-bearing problems: the data-efficiency claim is not supported by Table II; the paper claims real-world experiments that are not reported; and the generalization-to-unseen-objects claim is incompatible with the network architecture, which does not receive any object-geometry input. The core known-object speed-up remains plausible, but the broader claims need correction or additional evidence.

major comments (4)
  1. [§V.A.2, Table II] The claim that "the J method, even when trained on only 50% of the 200k training data, outperforms both the D and L methods trained with the full 100% dataset" is contradicted by the numbers in Table II. J at 50% has F1 = 93.0, while D at 100% has F1 = 94.1 and L at 100% has F1 = 93.8. J's precision (94.2) is higher than D's (92.9) and L's (90.7), but its recall (91.3) is lower than both, and the F1 score is lower than both full-data baselines. The data-efficiency conclusion should be revised or the comparison should be restated in a way that is consistent with the reported metrics.
  2. [Introduction and Section V] The Introduction states "We evaluate our method through extensive experiments in both simulation and real-world settings," and the Abstract states that experiments "show" the method's benefits, but Section V contains only simulation experiments. No real-world hardware results, real-robot success rates, or physical experiments are reported anywhere in the manuscript. Either the real-world experiments must be added, or the real-world claim should be removed from the Introduction and Abstract.
  3. [§III and §V.B.2, Table IV] Section III defines the energy-network input as the concatenation of a pose encoding of T, a grasp pose g, and gripper width w, with no object mesh, point cloud, category label, or any other geometry/identity feature. As a result, E_phi(T,g,w) is invariant to the object shape, and the unseen-object experiments in Table IV cannot demonstrate geometric generalization. A model trained on the bottle only has F1 = 3.2 on the bunny and F1 = 37.6 on the drill (J row, Bt dataset), which is the expected behavior of a shape-agnostic model rather than evidence of transfer. The Conclusion's claim that "it was able to generalize to unseen grasps and objects" therefore does not follow from the reported architecture. To support the cross-object generalization claim, the input must include object geometry, or the claim must be withdrawn and restricted to the same object or objects with identical feasible-grasp statistics.
  4. [§IV, Eq. (14)] The factorization p(T_init,T_goal,g,w) = p(T_init,g,w) * p(T_goal,g,w) assumes conditional independence of feasibility at the two poses given the grasp candidate. This is a strong modeling assumption that is not discussed or tested. The threshold h_s is calibrated on a validation set, which may absorb some of the approximation error, but the paper should state the assumption explicitly and, if possible, provide a diagnostic of how well the product approximation matches the analytically computed joint feasibility over pose pairs.
minor comments (5)
  1. [Table I] The T row in Table I is hard to read and appears to contain only nine values instead of twelve for four methods across three candidate-set sizes; the time for the JO method is not clearly labeled or is missing in some blocks. Please reformat the table so that the time for each method and candidate-set size is unambiguous.
  2. [§III, training data] The loss functions in Eqs. (3)-(8) require infeasible examples, but the data-collection description in §III and §V.A.1 only explains how feasible grasps are generated. Please specify how negative (infeasible) examples are sampled and whether their distribution matches the inference-time candidate distribution.
  3. [§IV, Eq. (15)] The notation in Eq. (15) writes the joint energy as exp(-(E_phi(T_init,g,w)+E_phi(T_goal,g,w))), but the partition function and normalization are omitted; this is acceptable as an unnormalized score, but the text should say so explicitly to avoid confusion with a properly normalized joint distribution.
  4. [Table II] The caption and text refer to "lime" and "pink" highlighting, which is not accessible in monochrome print or to color-blind readers; please use symbols or boldface as well.
  5. [§II.B] The related-work section is relevant but would benefit from a more precise comparison with learned feasibility predictors that do take object geometry as input (e.g., voxel-based or point-cloud-based methods), to make clear the architectural limitation of the proposed approach.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 0.0 of 10

No circularity found: the EBM is trained on per-pose feasibility labels, the shared-grasp threshold is calibrated on validation data, and the speed-up claim is evaluated against an independent analytical baseline.

full rationale

The derivation chain is not circular. E_phi(T,g,w) is trained on per-pose IK/collision feasibility labels (Eqs. 3-9), independently of the shared-grasp task. The shared-grasp predictor (Eq. 16) sums two per-pose energies and thresholds with h_s, where h_s is selected by F1 maximization on a validation set built by analytical intersection of per-pose feasible sets (Section IV). This is standard supervised threshold calibration, not a fitted parameter masquerading as a prediction: the J method never sees shared-grasp labels during training, and its outputs are compared against the analytically computed intersection in Table I. The self-citation to Wan et al. [2] for grasp candidate and object-pose generation is a data-generation convenience and is not load-bearing; the shared-grasp concept is also attributed to King et al. [1] and Xu et al. [3]. The omission of object geometry from the network input is a generalization/correctness concern (it makes cross-object results in Table IV hard to interpret), but it is not a circular reduction of the paper's claims to its inputs. No step in the paper equates a prediction with a fitted value or imports an author-specific uniqueness theorem.

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

The central method rests on two supervised thresholds calibrated on validation data, on a factorization that is not proven, and on the transferability of a geometry-free feasibility function. No new physical entities are introduced. The thresholds and hyperparameters are the main fitted quantities.

free parameters (5)
  • Feasibility threshold h_f = not reported
    Selected by maximizing F1 on the validation set (Section III, Eqs. 10-12). This decision boundary defines what counts as a feasible grasp.
  • Shared-grasp threshold h_s = not reported
    Selected by maximizing F1 on a synthesized shared-grasp validation set (Section IV). This is the decision boundary for the paper's main output.
  • EBM temperature t = 0.5
    Set manually in Section V; affects the scale of energy values and therefore the thresholds.
  • Regularization coefficient alpha = 0.2
    Set manually in Section V to weight the energy regulation term.
  • Network hyperparameters (batch size, learning rate) = 1024, 1e-3
    Set manually in Section V; standard choices but not justified by analysis.
assumptions (4)
  • domain assumption Feasibility under both poses equals membership in the intersection of the two per-pose feasible sets.
    Definition of shared grasp used throughout Section III and to construct ground-truth labels in Section IV.
  • ad hoc to paper The product factorization p(T_init,T_goal,g,w) = p(T_init,g,w) * p(T_goal,g,w), equivalently additive energies, approximates the joint shared-grasp distribution.
    Equations 13-15 state this factorization without derivation; the threshold h_s is tuned to compensate for any mismatch.
  • domain assumption Simulated collision, force-closure, and IK labels are a valid proxy for physical feasibility.
    All training labels and ground-truth shared-grasp sets are produced in simulation; no real-world experiment data are reported in the manuscript.
  • ad hoc to paper The energy network can transfer feasibility across object shapes without an object-geometry input.
    Section III defines the input as pose encoding, grasp pose, and width only. Table IV's cross-object experiments depend on this transfer, but the network has no way to distinguish object identities.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Learning from Planned Data to Improve Robotic Pick-and-Place Planning Efficiency." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/4BKW7RJK

@misc{pith2026250615920,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Learning from Planned Data to Improve Robotic Pick-and-Place Planning Efficiency},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/4BKW7RJK}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2506.15920}
}
read the original abstract

This work proposes a learning method to accelerate robotic pick-and-place planning by predicting shared grasps. Shared grasps are defined as grasp poses feasible to both the initial and goal object configurations in a pick-and-place task. Traditional analytical methods for solving shared grasps evaluate grasp candidates separately, leading to substantial computational overhead as the candidate set grows. To overcome the limitation, we introduce an Energy-Based Model (EBM) that predicts shared grasps by combining the energies of feasible grasps at both object poses. This formulation enables early identification of promising candidates and significantly reduces the search space. Experiments show that our method improves grasp selection performance, offers higher data efficiency, and generalizes well to unseen grasps and similarly shaped objects.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2506.15920 by the authors.

Figure 1
Figure 1. The blue grasp pose on the upper-left corner represents [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p001_1.png] view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. Grasp dataset collection process. (a.i) Target bottle [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p004_2.png] view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. Proposed method uses an EBM Eϕf to independently model the energy values of pre-annotated grasp candidates under each object pose and sum up corresponding energy items to jointly estimate the energy value of the shared grasp. Then, the method employs a binary classification strategy to determine whether each grasp qualifies as a shared one. It is worth noting that the above method represents one pos￾sible implementa… view at source ↗
Figures from the paper (2 more)
Figure 4
Figure 4. Figure 4: Feasible and shared grasp dataset collection. (a.i) Data [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p007_4.png]
Figure 5
Figure 5. Figure 5: (a.i) Direct Prediction estimates the energy value of [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p008_5.png]

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. A Robust Placeability Metric for Model-Free Unified Pick-and-Place Reasoning

    cs.RO 2025-10 conditional novelty 6.0 of 10

    A model-free placeability metric computed from partial point clouds jointly scores stability, clearance, and placement-conditioned graspability to select stable grasp–place pairs.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

26 extracted references · 25 canonical work pages · cited by 1 Pith paper

  1. [1]

    Pregrasp manipulation as trajectory optimization

    J. E. King, M. Klingensmith, C. M. Dellin, M. R. Dogar, P. Velagapudi, N. S. Pollard, and S. S. Srinivasa, “Pregrasp manipulation as trajectory optimization.” inRobotics: Science and Systems, 2013

    work page 2013

  2. [2]

    Improving regrasp algorithms to analyze the utility of work surfaces in a workcell,

    W. Wan, M. T. Mason, R. Fukui, and Y . Kuniyoshi, “Improving regrasp algorithms to analyze the utility of work surfaces in a workcell,” inIEEE International Conference on Robotics and Automation (ICRA), 2015, pp. 4326–4333

    work page 2015

  3. [3]

    Learning to predict diverse stable placements for extrinsic manipulation on a support plane,

    P. Xu, Z. Chen, J. Wang, and M. Q.-H. Meng, “Learning to predict diverse stable placements for extrinsic manipulation on a support plane,” IEEE Transactions on Cognitive and Developmental Systems, vol. 16, no. 3, pp. 1095–1107, 2023

    work page 2023

  4. [4]

    Pick and place planning is better than pick planning then place planning,

    M. D. Shanthi and T. Hermans, “Pick and place planning is better than pick planning then place planning,”IEEE Robotics and Automation Letters, vol. 9, no. 3, pp. 2790–2797, 2024. 8 UNDER REVIEW BY A ROBOTICS JOURNAL, 2025

    work page 2024

  5. [5]

    Enabling grasp synthesis approaches to task-oriented grasping considering the end-state comfort and confidence effects,

    E. Maranci, S. D’Avella, P. Tripicchio, C. Avizzanoet al., “Enabling grasp synthesis approaches to task-oriented grasping considering the end-state comfort and confidence effects,”IEEE Robotics and Automa- tion Letters, vol. 9, no. 6, pp. 5695–5702, 2024

    work page 2024

  6. [6]

    Planning to build block structures with unstable intermediate states using two manipulators,

    H. Chen, W. Wan, K. Koyama, and K. Harada, “Planning to build block structures with unstable intermediate states using two manipulators,” IEEE Transactions on Automation Science and Engineering, vol. 19, no. 4, pp. 3777–3793, 2022

    work page 2022

  7. [7]

    Manipulation planning and control for shelf replenish- ment,

    M. Costanzo, S. Stelter, C. Natale, S. Pirozzi, G. Bartels, A. Maldonado, and M. Beetz, “Manipulation planning and control for shelf replenish- ment,”IEEE Robotics and Automation Letters, vol. 5, no. 2, pp. 1595– 1601, 2020

    work page 2020

  8. [8]

    Learning to guide task and motion planning using score-space representation,

    B. Kim, Z. Wang, L. P. Kaelbling, and T. Lozano-P ´erez, “Learning to guide task and motion planning using score-space representation,”The International Journal of Robotics Research, vol. 38, no. 7, pp. 793–812, 2019

    work page 2019

Show all 26 references
  1. [9]

    Sequence-based plan feasibility prediction for efficient task and motion planning,

    Z. Yang, C. Garrett, T. Lozano-Perez, L. Kaelbling, and D. Fox, “Sequence-based plan feasibility prediction for efficient task and motion planning,” inRobotics science and systems, 2023

    2023

  2. [10]

    Learning to search in task and motion planning with streams,

    M. Khodeir, B. Agro, and F. Shkurti, “Learning to search in task and motion planning with streams,”IEEE Robotics and Automation Letters, vol. 8, no. 4, pp. 1983–1990, 2023

    1983

  3. [11]

    Learning feasibility for task and motion planning in tabletop environments,

    A. M. Wells, N. T. Dantam, A. Shrivastava, and L. E. Kavraki, “Learning feasibility for task and motion planning in tabletop environments,”IEEE Robotics and Automation Letters, vol. 4, no. 2, pp. 1255–1262, 2019

    2019

  4. [12]

    Deep visual heuristics: Learning feasibility of mixed-integer programs for manipulation plan- ning,

    D. Driess, O. Oguz, J.-S. Ha, and M. Toussaint, “Deep visual heuristics: Learning feasibility of mixed-integer programs for manipulation plan- ning,” inIEEE International Conference on Robotics and Automation (ICRA), 2020, pp. 9563–9569

    2020

  5. [13]

    Accelerating integrated task and motion planning with neural feasibility checking,

    L. Xu, T. Ren, G. Chalvatzaki, and J. Peters, “Accelerating integrated task and motion planning with neural feasibility checking,”arXiv preprint arXiv:2203.10568, 2022

    2022 arXiv

  6. [14]

    Learning to predict action feasibility for task and motion planning in 3d environments,

    S. Ait Bouhsain, R. Alami, and T. Simeon, “Learning to predict action feasibility for task and motion planning in 3d environments,” inIEEE International Conference on Robotics and Automation (ICRA), 2023, pp. 3736–3742

    2023

  7. [15]

    Simultaneous action and grasp feasibility prediction for task and motion planning through multi-task learning,

    ——, “Simultaneous action and grasp feasibility prediction for task and motion planning through multi-task learning,” inIEEE/RSJ International Conference on Intelligent Robots and Systems (IROS), 2023, pp. 2042– 2048

    2023

  8. [16]

    Scalable learned geometric feasibility for cooperative grasp and motion planning,

    S. Park, H. C. Kim, J. Baek, and J. Park, “Scalable learned geometric feasibility for cooperative grasp and motion planning,”IEEE Robotics and Automation Letters, vol. 7, no. 4, pp. 11 545–11 552, 2022

    2022

  9. [17]

    Template-based learning of grasp selection,

    A. Herzog, P. Pastor, M. Kalakrishnan, L. Righetti, T. Asfour, and S. Schaal, “Template-based learning of grasp selection,” inIEEE In- ternational Conference on Robotics and Automation (ICRA), 2012, pp. 2379–2384

    2012

  10. [18]

    Category-association based similarity matching for novel object pick-and-place task,

    H. Chen, T. Kiyokawa, W. Wan, and K. Harada, “Category-association based similarity matching for novel object pick-and-place task,”IEEE Robotics and Automation Letters, vol. 7, no. 2, pp. 2961–2968, 2022

    2022

  11. [19]

    High precision grasp pose detection in dense clutter,

    M. Gualtieri, A. Ten Pas, K. Saenko, and R. Platt, “High precision grasp pose detection in dense clutter,” inIEEE/RSJ International Conference on Intelligent Robots and Systems (IROS), 2016, pp. 598–605

    2016

  12. [20]

    Learning continuous 3d reconstructions for geometrically aware grasping,

    M. Van der Merwe, Q. Lu, B. Sundaralingam, M. Matak, and T. Her- mans, “Learning continuous 3d reconstructions for geometrically aware grasping,” inIEEE International Conference on Robotics and Automa- tion (ICRA), 2020, pp. 11 516–11 522

    2020

  13. [21]

    Thinkgrasp: A vision-language system for strategic part grasping in clutter,

    Y . Qian, X. Zhu, O. Biza, S. Jiang, L. Zhao, H. Huang, Y . Qi, and R. Platt, “Thinkgrasp: A vision-language system for strategic part grasping in clutter,” in2nd CoRL Workshop on Learning Effective Abstractions for Planning, 2024

    2024

  14. [22]

    Pick2place: Task- aware 6dof grasp estimation via object-centric perspective affordance,

    Z. He, N. Chavan-Dafle, J. Huh, S. Song, and V . Isler, “Pick2place: Task- aware 6dof grasp estimation via object-centric perspective affordance,” inIEEE International Conference on Robotics and Automation (ICRA), 2023, pp. 7996–8002

    2023

  15. [23]

    Grasp, see, and place: Efficient unknown object rearrangement with policy structure prior,

    K. Xu, Z. Zhou, J. Wu, H. Lu, R. Xiong, and Y . Wang, “Grasp, see, and place: Efficient unknown object rearrangement with policy structure prior,”IEEE Transactions on Robotics, vol. 41, pp. 464–483, 2025

    2025

  16. [24]

    Preparatory manipulation planning using automatically determined single and dual arm,

    W. Wan, K. Harada, and F. Kanehiro, “Preparatory manipulation planning using automatically determined single and dual arm,”IEEE Transactions on Industrial Informatics, vol. 16, no. 1, pp. 442–453, 2019

    2019

  17. [25]

    Learning to regrasp by learning to place,

    S. Cheng, K. Mo, and L. Shao, “Learning to regrasp by learning to place,” inConference on Robot Learning, 2022, pp. 277–286

    2022

  18. [26]

    Efficient object manipulation to an arbitrary goal pose: Learning-based anytime prioritized planning,

    K. Xu, H. Yu, R. Huang, D. Guo, Y . Wang, and R. Xiong, “Efficient object manipulation to an arbitrary goal pose: Learning-based anytime prioritized planning,” inInternational Conference on Robotics and Automation (ICRA), 2022, pp. 7277–7283. APPENDIX We implemented two varied...

    2022

Pith tools

Reviewed August 6, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.