Pith. sign in

REVIEW 5 major objections 3 minor 25 references

Accelerating Human-Aware Robot Trajectory Generation via Diffusion and Consistency Distillation

T0 review · 5 major / 3 minor · reviewed 2026-08-15 · deepseek-v4-flash

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

Pith's one-line read Consistency distillation cuts human-aware robot trajectory inference from 5.7 seconds to under 100 ms, keeping a 98% success rate on 500 simulated scenes.

desk verdict Useful speedup measurement and clean jerk ablation, but the safety claim rests on a success metric that never checks collisions along the path. read the letter →

arxiv 2608.03159 v1 pith:N6BRITXF submitted 2026-08-04 cs.RO

Byeong-Il Ham , Hyun-Bin Kim , Kyung-Soo Kim This is my paper · ORCID
classification cs.RO
keywords ConsistencydistillationConstrainedmotionplanningDiffusionmodelsHuman-awareRobotmanipulatorsTrajectorygenerationJerkregularizationRRT*
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 aims to establish that a conditional diffusion model can generate human-aware joint-space trajectories for a 6-DoF manipulator, and that consistency distillation makes the generator fast enough for interactive use. When the end-effector pose is fully specified, a non-redundant arm has little null-space freedom, so collision avoidance and self-collision avoidance must be encoded in the trajectory distribution itself rather than treated as secondary tasks. The authors train the diffusion model on collision-free trajectories produced offline by RRT and RRT*, then distill it into a consistency model that generates 150 candidates in 93.6–95.8 ms with a reported 98.0% success rate, a 98% reduction from the 5.7 s teacher. They also add a joint-weighted jerk regularizer that lowers mean squared joint and end-effector jerk by about 36% in the teacher and prevents the large jerk increase usually introduced by distillation. If correct, this makes learned, constraint-aware trajectory generation fast enough for close-proximity human-robot collaboration in static scenes.

What carries the argument

The load-bearing mechanism is consistency distillation of a conditional trajectory diffusion model, plus the trained trajectory prior and the constraint-guidance correction used during sampling. The generator is a temporal residual-convolutional network conditioned on the initial joint configuration, the goal pose, and a max-pooled capsule set encoding of the obstacles. The consistency model's defining identity is the clean-trajectory estimate $\hat{q}_{0,\theta}=(\mathbf{q}_d^k-\sqrt{1-\bar{\alpha}_k}\,\boldsymbol{\epsilon}^C_\theta)/\sqrt{\bar{\alpha}_k}$, which lets a noised trajectory at any diffusion timestep be mapped directly to a denoised trajectory, so sampling can run over a handful of selected timesteps. The distillation loss aligns the online student's output at a more corrupted timestep with an EMA target's output at a teacher-guided intermediate timestep, while a manipulability-, Jacobian-column-, and time-weighted jerk loss regularizes smoothness in both the diffusion and consistency training stages. Together these pieces convert a 5.7 s iterative denoiser into a 95 ms few-step batch generator.

What would settle it

Run a standard collision checker on every interpolated waypoint of the 150 generated candidates for each of the 500 test scenes, using the same human-arm and torso capsules the model was conditioned on. If a substantial share of the candidates that reach the goal within 5 cm and 10 degrees still penetrates an obstacle or self-collides mid-trajectory, the paper's claim that the generator produces constraint-satisfying trajectories is falsified.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

The paper's central claim is that a trajectory diffusion model, distilled through consistency training, can generate collision- and self-collision-aware joint-space trajectories for a 6-DoF manipulator in a human-robot interaction scene, conditioned on the initial configuration, the desired end-effector goal pose, and a capsule representation of the human torso and arm. The diffusion model learns the distribution of trajectories generated offline by RRT and RRT*, and constraint-guided sampling uses the gradient of a differentiable collision cost to steer the reverse process away from obstacles. Distillation replaces the full iterative reverse chain with a few-step consistency sampler, cutting inference time by roughly 98%. On 500 simulated test scenes, the distilled model achieves a 98.0% success rate (with jerk regularization) and 100.0% (without), with manipulability and path length comparable to the diffusion teacher. The paper further reports that the jerk regularizer reduces joint jerk by 36.89% and end-effector jerk by 36.25% in the teacher, and keeps the distilled model's jerk close to the teacher instead of the 264% joint-jerk and 219% EE-jerk increases observed without it.

Load-bearing premise

The claimed trajectory quality rests on a success metric that checks only the final pose: a candidate is successful when its final configuration places the end-effector within 5 cm and 10 degrees of the goal, with no reported check that the path itself avoids the human, obstacles, or the robot's own links.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • A single GPU can generate 150 trajectory candidates in 93.6–95.8 ms, a 98% reduction from the diffusion teacher's 5.7 s, making interactive replanning in static human-robot scenes plausible.
  • The jerk regularizer reduces mean squared joint jerk by 36.89% and end-effector jerk by 36.25% in the diffusion teacher without degrading success rate, manipulability, or path length.
  • Distillation without jerk regularization inflates joint jerk by 264% and EE jerk by 219% relative to the teacher, while the regularized distilled model keeps joint jerk only 9.6% above the teacher and lowers EE jerk by 13.7%.
  • The distilled consistency model retains a 98.0–100.0% success rate on the same 500 test scenes, indicating the 50- to 60-fold speedup does not trade away the task-level performance the paper measures.

Reading between the lines

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

  • Beyond the paper: because success is scored only on the final end-effector pose, the fraction of generated candidates that are fully collision-free along the whole interpolated path is not reported; running a full-path collision check on the 500 test scenes would directly test the safety claim.
  • Beyond the paper: the same teacher-student trajectory recipe should transfer to other fixed-base manipulators and to arms with more degrees of freedom, where the roughly 60-fold speedup would buy time for online replanning; the paper does not demonstrate this transfer.
  • Beyond the paper: conditioning on a time-indexed capsule sequence rather than a static obstacle set would test whether the learned trajectory distribution handles moving humans, which the paper explicitly leaves to future work.
  • Beyond the paper: the Jacobian-column-weighted jerk loss is not tied to consistency distillation and could serve as a general smoothness regularizer in other diffusion-based trajectory generators.
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

5 major / 3 minor

Summary. This paper proposes a constrained motion-planning framework for a 6-DoF manipulator in human-robot interaction. The authors train a conditional diffusion model on RRT/RRT*-generated collision-free and self-collision-free joint trajectories, conditioning on the initial joint configuration, the goal end-effector pose, and capsule-based obstacle representations, and use a differentiable constraint cost to guide reverse sampling. They then distill the diffusion model into a consistency model for few-step inference and add a joint-weighted jerk regularization term to both training losses. In simulation, the consistency model reports inference times around 93-96 ms over 500 scenes versus 5.7 s for the diffusion teacher, with success rates of 98-100% as defined by a final end-effector pose tolerance, and the jerk-regularized models reduce joint and end-effector jerk substantially. The main claims are speed, maintained feasibility, and improved smoothness.

Significance. If the reported speed and success numbers are confirmed with a proper feasibility metric, this is a useful contribution to interactive HRI: the 98% inference-time reduction is directly measured and large, and the jerk ablation cleanly shows that the regularization changes trajectory smoothness without degrading final-pose success. The paper also combines diffusion training, consistency distillation, and human-aware constraint conditioning in a single framework. The main significance is conditional, however, because the success metric does not check collisions along the trajectory and the guidance cost is never defined, so the central claim of constraint-satisfying generation is not yet supported. Strengths of the manuscript include direct wall-clock measurements, a controlled ablation, and a standard UR5/Pinocchio simulation pipeline.

major comments (5)
  1. [Section IV-A; Tables I-II] The success criterion in Section IV-A counts a candidate as successful when the final predicted joint configuration yields an end-effector pose within 5 cm and 10 degrees of the goal; no collision or self-collision check is applied to the trajectory waypoints. The abstract and Section V state that the models generate "constraint-satisfying trajectories" and trajectories "satisfying human-aware planning constraints," but Tables I and II report only final-pose reaching accuracy. Please report a feasibility metric that interpolates each candidate and checks joint limits, environment collision, and self-collision (the same checks used during dataset generation), and use that metric for the success-rate claims.
  2. [Section II-C, Eq. (11)] The differentiable constraint cost C in Eq. (11) is never defined. The text states that it "includes environment collision and self-collision costs," but gives no analytic expression, no description of how capsule obstacles and robot link geometry are converted into a differentiable cost, and no formula for its gradient with respect to mu_theta. This makes the constraint-guided sampling step unimplementable and untestable from the manuscript. Please provide the complete definition of C, including self-collision pairs, capsule distance computation, smoothing parameters, and the guidance scale schedule eta_k.
  3. [Section III-B, Eq. (16)] The jerk regularization term in Eq. (16) uses temporal weights w_time_t, manipulability weights w_manip_t, and joint-wise weights W_joint_t, but only the joint-wise matrix is defined in Eq. (17) via Jacobian column norms. The formulas for w_time_t and w_manip_t are not given, and the hyperparameter lambda_jerk is not reported in Section IV. Since the jerk reduction is a central contribution, please specify these weights and the chosen lambda_jerk value.
  4. [Algorithm 2] Algorithm 2 contains an underspecified guidance step: after computing the clean trajectory estimate, the pseudocode says "compute constraint guidance to q_hat_0,theta" without an equation, and then repeats "set q_hat_0,theta,0 <- q_0". It is unclear how the constraint gradient from Eq. (11) is applied to the clean trajectory estimate in the consistency sampling loop, and the duplicated line appears to be a typo. Please specify the guided update for the consistency sampler and reconcile the pseudocode.
  5. [Section IV-A; Algorithm 2] The inference configuration is incompletely specified: the number of consistency steps M and the selected timestep sequence {k_1,...,k_M} are never reported, nor are the IK damping coefficient lambda, the number of IK attempts, and the guidance scale eta_k schedule. Without these, the speed and accuracy numbers in Tables I and II cannot be reproduced, and it is not clear whether the 98% speedup depends on a particular choice of M. Please report all hyperparameters used for the reported experiments.
minor comments (3)
  1. [Section III-B, Eq. (15)] The third-order finite difference in Eq. (15) omits the factor 1/Delta_t^3; with the waypoint interval Delta_t = 40 ms, the reported units rad^2/s^6 imply that this factor is needed. Please add the factor or clarify the scaling convention.
  2. [Section IV-A] The sentence "If multiple trajectory candidates satisfied the task constraints, the candidate with the highest manipulability was selected" is ambiguous because the task constraints are not defined in terms of the implemented collision check; please clarify which constraints were actually verified at selection time.
  3. [Section II-B] The 9-dimensional goal orientation encoding using the first two columns of the rotation matrix is nonstandard; please state explicitly how the third column is omitted and whether the encoding is unique for valid rotation matrices.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 0.0 of 10

No circularity: the consistency model is distilled from a separately trained diffusion teacher and evaluated on held-out scenes; the collision-check gap is a validity concern, not a circular step.

full rationale

The paper's derivation chain is self-contained. A dataset of collision-free trajectories is generated by RRT/RRT* with edge checking (Section II-A); the diffusion model is trained with the MSE objective (Eq. 8) plus an optional jerk term (Eq. 18); consistency distillation uses the fixed, pretrained diffusion model as the teacher (Eqs. 12-14, Algorithm 1); and the distilled model is then evaluated on 500 held-out test scenes for inference time, final-pose success, manipulability, EE path length, and jerk (Tables I-II). None of these reported quantities is a fitted parameter renamed as a prediction: the success rate, jerk values, and timing are measured after training, and the jerk comparison is a controlled ablation between models trained with and without the regularization term. The paper does not rely on load-bearing self-citation: consistency distillation is standard external methodology cited to [22,23], and the related-work citations are not author-specific uniqueness arguments. The manuscript itself flags the main limitation in Section V: validation is simulation-only, with static human configurations and no real-robot tracking or perception uncertainty. A further missing support is in Section IV-A, where success is counted only by whether the final joint configuration maps to an EE pose within 5 cm and 10 deg of the goal, with no collision or self-collision check on the candidate trajectories; this weakens the abstract's 'constraint-satisfying' wording but is an evaluation/validity gap, not a circular dependency between the method's inputs and its outputs. Under the required standard (exhibit Eq. X = Eq. Y by construction, or a fitted input renamed as a prediction), no circular step is present.

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

The paper introduces no new physical entities. Its free parameters are all simulation or training hyperparameters, most unspecified, and its main load-bearing background assumptions are the standard diffusion/consistency framework plus the simulation-based evaluation premise that success can be measured by final pose only.

free parameters (5)
  • lambda_jerk (jerk loss weight) = not stated
    Balances the MSE or consistency loss against the jerk penalty in Eqs. (18) and (19). Only w/ versus w/o ablations are shown; no value or sensitivity analysis is given.
  • eta_k (guidance scale) = not stated
    Timestep-dependent scale of the constraint gradient correction in Eq. (11). No value or schedule is reported, yet it determines how strongly guided sampling avoids collisions.
  • lambda (IK damping coefficient) = not stated
    Damping coefficient in the damped least-squares IK update of Eq. (3). Required for all goal configurations in the dataset but never quantified.
  • n (consistency distillation interval) = not stated
    Distance between the teacher timestep and the earlier timestep in Algorithm 1. This interval controls the difficulty and quality of distillation but is never specified.
  • M and selected timesteps = 199, 132, 66, 0 in Fig. 3
    The few-step consistency sampling schedule in Algorithm 2 is hand-selected. The paper shows one schedule visually but does not state the general rule or ablate the number of steps.
assumptions (4)
  • standard math DDPM forward and reverse diffusion equations and EMA-target consistency distillation are assumed from prior work.
    Eqs. (6), (9), (10), and (12)-(14) rely on the standard diffusion and consistency model framework from the cited literature.
  • domain assumption Static human bodies and obstacles are adequately represented by capsules, and the Pinocchio UR5 model captures the real robot's kinematics and collisions.
    Section IV-A describes the simulation environment with capsule primitives for torso and arm. All results are simulation-only, as acknowledged in the conclusion.
  • ad hoc to paper A differentiable constraint cost C exists whose gradient improves collision and self-collision avoidance.
    Eq. (11) and Algorithm 2 rely on gradients of C, but the paper never gives an explicit formula for C or verifies that its gradient is effective. This is a load-bearing, unstated modeling choice.
  • domain assumption A trajectory is successful if the final end-effector pose is within 5 cm and 10 degrees, regardless of collisions along the path.
    Section IV-A defines success this way. The central claim of generating constraint-satisfying trajectories depends on this permissive evaluation definition.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Accelerating Human-Aware Robot Trajectory Generation via Diffusion and Consistency Distillation." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/N6BRITXF

@misc{pith2026260803159,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Accelerating Human-Aware Robot Trajectory Generation via Diffusion and Consistency Distillation},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/N6BRITXF}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2608.03159}
}
read the original abstract

This research proposes a constrained motion planning framework for robot manipulators in human-robot interaction (HRI). For a non-redundant manipulator with a fully specified end-effector pose, additional requirements such as collision avoidance and self-collision avoidance are difficult to handle as simple null-space secondary tasks. This limitation makes it challenging to generate feasible joint-space trajectories in HRI environments where safety and kinematic constraints must be considered simultaneously. To address this limitation, collision- and self-collision-aware trajectories are generated using Rapidly-exploring Random Tree (RRT) and RRT* algorithms, and the resulting dataset is used to train a diffusion model that generates constraint-satisfying trajectories through guided sampling. To reduce the inference time required for iterative diffusion sampling, consistency distillation is applied, and a joint-weighted jerk regularization term is incorporated into the loss function to promote smoother trajectories by penalizing abrupt changes in joint acceleration. Simulation results show that the consistency model generates 150 trajectory candidates in less than 100 ms, maintains a high episode success rate, and substantially reduces joint and end-effector jerk when jerk regularization is applied.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2608.03159 by the authors.

Figure 1
Figure 1. Process of noise injection. 𝑘 = 1, 2, 25, 150, 199, shown from left to right. Gray represents torso, orange indicates the human arm, green denotes the goal pose, and blue denotes EE waypoints. Δ𝝃 𝑙 𝑎 =  J 𝑙⊤ 𝑎 J 𝑙 𝑎 + 𝜆I −1 J 𝑙⊤ 𝑎 e 𝑙 𝑎 (3) where J 𝑙 𝑎 denotes the EE Jacobian evaluated at 𝝃 𝑙 𝑎 , and 𝜆 is a damping coefficient. An IK candidate is accepted when the position and orientation errors in (2) fall below … view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. Constraint-guided diffusion inference process. Each panel shows the EE trajectory obtained by applying forward kinematics to the predicted clean trajectory [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p004_2.png] view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. Few-step consistency sampling process. Each panel shows the EE [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p005_3.png] view at source ↗
Figures from the paper (1 more)
Figure 4
Figure 4. Figure 4: Simulation environment for human-aware trajectory generation. The UR5 [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p006_4.png]

Review history (2 revisions) →

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

25 extracted references · 14 canonical work pages

  1. [1]

    Channel-attention 1d-cnns for real- time collision detection in human-robot interaction via audio spectral features,

    T. Kwon, J. Jang, and S. Nam, “Channel-attention 1d-cnns for real- time collision detection in human-robot interaction via audio spectral features,”International Journal of Control, Automation and Systems, vol. 23, no. 11, pp. 3370–3382, 2025

    work page 2025

  2. [2]

    A dynamic planner for safe and predictable human-robot collaboration,

    A. Pupa, M. Minelli, and C. Secchi, “A dynamic planner for safe and predictable human-robot collaboration,”IEEE Robotics and Automation Letters, vol. 9, no. 1, pp. 507–514, 2023

    work page 2023

  3. [3]

    The operational space formulation consider- ing joint elasticity: Analysis and comparative experiments,

    J. Jung, S. You, and J. Park, “The operational space formulation consider- ing joint elasticity: Analysis and comparative experiments,”International Journal of Control, Automation and Systems, vol. 21, no. 6, pp. 1885– 1898, 2023

    work page 2023

  4. [4]

    An overview of null space projections for redundant, torque-controlled robots,

    A. Dietrich, C. Ott, and A. Albu-Sch ¨affer, “An overview of null space projections for redundant, torque-controlled robots,”The International Journal of Robotics Research, vol. 34, no. 11, pp. 1385–1400, 2015

    2015

  5. [5]

    Rapidly-exploring random trees: A new tool for path planning,

    S. LaValle, “Rapidly-exploring random trees: A new tool for path planning,”Research Report 9811, 1998

    1998

  6. [6]

    Sampling-based algorithms for optimal motion planning,

    S. Karaman and E. Frazzoli, “Sampling-based algorithms for optimal motion planning,”The international journal of robotics research, vol. 30, no. 7, pp. 846–894, 2011

    2011

  7. [7]

    An adaptive multi-rrt approach for robot motion planning,

    B. Feng, X. Jiang, B. Li, Q. Zhou, and Y. Bi, “An adaptive multi-rrt approach for robot motion planning,”Expert Systems with Applications, vol. 252, p. 124281, 2024

    work page 2024

  8. [8]

    Path planning and collision avoidance based on the rrt* fn framework for a robotic manipulator in various scenarios,

    J. Qi, Q. Yuan, C. Wang, X. Du, F. Du, and A. Ren, “Path planning and collision avoidance based on the rrt* fn framework for a robotic manipulator in various scenarios,”Complex & Intelligent Systems, vol. 9, no. 6, pp. 7475–7494, 2023

    work page 2023

Show all 25 references
  1. [9]

    Path planning for robotic manip- ulator in complex multi-obstacle environment based on improved rrt,

    L. Jiang, S. Liu, Y. Cui, and H. Jiang, “Path planning for robotic manip- ulator in complex multi-obstacle environment based on improved rrt,” IEEE/ASME transactions on mechatronics, vol. 27, no. 6, pp. 4774–4785, 2022

    2022

  2. [10]

    Adaptive manipulability-based path planning strategy for industrial robot manipulators,

    H. Shen, W.-F. Xie, J. Tang, and T. Zhou, “Adaptive manipulability-based path planning strategy for industrial robot manipulators,”IEEE/ASME transactions on mechatronics, vol. 28, no. 3, pp. 1742–1753, 2023

    2023

  3. [11]

    Finding locally optimal, collision-free trajectories with sequential convex optimization

    J. Schulman, J. Ho, A. X. Lee, I. Awwal, H. Bradlow, and P. Abbeel, “Finding locally optimal, collision-free trajectories with sequential convex optimization.” inRobotics: science and systems, vol. 9, no. 1. Berlin, Germany, 2013, pp. 1–10

    2013

  4. [12]

    Chomp: Covariant hamiltonian optimization for motion planning,

    M. Zucker, N. Ratliff, A. D. Dragan, M. Pivtoraiko, M. Klingensmith, C. M. Dellin, J. A. Bagnell, and S. S. Srinivasa, “Chomp: Covariant hamiltonian optimization for motion planning,”The International journal of robotics research, vol. 32, no. 9-10, pp. 1164–1193, 2013

    2013

  5. [13]

    Stomp: Stochastic trajectory optimization for motion planning,

    M. Kalakrishnan, S. Chitta, E. Theodorou, P. Pastor, and S. Schaal, “Stomp: Stochastic trajectory optimization for motion planning,” in2011 IEEE international conference on robotics and automation. IEEE, 2011, pp. 4569–4574

    2011

  6. [14]

    Motion planning around obstacles with convex optimization,

    T. Marcucci, M. Petersen, D. Von Wrangel, and R. Tedrake, “Motion planning around obstacles with convex optimization,”Science robotics, vol. 8, no. 84, p. eadf7843, 2023

    2023

  7. [15]

    Path-constrained and collision-free optimal trajec- tory planning for robot manipulators,

    Y. Wen and P. Pagilla, “Path-constrained and collision-free optimal trajec- tory planning for robot manipulators,”IEEE Transactions on Automation Science and Engineering, vol. 20, no. 2, pp. 763–774, 2022

    2022

  8. [16]

    A convex optimization method to time-optimal trajectory planning with jerk constraint for indus- trial robotic manipulators,

    C. Ji, Z. Zhang, G. Cheng, M. Kong, and R. Li, “A convex optimization method to time-optimal trajectory planning with jerk constraint for indus- trial robotic manipulators,”IEEE Transactions on Automation science and engineering, vol. 21, no. 4, pp. 7629–7646, 2023

    2023

  9. [17]

    Planning with diffusion for flexible behavior synthesis,

    M. Janner, Y. Du, J. B. Tenenbaum, and S. Levine, “Planning with diffusion for flexible behavior synthesis,”arXiv preprint arXiv:2205.09991, 2022

    2022 arXiv

  10. [18]

    Diffusion-based generation, optimization, and planning in 3d scenes,

    S. Huang, Z. Wang, P. Li, B. Jia, T. Liu, Y. Zhu, W. Liang, and S.-C. Zhu, “Diffusion-based generation, optimization, and planning in 3d scenes,” inProceedings of the IEEE/CVF Conference on Computer Vision and Pattern Recognition, 2023, pp. 16 750–16 761

    2023

  11. [19]

    Diffusionseeder: Seeding motion optimization with diffusion for rapid motion planning,

    H. Huang, B. Sundaralingam, A. Mousavian, A. Murali, K. Goldberg, and D. Fox, “Diffusionseeder: Seeding motion optimization with diffusion for rapid motion planning,”arXiv preprint arXiv:2410.16727, 2024

    2024 arXiv

  12. [20]

    Motion planning diffusion: Learning and planning of robot motions with diffusion models,

    J. Carvalho, A. T. Le, M. Baierl, D. Koert, and J. Peters, “Motion planning diffusion: Learning and planning of robot motions with diffusion models,” in2023 IEEE/RSJ International Conference on Intelligent Robots and Systems (IROS). IEEE, 2023, pp. 1916–1923

    2023

  13. [21]

    Hierarchical diffusion policy for kinematics-aware multi-task robotic manipulation,

    X. Ma, S. Patidar, I. Haughton, and S. James, “Hierarchical diffusion policy for kinematics-aware multi-task robotic manipulation,” inProceedings of the IEEE/CVF Conference on Computer Vision and Pattern Recognition, 2024, pp. 18 081–18 090

    2024

  14. [22]

    Consistency policy: Accelerated visuomotor policies via consistency distillation,

    A. Prasad, K. Lin, J. Wu, L. Zhou, and J. Bohg, “Consistency policy: Accelerated visuomotor policies via consistency distillation,”arXiv preprint arXiv:2405.07503, 2024

    2024 arXiv

  15. [23]

    Manicm: Real-time 3d diffusion policy via consistency model for robotic manipulation,

    G. Lu, Z. Gao, T. Chen, W. Dai, Z. Wang, W. Ding, and Y. Tang, “Manicm: Real-time 3d diffusion policy via consistency model for robotic manipulation,”arXiv preprint arXiv:2406.01586, 2024. 8

    2024 arXiv

  16. [24]

    Time-optimal and smooth trajectory planning for robot manipulators,

    T. Zhang, M. Zhang, and Y. Zou, “Time-optimal and smooth trajectory planning for robot manipulators,”International Journal of Control, Automation and Systems, vol. 19, no. 1, pp. 521–531, 2021

    2021

  17. [25]

    The pinocchio c++ library – a fast and flexible implementation of rigid body dynamics algorithms and their analytical derivatives,

    J. Carpentier, G. Saurel, G. Buondonno, J. Mirabel, F. Lamiraux, O. Stasse, and N. Mansard, “The pinocchio c++ library – a fast and flexible implementation of rigid body dynamics algorithms and their analytical derivatives,” inIEEE International Symposium on System Integration...

    2019

Pith tools

Reviewed August 15, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.