pith. sign in

arxiv: 2408.06843 · v5 · pith:SVLTXGELnew · submitted 2024-08-13 · 💻 cs.RO

Learn2Decompose: Learning Problem Decomposition for Efficient Sequential Multi-object Manipulation Planning

Yan Zhang , Teng Xue , Amirreza Razmjoo , Sylvain Calinon This is my paper

Pith reviewed 2026-05-23 22:25 UTC · model grok-4.3

classification 💻 cs.RO
keywords task and motion planningproblem decompositionlearning from demonstrationsmulti-object manipulationreplanningdynamic environmentsroboticssequential tasks
0
0 comments X

The pith

Learning problem decompositions from demonstrations accelerates TAMP solvers for sequential multi-object manipulation in dynamic environments.

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

The paper tries to establish that learning decompositions from demonstrations can prevent the exponential slowdown conventional TAMP solvers suffer when the number of objects and planning steps increase. A sympathetic reader would care because real robots must replan quickly after disturbances, yet standard planners become unusable in cluttered, changing scenes. The method learns sequences of subgoals that the system must reach, predicts which subgoal is computationally closest from any disturbed state, and drops irrelevant objects from consideration. These steps together shrink the search space during replanning. If the approach works, robots could maintain short replanning times even as task complexity grows.

Core claim

We present an efficient task and motion replanning approach for sequential multi-object manipulation in dynamic environments. Conventional TAMP solvers experience an exponential increase in planning time as the planning horizon and number of objects grow. To address this, we propose learning problem decompositions from demonstrations to accelerate TAMP solvers. Our approach consists of three key components: goal decomposition learning, computational distance learning, and object reduction. Goal decomposition identifies the necessary sequences of states that the system must pass through before reaching the final goal, treating them as subgoal sequences. Computational distance learning predict

What carries the argument

The three components of goal decomposition learning (identifying subgoal sequences from demos), computational distance learning (predicting planning complexity between states), and object reduction (minimizing active objects in replans).

If this is right

  • Replanning time no longer grows exponentially with added objects or longer horizons.
  • The system can identify and jump to the temporally closest subgoal after a disturbance.
  • Fewer objects are considered at each replan step, directly lowering solver complexity.
  • The learned decomposition transfers across similar tasks on the three evaluated benchmarks.

Where Pith is reading between the lines

These are editorial extensions of the paper, not claims the author makes directly.

  • The same decomposition learning could be tested on non-manipulation TAMP domains such as navigation or assembly.
  • If demonstrations are collected only for nominal tasks, an online update rule might be needed when new object interactions appear.
  • The computational-distance predictor might serve as a heuristic inside other search-based planners beyond the ones tested.

Load-bearing premise

Demonstrations contain the information needed to learn subgoal sequences and computational distances that remain useful for replanning from arbitrary disturbed states in dynamic environments.

What would settle it

Run the method on a benchmark where the robot is repeatedly disturbed to states outside the demonstrated subgoal sequences; if average replanning time stays exponential or exceeds a fixed real-time threshold, the claim fails.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2408.06843 by Amirreza Razmjoo, Sylvain Calinon, Teng Xue, Yan Zhang.

Figure 1
Figure 1. Figure 1: Illustration of a decomposable cooking task in kitchen, where [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p001_1.png] view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. Figure 2: An overview of our Reactive TAMP planner, which inte [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p003_2.png] view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. Figure 3: Illustration of objects’ configurations at specific time step [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p003_3.png] view at source ↗
Figure 4
Figure 4. Figure 4: Illustration of subgoal sequences for two task goals [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p004_4.png] view at source ↗
Figure 5
Figure 5. Figure 5: In (a) and (b), transparent blocks indicate a representative task goal. In the Cooking domain, the Franka manipulator is equipped [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p005_5.png] view at source ↗
Figure 6
Figure 6. Figure 6: Reactive TAMP for cooking a meal using a real-world Franka arm under L1 and L2 disturbances. (a) Initial environment state; (b) [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p007_6.png] view at source ↗
read the original abstract

We present an efficient task and motion replanning approach for sequential multi-object manipulation in dynamic environments. Conventional Task And Motion Planning (TAMP) solvers experience an exponential increase in planning time as the planning horizon and number of objects grow, limiting their applicability in real-world scenarios. To address this, we propose learning problem decompositions from demonstrations to accelerate TAMP solvers. Our approach consists of three key components: goal decomposition learning, computational distance learning, and object reduction. Goal decomposition identifies the necessary sequences of states that the system must pass through before reaching the final goal, treating them as subgoal sequences. Computational distance learning predicts the computational complexity between two states, enabling the system to identify the temporally closest subgoal from a disturbed state. Object reduction minimizes the set of active objects considered during replanning, further improving efficiency. We evaluate our approach on three benchmarks, demonstrating its effectiveness in improving replanning efficiency for sequential multi-object manipulation tasks in dynamic environments.

Editorial analysis

A structured set of objections, weighed in public.

Desk editor's note, referee report, simulated authors' rebuttal, and a circularity audit. Tearing a paper down is the easy half of reading it; the pith above is the substance, this is the friction.

Referee Report

1 major / 1 minor

Summary. The paper proposes Learn2Decompose, a learning-based method to accelerate TAMP solvers for sequential multi-object manipulation replanning in dynamic environments. It learns problem decompositions from demonstrations via three components—goal decomposition learning (identifying subgoal sequences), computational distance learning (predicting complexity to find nearest subgoals from disturbed states), and object reduction (minimizing active objects)—and reports evaluation on three benchmarks showing improved replanning efficiency.

Significance. If the claims hold, the work could improve the scalability of TAMP methods for real-world dynamic manipulation by addressing exponential complexity growth, provided the learned models generalize beyond nominal trajectories.

major comments (1)
  1. [Abstract] Abstract, paragraph describing the three components: the central efficiency claim for replanning in dynamic environments rests on the assumption that subgoal sequences and computational distances learned from nominal demonstrations remain effective from arbitrary disturbed states; the manuscript provides no evidence, coverage analysis, or experiments addressing out-of-distribution states that arise under disturbances, which directly undermines the replanning guarantees.
minor comments (1)
  1. [Abstract] Abstract: no quantitative metrics, baselines, or specific results are reported despite claiming evaluation on three benchmarks, which hinders assessment of the efficiency gains.

Simulated Author's Rebuttal

1 responses · 0 unresolved

We thank the referee for their constructive feedback. We address the major comment below.

read point-by-point responses

  1. Referee: [Abstract] Abstract, paragraph describing the three components: the central efficiency claim for replanning in dynamic environments rests on the assumption that subgoal sequences and computational distances learned from nominal demonstrations remain effective from arbitrary disturbed states; the manuscript provides no evidence, coverage analysis, or experiments addressing out-of-distribution states that arise under disturbances, which directly undermines the replanning guarantees.

    Authors: We acknowledge the referee's point that the replanning claims depend on generalization of the learned models to disturbed states. The computational distance predictor is trained on state pairs drawn from demonstrations with the intent of estimating complexity for arbitrary inputs, and the three benchmarks include dynamic disturbances that produce states off the nominal trajectories. That said, the manuscript does not contain a dedicated coverage analysis or explicit OOD experiments isolating disturbance-induced states. We agree this would strengthen the presentation and will add such analysis and results in the revision. revision: yes

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged

No significant circularity

full rationale

The paper describes a learning-based method with three components (goal decomposition learning, computational distance learning, object reduction) trained on demonstrations to accelerate TAMP replanning. The provided abstract and description contain no equations, fitted parameters renamed as predictions, self-citations used as load-bearing uniqueness theorems, or ansatzes smuggled via prior work. The claimed efficiency gains are presented as empirical outcomes of the learned models rather than a derivation that reduces by construction to its own inputs. This is the common case of a self-contained empirical ML-for-planning paper with no detectable circular steps.

Axiom & Free-Parameter Ledger

0 free parameters · 0 axioms · 0 invented entities

Abstract-only review supplies no explicit free parameters, axioms, or invented entities; all three learned modules are treated as black-box outputs of demonstration training.

pith-pipeline@v0.9.0 · 5697 in / 1040 out tokens · 20483 ms · 2026-05-23T22:25:14.149089+00:00 · methodology

discussion (0)

Sign in with ORCID, Apple, or X to comment. Anyone can read and Pith papers without signing in.

Lean theorems connected to this paper

Citations machine-checked in the Pith Canon. Every link opens the source theorem in the public Lean library.

What do these tags mean?
matches
The paper's claim is directly supported by a theorem in the formal canon.
supports
The theorem supports part of the paper's argument, but the paper may add assumptions or extra steps.
extends
The paper goes beyond the formal theorem; the theorem is a base layer rather than the whole result.
uses
The paper appears to rely on the theorem as machinery.
contradicts
The paper's claim conflicts with a theorem or certificate in the canon.
unclear
Pith found a possible connection, but the passage is too broad, indirect, or ambiguous to say the theorem truly supports the claim.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

31 extracted references · 31 canonical work pages

  1. [1]

    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,” inProc. Robotics: Science and Systems (RSS), 2023

    work page 2023

  2. [2]

    Can robots assemble an ikea chair?

    F. Su ´arez-Ruiz, X. Zhou, and Q.-C. Pham, “Can robots assemble an ikea chair?” Science Robotics, vol. 3, no. 17, p. eaat6385, 2018

    work page 2018

  3. [3]

    Long-horizon multi-robot rearrangement planning for construction assembly,

    V . N. Hartmann, A. Orthey, D. Driess, O. S. Oguz, and M. Toussaint, “Long-horizon multi-robot rearrangement planning for construction assembly,” IEEE Transactions on Robotics , vol. 39, no. 1, pp. 239– 252, 2022

    work page 2022

  4. [4]

    Guiding pretraining in reinforcement learning with large language models,

    Y . Du, O. Watkins, Z. Wang, C. Colas, T. Darrell, P. Abbeel, A. Gupta, and J. Andreas, “Guiding pretraining in reinforcement learning with large language models,” in Proc. Intl Conf. on Machine Learning (ICML). PMLR, 2023, pp. 8657–8677

    work page 2023

  5. [5]

    Towards a unified agent with foundation models,

    N. Di Palo, A. Byravan, L. Hasenclever, M. Wulfmeier, N. Heess, and M. Riedmiller, “Towards a unified agent with foundation models,” in Workshop on Reincarnating Reinforcement Learning at ICLR , 2023

    work page 2023

  6. [6]

    Integrated task and motion planning,

    C. R. Garrett, R. Chitnis, R. Holladay, B. Kim, T. Silver, L. P. Kael- bling, and T. Lozano-P ´erez, “Integrated task and motion planning,” Annual Review of Control, Robotics, and Autonomous Systems , vol. 4, pp. 265–293, 2021

    work page 2021

  7. [7]

    Logic-geometric programming: An optimization-based approach to combined task and motion planning

    M. Toussaint, “Logic-geometric programming: An optimization-based approach to combined task and motion planning.” in Intl Joint Conf. on Artificial Intelligence IJCAI , 2015, pp. 1930–1936

    work page 2015

  8. [8]

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

    C. R. Garrett, T. Lozano-P ´erez, and L. P. Kaelbling, “PDDLStream: Integrating symbolic planners and blackbox samplers via optimistic adaptive planning,” in Proc. of the Intl Conf. on Automated Planning and Scheduling, vol. 30, 2020, pp. 440–448

    work page 2020

  9. [9]

    Planning with learned object importance in large problem instances using graph neural networks,

    T. Silver, R. Chitnis, A. Curtis, J. B. Tenenbaum, T. Lozano-P ´erez, and L. P. Kaelbling, “Planning with learned object importance in large problem instances using graph neural networks,” in Proc. AAAI Conference on Artificial Intelligence, vol. 35, no. 13, 2021, pp. 11 962– 11 971

    work page 2021

  10. [10]

    Hierarchical task and motion planning in the now,

    L. P. Kaelbling and T. Lozano-Perez, “Hierarchical task and motion planning in the now,” in 2011 IEEE International Conference on Robotics and Automation , Shanghai, China, May, p. 1470–1477

    work page 2011

  11. [11]

    Learning temporal distances: Contrastive successor features can pro- vide a metric structure for decision-making,

    V . Myers, C. Zheng, A. Dragan, S. Levine, and B. Eysenbach, “Learning temporal distances: Contrastive successor features can pro- vide a metric structure for decision-making,” in Proceedings of the International Conference on Machine Learning , 2024

    work page 2024

  12. [12]

    Neural task programming: Learning to generalize across hierarchical tasks,

    D. Xu, S. Nair, Y . Zhu, J. Gao, A. Garg, L. Fei-Fei, and S. Savarese, “Neural task programming: Learning to generalize across hierarchical tasks,” in Proc. IEEE Intl Conf. on Robotics and Automation (ICRA) . Brisbane, QLD: IEEE, May 2018, p. 3795–3802

    work page 2018

  13. [13]

    Regression planning networks,

    D. Xu, R. Mart ´ın-Mart´ın, D.-A. Huang, Y . Zhu, S. Savarese, and L. F. Fei-Fei, “Regression planning networks,” Advances in Neural Information Processing Systems (NIPS) , vol. 32, 2019

    work page 2019

  14. [14]

    Koi: Accelerating online imitation learning via hybrid key-state guidance,

    J. Lu, W. Xia, D. Wang, Z. Wang, B. Zhao, D. Hu, and X. Li, “Koi: Accelerating online imitation learning via hybrid key-state guidance,” in 8th Annual Conference on Robot Learning , 2024

    work page 2024

  15. [15]

    Extracting general- izable skills from a single plan execution using abstraction-critical state detection,

    K. Elimelech, L. E. Kavraki, and M. Y . Vardi, “Extracting general- izable skills from a single plan execution using abstraction-critical state detection,” in Proc. IEEE Intl Conf. on Robotics and Automation (ICRA), May 2023, p. 5772–5778

    work page 2023

  16. [16]

    Accelerating long-horizon planning with affordance-directed dynamic grounding of abstract strategies,

    K. Elimelech, Z. Kingston, W. Thomason, M. Y . Vardi, and L. E. Kavraki, “Accelerating long-horizon planning with affordance-directed dynamic grounding of abstract strategies,” in IEEE International Conference on Robotics and Automation (ICRA) , May 2024

    work page 2024

  17. [17]

    Solving sequential ma- nipulation puzzles by finding easier subproblems,

    S. Levit, J. Ortiz-Haro, and M. Toussaint, “Solving sequential ma- nipulation puzzles by finding easier subproblems,” in Proc. IEEE Intl Conf. on Robotics and Automation (ICRA) , May 2024

    work page 2024

  18. [18]

    Learning value functions with relational state representations for guiding task-and-motion planning,

    B. Kim and L. Shimanuki, “Learning value functions with relational state representations for guiding task-and-motion planning,” in Conf. on Robot Learning . PMLR, 2020, pp. 955–968

    work page 2020

  19. [19]

    Deep visual heuris- tics: Learning feasibility of mixed-integer programs for manipulation planning,

    D. Driess, O. Oguz, J.-S. Ha, and M. Toussaint, “Deep visual heuris- tics: Learning feasibility of mixed-integer programs for manipulation planning,” in Proc. IEEE Intl Conf. on Robotics and Automation (ICRA), 2020, pp. 9563–9569

    work page 2020

  20. [20]

    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

    work page 2022

  21. [21]

    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, p. 1983–1990, Apr. 2023

    work page 1983

  22. [22]

    Object-centric task and motion planning in dynamic environments,

    T. Migimatsu and J. Bohg, “Object-centric task and motion planning in dynamic environments,” IEEE Robotics and Automation Letters , vol. 5, no. 2, pp. 844–851, 2020

    work page 2020

  23. [23]

    FC 3: Feasibility-based control chain coordination,

    J. Harris, D. Driess, and M. Toussaint, “FC 3: Feasibility-based control chain coordination,” in 2022 IEEE/RSJ International Conference on Intelligent Robots and Systems (IROS) , pp. 13 769–13 776

    work page 2022

  24. [24]

    Multi-modal mppi and active inference for reactive task and motion planning,

    Y . Zhang, C. Pezzato, E. Trevisan, C. Salmi, C. H. Corbato, and J. Alonso-Mora, “Multi-modal mppi and active inference for reactive task and motion planning,” IEEE Robotics and Automation Letters , 2024

    work page 2024

  25. [25]

    D-lgp: Dynamic logic-geometric program for reactive task and motion planning,

    T. Xue, A. Razmjoo, and S. Calinon, “D-lgp: Dynamic logic-geometric program for reactive task and motion planning,” in2024 IEEE Interna- tional Conference on Robotics and Automation (ICRA) . IEEE, 2024, pp. 14 888–14 894

    work page 2024

  26. [26]

    Receding horizon task and motion planning in changing environments,

    N. Castaman, E. Pagello, E. Menegatti, and A. Pretto, “Receding horizon task and motion planning in changing environments,”Robotics and Autonomous Systems , vol. 145, p. 103863, 2021

    work page 2021

  27. [27]

    RHH-LGP: Receding horizon and heuristics-based logic-geometric programming for task and motion planning,

    C. V . Braun, J. Ortiz-Haro, M. Toussaint, and O. S. Oguz, “RHH-LGP: Receding horizon and heuristics-based logic-geometric programming for task and motion planning,” in 2022 IEEE/RSJ International Con- ference on Intelligent Robots and Systems (IROS) , 2022, pp. 13 761– 13 768

    work page 2022

  28. [28]

    Logic learning from demonstrations for multi-step manipulation tasks in dynamic environments,

    Y . Zhang, T. Xue, A. Razmjoo, and S. Calinon, “Logic learning from demonstrations for multi-step manipulation tasks in dynamic environments,” IEEE Robotics and Automation Letters , 2024

    work page 2024

  29. [29]

    A survey of sequential pattern mining,

    P. Fournier-Viger, J. C.-W. Lin, R. U. Kiran, Y . S. Koh, and R. Thomas, “A survey of sequential pattern mining,” Data Science and Pattern Recognition, vol. 1, no. 1, pp. 54–77, 2017

    work page 2017

  30. [30]

    Mining sequential patterns by pattern-growth: The prefixspan approach,

    J. Pei, J. Han, B. Mortazavi-Asl, J. Wang, H. Pinto, Q. Chen, U. Dayal, and M.-C. Hsu, “Mining sequential patterns by pattern-growth: The prefixspan approach,” IEEE Transactions on Knowledge and Data Engineering, vol. 16, no. 11, pp. 1424–1440, 2004

    work page 2004

  31. [31]

    On over-squashing in message passing neural networks: The impact of width, depth, and topology,

    F. Di Giovanni, L. Giusti, F. Barbero, G. Luise, P. Lio, and M. M. Bronstein, “On over-squashing in message passing neural networks: The impact of width, depth, and topology,” inInternational Conference on Machine Learning . PMLR, 2023, pp. 7865–7885

    work page 2023