pith. sign in

arxiv: 2604.14733 · v1 · submitted 2026-04-16 · 💻 cs.RO

Differentiable Object Pose Connectivity Metrics for Regrasp Sequence Optimization

Liang Qin , Weiwei Wan , Kensuke Harada This is my paper

Pith reviewed 2026-05-10 11:17 UTC · model grok-4.3

classification 💻 cs.RO
keywords regrasp planningenergy-based modelspose connectivitygradient-based optimizationgrasp feasibilityrobot manipulationsequence optimizationdifferentiable metrics
0
0 comments X

The pith

Energy additivity in grasp models creates continuous connectivity metrics for gradient-based regrasp sequence optimization.

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

The paper sets out to replace brittle discrete search with continuous optimization when planning sequences of object poses that allow an object to be transferred between start and goal while remaining graspable at every step. Grasp feasibility for each pose is captured by an energy-based model; energies are added across pose pairs to produce a smooth landscape whose value indicates how well two poses are connected by shared grasps. Gradients from this landscape then steer the choice of intermediate poses, and an adaptive deepening rule selects the shortest sequence length that drives the total cost to zero. Readers should care because regrasp steps are required in many pick-and-place tasks, and the method reports working for grasps never seen in training and for a different gripper type after training on only one.

Core claim

We propose an implicit multi-step regrasp planning framework based on differentiable pose sequence connectivity metrics. We model grasp feasibility under an object pose using an Energy-Based Model (EBM) and leverage energy additivity to construct a continuous energy landscape that measures pose-pair connectivity, enabling gradient-based optimization of intermediate object poses. An adaptive iterative deepening strategy is introduced to determine the minimum number of intermediate steps automatically.

What carries the argument

Energy additivity applied to an Energy-Based Model of grasp feasibility under each object pose, producing a differentiable connectivity cost between any pair of poses.

If this is right

  • The cost formulation supplies smooth and informative gradients that improve planning robustness over discrete alternatives.
  • A model trained on one end-effector generalizes to unseen grasp poses and transfers to a different end-effector.
  • Adaptive iterative deepening automatically identifies the minimum number of intermediate steps needed.

Where Pith is reading between the lines

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

  • The same additivity construction could be applied to other multi-step robotics planning problems such as tool-use sequences or assembly tasks.
  • Embedding the continuous landscape inside a model-predictive controller might allow online correction of regrasp plans when poses drift.
  • Experiments on physical hardware with sensor noise and varied object shapes would reveal whether the learned gradients remain reliable outside simulation.

Load-bearing premise

Energy additivity in the learned model correctly indicates whether two poses share a feasible grasp.

What would settle it

An optimized sequence whose consecutive poses have low combined energy yet fail to admit any shared grasp when tested on a physical robot.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2604.14733 by Kensuke Harada, Liang Qin, Weiwei Wan.

Figure 1
Figure 1. Figure 1: When one pick-and-place manipulation is infeasible for given [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p001_1.png] view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. Figure 2: (a) Bottle object. (b) A grasp defined in the object canonical frame. [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p002_2.png] view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. Figure 3: Validation of energy compositionality. (a) Ground truth feasible [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p003_3.png] view at source ↗
Figure 4
Figure 4. Figure 4: (a) Stable placements on a tabletop environment. (b) Intermediate [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p004_4.png] view at source ↗
Figure 5
Figure 5. Figure 5: (a) Changes of grasps as Tmid shifts from Tinit to Tgoal. (b) Comparison of different cost formulations. Red, green, blue, and purple curves respectively correspond to results using 50, 100, 150, and 200 sampled candidate grasps from G. (b.1) J + seq leads to spurious minima; (b.2) J h seq suffers from vanishing gradients; (b.3) Jseq (λreg = 0.5) has satisfying gradients. (c) Ground truth count of shared g… view at source ↗
Figure 6
Figure 6. Figure 6: (a) The bottle object has five canonical stable placements. (b.1-3) Evolution of pose distributions and costs during optimization. Since there is only [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p006_6.png] view at source ↗
Figure 7
Figure 7. Figure 7: Objects used in the experiments: Bunny, Pentagon, and Mug, in [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p006_7.png] view at source ↗
Figure 8
Figure 8. Figure 8: Six end-effectors2 and their candidate grasps used for training. TABLE II AVERAGE VERIFICATION SUCCESS RATES (S.V.) OF CROSS-END-EFFECTOR EVALUATION S1 S2 S3 W R1 R2 S1 S2 S3 W R1 R2 Bt W 0.0 0.0 0.0 86.3 67.2 63.9 Bn W 9.2 0.0 0.0 66.8 32.5 26.7 R1 0.0 0.0 0.0 33.0 41.5 33.9 R1 0.0 1.7 0.0 10.8 35.4 0.0 R2 0.9 0.2 3.0 62.5 67.6 64.6 R2 5.5 22.9 0.0 8.1 33.7 39.9 S1 51.2 34.0 30.3 35.5 40.4 44.8 S1 39.7 29… view at source ↗
Figure 9
Figure 9. Figure 9: (a) Initial pose Tinit (cyan) and goal pose Tgoal (green). (b) Generation of five candidate intermediate sequences (blue and red). (c.1–4) multi-step pick-and-place motion planning. The results demonstrate that iterative deepening effectively restores solvability by adaptively increasing sequence length [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p007_9.png] view at source ↗
read the original abstract

Regrasp planning is often required when one pick-and-place cannot transfer an object from an initial pose to a goal pose while maintaining grasp feasibility. The main challenge is to reason about shared-grasp connectivity across intermediate poses, where discrete search becomes brittle. We propose an implicit multi-step regrasp planning framework based on differentiable pose sequence connectivity metrics. We model grasp feasibility under an object pose using an Energy-Based Model (EBM) and leverage energy additivity to construct a continuous energy landscape that measures pose-pair connectivity, enabling gradient-based optimization of intermediate object poses. An adaptive iterative deepening strategy is introduced to determine the minimum number of intermediate steps automatically. Experiments show that the proposed cost formulation provides smooth and informative gradients, improving planning robustness over other alternatives. They also demonstrate generalization to unseen grasp poses and cross-end-effector transfer, where a model trained with suction constraints can guide parallel gripper grasp manipulation. The multi-step planning results further highlight the effectiveness of adaptive deepening and minimum-step search.

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

2 major / 2 minor

Summary. The paper proposes an implicit multi-step regrasp planning framework based on differentiable pose sequence connectivity metrics. Grasp feasibility under an object pose is modeled via an Energy-Based Model (EBM); energy additivity is used to construct a continuous landscape measuring pose-pair connectivity, which enables gradient-based optimization of intermediate object poses. An adaptive iterative deepening strategy automatically determines the minimum number of steps. Experiments are claimed to show that the cost formulation yields smooth gradients, improving robustness over alternatives, with generalization to unseen grasp poses and cross-end-effector transfer (e.g., suction-trained model guiding parallel-gripper manipulation).

Significance. If the energy-additivity construction correctly encodes shared-grasp feasibility, the approach would provide a novel differentiable alternative to discrete regrasp search, with potential benefits for robustness and generalization across grasps and end-effectors. The adaptive deepening component could also reduce manual tuning in multi-step planning. These strengths would be noteworthy for robotics manipulation if supported by rigorous validation of the modeling assumption and quantitative results.

major comments (2)
  1. Abstract and modeling description: the central construction defines pose-pair connectivity as the sum of per-pose EBM energies and asserts that this yields a landscape suitable for gradient-based optimization of regrasp sequences. However, the EBM training objective is per-pose and contains no term that enforces the sum to be low precisely when a single grasp is feasible for both poses. This additivity is therefore an unproven modeling choice; if energies instead reflect independent marginals, the resulting landscape can contain spurious low-energy regions unrelated to overlapping grasp sets, undermining the optimization and generalization claims.
  2. Abstract (experiments paragraph): the claims of 'improved planning robustness', 'generalization to unseen grasp poses', and 'cross-end-effector transfer' are presented without reference to specific quantitative metrics, baselines, error bars, ablation studies, or statistical tests. Because the soundness of the connectivity metric is load-bearing for these results, the absence of such evidence leaves the empirical support for the framework's advantages unclear.
minor comments (2)
  1. Notation for the EBM energy function and the connectivity metric should be introduced with explicit equations early in the manuscript to improve readability.
  2. The adaptive iterative deepening procedure would benefit from a pseudocode listing or clear algorithmic description, including termination criteria and how the minimum-step search is performed.

Simulated Author's Rebuttal

2 responses · 0 unresolved

We thank the referee for the insightful and constructive comments. We address each major point below, clarifying our modeling choices and empirical support while outlining targeted revisions.

read point-by-point responses

  1. Referee: Abstract and modeling description: the central construction defines pose-pair connectivity as the sum of per-pose EBM energies and asserts that this yields a landscape suitable for gradient-based optimization of regrasp sequences. However, the EBM training objective is per-pose and contains no term that enforces the sum to be low precisely when a single grasp is feasible for both poses. This additivity is therefore an unproven modeling choice; if energies instead reflect independent marginals, the resulting landscape can contain spurious low-energy regions unrelated to overlapping grasp sets, undermining the optimization and generalization claims.

    Authors: We agree that additivity is a modeling assumption rather than a property directly optimized during EBM training. The EBM assigns low energy to object poses admitting at least one feasible grasp; the sum is therefore low precisely when both poses admit feasible grasps. Our working hypothesis is that, within the distribution of grasps encountered during training and deployment, low-energy poses tend to share overlapping grasp sets, making the sum a useful proxy for connectivity. We acknowledge this hypothesis requires explicit support. In the revised manuscript we will add a dedicated subsection that (i) states the assumption clearly, (ii) provides an empirical check on our datasets showing that low-sum pairs indeed correspond to overlapping grasp sets (measured by intersection of feasible grasp indices), and (iii) discusses failure modes when the assumption is violated. This will strengthen the justification without altering the core formulation. revision: partial

  2. Referee: Abstract (experiments paragraph): the claims of 'improved planning robustness', 'generalization to unseen grasp poses', and 'cross-end-effector transfer' are presented without reference to specific quantitative metrics, baselines, error bars, ablation studies, or statistical tests. Because the soundness of the connectivity metric is load-bearing for these results, the absence of such evidence leaves the empirical support for the framework's advantages unclear.

    Authors: The abstract currently summarizes high-level findings; the full manuscript reports the supporting numbers in Section 5 (planning success rates versus discrete search and non-differentiable baselines, generalization accuracy on held-out grasp poses, and cross-effector transfer success from suction to parallel-gripper models, all with standard deviations over multiple trials). We will revise the abstract to include concise references to these quantitative results (e.g., “X% higher success rate, Y% generalization accuracy”) and direct readers to the corresponding tables and figures. revision: yes

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged

No significant circularity; modeling choice is independent of fitted inputs

full rationale

The paper defines grasp feasibility per pose via an EBM and then adopts energy additivity to define pose-pair connectivity for optimization. No equations reduce a claimed prediction or connectivity metric to a quantity fitted from the same data by construction. The additivity step is an explicit modeling assumption rather than a self-definition or a fitted input renamed as output. No load-bearing self-citations or uniqueness theorems from prior author work are invoked to justify the core construction. The derivation chain remains self-contained against external benchmarks and does not collapse to its inputs.

Axiom & Free-Parameter Ledger

1 free parameters · 1 axioms · 0 invented entities

Review limited to abstract; ledger populated from stated modeling choices only.

free parameters (1)
  • EBM parameters
    Energy-based model for grasp feasibility is trained on data, so its parameters are fitted.
axioms (1)
  • domain assumption Grasp feasibility under a pose can be represented by an energy value whose additivity measures pose-pair connectivity
    Invoked to build the continuous energy landscape for gradient optimization.

pith-pipeline@v0.9.0 · 5468 in / 1213 out tokens · 40155 ms · 2026-05-10T11:17:16.500333+00:00 · methodology

discussion (0)

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

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

23 extracted references · 23 canonical work pages

  1. [1]

    Regrasping,

    P. Tournassoud, T. Lozano-P ´erez, and E. Mazer, “Regrasping,” inIEEE International Conference on Robotics and Automation (ICRA), vol. 4, 1987, pp. 1924–1928

    work page 1987

  2. [2]

    Complete and rapid regrasp planning with look-up table,

    K. Cho, M. Kim, and J.-B. Song, “Complete and rapid regrasp planning with look-up table,”Journal of Intelligent and Robotic Systems, vol. 36, no. 4, pp. 371–387, 2003

    work page 2003

  3. [3]

    Manipulation planning with probabilistic roadmaps,

    T. Sim ´eonet al., “Manipulation planning with probabilistic roadmaps,” The International Journal of Robotics Research, vol. 23, no. 7-8, pp. 729–746, 2004

    work page 2004

  4. [4]

    Center-of-mass-based object regrasping: A rein- forcement learning approach and the effects of perception modality,

    R. Wanget al., “Center-of-mass-based object regrasping: A rein- forcement learning approach and the effects of perception modality,” IEEE/ASME Transactions on Mechatronics, vol. 30, no. 2, pp. 1356– 1365, 2025

    work page 2025

  5. [5]

    Planning to repose long and heavy objects considering a combination of regrasp and constrained drooping,

    M. Raessa, W. Wan, and K. Harada, “Planning to repose long and heavy objects considering a combination of regrasp and constrained drooping,” Assembly Automation, vol. 41, no. 3, pp. 324–332, 2021

    work page 2021

  6. [6]

    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, 2020

    work page 2020

  7. [7]

    Regrasp planning using stable object poses supported by complex structures,

    J. Maet al., “Regrasp planning using stable object poses supported by complex structures,”IEEE Transactions on Cognitive and Developmen- tal Systems, vol. 11, no. 2, pp. 257–269, 2019

    work page 2019

  8. [8]

    Dexterous manipulation graphs,

    S. Crucianiet al., “Dexterous manipulation graphs,” inIEEE/RSJ International Conference on Intelligent Robots and Systems (IROS), 2018, pp. 2040–2047

    work page 2018

  9. [9]

    Bimanual regrasp planning and control for active reduction of object pose uncertainty,

    R. Nagahamaet al., “Bimanual regrasp planning and control for active reduction of object pose uncertainty,”IEEE Robotics and Automation Letters, vol. 10, no. 8, pp. 8027–8034, 2025

    work page 2025

  10. [10]

    Multi-modal planning on regrasp- ing for stable manipulation,

    J. Hu, Z. Tang, and H. I. Christensen, “Multi-modal planning on regrasp- ing for stable manipulation,” inIEEE/RSJ International Conference on Intelligent Robots and Systems (IROS), 2023, pp. 10 620–10 627

    work page 2023

  11. [11]

    Dual-arm mobile manipulation planning of a long deformable object in industrial installation,

    Y . Qinet al., “Dual-arm mobile manipulation planning of a long deformable object in industrial installation,”IEEE Robotics and Au- tomation Letters, vol. 8, no. 5, pp. 3039–3046, 2023

    work page 2023

  12. [12]

    Solving sequential manipu- lation puzzles by finding easier subproblems,

    S. Levit, J. Ortiz-Haro, and M. Toussaint, “Solving sequential manipu- lation puzzles by finding easier subproblems,” inIEEE International Conference on Robotics and Automation (ICRA), 2024, pp. 14 924– 14 930

    work page 2024

  13. [13]

    Regrasp maps for sequential manipulation planning,

    S. Levit and M. Toussaint, “Regrasp maps for sequential manipulation planning,” inIEEE/RSJ International Conference on Intelligent Robots and Systems (IROS), 2025, pp. 17 436–17 441

    work page 2025

  14. [14]

    Reorientbot: Learning object reorientation for specific-posed placement,

    K. Wada, S. James, and A. J. Davison, “Reorientbot: Learning object reorientation for specific-posed placement,” inInternational Conference on Robotics and Automation (ICRA), 2022, pp. 8252–8258

    work page 2022

  15. [15]

    Reorientdiff: Diffusion model based reorientation for object manipulation,

    U. A. Mishra and Y . Chen, “Reorientdiff: Diffusion model based reorientation for object manipulation,” inIEEE International Conference on Robotics and Automation (ICRA), 2024, pp. 10 867–10 873

    work page 2024

  16. [16]

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

    K. Xuet al., “Efficient object manipulation to an arbitrary goal pose: Learning-based anytime prioritized planning,” inInternational Confer- ence on Robotics and Automation (ICRA), 2022, pp. 7277–7283

    work page 2022

  17. [17]

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

    P. Xuet al., “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, 2024

    work page 2024

  18. [18]

    Closed-loop placement planning for regrasping and reconstruction with single-view rgb-d images,

    Z. Chenet al., “Closed-loop placement planning for regrasping and reconstruction with single-view rgb-d images,”IEEE Transactions on Automation Science and Engineering, vol. 22, pp. 14 084–14 095, 2025

    work page 2025

  19. [19]

    Simultaneous pick and place detection by combining se(3) diffusion models with differential kinematics,

    T. Koet al., “Simultaneous pick and place detection by combining se(3) diffusion models with differential kinematics,” inIEEE/RSJ In- ternational Conference on Intelligent Robots and Systems (IROS), 2025, pp. 9425–9432

    work page 2025

  20. [20]

    A planning framework for complex flipping manipula- tion of multiple mobile manipulators,

    W. Liuet al., “A planning framework for complex flipping manipula- tion of multiple mobile manipulators,”IEEE Robotics and Automation Letters, vol. 10, no. 5, pp. 5162–5169, 2025

    work page 2025

  21. [21]

    Building gradient by gradient: Decentralised energy functions for bimanual robot assembly,

    A. L. Mitchell, J. Watson, and I. Posner, “Building gradient by gradient: Decentralised energy functions for bimanual robot assembly,”arXiv preprint arXiv:2510.04696, 2025

    work page arXiv 2025

  22. [22]

    Learning implicit priors for motion optimization,

    J. Urainet al., “Learning implicit priors for motion optimization,” in IEEE/RSJ International Conference on Intelligent Robots and Systems (IROS), 2022, pp. 7672–7679

    work page 2022

  23. [23]

    Reference omitted for double-anonymous review,

    A. Authors, “Reference omitted for double-anonymous review,”IEEE Robotics and Automation Letters, 2025, details are withheld to preserve double-anonymous reviewing. APPENDIX A. Truncated Free Energy Score We define a truncated pose connectivity scoreQ h pair by restricting the energy summation to grasps with combined energy below the thresholdh: Qh pair(T...

    work page 2025