Representing Robot Task Plans as Robust Logical-Dynamical Systems

Chris Paxton; Clemens Eppner; Dieter Fox; Nathan Ratliff

REVIEW 3 major objections 5 minor 29 references

Representing Robot Task Plans as Robust Logical-Dynamical Systems

T0 review · 3 major / 5 minor · reviewed 2026-08-14 · deepseek-v4-flash

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

Pith's one-line read Task plans compiled into logical-dynamical chains converge to their goal with probability one when each step succeeds with nonzero bounded probability.

desk verdict A useful reactive-execution framework with a genuinely new condition-propagation algorithm, but the headline convergence theorem has a fixingable proof gap and the empirical section is thin. read the letter →

arxiv 1908.01896 v1 pith:LWOVAHGE submitted 2019-08-05 cs.RO

Chris Paxton , Nathan Ratliff , Clemens Eppner , Dieter Fox This is my paper · ORCID

classification cs.RO

keywords robustlogical-dynamicalsystemsbehaviortreesreactivetaskexecutionrobotmanipulationplanningconvergenceguaranteemarkovlogicalstate

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 proposes Robust Logical-Dynamical Systems (RLDS), a way to represent a robot task plan as a sequence of operators, each with entry conditions, run conditions, and effects. The central claim is that such a chain can be built automatically from an ordinary sequential plan and still behave reactively, retrying or skipping steps as the world changes. The paper further claims a convergence guarantee: if every operator induces a successful transition with probability at least p>0, the chain reaches its goal with probability one, and the expected number of transitions is at most N/p^N. The practical payoff is that recovery behaviors arise from the representation itself instead of being hand-wired into a finite state machine or behavior tree. A case study on a kitchen manipulation task supports this with simulated and real-world trials under adversarial interference.

What carries the argument

The central object is the Robust Logical-Dynamical Chain (RLDC), a sequence of operators $o_i = (L^P_i, L^R_i, L^E_i, \pi_i)$ whose local chaining condition is $L^E_i \Rightarrow L^P_{i+1} \Rightarrow L^R_{i+1}$. Execution always favors the most downstream enterable operator, which implements both progress toward the goal and automatic fallback to earlier recovery operators when conditions fail. The theoretical analysis models each operator as either producing a controlled transition (its effect becomes satisfied) or an uncontrolled transition (the run becomes infeasible and the system resets to some enterable state), with the probability of controlled transitions bounded below by $p$. This abstraction is what lets the paper reduce convergence to a probabilistic argument over repeated traversals of the chain.

What would settle it

Run a chain in simulation with $N=3$ operators where a failed operator pushes the continuous state further from the next precondition, so retry success probabilities decrease with each failure. If the mean number of transitions to reach the goal exceeds $N/p^N$ for the measured $p$, the independence assumption in the Theorem 1 proof is violated.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

The paper's discovery is that reactive robustness can be engineered by construction: a sequence of operators that obeys the chaining condition $L^E_i \Rightarrow L^P_{i+1} \Rightarrow L^R_{i+1}$ turns any sequential plan into a self-recovering controller. At every control tick the system picks the most downstream operator whose entry condition holds, and if the current run becomes infeasible it jumps to the most downstream enterable operator, which usually means backing up and retrying. The main theoretical result, Theorem 1, states that if each operator induces a controlled transition with probability $p_i \geq p > 0$, the chain reaches the goal condition $L_G$ with probability 1, and the expected transition count is bounded by $N/p^N$. The proof treats each uncontrolled transition as a fresh attempt at traversing the whole chain, so the convergence rate is exponential in the number of uncontrolled transitions.

Load-bearing premise

The load-bearing premise is that each operator's success probability $p_i$ stays bounded below by $p$ and that successive attempts are independent enough that the proof's multiplication $p^N$ is valid; if failures are correlated, the bound could fail.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

A sequential plan written as a list of operators can be compiled into an RLDS, so reactive recovery does not require manually programming fallback connections.
In the kitchen manipulation case study, reactive execution matched replanning on success rate while completing tasks faster, and it coped with a human closing the drawer or shoving the robot without replanning.
Because RLDS execution re-evaluates logical conditions at every tick, the system can skip ahead when a later step's preconditions become true, for example when an object accidentally lands in the drawer.
The convergence theorem gives a bound on expected time to goal, $N/p^N$, that can be used a priori to decide whether a chain of operators is reliable enough for a task.
Any Behavior Tree can be expressed as an RLDS and vice versa, so the framework inherits the expressiveness of Behavior Trees while adding a formal convergence statement.

Reading between the lines

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

The proof multiplies per-step success probabilities, which presumes failures are independent across attempts; a natural extension would state Theorem 1 under conditional independence or a Markov assumption on the failure process, and the bound would likely still hold with a modified $p$.
If the probabilities $p_i$ are not fixed but depend on the continuous state, the geometric-trial argument no longer applies directly; estimating $p_i$ online from observed transitions could yield an adaptive version that reorders operators by reliability.
The same chain formalism could be applied outside robotics to any reactive discrete-event system whose actions have bounded success probabilities, such as automated assembly or dialogue managers, though the paper does not explore those domains.
A practical test of the bound: instrument a deployed RLDS to record the number of uncontrolled transitions before success; if the empirical distribution deviates strongly from the geometric form used in the proof, the independence assumption is being violated in that environment.

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.

Desk Editor's Note

read the letter

The genuinely new thing here is the RLDS formulation: splitting entry conditions from run conditions, and especially the backward-propagation of implicit conditions (Algorithm 2). I don't think that specific mechanism is in the BT/FSM/PDDL literature they cite, and it gives a clean way to turn a sequential plan into a reactive program with automatic fallback. The equivalence-to-BTs observation is a nice sanity check, and the framework does capture the practical notion of 'jump ahead when a later precondition is already true' more directly than a hand-built BT. On the empirical side, the real-world demo with adversarial interference is credibly reported, and the reactive plan matching or beating replanning is plausible.

The soft spots are real but not fatal. The proof of Theorem 1 is under-specified. The per-operator probability p_i is introduced without saying whether it is conditional on entering the operator. If it is unconditional, then multiplying p^N across N steps assumes independence (or something comparably strong), which the paper never states. If it is meant as conditional-on-entry, then the product follows by the chain rule, but the text doesn't say that. Either way, the proof as written doesn't establish the bound for the algorithm as described. The stress-test note is also right that Algorithm 1 can re-enter the same operator, not always reset to the start, so the geometric-trials model in the proof is not literally the system's behavior. I think the theorem can be salvaged — a stochastic-dominance argument with resets being the worst case would probably do it — but it needs rewriting.

Minor points: no code or data released, which matters for reproducibility. The simulation comparison lacks a behavior-tree baseline, which would have been the natural competitor. The paper's own claims about 'theoretical guarantees' are therefore somewhat ahead of what the proof actually delivers.

Overall: the framework is a solid, honest contribution to reactive task execution. It is not a new capability class — it is a cleaner way to build robust behavior that BTs and FSMs can express with more effort. The paper deserves a serious referee, but the referee should send it back for a fixed Theorem 1 proof and a bit more experimental discipline.

Referee Report

3 major / 5 minor

Summary. The paper introduces Robust Logical-Dynamical Systems (RLDS), a reactive task-execution representation in which a plan is represented as a chain of operators, each with an entry condition, run condition, effect, and an associated low-level policy. The authors contribute an algorithm for composing RLDS from sequential plans, a method for computing implicit logical conditions (Algorithm 2), a simple STRIPS-style planner integrated with RLDS execution (Algorithm 3), and a theoretical convergence result (Theorem 1) that claims almost-sure convergence to the goal with expected number of transitions bounded by N/p^N. The framework is evaluated in a simulated kitchen manipulation task with YCB objects, comparing linear execution, replanning, and reactive RLDS execution under nominal and adversarial conditions, and in a real-world demonstration with a Franka Panda arm.

Significance. If Theorem 1 can be stated and proved rigorously, the RLDS framework would provide a formal probabilistic convergence guarantee for reactive task execution with recovery, a property that is difficult to establish for behavior trees and related reactive frameworks. The paper also demonstrates a working integration with low-level Riemannian motion policies, automatic plan composition, and experiments with adversarial interference, which are valuable practical contributions. However, the central proof currently rests on unstated probabilistic assumptions about independence and reset behavior, and the execution algorithm does not fully match the model used in the proof. The theoretical contribution is therefore contingent on a repair of the theorem's statement and proof.

major comments (3)

[Section IV-B, Theorem 1 proof] The definition of p_i is ambiguous, and the proof multiplies per-operator probabilities to obtain p^N. If p_i is a marginal probability of a controlled transition, the product requires an independence assumption across successive operator executions, which is neither stated nor justified. If p_i is instead intended as a lower bound on the probability of a controlled transition conditional on entering operator i, then the product can be justified by the chain rule, but the paper never states this conditional interpretation, nor does it define p_i uniformly over the continuous states from which operator i can be entered. In addition, the geometric model p_k = (1 - p^N)^k p^N assumes that each uncontrolled transition resets the system to the initial state and that successive runs are independent and identically distributed; these renewal assumptions are not stated. As written, Theorem 1 is not a theorem about the system described by Algorithm 1.
[Section IV-C, Algorithm 1] The execution loop can fail to select any operator. When the current operator o_j becomes non-runnable, the first branch is blocked for i = j by the guard o_i != o_{t-1}, and if no other operator is enterable, the for loop completes without assigning o_t. The subsequent call to Step pi_i(x_t) then uses the leftover loop variable i, which is not a well-defined current operator. The completeness condition union_i L_i^P = S does not prevent this situation, because the currently guarded operator is excluded from re-entry. The algorithm needs an explicit default transition or a re-entry rule, and this rule must be consistent with the reset model used in the proof of Theorem 1.
[Section IV-B, expectation bound] In the expectation derivation, the proof writes E[T] <= sum_{k=0}^infinity (k+1)N P_k, where P_k was previously defined as the cumulative probability of reaching the goal with at most k uncontrolled transitions. As written, this is not a valid expectation; the sum over cumulative probabilities diverges. The intended computation works with the exact-trial probabilities p_k = (1 - p^N)^k p^N, and the surrounding algebra shows that the stated result can be recovered. This notational error should be corrected, and the derivation should be rewritten using exact probabilities.

minor comments (5)

[Section IV-A, Eq. (1)] The notation uses the implication arrow between conditions that are also treated as sets of states; the paper should state explicitly that L_i^E => L_{i+1}^P means inclusion of the corresponding sets, i.e., L_i^E subset of L_{i+1}^P.
[Section V-B, Algorithm 2] The set-builder notation L_i^I = {rho in L_{i+1}^P union L_{i+1}^I forall rho not in L_i^E} is nonstandard; it should be written as {rho in L_{i+1}^P union L_{i+1}^I : rho not in L_i^E}.
[Section VI-B and Table I] The experimental section does not state how many trials were run per condition, and no statistical significance tests are reported. The differences in completion time between replanning and reactive execution are within one standard deviation, so the claim that reactive execution is 'more efficient' should be tempered or supported by a larger trial count.
[Section IV-B, Theorem 1 statement] The phrase 'converging exponentially in the number of uncontrolled transitions k' is imprecise; the proof establishes that the cumulative success probability after at most k uncontrolled transitions is 1 - (1 - p^N)^{k+1}, which is an exponential approach to 1 in k. The theorem statement should state this explicitly.
[Section VI-D, real-world experiments] The real-world experiments are described qualitatively; reporting the number of trials, the number of failures, and the types of interference encountered would make the demonstration more reproducible and easier to assess.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 0.0 of 10

No significant circularity: Theorem 1 is a conditional geometric-trial bound from an external policy-success parameter, not a fitted or self-referential prediction.

full rationale

Walking the claimed derivation chain: the only quantitative premise of Theorem 1 is the per-operator success probability p, defined in Section IV-B as 'oi induces a controlled transition with probability pi if with that probability it generates a feasible sequence terminating in LiE satisfied.' This p is an external property of the low-level policies, and the paper explicitly treats it as an assumption ('We also assume that our low-level control policies have their own convergence guarantees'). The proof then derives the tail probability P_k = 1 - (1-p^N)^{k+1} and E[T] <= N/p^N via a geometric-trials calculation; neither p nor the conclusion is fitted to data, and no empirical quantity is relabeled as a prediction. The theorem is not made true by definition: the conclusion 'achieve LG with probability 1' requires the argument that repeated bounded-probability forward progress with resets almost surely occurs, which is exactly what the calculation supplies. The self-citations in the paper (CoSTAR, RMPflow, DART, PoseCNN) appear in related-work and implementation contexts, not as evidence for Theorem 1, and there is no imported uniqueness theorem. Two proof-gaps do exist and should be weighed: the p^N multiplication in Section IV-B is not justified without either an independence or conditional-chain-rule statement, and the phrase 'wherein the uncontrolled transition is all the way back to the start' does not match Alg. 1's re-entry behavior exactly. These are correctness or omitted-proof issues, not circular reductions; they do not equate any output to an input by construction, so the paper's central derivation is self-contained rather than circular.

Assumptions & free parameters 0 free parameters · 3 assumptions · 0 invented entities

The central convergence theorem rests on two stated domain assumptions: low-level policies have known success probabilities and their own convergence guarantees, and the logical state is Markov. A third assumption, independence of successive transition outcomes, is implicit in the proof's multiplication of probabilities. No numeric free parameters are fitted; the case study uses hand-chosen cost weights but they are not load-bearing.

assumptions (3)

domain assumption Low-level policies have known success probabilities and their own convergence guarantees.
Stated in Section III: "We also assume that our low-level control policies have their own convergence guarantees," and in Section IV-B through the definition of controlled transition probability p_i.
domain assumption The logical state space is Markov; predicates are sufficient statistics of history.
Stated in Section III: conditions "should be Markov in the sense that we can classify whether a given state can be run independent of whether we know the history of states that have been run before."
ad hoc to paper Successive transitions are independent, so per-step probabilities can be multiplied.
Implicit in the proof of Theorem 1 in Section IV-B. The paper defines only per-transition probabilities; the geometric-series calculation assumes independence across attempts. This is an unstated assumption.

how reviews work

0 comments

Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Representing Robot Task Plans as Robust Logical-Dynamical Systems." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/LWOVAHGE

@misc{pith2026190801896,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Representing Robot Task Plans as Robust Logical-Dynamical Systems},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/LWOVAHGE}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:1908.01896}
}

read the original abstract

It is difficult to create robust, reusable, and reactive behaviors for robots that can be easily extended and combined. Frameworks such as Behavior Trees are flexible but difficult to characterize, especially when designing reactions and recovery behaviors to consistently converge to a desired goal condition. We propose a framework which we call Robust Logical-Dynamical Systems (RLDS), which combines the advantages of task representations like behavior trees with theoretical guarantees on performance. RLDS can also be constructed automatically from simple sequential task plans and will still achieve robust, reactive behavior in dynamic real-world environments. In this work, we describe both our proposed framework and a case study on a simple household manipulation task, with examples for how specific pieces can be implemented to achieve robust behavior. Finally, we show how in the context of these manipulation tasks, a combination of an RLDS with planning can achieve better results under adversarial conditions.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 1908.01896 by the authors.

**Figure 2.** Any given RLDS can be modeled as an equivalent Behavior Tree (BT). Likewise, RLDS can be composed in the same [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p005_2.png] view at source ↗

**Figure 3.** An example of grasping behavior from our case study. [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p007_3.png] view at source ↗

Figures from the paper (2 more)

**Figure 4.** Figure 4: Without reactivity, the robot cannot recover from [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p008_4.png]

**Figure 5.** Figure 5: In the real world experiments, a human pushed on the robot, shoved its end effector, interfered with the drawer, [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p009_5.png]

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

29 extracted references · 25 canonical work pages

[1]

The smach high-level executive [ros news],

J. Bohren and S. Cousins, “The smach high-level executive [ros news],” IEEE Robotics & Automation Magazine , vol. 17, no. 4, pp. 18–20, 2010

work page 2010
[2]

Costar: Instructing collaborative robots with behavior trees and vision,

C. Paxton, A. Hundt, F. Jonathan, K. Guerin, and G. D. Hager, “Costar: Instructing collaborative robots with behavior trees and vision,” in Robotics and Automation (ICRA), 2017 IEEE International Conference on. IEEE, 2017, pp. 564–571. 2https://youtu.be/l_8pzcRGztk Fig. 5: In the real world experiments, a human pushed on the robot, shoved its end effector...

work page 2017
[3]

Eval- uating methods for end-user creation of robot task plans,

C. Paxton, F. Jonathan, A. Hundt, B. Mutlu, and G. D. Hager, “Eval- uating methods for end-user creation of robot task plans,” Intelligent Robots and Systems (IROS), 2018 IEEE International Conference on , 2018

work page 2018
[4]

Behavior trees in robotics and AI: An introduction,

M. Colledanchise and P. ¨Ogren, “Behavior trees in robotics and AI: An introduction,” 2018

work page 2018
[5]

Rmpﬂow: A computational graph for automatic motion policy generation,

C.-A. Cheng, M. Mukadam, J. Issac, S. Birchﬁeld, D. Fox, B. Boots, and N. Ratliff, “Rmpﬂow: A computational graph for automatic motion policy generation,” arXiv preprint arXiv:1811.07049 , 2018

arXiv 2018
[6]

Model-based, hierarchical control of a mobile manipulation plat- form,

C. McGann, E. Berger, J. Bohren, S. Chitta, B. Gerkey, S. Glaser, B. Marthi, W. Meeussen, T. Pratkanis, E. Marder-Eppstein et al. , “Model-based, hierarchical control of a mobile manipulation plat- form,” in ICAPS Workshop on Planning and Plan Execution for Real- World Systems, Thessaloniki, Greece , 2009

work page 2009
[7]

Sequential com- position of dynamically dexterous robot behaviors,

R. R. Burridge, A. A. Rizzi, and D. E. Koditschek, “Sequential com- position of dynamically dexterous robot behaviors,” The International Journal of Robotics Research , vol. 18, no. 6, pp. 534–555, 1999

1999
[8]

Behavior based robotics using hybrid automata,

M. Egerstedt, “Behavior based robotics using hybrid automata,” in International Workshop on Hybrid Systems: Computation and Control. Springer, 2000, pp. 103–116

work page 2000

Show all 29 references

[9]

Lessons from the amazon picking challenge: Four aspects of building robotic systems

C. Eppner, S. H ¨ofer, R. Jonschkowski, R. Mart´ın-Mart´ın, A. Sieverling, V . Wall, and O. Brock, “Lessons from the amazon picking challenge: Four aspects of building robotic systems.” in Robotics: Science and Systems, 2016

2016
[10]

Behavior trees as a representation for medical procedures,

B. Hannaford, R. Bly, I. Humphreys, and M. Whipple, “Behavior trees as a representation for medical procedures,” arXiv preprint arXiv:1808.08954, 2018

2018 arXiv
[11]

On three-layer architec- tures,

E. Gat, R. P. Bonnasso, R. Murphy et al. , “On three-layer architec- tures,” Artiﬁcial intelligence and mobile robots, vol. 195, p. 210, 1998

1998
[12]

Idea: Planning at the core of autonomous reactive agents,

N. Muscettola, G. A. Dorais, C. Fry, R. Levinson, and C. Plaunt, “Idea: Planning at the core of autonomous reactive agents,” 2002

2002
[13]

Constraint-based attribute and interval planning,

J. Frank and A. J ´onsson, “Constraint-based attribute and interval planning,” Constraints, vol. 8, no. 4, pp. 339–364, 2003

2003
[14]

Activity planning for the mars exploration rovers

J. L. Bresina, A. K. J ´onsson, P. H. Morris, and K. Rajan, “Activity planning for the mars exploration rovers.” in ICAPS, 2005, pp. 40–49

2005
[15]

A deliberative architecture for auv control,

C. McGann, F. Py, K. Rajan, H. Thomas, R. Henthorn, and R. McEwen, “A deliberative architecture for auv control,” in 2008 IEEE International Conference on Robotics and Automation . IEEE, 2008, pp. 1049–1054

2008
[16]

How behavior trees generalize the teleo-reactive paradigm and and-or-trees,

M. Colledanchise and P. ¨Ogren, “How behavior trees generalize the teleo-reactive paradigm and and-or-trees,” in 2016 IEEE/RSJ Interna- tional Conference on Intelligent Robots and Systems (IROS) . IEEE, 2016, pp. 424–429

2016
[17]

Pddl—the planning domain deﬁnition language,

M. Ghallab, A. Howe, C. Knoblock, D. McDermott, A. Ram, M. Veloso, D. Weld, and D. Wilkins, “Pddl—the planning domain deﬁnition language,” AIPS-98 planning committee, vol. 3, p. 14, 1998

1998
[18]

Motion planning with temporal-logic speciﬁcations: Progress and challenges,

E. Plaku and S. Karaman, “Motion planning with temporal-logic speciﬁcations: Progress and challenges,” AI communications, vol. 29, no. 1, pp. 151–162, 2016

2016
[19]

Extended behavior trees for quick deﬁnition of ﬂexible robotic tasks,

F. Rovida, B. Grossmann, and V . Kr ¨uger, “Extended behavior trees for quick deﬁnition of ﬂexible robotic tasks,” in 2017 IEEE/RSJ International Conference on Intelligent Robots and Systems (IROS) . IEEE, 2017, pp. 6793–6800

2017
[20]

An overview of hierarchical task network planning,

I. Georgievski and M. Aiello, “An overview of hierarchical task network planning,” arXiv preprint arXiv:1403.7426 , 2014

2014 arXiv
[21]

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 Twenty-Fourth International Joint Conference on Artiﬁcial Intelligence , 2015

2015
[22]

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 2018 IEEE International Conference on Robotics and Automation (ICRA). IEEE, 2018, pp. 1–8

2018
[23]

Combining neural networks and tree search for task and motion planning in chal- lenging environments,

C. Paxton, V . Raman, G. D. Hager, and M. Kobilarov, “Combining neural networks and tree search for task and motion planning in chal- lenging environments,” in2017 IEEE/RSJ International Conference on Intelligent Robots and Systems (IROS) . IEEE, 2017, pp. 6059–6066

2017
[24]

Neural task graphs: Generalizing to unseen tasks from a single video demonstration,

D.-A. Huang, S. Nair, D. Xu, Y . Zhu, A. Garg, L. Fei-Fei, S. Savarese, and J. C. Niebles, “Neural task graphs: Generalizing to unseen tasks from a single video demonstration,” arXiv preprint arXiv:1807.03480, 2018

2018 arXiv
[25]

STRIPS: A new approach to the appli- cation of theorem proving to problem solving,

R. E. Fikes and N. J. Nilsson, “STRIPS: A new approach to the appli- cation of theorem proving to problem solving,” Artiﬁcial intelligence, vol. 2, no. 3-4, pp. 189–208, 1971

1971
[26]

The fast downward planning system,

M. Helmert, “The fast downward planning system,” Journal of Artiﬁ- cial Intelligence Research , vol. 26, pp. 191–246, 2006

2006
[27]

Yale-CMU-Berkeley dataset for robotic manipulation research,

B. Calli, A. Singh, J. Bruce, A. Walsman, K. Konolige, S. Srini- vasa, P. Abbeel, and A. M. Dollar, “Yale-CMU-Berkeley dataset for robotic manipulation research,” The International Journal of Robotics Research, vol. 36, no. 3, pp. 261–268, 2017

2017
[28]

DART: Dense Articulated Real-Time Tracking,

T. Schmidt, R. A. Newcombe, and D. Fox, “DART: Dense Articulated Real-Time Tracking,” in Robotics: Science and Systems , vol. 2, no. 1, 2014

2014
[29]

PoseCNN: A convolutional neural network for 6d object pose estimation in cluttered scenes,

Y . Xiang, T. Schmidt, V . Narayanan, and D. Fox, “PoseCNN: A convolutional neural network for 6d object pose estimation in cluttered scenes,” arXiv preprint arXiv:1711.00199 , 2017

2017 arXiv

Pith tools

Reviewed August 14, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.

[1] [1]

The smach high-level executive [ros news],

J. Bohren and S. Cousins, “The smach high-level executive [ros news],” IEEE Robotics & Automation Magazine , vol. 17, no. 4, pp. 18–20, 2010

work page 2010

[2] [2]

Costar: Instructing collaborative robots with behavior trees and vision,

C. Paxton, A. Hundt, F. Jonathan, K. Guerin, and G. D. Hager, “Costar: Instructing collaborative robots with behavior trees and vision,” in Robotics and Automation (ICRA), 2017 IEEE International Conference on. IEEE, 2017, pp. 564–571. 2https://youtu.be/l_8pzcRGztk Fig. 5: In the real world experiments, a human pushed on the robot, shoved its end effector...

work page 2017

[3] [3]

Eval- uating methods for end-user creation of robot task plans,

C. Paxton, F. Jonathan, A. Hundt, B. Mutlu, and G. D. Hager, “Eval- uating methods for end-user creation of robot task plans,” Intelligent Robots and Systems (IROS), 2018 IEEE International Conference on , 2018

work page 2018

[4] [4]

Behavior trees in robotics and AI: An introduction,

M. Colledanchise and P. ¨Ogren, “Behavior trees in robotics and AI: An introduction,” 2018

work page 2018

[5] [5]

Rmpﬂow: A computational graph for automatic motion policy generation,

C.-A. Cheng, M. Mukadam, J. Issac, S. Birchﬁeld, D. Fox, B. Boots, and N. Ratliff, “Rmpﬂow: A computational graph for automatic motion policy generation,” arXiv preprint arXiv:1811.07049 , 2018

arXiv 2018

[6] [6]

Model-based, hierarchical control of a mobile manipulation plat- form,

C. McGann, E. Berger, J. Bohren, S. Chitta, B. Gerkey, S. Glaser, B. Marthi, W. Meeussen, T. Pratkanis, E. Marder-Eppstein et al. , “Model-based, hierarchical control of a mobile manipulation plat- form,” in ICAPS Workshop on Planning and Plan Execution for Real- World Systems, Thessaloniki, Greece , 2009

work page 2009

[7] [7]

Sequential com- position of dynamically dexterous robot behaviors,

R. R. Burridge, A. A. Rizzi, and D. E. Koditschek, “Sequential com- position of dynamically dexterous robot behaviors,” The International Journal of Robotics Research , vol. 18, no. 6, pp. 534–555, 1999

1999

[8] [8]

Behavior based robotics using hybrid automata,

M. Egerstedt, “Behavior based robotics using hybrid automata,” in International Workshop on Hybrid Systems: Computation and Control. Springer, 2000, pp. 103–116

work page 2000