Pith. sign in

REVIEW 3 major objections 6 minor 84 references

T-DOM: A Taxonomy for Robotic Manipulation of Deformable Objects

T0 review · 3 major / 6 minor · reviewed 2026-08-10 · deepseek-v4-flash

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

Pith's one-line read This paper introduces T-DOM, a taxonomy that adds deformation type to robot motion and interaction labels, and argues this split is essential for telling manipulation skills apart.

desk verdict Useful taxonomy with a genuinely new deformation axis, but the central claim rests on unvalidated manual labels—still worth a serious referee. read the letter →

arxiv 2412.20998 v1 pith:S6IMCS4U submitted 2024-12-30 cs.RO

David Blanco-Mulero , Yifei Dong , Julia Borras , Florian T. Pokorny , Carme Torras This is my paper · ORCID
classification cs.RO MSC 68T40
keywords deformableobjectmanipulationtaxonomydeformationclassificationstructuredbendingunstructuredactionsegmentationprehensileandnon-prehensileinteractionrobotmotion
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

Robotic manipulation taxonomies have mostly assumed objects are rigid, so they classify grasps and motions but ignore what happens to the object itself. T-DOM adds a deformation dimension—compression, tension, torsion, shear, and a structured versus unstructured split for bending—alongside robot motion and interaction categories. The paper claims that this deformation information is essential for telling apart manipulation skills that otherwise look identical, and supports the claim by labelling ten manipulation tasks and clustering actions by their taxonomy tags. If the taxonomy is right, it gives the field a shared vocabulary for describing deformable-object tasks, with uses in gripper design, skill learning, and benchmarking.

What carries the argument

The machinery is a three-part tag system: deformation (D), motion (M), and interactions (G for prehensile grasp, NP for non-prehensile, CS for contact sliding). Each manipulation action is written as an ordered set of tags, an action-ID, and actions sharing the same ID are connected in a graph; the clusters of that graph show which skills a taxonomy treats as interchangeable. The load-bearing novelty inside the tag system is the deformation axis, especially the qualitative bending scale that separates ordered folds (counted by loops in 1D objects or g-folds in 2D objects) from disordered wrinkles and knots (counted by removable crossings or accessible keypoints).

What would settle it

Have two independent annotators label the same ten task videos with T-DOM. If they agree poorly on where action boundaries lie, or if an automated deformation measure (such as the derivative of the Gauss Linking Integral) fails to change exactly when the manual deformation labels change, the claim that deformation categories objectively differentiate the skills would be weakened.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

The central claim is that the type of deformation an object undergoes is task-relevant information that prior taxonomies omit, and that encoding it changes which robot actions count as the same. T-DOM classifies deformation by the direction of applied forces—compression, tension, bending, torsion, shear—introduces structured bending (ordered folds, counted by loops or g-folds) versus unstructured bending (wrinkles and knots, counted by removable crossings or accessible keypoints), and allows combined tags such as tension-plus-torsion when wringing a towel. On a dataset of ten tasks with towels, meat phantoms, gowns, gloves, and cables, actions labelled with T-DOM form smaller, semantically cleaner clusters than the same actions labelled with two established taxonomies, and removing the deformation category merges many distinct grasp actions into one cluster. The paper concludes that deformation labels are necessary to distinguish similar robot actions across different deformable objects.

Load-bearing premise

The whole comparison rests on one person manually deciding, by eye, when a robot action changes a taxonomy category, and no second labeler or independent deformation measurement is reported, so the claimed distinctions could partly reflect labelling choices rather than objective task structure.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • Manipulation tasks can be described in a machine-readable tag form, so datasets and benchmarks for deformable-object manipulation can be compared on a common vocabulary.
  • Gripper and end-effector design can be driven by the deformation and interaction tags a task requires, e.g., preferring wide non-prehensile contacts over pinch grasps when object integrity matters.
  • Policies trained on one task may transfer to another task that shares the same T-DOM action-IDs, reducing retraining for new deformable-object skills.
  • The taxonomy separates actions that prior taxonomies merge, such as grasping a folded towel versus grasping a flat one, because the deformation state changes the control constraints.
  • Explicit tags for structured and unstructured bending can guide perception systems toward the relevant state features, such as loop counts or the number of accessible corners.

Reading between the lines

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

  • The deformation labels could be predicted automatically from RGB-D or tactile data, which would turn the manual segmentation into a learned perception task and test whether the categories are objectively recoverable.
  • The action-ID representation suggests a natural interface to language models: a T-DOM tag string is a compact symbolic description that could seed planning or skill libraries for deformable objects.
  • An inter-annotator agreement study on the same ten videos would quantify how much of the clustering benefit is intrinsic to the taxonomy rather than to the original labeler's judgment.
  • Because the taxonomy excludes tearing and plastic deformation, a direct extension would be to add irreversible deformation categories and check whether the action-ID clusters remain distinct when objects break or permanently yield.
Share X Bluesky LinkedIn Reddit HN

Editorial analysis

A structured set of objections, weighed in public.

Desk editor's note, referee report, and a circularity audit.

Referee Report

3 major / 6 minor

Summary. The paper introduces T-DOM, a taxonomy designed to describe the robotic manipulation of deformable objects. T-DOM has three main branches: deformation (compression, tension, torsion, shear, and structured/unstructured bending), robot motion (kinetic, elastic, gravitational, and gravitational-elastic energy dominance), and interactions (prehensile point/line grasps, non-prehensile agent/environment contacts, and contact sliding). To evaluate the taxonomy, the authors record ten manipulation tasks, segment them into individual actions, label each action with tag vectors from T-DOM, and compare the resulting clustering of action-IDs against those induced by the taxonomies of Bullock et al. (2012) and Paulius et al. (2020). An ablation that removes the deformation column from the tag vectors is used to argue that deformation is essential for distinguishing similar robot actions.

Significance. If the taxonomy and its evaluation are robust, T-DOM would fill a genuine gap: existing manipulation taxonomies are mostly designed around rigid objects, and the deformable-manipulation community lacks a shared descriptive vocabulary. The proposed structured/unstructured bending distinction, the energy-based motion categories, and the decoupled bimanual tagging scheme are sensible and potentially useful design choices. The ten-task dataset, with open RGB-D data and explicit action-ID tables, is a concrete and reusable contribution. The comparison with Bullock et al. and Paulius et al. is fair in acknowledging that those taxonomies had different goals. However, the empirical support for the central claim is currently weak. The ablation in Fig. 5b is logically guaranteed to coarsen the clustering when any column is removed, so it does not by itself establish that deformation is semantically meaningful. The manual labels in Table 2 have no reported inter-annotator reliability, annotation protocol, or quantitative grounding. These issues are load-bearing because the paper's main conclusion rests on the action-ID clusters and the ablation.

major comments (3)
  1. [§5.3, Fig. 5b] The ablation that removes the deformation category does not support the claim that deformation is essential. Since an action-ID is an ordered vector of tag values, deleting any one column can only merge previously distinct IDs; it cannot create new distinctions. The coarsening seen in Fig. 5b is therefore a mathematical consequence of the representation, and it only shows that the deformation column is not redundant in this particular dataset. To establish semantic meaningfulness, the paper would need to show that the deformation labels are reproducible (e.g., through inter-annotator agreement) or correlate with independently measurable physical quantities such as strain, curvature, or topological descriptors of the kind mentioned in §6.2. Without such evidence, the cluster separation in Fig. 5a may reflect the annotators' choices rather than objective deformation states.
  2. [§5.2, Table 2] The evaluation rests entirely on manual segmentation and manual tag assignment, with no inter-annotator reliability, no annotation protocol, and no independent verification. Several boundary decisions are non-obvious: the S L0/L1/L2 and US L0/L1/L2 levels are defined by qualitative counts of loops, g-folds, or visible keypoints, and Table 2 contains unexplained transitions such as rows 5-4 (S L0) to 5-5 (S N) in the Transport meat task and the simultaneous changes in both S and US between rows 6-3 and 6-4 of the Flatten cloth task. The paper should provide concrete annotation guidelines, ideally a second annotator's independent labels, and a description of how disagreements were resolved. This is essential because the central claim in §5.3—that classifying deformation is essential for distinguishing similar robot actions—is only as strong as the reliability of these labels.
  3. [§3.1, Fig. 2] The qualitative bending scale is not sufficiently specified to be applied by others. For 1D objects, the levels are tied to loops and removable crossings; for 2D objects, to g-folds and accessible keypoints; but for 3D objects, structured bending is defined only as 'measured in the plane curve where the bending deformation takes place', with no operational procedure for identifying that curve or counting levels. The boundary between S L0, S L1, and S L2, and between US L0, US L1, and US L2, is described through examples rather than rules. Because the deformation labels are the main differentiator in the evaluation, the taxonomy needs precise, reproducible definitions of these levels before the experimental claims can be fully assessed.
minor comments (6)
  1. [§4.5] There is a typo: 'slidinf' should be 'sliding', and the sentence 'Some examples include and end-effector grasping and slidinf along an edge of a cloth' should read 'an end-effector grasping and sliding'. Additionally, the definition of active sliding says it occurs 'without grasping it', but the example describes an end-effector grasping and sliding along an edge; this inconsistency should be clarified.
  2. [Abstract and Introduction] The phrase 'for the first time, a detailed classification of object deformations' is stronger than necessary, since Paulius et al. (2020) already includes a temporal/permanent deformation distinction and rigid/soft engagement. The novelty is better stated as the classification of deformation type by force direction, not the first deformation classification of any kind.
  3. [Figure 3] The diagram uses AND/OR logic and a dashed line for contact sliding, but the caption does not explain how to read these elements. Please add a short legend or caption explanation, since the figure is the key reference for interpreting the tag vectors in Table 2.
  4. [Table 2] The table header abbreviations (N-P.Env., N-P.Act., CS, S, US) are not expanded in the caption or table notes. Readers must cross-reference Figure 3 and Section 4, which is cumbersome. Please add full names or a legend.
  5. [§5.2] When the paper states that unimanual tasks use a 'none' tag for the second manipulator, it should clarify whether 'none' is treated as a distinct value in the action-ID equivalence relation or as a wildcard. This matters for the clustering comparisons in Fig. 5.
  6. [§6.2] The discussion of deformation sensing mentions quantitative metrics such as the Gauss linking integral but does not connect them to the S/US levels used in T-DOM. A short paragraph on which existing quantitative metrics could operationalize or validate the qualitative bending levels would strengthen the paper's roadmap.

Circularity Check

1 steps flagged · score 6.0 of 10

Cluster-based evaluation in §5.3 is partly circular: action-IDs are defined as tuples that include the deformation tag, so separation by deformation is true by construction; the ablation only shows the column is non-redundant, not that the labels are semantically meaningful.

  1. self definitional [Section 5.3, Figures 5a-b, Table 2]
    "To perform this analysis, we first define action-IDs like the ordered set of tags that describe each action, as appearing in Table 2. We then create a graph where the nodes correspond to an action-ID and an edge connects two nodes when they have the same code. ... Our analysis demonstrated that classifying the type of deformation is essential for distinguishing similar robot actions across different deformable objects."

    The action-ID is the ordered set of T-DOM tags including the deformation tag (Def., S, US in Table 2). Two actions can therefore share an action-ID only if they have identical deformation labels. The graph edges and clusters in Fig. 5a are equality classes of these tuples, so the observed separation by deformation is a restatement of the definition, not an empirical discovery. The ablation in Fig. 5b removes the deformation column; tuple equality then coarsens exactly by merging actions that differed only in that column, so the appearance of larger clusters is mathematically guaranteed. This shows only that the deformation tag is not redundant within the tuple; it does not show that the manual deformation labels correspond to objective, reproducible physical distinctions.

full rationale

The taxonomy's deformation categories are grounded in established definitions from materials science and engineering (compression, tension, bending, torsion, shear), so the category set itself is not circular. The comparison against Bullock et al. (2012) and Paulius et al. (2020) is also a genuine external benchmark of granularity. However, the paper's headline empirical result — that classifying deformation is essential for distinguishing similar robot actions — is supported by clustering action-IDs whose very definition includes the deformation tag. Because the action-IDs are built from the authors' own manual labels, with no inter-annotator agreement, quantitative deformation measurement, or independent verification reported, the cluster separation may reflect annotation choices rather than objective task structure. The ablation is particularly telling: removing the deformation column must merge action-IDs that differ only in that column, so Figure 5b cannot establish that the deformation labels are semantically meaningful. This is partial circularity, not total: the taxonomy proposal and its comparison with prior taxonomies have independent content, but the evaluation's central evidence reduces by construction to the way the action-IDs were defined.

Assumptions & free parameters 3 free parameters · 6 assumptions · 3 invented entities

The taxonomy introduces hand-defined scales (bending levels), relies on domain assumptions about force origins and incompressibility, and postulates new classification entities without independent quantitative validation. The ledger shows that the paper's contribution is primarily organizational rather than derived from first principles.

free parameters (3)
  • Structured bending level cutoffs (SL0, SL1, SL2) = discrete levels 0, 1, 2 by number of loops/g-folds
    Hand-chosen qualitative thresholds defining the level of structured bending; no data-driven calibration, and they discretize a continuous quantity.
  • Unstructured bending level cutoffs (USL0, USL1, USL2) = number of accessible corners/keypoints or linking number
    Hand-chosen thresholds for degree of unstructured bending; metrics differ between 1D and 2D objects, so the scale is not uniform across object types.
  • Motion energy category assignments (MK, ME, MG, MGE) = four discrete labels
    Examples in Section 4.2 are manually assigned to categories based on dominant energy; no quantitative energetic computation is performed.
assumptions (6)
  • domain assumption Deformation of an object in a manipulation task is caused solely by forces from the robot, a tool, or environmental objects.
    Section 3.1 states the origins of deforming forces and excludes thermal, chemical, and metallurgical transformations by assuming constant environmental conditions.
  • domain assumption Deformation type can be characterized by the direction of applied forces: compression, tension, bending, torsion, and shear.
    Adopted from Callister materials science; assumes this force-direction classification is sufficient to capture deformation in robotic manipulation.
  • domain assumption Manipulation can be classified by dominant energy into kinetic, elastic, gravitational, and gravitational-elastic, following Mason's dynamic/quasi-static distinction.
    Section 3.2 relies on Mason (2001) and applies it to deformable objects without quantitative energy computation.
  • ad hoc to paper The qualitative state of bending can be captured by a structured/unstructured distinction with discrete levels.
    Introduced in Section 3.1 and Figure 2; no independent evidence that these metrics are reliable or complete for arbitrary deformations.
  • domain assumption 1D and 2D deformable objects are incompressible unless they possess sufficient volumetric structure.
    Section 3.1, compression paragraph, scales the incompressibility assumption from prior literature to folded or stacked cloth.
  • ad hoc to paper For bimanual tasks, each arm's tags are decoupled and independent, with none tags for the missing arm.
    Section 4.6 presents this design choice without empirical justification.
invented entities (3)
  • Structured bending levels (S L0 to S L2)
    purpose: Classifies ordered bends such as loops or g-folds into discrete levels.
    New construct introduced to distinguish folded from crumpled states, but no external metric or independent dataset validates the level boundaries.
  • Unstructured bending levels (US L0 to US L2)
    purpose: Classifies chaotic or wrinkled bending by the manipulability of keypoints or linking number.
    Author-defined construct; metrics differ between 1D and 2D objects, so the scale is not objectively grounded.
  • Non-prehensile environment interaction, rigid and soft (N-P.ERS)
    purpose: Combined category for simultaneous rigid and soft environmental contacts.
    New combinatorial category in Section 4.4; no independent validation of its utility.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of T-DOM: A Taxonomy for Robotic Manipulation of Deformable Objects." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/S6IMCS4U

@misc{pith2026241220998,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: T-DOM: A Taxonomy for Robotic Manipulation of Deformable Objects},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/S6IMCS4U}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2412.20998}
}
read the original abstract

Robotic grasp and manipulation taxonomies, inspired by observing human manipulation strategies, can provide key guidance for tasks ranging from robotic gripper design to the development of manipulation algorithms. The existing grasp and manipulation taxonomies, however, often assume object rigidity, which limits their ability to reason about the complex interactions in the robotic manipulation of deformable objects. Hence, to assist in tasks involving deformable objects, taxonomies need to capture more comprehensively the interactions inherent in deformable object manipulation. To this end, we introduce T-DOM, a taxonomy that analyses key aspects involved in the manipulation of deformable objects, such as robot motion, forces, prehensile and non-prehensile interactions and, for the first time, a detailed classification of object deformations. To evaluate T-DOM, we curate a dataset of ten tasks involving a variety of deformable objects, such as garments, ropes, and surgical gloves, as well as diverse types of deformations. We analyse the proposed tasks comparing the T-DOM taxonomy with previous well established manipulation taxonomies. Our analysis demonstrates that T-DOM can effectively distinguish between manipulation skills that were not identified in other taxonomies, across different deformable objects and manipulation actions, offering new categories to characterize a skill. The proposed taxonomy significantly extends past work, providing a more fine-grained classification that can be used to describe the robotic manipulation of deformable objects. This work establishes a foundation for advancing deformable object manipulation, bridging theoretical understanding and practical implementation in robotic systems.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2412.20998 by the authors.

Figure 1
Figure 1. Robotic manipulation of multiple deformable objects showing compression, tension, bending, torsion and shear deformation. Shear deformation examples include a cloth shear deformation from the open-source dataset provided by Wang et al. (2011), and a sponge manipulated by a human. objects, Shen et al. (2022) explored the tension, bending, and compression of plush toys. Thach et al. (2022) focused on shape control of … view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. Qualitative classification levels for bending deformation as structured or unstructured for 1D and 2D deformable objects. The structured level is classified by loops and g-folds (Miller et al. 2012), for 1D and 2D objects, respectively. The unstructured level is classified by knots for 1D objects, and as the number of accessible corners for a cloth flattening task. such forces without tearing it. This deformation is… view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. The proposed taxonomy is composed of deformation (D), motion (M), and interactions. The interactions are classified as prehensile grasp (G) and non-prehensile interactions (NP), and contact sliding (CS) as a special case of interaction that can take place in both prehensile grasps as well as each sub-category of non-prehensile interactions, shown by a dashed line connecting the CS block. Each sub-category is shown w… view at source ↗
Figures from the paper (2 more)
Figure 4
Figure 4. Figure 4: Analysis of the transitions of Task 1, Task 2, and Task 4 using the proposed taxonomy, T-DOM, as well as Paulius et al. (2020) and Bullock et al. (2012) taxonomies, showing only the categories that show any change. For all tasks the structural outcome according to Paul…
Figure 5
Figure 5. Figure 5: Graph clustering of manipulation actions in the proposed dataset for a) T-DOM, b) T-DOM without deformation, c) Paulius et al. (2020) taxonomy, and d) Bullock et al. (2012) taxonomy. The nodes represent the action-IDs and the edges action-IDs which share the same tag a…

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

84 extracted references · 72 canonical work pages

  1. [1]

    Robotics and Autonomous Systems 175: 104652

    Almaghout K, Cherubini A and Klimchik A (2024) Robotic co-manipulation of deformable linear objects for large deformation tasks. Robotics and Autonomous Systems 175: 104652

    2024

  2. [2]

    Frontiers in Robotics and AI 7

    Arriola-Rios VE, Guler P, Ficuciello F, Kragic D, Siciliano B and Wyatt JL (2020) Modeling of deformable objects for robotic manipulation: A tutorial and review. Frontiers in Robotics and AI 7

    2020

  3. [3]

    Annual Review of Control, Robotics, and Autonomous Systems 4(Volume 4, 2021): 573--593

    Babin V and Gosselin C (2021) Mechanisms for robotic grasping and manipulation. Annual Review of Control, Robotics, and Autonomous Systems 4(Volume 4, 2021): 573--593

    2021

  4. [4]

    Computer Graphics Forum 35(2): 523--532

    Bai Y, Yu W and Liu CK (2016) Dexterous manipulation of cloth. Computer Graphics Forum 35(2): 523--532

    2016

  5. [5]

    In: 2011 11th IEEE-RAS International Conference on Humanoid Robots

    Beetz M, Klank U, Kresse I, Maldonado A, Mösenlechner L, Pangercic D, Rühr T and Tenorth M (2011) Robotic roommates making pancakes. In: 2011 11th IEEE-RAS International Conference on Humanoid Robots. pp. 529--536

    work page 2011

  6. [6]

    IEEE Transactions on Robotics 36(3): 924--936

    Borràs J, Alenyà G and Torras C (2020) A grasping-centered analysis for cloth manipulation. IEEE Transactions on Robotics 36(3): 924--936

    work page 2020

  7. [7]

    The International Journal of Robotics Research 33(1): 48--68

    Bretl T and McCarthy Z (2014) Quasi-static manipulation of a kirchhoff elastic rod based on a geometric analysis of equilibrium configurations. The International Journal of Robotics Research 33(1): 48--68

    work page 2014

  8. [8]

    IEEE transactions on Haptics 6(2): 129--144

    Bullock IM, Ma RR and Dollar AM (2012) A hand-centric classification of human and robot dexterous manipulation. IEEE transactions on Haptics 6(2): 129--144

    work page 2012

Show all 84 references
  1. [9]

    10 edition

    Callister Jr WD and Rethwisch DG (2018) Materials science and engineering: An introduction. 10 edition. John Wiley & Sons. ISBN 9781119405498

    2018

  2. [10]

    In: 2023 IEEE International Conference on Robotics and Automation (ICRA)

    Canberk A, Chi C, Ha H, Burchfiel B, Cousineau E, Feng S and Song S (2023) Cloth funnels: Canonicalized-alignment for multi-purpose garment manipulation. In: 2023 IEEE International Conference on Robotics and Automation (ICRA). pp. 5872--5879

    2023

  3. [11]

    In: 2018 IEEE International Conference on Robotics and Automation (ICRA)

    Chavan-Dafle N and Rodriguez A (2018) Stable prehensile pushing: In-hand manipulation with alternating sticking contacts. In: 2018 IEEE International Conference on Robotics and Automation (ICRA). IEEE, pp. 254--261

    2018

  4. [12]

    In: 2023 IEEE International Conference on Robotics and Automation (ICRA)

    Chen LY, Shi B, Seita D, Cheng R, Kollar T, Held D and Goldberg K (2023) Autobag: Learning to open plastic bags and insert objects. In: 2023 IEEE International Conference on Robotics and Automation (ICRA). pp. 3918--3925

    2023

  5. [13]

    arXiv preprint arXiv:2008.04460

    Chen T, He Z and Ciocarlie M (2020) Hardware as policy: Mechanical and computational co-optimization using deep reinforcement learning. arXiv preprint arXiv:2008.04460

    2020 arXiv

  6. [14]

    The International Journal of Robotics Research 43(4): 389--404

    Chi C, Burchfiel B, Cousineau E, Feng S and Song S (2024) Iterative residual policy: For goal-conditioned dynamic manipulation of deformable objects. The International Journal of Robotics Research 43(4): 389--404

    2024

  7. [15]

    In: Proceedings of the IEEE/CVF International Conference on Computer Vision (ICCV)

    Chi C and Song S (2021) Garmentnets: Category-level pose estimation for garments via canonical space shape completion. In: Proceedings of the IEEE/CVF International Conference on Computer Vision (ICCV). pp. 3324--3333

    2021

  8. [16]

    Applied Mathematical Modelling 101: 832--858

    Coltraro F, Amor\'os J, Alberich-Carrami\ n ana M and Torras C (2022) An inextensible model for the robotic manipulation of textiles. Applied Mathematical Modelling 101: 832--858

    2022

  9. [17]

    Applied Mathematics and Computation 457: 128165

    Coltraro F, Fontana J, Amor \'o s J, Alberich-Carrami \ n ana M, Borr \`a s J and Torras C (2023) A representation of cloth states based on a derivative of the gauss linking integral. Applied Mathematics and Computation 457: 128165

    2023

  10. [18]

    IEEE Transactions on Robotics and Automation 5(3): 269--279

    Cutkosky M (1989) On grasp choice, grasp models, and the design of hands for manufacturing tasks. IEEE Transactions on Robotics and Automation 5(3): 269--279

    1989

  11. [19]

    In: 2014 IEEE International Conference on Robotics and Automation (ICRA)

    Dafle NC, Rodriguez A, Paolini R, Tang B, Srinivasa SS, Erdmann M, Mason MT, Lundberg I, Staab H and Fuhlbrigge T (2014) Extrinsic dexterity: In-hand manipulation with external forces. In: 2014 IEEE International Conference on Robotics and Automation (ICRA). IEEE, pp. 1578--1585

    2014

  12. [20]

    In: 2017 IEEE/RSJ International Conference on Intelligent Robots and Systems (IROS)

    Deimel R, Irmisch P, Wall V and Brock O (2017) Automated co-design of soft hand morphology and control strategy for grasping. In: 2017 IEEE/RSJ International Conference on Intelligent Robots and Systems (IROS). pp. 1213--1218

    2017

  13. [21]

    In: Humanoids 2008-8th IEEE-RAS International Conference on Humanoid Robots

    Diankov R, Srinivasa SS, Ferguson D and Kuffner J (2008) Manipulation planning with caging grasps. In: Humanoids 2008-8th IEEE-RAS International Conference on Humanoid Robots. IEEE, pp. 285--292

    2008

  14. [22]

    IEEE Robotics and Automation Letters

    Dong Y, Cheng X and Pokorny FT (2024 a ) Characterizing manipulation robustness through energy margin and caging analysis. IEEE Robotics and Automation Letters

    2024

  15. [23]

    arXiv preprint arXiv:2409.11113

    Dong Y, Han S, Cheng X, Friedl W, Muchacho RIC, Roa MA, Tumova J and Pokorny FT (2024 b ) Co-designing tools and control policies for robust manipulation. arXiv preprint arXiv:2409.11113

    2024 arXiv

  16. [24]

    In: 2024 IEEE International Conference on Robotics and Automation (ICRA)

    Dong Y and Pokorny FT (2024) Quasi-static soft fixture analysis of rigid and deformable objects. In: 2024 IEEE International Conference on Robotics and Automation (ICRA). pp. 6513--6520

    2024

  17. [25]

    In: Liu K, Kulic D and Ichnowski J (eds.) Proceedings of The 6th Conference on Robot Learning, Proceedings of Machine Learning Research, volume 205

    Driess D, Huang Z, Li Y, Tedrake R and Toussaint M (2023) Learning multi-object dynamics with compositional neural radiance fields. In: Liu K, Kulic D and Ichnowski J (eds.) Proceedings of The 6th Conference on Robot Learning, Proceedings of Machine Learning Research, volume 2...

    2023

  18. [26]

    The International Journal of Robotics Research 34(7): 1021--1038

    Eppner C, Deimel R, Alvarez-Ruiz J, Maertens M and Brock O (2015) Exploitation of environmental constraints in human and robotic grasping. The International Journal of Robotics Research 34(7): 1021--1038

    2015

  19. [27]

    IEEE Transactions on human-machine systems 46(1): 66--77

    Feix T, Romero J, Schmiedmayer HB, Dollar AM and Kragic D (2015) The grasp taxonomy of human grasp types. IEEE Transactions on human-machine systems 46(1): 66--77

    2015

  20. [28]

    In: Liu K, Kulic D and Ichnowski J (eds.) Proceedings of The 6th Conference on Robot Learning, Proceedings of Machine Learning Research, volume 205

    Gao C, Li Z, Gao H and Chen F (2023) Iterative interactive modeling for knotting plastic bags. In: Liu K, Kulic D and Ichnowski J (eds.) Proceedings of The 6th Conference on Robot Learning, Proceedings of Machine Learning Research, volume 205. PMLR, pp. 571--582

    2023

  21. [29]

    In: Proceeding of the 2022 ICAPS Workshop on Knowledge Engineering for Planning and Scheduling (KEPS)

    Garcia Camacho I, Borr \`a s Sol J and Aleny \`a Ribas G (2022) Knowledge representation to enable high-level planning in cloth manipulation tasks. In: Proceeding of the 2022 ICAPS Workshop on Knowledge Engineering for Planning and Scheduling (KEPS). p. 9

    2022

  22. [30]

    In: Conference on Robotic Learning (CoRL)

    Ha H and Song S (2021) Flingbot: The unreasonable effectiveness of dynamic manipulation for cloth unfolding. In: Conference on Robotic Learning (CoRL)

    2021

  23. [31]

    IEEE Transactions on Automation Science and Engineering : 1--12

    Haiderbhai M, Gondokaryono R, Wu A and Kahrs LA (2024) Sim2real rope cutting with a surgical robot using vision-based reinforcement learning. IEEE Transactions on Automation Science and Engineering : 1--12

    2024

  24. [32]

    Autonomous Robots 47(5): 549--578

    Heiden E, Macklin M, Narang Y, Fox D, Garg A and Ramos F (2023) Disect: a differentiable simulator for parameter inference and control in robotic cutting. Autonomous Robots 47(5): 549--578

    2023

  25. [33]

    In: 2020 IEEE 16th International Conference on Automation Science and Engineering (CASE)

    Hinwood D, Herath D and Goecke R (2020) Towards the design of a human-inspired gripper for textile manipulation. In: 2020 IEEE 16th International Conference on Automation Science and Engineering (CASE). pp. 913--920

    2020

  26. [34]

    International Journal of Advanced Robotic Systems 16(3)

    Hou YC, Sahari KSM and How DNT (2019) A review on modeling of flexible deformable object for dexterous robotic manipulation. International Journal of Advanced Robotic Systems 16(3)

    2019

  27. [35]

    IEEE Transactions on Automation Science and Engineering 21(1): 671--683

    Huang X, Chen D, Guo Y, Jiang X and Liu Y (2024) Untangling multiple deformable linear objects in unknown quantities with complex backgrounds. IEEE Transactions on Automation Science and Engineering 21(1): 671--683

    2024

  28. [36]

    The International Journal of Robotics Research 38(8): 879--886

    Huang Y and Sun Y (2019) A dataset of daily interactive manipulation. The International Journal of Robotics Research 38(8): 879--886

    2019

  29. [37]

    Robotics and Autonomous Systems 92: 107--125

    Jiménez P (2017) Visual grasp point localization, classification and state recognition in robotic manipulation of cloth: An overview. Robotics and Autonomous Systems 92: 107--125

    2017

  30. [38]

    Critical Reviews in Solid State and Materials Sciences 43(3): 213--232

    Kashani MH, Hosseini A, Sassani F, Ko FK and Milani AS (2018) The role of intra-yarn shear in integrated multi-scale deformation analyses of woven fabrics: A critical review. Critical Reviews in Solid State and Materials Sciences 43(3): 213--232

    2018

  31. [39]

    arXiv preprint arXiv:2403.12945

    Khazatsky A, Pertsch K, Nair S, Balakrishna A, Dasari S, Karamcheti S, Nasiriany S, Srirama MK, Chen LY, Ellis K, Fagan PD, Hejna J, Itkina M, Lepert M, Ma YJ, Miller PT, Wu J, Belkhale S, Dass S, Ha H, Jain A, Lee A, Lee Y, Memmel M, Park S, Radosavovic I, Wang K, Zhan A, Bla...

    2024 arXiv

  32. [40]

    arXiv preprint arXiv:2406.09246

    Kim M, Pertsch K, Karamcheti S, Xiao T, Balakrishna A, Nair S, Rafailov R, Foster E, Lam G, Sanketi P, Vuong Q, Kollar T, Burchfiel B, Tedrake R, Sadigh D, Levine S, Liang P and Finn C (2024) Openvla: An open-source vision-language-action model. arXiv preprint arXiv:2406.09246

    2024 arXiv

  33. [41]

    In: 2021 IEEE International Conference on Robotics and Automation (ICRA)

    Kim Y, Pan Z and Hauser K (2021) Mo-bbo: Multi-objective bilevel bayesian optimization for robot and behavior co-design. In: 2021 IEEE International Conference on Robotics and Automation (ICRA). IEEE, pp. 9877--9883

    2021

  34. [42]

    In: 2022 IEEE/RSJ International Conference on Intelligent Robots and Systems (IROS)

    Kondo H, Luces JVS and Hirata Y (2022) Development and control of robot hand with finger camera for garment handling tasks. In: 2022 IEEE/RSJ International Conference on Intelligent Robots and Systems (IROS). IEEE, pp. 8940--8947

    2022

  35. [43]

    IEEE Robotics and Automation Letters 7(4): 11031--11038

    Krebs F and Asfour T (2022) A bimanual manipulation taxonomy. IEEE Robotics and Automation Letters 7(4): 11031--11038

    2022

  36. [44]

    arXiv:2303.14012 ArXiv: 2303.14012

    Le TN, Abu-Dakka FJ and Kyrki V (2023) Sponge: Sequence planning with deformable-on-rigid contact prediction from geometric features. arXiv:2303.14012 ArXiv: 2303.14012

    2023 arXiv

  37. [45]

    In: 2015 IEEE International Conference on Robotics and Automation (ICRA)

    Lee AX, Lu H, Gupta A, Levine S and Abbeel P (2015) Learning force-based manipulation of deformable objects from multiple demonstrations. In: 2015 IEEE International Conference on Robotics and Automation (ICRA). pp. 177--184

    2015

  38. [46]

    In: 2015 IEEE/RSJ International Conference on Intelligent Robots and Systems (IROS)

    Li Y, Yue Y, Xu D, Grinspun E and Allen PK (2015) Folding deformable objects using predictive simulation and trajectory optimization. In: 2015 IEEE/RSJ International Conference on Intelligent Robots and Systems (IROS). IEEE, pp. 6000--6006

    2015

  39. [47]

    IEEE Robotics and Automation Letters : 1--8

    Liu F, Su E, Lu J, Li M and Yip MC (2023) Robotic manipulation of deformable rope-like objects using differentiable compliant position-based dynamics. IEEE Robotics and Automation Letters : 1--8

    2023

  40. [48]

    Annual Review of Control, Robotics, and Autonomous Systems

    Longhini A, Wang Y, Garcia-Camacho I, Blanco-Mulero D, Moletta M, Welle M, Alenyà G, Yin H, Erickson Z, Held D, Borràs J and Kragic D (2024) Unfolding the literature: A review of robotic cloth manipulation. Annual Review of Control, Robotics, and Autonomous Systems

    2024

  41. [49]

    In: 2021 IEEE/RSJ International Conference on Intelligent Robots and Systems (IROS)

    Longhini A, Welle MC, Mitsioni I and Kragic D (2021) Textile taxonomy and classification using pulling and twisting. In: 2021 IEEE/RSJ International Conference on Intelligent Robots and Systems (IROS). IEEE, pp. 7564--7571

    2021

  42. [50]

    IEEE Transactions on Robotics

    Luo J, Xu C, Geng X, Feng G, Fang K, Tan L, Schaal S and Levine S (2024) Multi-stage cable routing through hierarchical imitation learning. IEEE Transactions on Robotics

    2024

  43. [51]

    Cambridge, MA, USA: MIT Press

    Mason MT (2001) Mechanics of Robotic Manipulation. Cambridge, MA, USA: MIT Press. ISBN 0262133962

    2001

  44. [52]

    IEEE/ASME Transactions on Mechatronics 11(4): 401--408

    Matsuno T, Tamaki D, Arai F and Fukuda T (2006) Manipulation of deformable linear objects using knot invariants to classify the object condition based on image sensor information. IEEE/ASME Transactions on Mechatronics 11(4): 401--408

    2006

  45. [53]

    McGraw Hill LLC

    McGraw-Hill (2002) Dictionary of Engineering. McGraw Hill LLC. ISBN 9780071417990

    2002

  46. [54]

    The International Journal of Robotics Research 31(2): 249--267

    Miller S, van den Berg J, Fritz M, Darrell T, Goldberg K and Abbeel P (2012) A geometric approach to robotic laundry folding. The International Journal of Robotics Research 31(2): 249--267

    2012

  47. [55]

    In: 2023 IEEE International Conference on Robotics and Automation (ICRA)

    Mitash C, Wang F, Lu S, Terhuja V, Garaas T, Polido F and Nambi M (2023) Armbench: An object-centric benchmark dataset for robotic manipulation. In: 2023 IEEE International Conference on Robotics and Automation (ICRA). pp. 9132--9139

    2023

  48. [56]

    In: 2024 IEEE International Conference on Robotics and Automation (ICRA)

    O’Neill A, Rehman A, Maddukuri A, Gupta A, Padalkar A, Lee A, Pooley A, Gupta A, Mandlekar A and Jain Aea (2024) Open x-embodiment: Robotic learning datasets and rt-x models : Open x-embodiment collaboration0. In: 2024 IEEE International Conference on Robotics and Automation (...

    2024

  49. [57]

    In: Proceedings of Robotics: Science and Systems

    Paulius D, Eales N and Sun Y (2020) A Motion Taxonomy for Manipulation Embedding . In: Proceedings of Robotics: Science and Systems. Corvalis, Oregon, USA

    2020

  50. [58]

    Computer Methods in Applied Mechanics and Engineering 415: 116236

    Pierre SRS, Rajasekharan D, Darwin EC, Linka K, Levenston ME and Kuhl E (2023) Discovering the mechanics of artificial and real meat. Computer Methods in Applied Mechanics and Engineering 415: 116236

    2023

  51. [59]

    IEEE Robotics and Automation Letters 8(8): 4426--4432

    Proesmans R, Verleysen A and Wyffels F (2023) Unfoldir: Tactile robotic unfolding of cloth. IEEE Robotics and Automation Letters 8(8): 4426--4432

    2023

  52. [60]

    IEEE Transactions on Robotics 32(3): 763--770

    Rojas N, Ma RR and Dollar AM (2016) The gr2 gripper: An underactuated hand for open-loop in-hand planar manipulation. IEEE Transactions on Robotics 32(3): 763--770

    2016

  53. [61]

    In: Proceedings 2006 IEEE International Conference on Robotics and Automation, 2006

    Saha M and Isto P (2006) Motion planning for robotic manipulation of deformable linear objects. In: Proceedings 2006 IEEE International Conference on Robotics and Automation, 2006. ICRA 2006. IEEE, pp. 2478--2484

    2006

  54. [62]

    IEEE Transactions on Robotics 23(6): 1141--1150

    Saha M and Isto P (2007) Manipulation planning for deformable linear objects. IEEE Transactions on Robotics 23(6): 1141--1150

    2007

  55. [63]

    The International Journal of Robotics Research 37(7): 688--716

    Sanchez J, Corrales JA, Bouzgarrou BC and Mezouar Y (2018) Robotic manipulation and sensing of deformable objects in domestic and industrial applications: a survey. The International Journal of Robotics Research 37(7): 688--716

    2018

  56. [64]

    The International Journal of Robotics Research 40(12-14): 1385--1401

    She Y, Wang S, Dong S, Sunil N, Rodriguez A and Adelson E (2021) Cable manipulation with a tactile-reactive gripper. The International Journal of Robotics Research 40(12-14): 1385--1401

    2021

  57. [65]

    arXiv preprint arXiv:2203.06856

    Shen B, Jiang Z, Choy C, Guibas LJ, Savarese S, Anandkumar A and Zhu Y (2022) Acid: Action-conditional implicit visual dynamics for deformable object manipulation. arXiv preprint arXiv:2203.06856

    2022 arXiv

  58. [66]

    The International Journal of Robotics Research 43(4): 533--549

    Shi H, Xu H, Huang Z, Li Y and Wu J (2024) Robocraft: Learning to see, simulate, and shape elasto-plastic objects in 3d with graph networks. The International Journal of Robotics Research 43(4): 533--549

    2024

  59. [67]

    IEEE Transactions on Robotics

    Shirizly A and Rimon ED (2024) Selection of secure gravity based caging grasps of planar objects: Robustness and experimental validation. IEEE Transactions on Robotics

    2024

  60. [68]

    In: Workshop on Interactive System and Software

    Sugiura Y, Sakamoto D, Gowon TA, Takahashi D, Inami M and Igarashi T (2010) Foldy: Graphical teaching for garment-folding robot. In: Workshop on Interactive System and Software. pp. 7--12

    2010

  61. [69]

    In: 2022 International Conference on Robotics and Automation (ICRA)

    Thach B, Cho BY, Kuntz A and Hermans T (2022) Learning visual shape control of novel 3d deformable objects from partial-view point clouds. In: 2022 International Conference on Robotics and Automation (ICRA). IEEE, pp. 8274--8281

    2022

  62. [70]

    In: 2012 12th ieee-ras international conference on humanoid robots (humanoids 2012)

    Vahrenkamp N, Asfour T, Metta G, Sandini G and Dillmann R (2012) Manipulability analysis. In: 2012 12th ieee-ras international conference on humanoid robots (humanoids 2012). IEEE, pp. 568--573

    2012

  63. [71]

    ACM Transactions on Graphics 30(4): 71:1--11

    Wang H, Ramamoorthi R and O'Brien JF (2011) Data-driven elastic models for cloth: Modeling and measurement. ACM Transactions on Graphics 30(4): 71:1--11. Proceedings of ACM SIGGRAPH 2011

    2011

  64. [72]

    o rg \"o tter F, Aksoy EE, Kr \

    W \"o rg \"o tter F, Aksoy EE, Kr \"u ger N, Piater J, Ude A and Tamosiunaite M (2013) A simple ontology of manipulation actions based on hand-object relations. IEEE Transactions on Autonomous Mental Development 5(2): 117--134

    2013

  65. [73]

    IEEE Robotics and Automation Letters 9(2): 1334--1341

    Xie G, Holladay R, Chin L and Rus D (2024) In-hand manipulation with a simple belted parallel-jaw gripper. IEEE Robotics and Automation Letters 9(2): 1334--1341

    2024

  66. [74]

    In: Proceedings of Robotics: Science and Systems (RSS)

    Xu Z, Xian Z, Lin X, Chi C, Huang Z, Gan C and Song S (2023) Roboninja: Learning an adaptive cutting policy for multi-material objects. In: Proceedings of Robotics: Science and Systems (RSS)

    2023

  67. [75]

    In: 8th Annual Conference on Robot Learning

    Yang J, Cao Z, Deng C, Antonova R, Song S and Bohg J (2024) Equibot: SIM (3)-equivariant diffusion policy for generalizable and data efficient learning. In: 8th Annual Conference on Robot Learning

    2024

  68. [76]

    Science Robotics 6(54)

    Yin H, Varava A and Kragic D (2021) Modeling, learning, perception, and control methods for deformable object manipulation. Science Robotics 6(54)

    2021

  69. [77]

    International Journal of Mechanical Sciences 113: 196--210

    Yu Y, Wang X and Chen Z (2016) A simplified finite element model for structural cable bending mechanism. International Journal of Mechanical Sciences 113: 196--210

    2016

  70. [78]

    Science Robotics 7(65)

    Zhang F and Demiris Y (2022) Learning garment manipulation policies toward robot-assisted dressing. Science Robotics 7(65)

    2022

  71. [79]

    IEEE Robotics and Automation Letters 3(4): 3379--3386

    Zhou J, Yi J, Chen X, Liu Z and Wang Z (2018) Bcl-13: A 13-dof soft robotic hand for dexterous grasping and in-hand manipulation. IEEE Robotics and Automation Letters 3(4): 3379--3386

    2018

  72. [80]

    IEEE Robotics & Automation Magazine 29(3): 67--77

    Zhu J, Cherubini A, Dune C, Navarro-Alarcon D, Alambeigi F, Berenson D, Ficuciello F, Harada K, Kober J, Li X, Pan J, Yuan W and Gienger M (2022) Challenges and outlook in robotic manipulation of deformable objects. IEEE Robotics & Automation Magazine 29(3): 67--77

    2022

  73. [81]

    , " * write output.state after.block = add.period write newline

    ENTRY address author booktitle chapter doi edition editor eid howpublished institution isbn journal key month note number organization pages publisher school series title type url volume year label extra.label sort.label short.list INTEGERS output.state before.all mid.sentence...

  74. [82]

    write newline

    " write newline "" before.all 'output.state := FUNCTION n.dashify 't := "" t empty not t #1 #1 substring "-" = t #1 #2 substring "--" = not "--" * t #2 global.max substring 't := t #1 #1 substring "-" = "-" * t #2 global.max substring 't := while if t #1 #1 substring * t #2 gl...

  75. [83]

    , " * write output.state after.block = add.period write newline

    ENTRY address archive author booktitle chapter doi edition editor eid eprint howpublished institution isbn journal key month note number organization pages publisher school series title type url volume year label INTEGERS output.state before.all mid.sentence after.sentence aft...

  76. [84]

    write newline

    " write newline "" before.all 'output.state := FUNCTION n.dashify 't := "" t empty not t #1 #1 substring "-" = t #1 #2 substring "--" = not "--" * t #2 global.max substring 't := t #1 #1 substring "-" = "-" * t #2 global.max substring 't := while if t #1 #1 substring * t #2 gl...

Pith tools

Reviewed August 10, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.