Pith. sign in

REVIEW 4 major objections 6 minor 41 references

MuST: Multi-Head Skill Transformer for Long-Horizon Dexterous Manipulation with Skill Progress

T0 review · 4 major / 6 minor · reviewed 2026-08-09 · deepseek-v4-flash

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

Pith's one-line read MuST claims that splitting a single Octo policy into per-skill heads with progress-guided switching raises long-horizon pick-and-pack success from 32.5% to 90%.

desk verdict Solid empirical work with a genuinely new progress-guided skill selector, but the evaluation doesn't isolate progress guidance from the multi-head architecture and the annotation formula is internally inconsistent; deserves a serious referee to sort it out. read the letter →

arxiv 2502.02753 v1 pith:ZAZJNMVH submitted 2025-02-04 cs.RO

Kai Gao , Fan Wang , Erica Aduh , Dylan Randle , Jane Shi This is my paper · ORCID
classification cs.RO
keywords dexterousmanipulationlong-horizontaskimitationlearningskillchainingprogressestimationselectiontransformerpolicyrobot
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 sets out to show that long-horizon dexterous manipulation becomes substantially more reliable when one monolithic policy is replaced by multiple skill-specific heads that share a pre-trained transformer backbone, with a progress value per skill guiding which skill runs when. In the simulated Pick-n-Pack task, where a robot must flip, pick, pack, and push a box to a goal corner, the proposed MuST model raises overall task completion from 32.5% with the Octo single policy to 90% with MuST, while also cutting execution time. The same architecture transfers to a physical robot, where it completes whole tasks on five objects at 88% success, including novel objects on which the Octo baseline gets 0%. The reason to care is that real robotic applications need skills to be chained and re-ordered over long horizons, not just executed as one fixed trajectory.

What carries the argument

The central mechanism is ProGSS, the progress-guided skill selector, operating on per-skill progress values produced by a dedicated progress head. Progress is annotated object-centrically: within each demonstrated skill segment, the value increases linearly from an initial $\alpha$ to $1$ only during the contact phase, so it is intended to reflect physical completion of the skill rather than elapsed wall-clock time. ProGSS selects the first skill in the task sequence whose predicted progress is below its termination threshold, and for multiple demonstrated sequences it finds the nearest progress trajectory in the demonstrated map. This progress signal is what allows MuST to chain skills, redo a skill after a disturbance, or skip a skill that is already complete.

What would settle it

Run MuST on a held-out demo where the robot's contact with the object is delayed far beyond the maximum execution time seen in training and record the predicted progress values: if they keep rising on schedule and ProGSS switches at the learned time rather than at the actual contact event, the progress signal is a clock, not a measure of completion.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

MuST builds on the Octo transformer policy by attaching $N$ skill heads and one progress head to the shared readout tokens. Each skill head predicts the action sequence for one motion primitive, and the progress head predicts a vector $\rho_t = (\rho_t^{(1)},\dots,\rho_t^{(N)})$ in $[0,1]$ indicating how far each skill has progressed. The ProGSS selector then executes the first skill in a demonstrated sequence whose progress is below its termination threshold $\theta$, re-selecting a skill if its progress drops due to a disturbance and skipping it if the state indicates it is already done. For multiple skill orderings, ProGSS matches the current progress vector to the nearest demonstrated progress trajectory and follows that sequence. With four skills, MuST reaches 80\% to 90\% task completion on language- and image-conditioned Pick-n-Pack in simulation and outperforms the single-head Octo baseline on a physical robot, especially on small and out-of-distribution objects.

Load-bearing premise

The load-bearing premise is that the linear progress labels, which are defined from elapsed time in the demonstrations, genuinely track physical completion of a skill rather than just the demonstration's timetable.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • In the studied pick-and-pack tasks, replacing a single Octo policy with MuST lifts task completion from 32.5% to 90% and reduces execution time by 23.7% to 38.4% on completed trials.
  • Because ProGSS keys off progress, MuST handles disturbances by repeating a skill (e.g., flipping again when the object is reset to the edge) or skipping one (when the object is already pick-ready).
  • When several skill orderings are demonstrated, MuST selects among them rather than collapsing to one mode: central-area objects are split 62.5% and 37.5% between flip-first and pick-first, while edge objects are flipped first in 96.2% of trials.
  • MuST's design claims to support skill-set expansion: adding a skill means adding one action head and extending the progress head, with the transformer backbone frozen so existing skills are unaffected.
  • On the physical system, MuST finishes 88% of whole tasks across five objects, including a novel bag and a small box, where the baseline Octo succeeds in 0% of cases.

Reading between the lines

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

  • The paper defines progress from a linear schedule tied to demonstration duration, so the strongest untested corollary is that switching to measure-based progress labels (e.g., contact events or object poses) would make ProGSS robust to tasks whose durations vary widely or whose demonstrations are not time-aligned.
  • Because the skill heads and progress head attach only to the frozen backbone's readout tokens, the same multi-head skill decomposition could be applied to other generalist policies with readout architectures, though the paper does not test this.
  • The multi-sequence selector's nearest-trajectory search in progress space could behave poorly as the number of skills grows or branches overlap, since a single nearest-neighbor lookup ignores uncertainty in the progress estimates; a probabilistic or learned selector would be a natural follow-up.
  • MuST's reported gains over Octo conflate two changes: decomposing skills and adding progress-based selection. The paper does not ablate a multi-head model without ProGSS, so a reader cannot tell how much of the 32.5-to-90-point jump comes from each component.
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

4 major / 6 minor

Summary. The paper proposes MuST, a multi-head extension of the Octo transformer policy for long-horizon dexterous manipulation. MuST decomposes a task into reusable skills, each with its own action head, and adds a progress head that outputs per-skill progress values. A skill selector, ProGSS, uses these progress values to choose which skill to execute at each timestep, with termination thresholds and support for multiple demonstrated skill sequences. The authors evaluate MuST on a pick-n-pack task in simulation and on a physical robot, reporting large improvements over a single-head Octo baseline in task completion, execution time, generalization to novel objects, and robustness to disturbances.

Significance. If the reported results are reliable, MuST would be a practical contribution to long-horizon manipulation: it builds on a pre-trained generalist policy, adds only small output heads, and proposes a progress-based selector that could in principle enable robust skill chaining and disturbance recovery. The paper also provides a concrete demonstration of multi-skill expansion and multi-sequence selection, and the experiments cover both simulation and a physical robot with a custom suction gripper. The strengths of the paper are its clear architectural description, the use of a publicly available backbone, and the breadth of the evaluation. However, the central empirical claim is weakened by a misreported headline statistic, the progress annotation in Section IV-B1 is internally inconsistent, and the experimental design does not isolate the contribution of the progress-guided selector. These issues need to be resolved before the results can be fully accepted.

major comments (4)
  1. [Abstract / Introduction / Table I] The paper states in the introduction (and abstract) that "MuST increased the overall task completion rate from 32.5% with the baseline Octo single policy to 90% with MuST." This is not supported by Table I. In Table I, the Octo baseline's End State (overall task completion) column is 7/10, 9/10, 7/10, 6/10 for the four goal corners, which totals 29/40 = 72.5%, not 32.5%. The 32.5% figure corresponds exactly to Octo's Push(Orientation) column (4+4+3+2 = 13/40 = 32.5%), and the 90% figure corresponds to MuST's Push(Orientation) column (36/40 = 90%). The headline claim therefore misattributes a sub-skill success rate as an overall task completion rate. This is a load-bearing error that must be corrected, and the text and abstract should be revised to state the actual overall numbers (72.5% vs. 95% for Table I).
  2. [Section IV-B1] The progress annotation definition is internally inconsistent as written. The paper defines α := 1 − t/M, where t is "the duration of skill execution in the current episode" and M is the maximum duration among demonstrations. If t is the total duration of skill execution in an episode, then α is a constant for that episode, not an initial progress that increases from α to 1 during execution. If t is the elapsed time within the skill, then α = 1 at t = 0 and decreases as t grows, which is the opposite of a progress signal. The accompanying sentence, "The progress value increases linearly with the time steps in demonstration episodes," contradicts both readings. Since the progress head is trained to regress these labels, the training target is not well defined. This is not a minor typo: the claimed object-centric nature of the progress and the ability of ProGSS to skip or redo skills after disturbances depend on the progress values reflecting physical completion, not an arbitrary time-based schedule. The authors must clarify the definition and provide a concrete, unambiguous formula for progress labels, ideally grounded in object state (e.g., contact or goal distance) rather than time.
  3. [Section V (overall experimental design)] The improvement of MuST over Octo is not isolated to the proposed progress-guided skill selector. The only baseline is a single-head Octo policy that learns all skills jointly. MuST differs from this baseline in at least two ways: it uses multiple skill-specific action heads, and it uses the ProGSS progress-based selection mechanism. The reported gains could stem from the multi-head decomposition, from the separate per-skill prediction heads, from the shared-backbone fine-tuning scheme, or from the progress selector, but the current experiments cannot distinguish these factors. To support the paper's claim that progress guidance is beneficial, the authors should add an ablation with a multi-head model that selects skills using a one-hot classifier or an oracle selector, or otherwise directly measure the quality of the progress predictions (e.g., correlation with actual completion). Without such an ablation, the central claim that "the main advantage of MuST is ... continuous progress estimation" is not established.
  4. [Tables I–VI] All quantitative results are reported as raw counts out of 5 or 10 trials per condition, with no error bars, confidence intervals, or statistical significance tests. The differences between conditions are often small (e.g., 9/10 vs. 10/10 in Table V), and the headline comparison of 32.5% vs. 90% is based on a single set of 40 trials. For a paper whose main contribution is an empirical improvement, this level of statistical support is insufficient. The authors should report variance across seeds or runs, provide confidence intervals, or increase the number of trials, and at minimum avoid drawing strong conclusions from differences of one or two trials.
minor comments (6)
  1. [Section IV-A] The phrase "L1 action head" is undefined and likely a typo; it should probably read "MLP action head" or "linear action head." Please clarify the head architecture.
  2. [Section I] The phrase "N + 1 heads for an N − skill set" is a minor typo; it should read "for an N-skill set." The same style issue appears in Section IV-A.
  3. [Figure 4] Figure 4 shows an example with progress values (100%, 20%, 0%, 100%), but the caption does not explain how the termination threshold θi = 0.9 relates to these percentages, nor does it define what a skill with progress 100% means when its actual progress could be capped at α_i^j. Please make the figure self-contained or add a clarifying caption.
  4. [Section V-B] The disturbance-recovery results are only described qualitatively and referenced to the accompanying video. To support the claim that MuST "selects the Flip skill repeatedly" or "skips the first skill" after disturbances, the paper should provide quantitative data (e.g., success rates for disturbed episodes, or plots of predicted progress over time).
  5. [Table I] The column heading "End State" is not defined in the text. It appears to denote overall task completion, but the term is ambiguous because the table also reports intermediate skill completions. Please define it explicitly.
  6. [Section V-A] The text states that MuST is "23.7% − 38.4% faster" than Octo in execution time, but a direct calculation from Table I gives reductions of 23.6%, 42.0%, 34.2%, and 38.4% for the four conditions. The upper bound should be updated to reflect the 42.0% value.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 0.0 of 10

No significant circularity: MuST is an empirical imitation-learning pipeline whose success is measured by external task completion, not by its own progress labels.

full rationale

The paper's central claim is a benchmark comparison: MuST raises task completion from 32.5% (Octo baseline) to 80-90% (Tables I-VI), where task success is judged independently by defined goal criteria (e.g., object within 2 cm of the corner, correct quarter of the tote). The progress values in Section IV-B1 are annotated from demonstrations using a linear time-based formula, and ProGSS selects skills whose predicted progress is below a threshold. This is a control mechanism, not a derivation that assumes its conclusion; the reported success rates are not equivalent to the progress labels by construction. The progress annotation may be time-based rather than truly object-centric, which is a validity concern for the disturbance-robustness claims, but it is not circularity: the evaluation metric is external, and the architecture comparison against Octo is an empirical result. The paper does not rely on load-bearing self-citations; prior works by the authors appear only as related work on rearrangement planning, not as justification for MuST's central mechanism. No uniqueness theorem, no ansatz smuggled via citation, and no renaming of a known result as a new derivation. Therefore no circular step is identified.

Assumptions & free parameters 3 free parameters · 6 assumptions · 0 invented entities

The method relies on hand-written progress schedules (with a data-derived maximum duration M), a hand-set threshold θi, and a predefined skill decomposition. No new physical entities are introduced. The central experiments compare two ways of using the same Octo backbone rather than testing the necessity of each design choice.

free parameters (3)
  • Termination threshold θi = 0.9 for all skills
    Hand-set in Section IV-B2; used by ProGSS to decide that a skill is complete and the next skill should start. Not learned from data and no sensitivity analysis is provided.
  • Maximum skill execution duration M per skill = maximum duration across demonstration episodes for that skill
    Used in Section IV-B1 to compute the progress start value α := 1 − t/M. This is a data-dependent, per-skill parameter chosen by the annotation procedure; it determines how fast progress ramps during execution.
  • Segment progress upper bounds α_i^j = computed from segment durations T_i^j via α_i^j = α_i^{j−1} + (1−α) T_i^j / ∑_k T_i^k
    For skills split into segments, progress steps between segment bounds. These bounds are derived from demonstration segment durations, adding per-segment degrees of freedom to the supervision signal.
assumptions (6)
  • domain assumption The long-horizon task can be decomposed into a finite, predefined set of reusable skills S = {s1, ..., sN}.
    Section III states this as the starting point; the entire architecture depends on the existence of such a decomposition, and no automatic skill discovery is proposed.
  • domain assumption Demonstrations provide reliable skill boundaries such that the skill execution period is exactly the interval between first and last contact with the object.
    Section IV-B1 defines progress only in this contact interval; if contact is intermittent or the boundary is ambiguous, labels are noisy.
  • ad hoc to paper Progress can be represented as a linear function of time within a skill, normalized by the maximum demo duration.
    Section IV-B1 sets α := 1 − t/M and ramps linearly to 1; there is no theoretical justification for linear-in-time progress, and the formula as written conflicts with the described pre/post transit values.
  • domain assumption The Octo pre-trained transformer backbone is a sufficiently rich shared representation for all skill heads and the progress head.
    Section IV-A builds all heads on Octo; no ablation tests whether a different backbone or training from scratch would behave differently.
  • ad hoc to paper A single termination threshold θi = 0.9 works for all skills, objects, and conditions.
    Section IV-B2 uses θi = 0.9 uniformly; the paper does not tune or analyze this choice.
  • domain assumption Nearest-neighbor search in progress space with Euclidean-like distance selects a valid skill sequence.
    Algorithm 1 assumes that proximity of the current progress vector to a demonstrated progress trajectory implies that this trajectory is the one being executed; no metric or normalization is specified.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of MuST: Multi-Head Skill Transformer for Long-Horizon Dexterous Manipulation with Skill Progress." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/ZAZJNMVH

@misc{pith2026250202753,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: MuST: Multi-Head Skill Transformer for Long-Horizon Dexterous Manipulation with Skill Progress},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/ZAZJNMVH}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2502.02753}
}
read the original abstract

Robot picking and packing tasks require dexterous manipulation skills, such as rearranging objects to establish a good grasping pose, or placing and pushing items to achieve tight packing. These tasks are challenging for robots due to the complexity and variability of the required actions. To tackle the difficulty of learning and executing long-horizon tasks, we propose a novel framework called the Multi-Head Skill Transformer (MuST). This model is designed to learn and sequentially chain together multiple motion primitives (skills), enabling robots to perform complex sequences of actions effectively. MuST introduces a "progress value" for each skill, guiding the robot on which skill to execute next and ensuring smooth transitions between skills. Additionally, our model is capable of expanding its skill set and managing various sequences of sub-tasks efficiently. Extensive experiments in both simulated and real-world environments demonstrate that MuST significantly enhances the robot's ability to perform long-horizon dexterous manipulation tasks.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2502.02753 by the authors.

Figure 1
Figure 1. [Top] An example of long-horizon dexterous manipulation. The [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p001_1.png] view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. Annotation of skill progress in a skill-related episode segment [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p003_3.png] view at source ↗
Figure 4
Figure 4. An example of ProGSS with a single skill sequence. [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p004_4.png] view at source ↗
Figures from the paper (4 more)
Figure 5
Figure 5. Figure 5: We use either language prompts or images as goal state indicators [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p005_5.png]
Figure 6
Figure 6. Figure 6: Training object set and test object set in simulation. The 3D [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p005_6.png]
Figure 9
Figure 9. Figure 9: Task sequence of real robot goal-state conditioned pick-n-pack. [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p006_9.png]
Figure 8
Figure 8. Figure 8: [Left] A customized suc￾tion gripper capable of vacuum suction and dexterous contact. [Right] Physical robotic system. Similarly, the experi￾mental task ( [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p006_8.png]

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

41 extracted references · 21 canonical work pages

  1. [1]

    Diffusion policy: Visuomotor policy learning via action diffusion,

    C. Chi, S. Feng, Y . Du, Z. Xu, E. Cousineau, B. Burchfiel, and S. Song, “Diffusion policy: Visuomotor policy learning via action diffusion,” arXiv preprint arXiv:2303.04137 , 2023

    arXiv 2023

  2. [2]

    Learning fine-grained bimanual manipulation with low-cost hardware,

    T. Z. Zhao, V . Kumar, S. Levine, and C. Finn, “Learning fine-grained bimanual manipulation with low-cost hardware,” arXiv preprint arXiv:2304.13705, 2023

    arXiv 2023

  3. [3]

    Octo: An open-source generalist robot policy,

    O. M. Team, D. Ghosh, H. Walke, K. Pertsch, K. Black, O. Mees, S. Dasari, J. Hejna, T. Kreiman, C. Xu, et al., “Octo: An open-source generalist robot policy,” arXiv preprint arXiv:2405.12213 , 2024

    arXiv 2024

  4. [5]

    Rt-1: Robotics transformer for real-world control at scale,

    A. Brohan, N. Brown, J. Carbajal, Y . Chebotar, J. Dabis, C. Finn, K. Gopalakrishnan, K. Hausman, A. Herzog, J. Hsu, J. Ibarz, B. Ichter, A. Irpan, T. Jackson, S. Jesmonth, N. J. Joshi, R. Julian, D. Kalashnikov, Y . Kuang, I. Leal, K.-H. Lee, S. Levine, Y . Lu, U. Malla, D. Manjunath, I. Mordatch, O. Nachum, C. Parada, J. Peralta, E. Perez, K. Pertsch, J...

    arXiv 2023

  5. [6]

    Rt-2: Vision-language-action models transfer web knowledge to robotic control,

    A. Brohan, N. Brown, J. Carbajal, Y . Chebotar, X. Chen, K. Choromanski, T. Ding, D. Driess, A. Dubey, C. Finn, P. Florence, C. Fu, M. G. Arenas, K. Gopalakrishnan, K. Han, K. Hausman, A. Herzog, J. Hsu, B. Ichter, A. Irpan, N. Joshi, R. Julian, D. Kalashnikov, Y . Kuang, I. Leal, L. Lee, T.-W. E. Lee, S. Levine, Y . Lu, H. Michalewski, I. Mordatch, K. Pe...

    arXiv 2023

  6. [7]

    3d diffusion policy: Generalizable visuomotor policy learning via simple 3d representations,

    Y . Ze, G. Zhang, K. Zhang, C. Hu, M. Wang, and H. Xu, “3d diffusion policy: Generalizable visuomotor policy learning via simple 3d representations,” 2024. [Online]. Available: https: //arxiv.org/abs/2403.03954

    arXiv 2024

  7. [8]

    Equibot: Sim(3)-equivariant diffusion policy for generalizable and data efficient learning,

    J. Yang, Z. ang Cao, C. Deng, R. Antonova, S. Song, and J. Bohg, “Equibot: Sim(3)-equivariant diffusion policy for generalizable and data efficient learning,” 2024. [Online]. Available: https: //arxiv.org/abs/2407.01479

    arXiv 2024

  8. [10]

    One-shot imitation learning,

    Y . Duan, M. Andrychowicz, B. C. Stadie, J. Ho, J. Schneider, I. Sutskever, P. Abbeel, and W. Zaremba, “One-shot imitation learning,” 2017. [Online]. Available: https://arxiv.org/abs/1703.07326

    arXiv 2017

Show all 41 references
  1. [11]

    Incremental task and motion planning: A constraint-based approach,

    N. Dantam, Z. Kingston, S. Chaudhuri, and L. Kavraki, “Incremental task and motion planning: A constraint-based approach,” 06 2016

    2016

  2. [12]

    Combined task and motion planning through an extensible planner- independent interface layer,

    S. Srivastava, E. Fang, L. Riano, R. Chitnis, S. Russell, and P. Abbeel, “Combined task and motion planning through an extensible planner- independent interface layer,” in 2014 IEEE International Conference on Robotics and Automation (ICRA) , 2014, pp. 639–646

    2014

  3. [13]

    Combined task and motion planning for mobile manipulation,

    J. Wolfe, B. Marthi, and S. Russell, “Combined task and motion planning for mobile manipulation,” in Proceedings of the Twentieth International Conference on International Conference on Automated Planning and Scheduling , ser. ICAPS’10. AAAI Press, 2010, p. 254–257

  4. [14]

    Hierarchical deep reinforcement learning: Integrating temporal abstraction and intrinsic motivation,

    T. D. Kulkarni, K. R. Narasimhan, A. Saeedi, and J. B. Tenenbaum, “Hierarchical deep reinforcement learning: Integrating temporal abstraction and intrinsic motivation,” 2016. [Online]. Available: https://arxiv.org/abs/1604.06057

    2016 arXiv

  5. [15]

    Diversity is all you need: Learning skills without a reward function,

    B. Eysenbach, A. Gupta, J. Ibarz, and S. Levine, “Diversity is all you need: Learning skills without a reward function,” 2018. [Online]. Available: https://arxiv.org/abs/1802.06070

    2018 arXiv

  6. [16]

    Feudal networks for hierarchical reinforcement learning,

    A. S. Vezhnevets, S. Osindero, T. Schaul, N. Heess, M. Jaderberg, D. Silver, and K. Kavukcuoglu, “Feudal networks for hierarchical reinforcement learning,” 2017. [Online]. Available: https://arxiv.org/ abs/1703.01161

    2017 arXiv

  7. [17]

    The option-critic architecture,

    P.-L. Bacon, J. Harb, and D. Precup, “The option-critic architecture,”

  8. [18]

    Augmenting reinforcement learning with behavior primitives for diverse manipulation tasks,

    S. Nasiriany, H. Liu, and Y . Zhu, “Augmenting reinforcement learning with behavior primitives for diverse manipulation tasks,” in 2022 International Conference on Robotics and Automation (ICRA) . IEEE, 2022, pp. 7477–7484

    2022

  9. [19]

    Rrl: Resnet as representation for reinforce- ment learning,

    R. Shah and V . Kumar, “Rrl: Resnet as representation for reinforce- ment learning,” arXiv preprint arXiv:2107.03380 , 2021

    2021 arXiv

  10. [20]

    Open x-embodiment: Robotic learning datasets and rt-x models,

    A. Padalkar, A. Pooley, A. Jain, A. Bewley, A. Herzog, A. Ir- pan, A. Khazatsky, A. Rai, A. Singh, A. Brohan, et al. , “Open x-embodiment: Robotic learning datasets and rt-x models,” arXiv preprint arXiv:2310.08864, 2023

    2023 arXiv

  11. [21]

    Autort: Embodied foundation models for large scale orchestration of robotic agents,

    M. Ahn, D. Dwibedi, C. Finn, M. G. Arenas, K. Gopalakrishnan, K. Hausman, B. Ichter, A. Irpan, N. Joshi, R. Julian, et al. , “Autort: Embodied foundation models for large scale orchestration of robotic agents,” arXiv preprint arXiv:2401.12963 , 2024

    2024

  12. [22]

    Moma-force: Visual-force imitation for real-world mobile manipulation,

    T. Yang, Y . Jing, H. Wu, J. Xu, K. Sima, G. Chen, Q. Sima, and T. Kong, “Moma-force: Visual-force imitation for real-world mobile manipulation,” in 2023 IEEE/RSJ International Conference on Intelligent Robots and Systems (IROS) . IEEE, 2023, pp. 6847–6852

    2023

  13. [23]

    Learning dexterous in-hand manipulation,

    O. M. Andrychowicz, B. Baker, M. Chociej, R. Jozefowicz, B. Mc- Grew, J. Pachocki, A. Petron, M. Plappert, G. Powell, A. Ray, et al. , “Learning dexterous in-hand manipulation,” The International Journal of Robotics Research , vol. 39, no. 1, pp. 3–20, 2020

    2020

  14. [24]

    What matters in learning from offline human demonstrations for robot manipula- tion,

    A. Mandlekar, D. Xu, J. Wong, S. Nasiriany, C. Wang, R. Kulkarni, L. Fei-Fei, S. Savarese, Y . Zhu, and R. Mart´ın-Mart´ın, “What matters in learning from offline human demonstrations for robot manipula- tion,” arXiv preprint arXiv:2108.03298 , 2021

    2021 arXiv

  15. [25]

    Moka: Open-vocabulary robotic manipulation through mark-based visual prompting,

    F. Liu, K. Fang, P. Abbeel, and S. Levine, “Moka: Open-vocabulary robotic manipulation through mark-based visual prompting,” arXiv preprint arXiv:2403.03174, 2024

    2024 arXiv

  16. [26]

    Vima: General robot manip- ulation with multimodal prompts,

    Y . Jiang, A. Gupta, Z. Zhang, G. Wang, Y . Dou, Y . Chen, L. Fei-Fei, A. Anandkumar, Y . Zhu, and L. Fan, “Vima: General robot manip- ulation with multimodal prompts,” arXiv preprint arXiv:2210.03094 , vol. 2, no. 3, p. 6, 2022

    arXiv

  17. [27]

    Learning universal policies via text-guided video generation,

    Y . Du, S. Yang, B. Dai, H. Dai, O. Nachum, J. Tenenbaum, D. Schu- urmans, and P. Abbeel, “Learning universal policies via text-guided video generation,” Advances in Neural Information Processing Sys- tems, vol. 36, 2024

    2024

  18. [28]

    A joint modeling of vision-language-action for target- oriented grasping in clutter,

    K. Xu, S. Zhao, Z. Zhou, Z. Li, H. Pi, Y . Zhu, Y . Wang, and R. Xiong, “A joint modeling of vision-language-action for target- oriented grasping in clutter,” in 2023 IEEE International Conference on Robotics and Automation (ICRA) . IEEE, 2023, pp. 11 597–11 604

    2023

  19. [29]

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

    C. R. Garrett, T. Lozano-P ´erez, and L. P. Kaelbling, “Pddlstream: Integrating symbolic planners and blackbox samplers via optimistic adaptive planning,” in Proceedings of the international conference on automated planning and scheduling , vol. 30, 2020, pp. 440–448

    2020

  20. [30]

    Minimizing running buffers for tabletop object rearrangement: Complexity, fast algorithms, and applications,

    K. Gao, S. W. Feng, B. Huang, and J. Yu, “Minimizing running buffers for tabletop object rearrangement: Complexity, fast algorithms, and applications,” The International Journal of Robotics Research , vol. 42, no. 10, pp. 755–776, 2023

    2023

  21. [31]

    Uni- form object rearrangement: From complete monotone primitives to efficient non-monotone informed search,

    R. Wang, K. Gao, D. Nakhimovich, J. Yu, and K. E. Bekris, “Uni- form object rearrangement: From complete monotone primitives to efficient non-monotone informed search,” in 2021 IEEE International Conference on Robotics and Automation (ICRA) . IEEE, 2021, pp. 6621–6627

    2021

  22. [32]

    Lgmcts: Language-guided monte-carlo tree search for executable semantic object rearrangement,

    H. Chang, K. Gao, K. Boyalakuntla, A. Lee, B. Huang, H. U. Kumar, J. Yu, and A. Boularias, “Lgmcts: Language-guided monte-carlo tree search for executable semantic object rearrangement,” arXiv preprint arXiv:2309.15821, 2023

    2023 arXiv

  23. [33]

    Fast high-quality tabletop rearrangement in bounded workspace,

    K. Gao, D. Lau, B. Huang, K. E. Bekris, and J. Yu, “Fast high-quality tabletop rearrangement in bounded workspace,” in 2022 International Conference on Robotics and Automation (ICRA) . IEEE, 2022, pp. 1961–1967

    2022

  24. [34]

    Effective and robust non-prehensile manipulation via persistent ho- mology guided monte-carlo tree search,

    E. R. Vieira, K. Gao, D. Nakhimovich, K. E. Bekris, and J. Yu, “Effective and robust non-prehensile manipulation via persistent ho- mology guided monte-carlo tree search,” in International Symposium on Experimental Robotics . Springer, 2023, pp. 192–202

    2023

  25. [35]

    Generative skill chaining: Long-horizon skill planning with diffusion models,

    U. A. Mishra, S. Xue, Y . Chen, and D. Xu, “Generative skill chaining: Long-horizon skill planning with diffusion models,” in Conference on Robot Learning . PMLR, 2023, pp. 2905–2925

    2023

  26. [36]

    Stap: Sequencing task- agnostic policies,

    C. Agia, T. Migimatsu, J. Wu, and J. Bohg, “Stap: Sequencing task- agnostic policies,” in 2023 IEEE International Conference on Robotics and Automation (ICRA) . IEEE, 2023, pp. 7951–7958

    2023

  27. [37]

    Hydra: Hybrid robot actions for imitation learning,

    S. Belkhale, Y . Cui, and D. Sadigh, “Hydra: Hybrid robot actions for imitation learning,” in Conference on Robot Learning . PMLR, 2023, pp. 2113–2133

    2023

  28. [38]

    Learning to generalize across long-horizon tasks from human demonstrations,

    A. Mandlekar, D. Xu, R. Mart ´ın-Mart´ın, S. Savarese, and L. Fei- Fei, “Learning to generalize across long-horizon tasks from human demonstrations,” arXiv preprint arXiv:2003.06085 , 2020

    2003 arXiv

  29. [39]

    The ycb object and model set: Towards common benchmarks for manipulation research,

    B. Calli, A. Singh, A. Walsman, S. Srinivasa, P. Abbeel, and A. M. Dollar, “The ycb object and model set: Towards common benchmarks for manipulation research,” in 2015 International Conference on Advanced Robotics (ICAR) , 2015, pp. 510–517

    2015

  30. [40]

    Nvidia simready assets,

    NVIDIA Corporation, “Nvidia simready assets,” https://developer. nvidia.com/omniverse/simready-assets, 2024, https://developer.nvidia. com/omniverse/simready-assets

    2024

  31. [41]

    Sketchfab open-source 3d models,

    Sketchfab, Inc., “Sketchfab open-source 3d models,” 2024, accessed: 2024-10-31. [Online]. Available: https://sketchfab.com/ tags/open-source

    2024

  32. [42]

    Google scanned objects: A high-quality dataset of 3d scanned household items,

    L. Downs, A. Francis, N. Koenig, B. Kinman, R. Hickman, K. Reymann, T. B. McHugh, and V . Vanhoucke, “Google scanned objects: A high-quality dataset of 3d scanned household items,” 2022. [Online]. Available: https://arxiv.org/abs/2204.11918

    2022 arXiv

  33. [2016]

    Available: https://arxiv.org/abs/1609.05140

    [Online]. Available: https://arxiv.org/abs/1609.05140

    arXiv

Pith tools

Reviewed August 9, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.