Pith. sign in

REVIEW 4 major objections 5 minor 1 cited by

A Comprehensive Survey on Physical Risk Control in the Era of Foundation Model-enabled Robotics

T0 review · 4 major / 5 minor · reviewed 2026-08-15 · deepseek-v4-flash

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

Pith's one-line read This survey argues that physical-risk control for foundation-model-enabled robots is lopsided: most research targets the pre-deployment phase, while pre-incident mitigation, physical human-robot interaction, and foundation-model-specific…

desk verdict Useful three-phase taxonomy of robot safety, but the headline gap claims rest on a shaky categorization and no systematic lit review. read the letter →

arxiv 2505.12583 v2 pith:I5YIUG7Z submitted 2025-05-19 cs.RO cs.AIcs.LG

Takeshi Kojima , Yaonan Zhu , Yusuke Iwasawa , Toshinori Kitamura , Gang Yan , Shu Morikuni , Ryosuke Takanami , Alfredo Solano
show 3 more authors
Tatsuya Matsushima Akiko Murakami Yutaka Matsuo
This is my paper · ORCID
classification cs.ROcs.AIcs.LG
keywords foundationmodelsrobotsafetyphysicalriskhuman-robotinteractionruntimemonitoringpost-accidentrecoverysurvey
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

Foundation-model-enabled robots (FMRs) are leaving closed factory settings for open environments where people and robots share space, so accidents cannot be designed away. This survey organizes existing robot-control work on physical risk into three phases of a robot's lifespan—before deployment, after deployment but before an incident, and after an incident—and argues that research is lopsided. Most effort concentrates in the pre-deployment phase, while pre-incident mitigation, studies that assume real physical contact with humans, and problems specific to the foundation models themselves remain under-served. The authors propose that closing these gaps, together with social measures like legislation and insurance, is what safe human-robot coexistence will require.

What carries the argument

The analytical instrument is the three-phase lifespan taxonomy. It divides all surveyed approaches by when they act: pre-deployment (preventing risk while designing, training, and evaluating the system), pre-incident (guarding the deployed system in the moments before harm), and post-incident (recovering the robot, aiding the injured, and improving through human feedback). The taxonomy does the argument's work: by slotting each approach into one phase, it makes the relative emptiness of the pre-incident and post-incident categories visible, and that visible skew is the survey's main finding.

What would settle it

A systematic review with explicit inclusion criteria that counts papers by phase would settle the claim; finding that pre-incident or physical-interaction research is as abundant as pre-deployment work in comparable venues would directly contradict the survey's gap diagnosis.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

The survey's central claim is that physical-risk control for FMRs should be understood across the full lifespan, and that the field has largely failed to cover the latter two stretches. It classifies the literature into pre-deployment risk prevention (hardware and software safeguards, dataset curation, simulation, red-teaming, formal safety guarantees), pre-incident risk mitigation after deployment (runtime monitoring and out-of-distribution measures), and post-incident response (robot recovery, first aid, human-in-the-loop improvement). Surveying these bodies, it concludes that the pre-incident phase, research that assumes physical human-robot interaction, and foundation-model-specific issues each have much room for study. The paper frames this not as a claim that the surveyed techniques are ineffective, but as a map of where the field's attention is sparse relative to the risks of open-world deployment.

Load-bearing premise

The conclusions about which phases are under-studied rest on the assumption that the papers the survey chose to discuss are representative of the whole field, because the survey does not report a systematic search strategy or inclusion criteria.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • If the field's attention is indeed concentrated before deployment, then robots entering homes and cafes will be best protected by training-time measures and least protected at the moment a hazard actually begins to unfold.
  • The scarcity of research assuming physical contact with humans implies that results from simulated or fenced-off tests may not transfer to the close-proximity settings FMRs are expected to occupy.
  • Post-incident recovery and first-aid capabilities are not add-ons; they are a third of the risk-control timeline and currently the thinnest part, so deployment plans should budget for failures that will still occur.
  • Foundation-model-specific risks—training-data quality, physical-world understanding in language and vision models—need to be studied directly rather than inherited from classical robotics safety work.
  • Technical control alone is not the endpoint: the paper argues that legislation, insurance, and ethical guidelines must accompany the engineering measures to handle the aftermath of physical damage.

Reading between the lines

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

  • The taxonomy is a natural counting scheme: a bibliometric tabulation of papers per phase would turn the claimed gaps into measurable proportions, testing the survey's reading of the field.
  • The pre-incident gap suggests a concrete research agenda: runtime monitors that predict imminent collisions or unsafe contacts—using video or vision-language models as early critics—could be the highest-leverage place to add new work.
  • Because the survey deliberately imports non-foundation-model techniques as 'expected to be utilized,' the actual empirical evidence for FMR-specific safety may be even thinner than the taxonomy suggests.
  • If FMRs are to act as first responders to the damage they cause, questions of liability, trust, and permission to touch an injured person will constrain the technical design; those social constraints are named but not developed.
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.

Referee Report

4 major / 5 minor

Summary. This paper surveys robot-control approaches for mitigating physical risks in foundation-model-enabled robotics (FMRs). It organizes the robot lifetime into three phases—pre-deployment, pre-incident, and post-incident—and reviews hardware and software safety mechanisms, dataset curation, simulation, red-teaming, formal safety guarantees, runtime monitoring, out-of-distribution handling, robot recovery, first-aid measures, and human-in-the-loop improvement. From its organization of the literature, the paper concludes that pre-incident risk mitigation, research assuming physical interaction with humans, and foundation-model-specific safety issues are under-studied.

Significance. The proposed three-phase temporal taxonomy is a genuinely useful organizing device, and the paper draws attention to post-incident recovery and first-aid considerations that prior FMR surveys largely omit. It also usefully connects red-teaming and formal safety guarantees to robotics. However, the survey's central gap findings rest on a categorization scheme and a non-transparent literature selection, so the significance of those findings is not yet established. If the taxonomy were corrected and the selection made systematic, the survey could become a valuable reference for the community.

major comments (4)
  1. [§4.1, Hardware and Software for Safety] The taxonomy places runtime control mechanisms such as velocity/torque limits, virtual fences, fault monitoring, admittance control, and control-barrier-function safety [Ferraguti et al., 2022] under the pre-deployment phase, while §4.2 defines the pre-incident phase narrowly as runtime monitoring and out-of-distribution handling. Because these mechanisms operate after deployment and before an incident, the reported scarcity of pre-incident work is at least partly an artifact of this categorization; reclassifying these mechanisms as pre-incident would substantially weaken the headline gap claim made in the Abstract and §5.
  2. [Section 4 opening and Conclusion] The survey provides no search protocol, inclusion or exclusion criteria, or counts of papers per category, and it explicitly states that “some of the surveyed papers include studies that do not use foundation models.” Consequently, the paper's conclusions about sparsity of physical-interaction research and foundation-model-specific issues cannot be separated from the authors' selection and categorization choices. To support the gap claims, the authors should report the retrieval process, screening criteria, per-category counts, and a repeatable classification procedure.
  3. [§5, claim (ii)] The paper concludes that research assuming physical interaction with humans is under-studied, yet §4.1 cites a body of physical human-robot interaction safety work (e.g., [Haddadin et al., 2007; Haddadin et al., 2008; Sun et al., 2024b]) and §4.3 discusses human-in-the-loop methods. Without a clear definition of what counts as “physical interaction research” and a quantitative comparison of that research to other categories, this conclusion is not supported as stated.
  4. [§4.3 and Figure 3] The boundary between the pre-incident and post-incident phases is unclear for recovery mechanisms such as dynamic replanning [Shirasaka et al., 2024], teleoperation, and reset policies [Kim et al., 2024]. These mechanisms are also run-time safety functions that can act before any damage occurs. The authors should define the temporal boundary more precisely (for example, specifying that the post-incident phase begins only after physical damage has occurred), or explicitly acknowledge that the phases overlap for learning-based systems.
minor comments (5)
  1. [Figure 2 caption] The caption contains the typo “suvey” and should read “survey.”
  2. [§4.1] The paragraph ending “Together, these hardware and software measures… reliable and safe robotic deployment” repeats a nearly identical sentence twice; one copy should be removed.
  3. [§2.1] Several inline citations are duplicated, for example [La Valle, 2011; La Valle, 2011] and [Yamamoto et al., 2019; Zhu et al., 2019; Yamamoto et al., 2019; Hossain, 2023; Zhu et al., 2019]; these should be cleaned up.
  4. [§4.3] The heading “First Aid Measurement” should be “First Aid Measures.”
  5. [§4.2] The phrase “Test-time Adaption / Training” should be “Test-time Adaptation / Training.”

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 0.0 of 10

No circularity: the survey's gap findings rest on a narrative taxonomy and corpus selection, not on definitions or self-citations; all cited own-works are illustrative examples.

full rationale

This is a narrative survey rather than a formal derivation, so the main circularity patterns (fitted parameters renamed as predictions, definitions that force the result, or uniqueness theorems imported from self-citations) do not apply. The three headline findings—that pre-incident risk mitigation, physical human interaction, and foundation-model-specific issues are under-studied—are inductive characterizations of the surveyed literature; they depend on the authors' taxonomy and paper selection, but no equation, fitted value, or cited theorem is used to derive them. Self-citations such as Kitamura et al. (2025), Matsushima et al. (2020a,b), and Shirasaka et al. (2024) are presented as concrete examples or as objects of critique, and the survey's conclusions do not rest on accepting those papers' results. The scope note at the start of Section 4, admitting that some non-foundation-model studies are included, is a selection caveat that affects representativeness but is not a circular step. The taxonomy's placement of reactive safety constraints (e.g., velocity/torque limits and admittance control) under the pre-deployment phase may shape the reported pre-incident gap, but that is a categorization judgment, not a definitional equivalence between the survey's input and output. Accordingly, no circular step can be quoted and exhibited, and the appropriate finding is no significant circularity.

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

The survey does not fit constants or introduce new entities. Its load-bearing assumptions are domain-level: that FMRs will operate in open worlds, that the non-systematic literature selection is representative, and that the three-phase taxonomy is a valid way to decompose the problem. The second assumption is the most fragile and affects all the gap claims.

assumptions (3)
  • domain assumption Foundation-model-enabled robots will be deployed in open worlds with close human proximity, making physical risk unavoidable.
    This premise is stated in the Introduction and Figure 1. It frames the entire survey's scope. If FMRs remain in closed environments, the post-incident and pre-incident phases become far less relevant.
  • domain assumption The selected papers are representative of the relevant research landscape for FMR safety, despite non-systematic selection and the inclusion of non-FMR works.
    Section 4 states that non-FMR papers are included as technologies 'expected to be utilized in future research of FMRs.' The gap claims depend on this representativeness, which is not established by a systematic method.
  • ad hoc to paper Physical safety for FMRs can be meaningfully decomposed into the three proposed phases (pre-deployment, pre-incident, post-incident).
    The phase split is the paper's own organizational device. It is introduced in the Introduction and used throughout Section 4. Its validity as an exhaustive and non-overlapping categorization is asserted, not derived.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of A Comprehensive Survey on Physical Risk Control in the Era of Foundation Model-enabled Robotics." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/I5YIUG7Z

@misc{pith2026250512583,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: A Comprehensive Survey on Physical Risk Control in the Era of Foundation Model-enabled Robotics},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/I5YIUG7Z}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2505.12583}
}
read the original abstract

Recent Foundation Model-enabled robotics (FMRs) display greatly improved general-purpose skills, enabling more adaptable automation than conventional robotics. Their ability to handle diverse tasks thus creates new opportunities to replace human labor. However, unlike general foundation models, FMRs interact with the physical world, where their actions directly affect the safety of humans and surrounding objects, requiring careful deployment and control. Based on this proposition, our survey comprehensively summarizes robot control approaches to mitigate physical risks by covering all the lifespan of FMRs ranging from pre-deployment to post-accident stage. Specifically, we broadly divide the timeline into the following three phases: (1) pre-deployment phase, (2) pre-incident phase, and (3) post-incident phase. Throughout this survey, we find that there is much room to study (i) pre-incident risk mitigation strategies, (ii) research that assumes physical interaction with humans, and (iii) essential issues of foundation models themselves. We hope that this survey will be a milestone in providing a high-resolution analysis of the physical risks of FMRs and their control, contributing to the realization of a good human-robot relationship.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2505.12583 by the authors.

Figure 1
Figure 1. Motivation of our survey. Studies on conventional robotics [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p001_1.png] view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. Scope of our survey. FMRs are expected to be utilized in [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p002_2.png] view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. Categorization of physical risk control approaches for FMRs. (*1) Simulation plays a critical role as both a training environment [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p004_3.png] view at source ↗

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Forward citations

Cited by 1 Pith paper

Reviewed papers in the Pith corpus that reference this work. Sorted by Pith novelty score. Full citation record

  1. Towards Trustworthy Embodied Intelligence: A Systems Framework and Graded Trustworthiness Levels

    cs.RO 2026-07 conditional novelty 5.0 of 10

    A four-layer systems framework and T0–T5 hierarchy for grading and maintaining bounded trustworthiness claims in embodied AI systems.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

109 extracted references · 40 canonical work pages · cited by 1 Pith paper

  1. [1]

    Do as i can and not as i say: Grounding language in robotic affordances

    Michael Ahn, Anthony Brohan, Noah Brown, Yevgen Chebotar, Omar Cortes, Byron David, Chelsea Finn, Chuyuan Fu, Keerthana Gopalakrishnan, Karol Hausman, Alex Herzog, Daniel Ho, Jasmine Hsu, Julian Ibarz, Brian Ichter, Alex Irpan, Eric Jang, Rosario Jauregui Ruano, Kyle Jeffrey, Sally Jesmonth, Nikhil Joshi, Ryan Julian, Dmitry Kalashnikov, Yuheng Kuang, Kua...

    arXiv 2022

  2. [2]

    Constrained Markov Decision Processes , volume 7

    Eitan Altman. Constrained Markov Decision Processes , volume 7. CRC Press, 1999

    1999

  3. [3]

    Invariant risk minimization

    Martin Arjovsky, Léon Bottou, Ishaan Gulrajani, and David Lopez-Paz. Invariant risk minimization. arXiv eprint 1907.02893 , 2020

    arXiv 1907

  4. [4]

    Vivit: A video vision transformer

    Anurag Arnab, Mostafa Dehghani, Georg Heigold, Chen Sun, Mario Lu c i \'c , and Cordelia Schmid. Vivit: A video vision transformer. In ICCV , pages 6836--6846, 2021

    2021

  5. [5]

    wav2vec 2.0: A framework for self-supervised learning of speech representations

    Alexei Baevski, Yuhao Zhou, Abdelrahman Mohamed, and Michael Auli. wav2vec 2.0: A framework for self-supervised learning of speech representations. In NeurIPS , volume 33, pages 12449--12460, 2020

    2020

  6. [6]

    Robust model predictive control: a survey

    Alberto Bemporad and Manfred Morari. Robust model predictive control: a survey. In Robustness in Identification and Control , pages 207--226. Springer, 2007

    2007

  7. [7]

    Robust solutions of optimization problems affected by uncertain probabilities

    Aharon Ben-Tal, Dick den Hertog, Anja De Waegenaere, Bertrand Melenberg, and Gijs Rennen. Robust solutions of optimization problems affected by uncertain probabilities. Management Science , 2012

    2012

  8. [8]

    Neuromorphic principles for large-scale robot skin , pages 91--123

    Florian Bergner, Emmanuel Dean-Leon, and Gordon Cheng. Neuromorphic principles for large-scale robot skin , pages 91--123. Institution of Engineering and Technology, January 2022

    2022

Show all 109 references
  1. [9]

    _0 : A vision-language-action flow model for general robot control

    Kevin Black, Noah Brown, Danny Driess, Adnan Esmail, Michael Equi, Chelsea Finn, Niccolo Fusai, Lachy Groom, Karol Hausman, Brian Ichter, et al. _0 : A vision-language-action flow model for general robot control. arXiv preprint arXiv:2410.24164 , 2024

    arXiv

  2. [10]

    Customized series elastic actuator for a safe and compliant human-robot interaction: Design and characterization

    Giulia Bodo, Federico Tessari, Stefano Buccelli, Luca De Guglielmo, Gianluca Capitta, Matteo Laffranchi, and Lorenzo De Michieli. Customized series elastic actuator for a safe and compliant human-robot interaction: Design and characterization. In 2023 International Conference ...

    2023

  3. [11]

    One policy to run them all: an end-to-end learning approach to multi-embodiment locomotion

    Nico Bohlinger, Grzegorz Czechmanowski, Maciej Krupka, Piotr Kicki, Krzysztof Walas, Jan Peters, and Davide Tateo. One policy to run them all: an end-to-end learning approach to multi-embodiment locomotion. arXiv preprint arXiv:2409.06366 , 2024

    2024

  4. [12]

    On the opportunities and risks of foundation models

    Rishi Bommasani, Drew A Hudson, Ehsan Adeli, Russ Altman, Simran Arora, Sydney von Arx, Michael S Bernstein, Jeannette Bohg, Antoine Bosselut, Emma Brunskill, et al. On the opportunities and risks of foundation models. arXiv preprint arXiv:2108.07258 , 2021

    2021 arXiv

  5. [13]

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

    Anthony Brohan, Noah Brown, Justice Carbajal, Yevgen Chebotar, Joseph Dabis, Chelsea Finn, Keerthana Gopalakrishnan, Karol Hausman, Alex Herzog, Jasmine Hsu, et al. Rt-1: Robotics transformer for real-world control at scale. arXiv preprint arXiv:2212.06817 , 2022

    2022 arXiv

  6. [14]

    Combined task and motion planning for a dual-arm robot to use a suction cup tool

    Hao Chen, Weiwei Wan, and Kensuke Harada. Combined task and motion planning for a dual-arm robot to use a suction cup tool. In Humanoids , pages 446--452. IEEE, 2019

    2019

  7. [15]

    Automating robot failure recovery using vision-language models with optimized prompts, 2024

    Hongyi Chen, Yunchao Yao, Ruixuan Liu, Changliu Liu, and Jeffrey Ichnowski. Automating robot failure recovery using vision-language models with optimized prompts, 2024

    2024

  8. [16]

    Diffusion policy attacker: Crafting adversarial attacks for diffusion-based policies

    Yipu Chen, Haotian Xue, and Yongxin Chen. Diffusion policy attacker: Crafting adversarial attacks for diffusion-based policies. arXiv preprint arXiv:2405.19424 , 2024

    2024 arXiv

  9. [17]

    Manipulation facing threats: Evaluating physical vulnerabilities in end-to-end vision language action models

    Hao Cheng, Erjia Xiao, Chengyuan Yu, Zhao Yao, Jiahang Cao, Qiang Zhang, Jiaxu Wang, Mengshu Sun, Kaidi Xu, Jindong Gu, et al. Manipulation facing threats: Evaluating physical vulnerabilities in end-to-end vision language action models. arXiv preprint arXiv:2409.13174 , 2024

    2024

  10. [18]

    How deep learning sees the world: A survey on adversarial attacks & defenses

    Joana C Costa, Tiago Roxo, Hugo Proen c a, and Pedro RM In \'a cio. How deep learning sees the world: A survey on adversarial attacks & defenses. IEEE Access , 2024

    2024

  11. [19]

    The current state and future outlook of rescue robotics

    Jeffrey Delmerico, Stefano Mintchev, Alessandro Giusti, Boris Gromov, Kamilo Melo, Tomislav Horvat, Cesar Cadena, Marco Hutter, Auke Ijspeert, Dario Floreano, et al. The current state and future outlook of rescue robotics. Journal of Field Robotics , 36(7):1171--1191, 2019

    2019

  12. [20]

    BERT : Pre-training of deep bidirectional transformers for language understanding

    Jacob Devlin, Ming-Wei Chang, Kenton Lee, and Kristina Toutanova. BERT : Pre-training of deep bidirectional transformers for language understanding. In NAACL-HLT , pages 4171--4186, 2019

    2019

  13. [21]

    An image is worth 16x16 words: Transformers for image recognition at scale

    Alexey Dosovitskiy, Lucas Beyer, Alexander Kolesnikov, Dirk Weissenborn, Xiaohua Zhai, Thomas Unterthiner, Mostafa Dehghani, Matthias Minderer, Georg Heigold, Sylvain Gelly, Jakob Uszkoreit, and Neil Houlsby. An image is worth 16x16 words: Transformers for image recognition at...

    2021

  14. [22]

    Analysis of feedback systems with structured uncertainties

    John Doyle. Analysis of feedback systems with structured uncertainties. In IEE Proceedings D-Control Theory and Applications , 1982

    1982

  15. [23]

    Learning models with uniform performance via distributionally robust optimization

    John Duchi and Hongseok Namkoong. Learning models with uniform performance via distributionally robust optimization. arXiv eprint 1810.08750 , 2020

    2020 arXiv

  16. [24]

    Towards the safety of human-in-the-loop robotics: Challenges and opportunities for safety assurance of robotic co-workers'

    Kerstin Eder, Chris Harper, and Ute Leonards. Towards the safety of human-in-the-loop robotics: Challenges and opportunities for safety assurance of robotic co-workers'. In RO-MAN , pages 660--665. IEEE, 2014

    2014

  17. [25]

    Video prediction models as rewards for reinforcement learning

    Alejandro Escontrela, Ademi Adeniji, Wilson Yan, Ajay Jain, Xue Bin Peng, Ken Goldberg, Youngwoon Lee, Danijar Hafner, and Pieter Abbeel. Video prediction models as rewards for reinforcement learning. NeurIPS , 2023

    2023

  18. [26]

    Leave no trace: Learning to reset for safe and autonomous reinforcement learning

    Benjamin Eysenbach, Shixiang Gu, Julian Ibarz, and Sergey Levine. Leave no trace: Learning to reset for safe and autonomous reinforcement learning. In ICLR , 2018

    2018

  19. [27]

    Rh20t: A robotic dataset for learning diverse skills in one-shot

    Hao-Shu Fang, Hongjie Fang, Zhenyu Tang, Jirong Liu, Junbo Wang, Haoyi Zhu, and Cewu Lu. Rh20t: A robotic dataset for learning diverse skills in one-shot. In RSS 2023 Workshop on Learning for Task and Motion Planning , 2023

    2023

  20. [28]

    Safety and efficiency in robotics: The control barrier functions approach

    Federica Ferraguti, Chiara Talignani Landi, Andrew Singletary, Hsien-Chung Lin, Aaron Ames, Cristian Secchi, and Marcello Bonf \`e . Safety and efficiency in robotics: The control barrier functions approach. IEEE Robotics & Automation Magazine , pages 139--151, 2022

    2022

  21. [29]

    Foundation models in robotics: Applications, challenges, and the future

    Roya Firoozi, Johnathan Tucker, Stephen Tian, Anirudha Majumdar, Jiankai Sun, Weiyu Liu, Yuke Zhu, Shuran Song, Ashish Kapoor, Karol Hausman, et al. Foundation models in robotics: Applications, challenges, and the future. IJRR , page 02783649241281508, 2023

    2023

  22. [30]

    Large language models to the rescue: Deadlock resolution in multi-robot systems

    Kunal Garg, Jacob Arkin, Songyuan Zhang, Nicholas Roy, and Chuchu Fan. Large language models to the rescue: Deadlock resolution in multi-robot systems. arXiv preprint arXiv:2404.06413 , 2024

    2024 arXiv

  23. [31]

    Conditional neural processes

    Marta Garnelo, Dan Rosenbaum, Christopher Maddison, Tiago Ramalho, David Saxton, Murray Shanahan, Yee Whye Teh, Danilo Rezende, and SM Ali Eslami. Conditional neural processes. In ICML , pages 1704--1713. PMLR, 2018

    2018

  24. [32]

    Neural processes

    Marta Garnelo, Jonathan Schwarz, Dan Rosenbaum, Fabio Viola, Danilo J Rezende, SM Eslami, and Yee Whye Teh. Neural processes. arXiv preprint arXiv:1807.01622 , 2018

    2018 arXiv

  25. [33]

    Genesis: A universal and generative physics engine for robotics and beyond, December 2024

    Genesis-Authors. Genesis: A universal and generative physics engine for robotics and beyond, December 2024

    2024

  26. [34]

    Safety-critical advanced robots: A survey

    Jérémie Guiochet, Mathilde Machin, and Hélène Waeselynck. Safety-critical advanced robots: A survey. Robotics and Autonomous Systems , 94:43--52, 2017

    2017

  27. [35]

    Umi on legs: Making manipulation policies mobile with manipulation-centric whole-body controllers

    Huy Ha, Yihuai Gao, Zipeng Fu, Jie Tan, and Shuran Song. Umi on legs: Making manipulation policies mobile with manipulation-centric whole-body controllers. arXiv preprint arXiv:2407.10353 , 2024

    2024 arXiv

  28. [36]

    Safety evaluation of physical human-robot interaction via crash-testing

    Sami Haddadin, Alin Albu-Sch \"a ffer, and Gerd Hirzinger. Safety evaluation of physical human-robot interaction via crash-testing. In Robotics: Science and systems , pages 217--224, 2007

    2007

  29. [37]

    Collision detection and reaction: A contribution to safe physical human-robot interaction

    Sami Haddadin, Alin Albu-Schaffer, Alessandro De Luca, and Gerd Hirzinger. Collision detection and reaction: A contribution to safe physical human-robot interaction. In IROS , pages 3356--3363. IEEE, 2008

    2008

  30. [38]

    Hierarchical policy blending as inference for reactive robot control

    Kay Hansel, Julen Urain, Jan Peters, and Georgia Chalvatzaki. Hierarchical policy blending as inference for reactive robot control. In ICRA , pages 10181--10188, 2023

    2023

  31. [39]

    Autonomous delivery robots: A literature review

    Mokter Hossain. Autonomous delivery robots: A literature review. IEEE Engineering Management Review , 51(4):77--89, 2023

    2023

  32. [40]

    Toward general-purpose robots via foundation models: A survey and meta-analysis

    Yafei Hu, Quanting Xie, Vidhi Jain, Jonathan Francis, Jay Patrikar, Nikhil Keetha, Seungchan Kim, Yaqi Xie, Tianyi Zhang, Hao-Shu Fang, et al. Toward general-purpose robots via foundation models: A survey and meta-analysis. arXiv preprint arXiv:2312.08782 , 2023

    2023 arXiv

  33. [41]

    Diffusion reward: Learning rewards via conditional video diffusion

    Tao Huang, Guangqi Jiang, Yanjie Ze, and Huazhe Xu. Diffusion reward: Learning rewards via conditional video diffusion. In ECCV , pages 478--495. Springer, 2024

    2024

  34. [42]

    Huck, Martin Kaiser, Constantin Cronrath, Bengt Lennartson, Torsten Kröger, and Tamim Asfour

    Tom P. Huck, Martin Kaiser, Constantin Cronrath, Bengt Lennartson, Torsten Kröger, and Tamim Asfour. Reinforcement learning for safety testing: Lessons from a mobile robot case study, 2023

    2023

  35. [43]

    Exploring backdoor attacks against large language model-based decision making

    Ruochen Jiao, Shaoyuan Xie, Justin Yue, Takami Sato, Lixu Wang, Yixuan Wang, Qi Alfred Chen, and Qi Zhu. Exploring backdoor attacks against large language model-based decision making. arXiv preprint arXiv:2405.20774 , 2024

    2024 arXiv

  36. [44]

    Recognition of heat-induced food state changes by time-series use of vision-language model for cooking robot

    Naoaki Kanazawa, Kento Kawaharazuka, Yoshiki Obinata, Kei Okada, and Masayuki Inaba. Recognition of heat-induced food state changes by time-series use of vision-language model for cooking robot. In ICoIAS , 2023

    2023

  37. [45]

    Emerging trends in realistic robotic simulations: A comprehensive systematic literature review

    Seyed Mohamad Kargar, Borislav Yordanov, Carlo Harvey, and Ali Asadipour. Emerging trends in realistic robotic simulations: A comprehensive systematic literature review. IEEE Access , 12:191264--191287, 2024

    2024

  38. [46]

    Embodied red teaming for auditing robotic foundation models

    Sathwik Karnik, Zhang-Wei Hong, Nishant Abhangi, Yen-Chen Lin, Tsun-Hsuan Wang, and Pulkit Agrawal. Embodied red teaming for auditing robotic foundation models. arXiv preprint arXiv:2411.18676 , 2024

    2024 arXiv

  39. [47]

    Gen2sim: Scaling up robot learning in simulation with generative models

    Pushkal Katara, Zhou Xian, and Katerina Fragkiadaki. Gen2sim: Scaling up robot learning in simulation with generative models. In ICRA , pages 6672--6679. IEEE, 2024

    2024

  40. [48]

    Droid: A large-scale in-the-wild robot manipulation dataset

    Alexander Khazatsky, Karl Pertsch, Suraj Nair, Ashwin Balakrishna, Sudeep Dasari, Siddharth Karamcheti, Soroush Nasiriany, Mohan Kumar Srirama, Lawrence Yunliang Chen, Kirsty Ellis, et al. Droid: A large-scale in-the-wild robot manipulation dataset. arXiv preprint arXiv:2403.1...

    2024 arXiv

  41. [49]

    Sample-efficient and safe deep reinforcement learning via reset deep ensemble agents

    Woojun Kim, Yongjae Shin, Jongeui Park, and Youngchul Sung. Sample-efficient and safe deep reinforcement learning via reset deep ensemble agents. NeurIPS , 36, 2024

    2024

  42. [50]

    Auto-encoding variational bayes

    Diederik P Kingma. Auto-encoding variational bayes. arXiv preprint arXiv:1312.6114 , 2013

    2013 arXiv

  43. [51]

    Near-Optimal Policy Identification in Robust Constrained Markov Decision Processes via Epigraph Form

    Toshinori Kitamura, Tadashi Kozuno, Wataru Kumagai, Kenta Hoshino, Yohei Hosoe, Kazumi Kasaura, Masashi Hamaya, Paavo Parmas, and Yutaka Matsuo. Near-Optimal Policy Identification in Robust Constrained Markov Decision Processes via Epigraph Form . In ICLR , 2025

    2025

  44. [52]

    Ai2-thor: An interactive 3d environment for visual ai

    Eric Kolve, Roozbeh Mottaghi, Winson Han, Eli VanderBilt, Luca Weihs, Alvaro Herrasti, Matt Deitke, Kiana Ehsani, Daniel Gordon, Yuke Zhu, et al. Ai2-thor: An interactive 3d environment for visual ai. arXiv preprint arXiv:1712.05474 , 2017

    2017 arXiv

  45. [53]

    La Valle

    Steven M. La Valle. Motion planning. IEEE Robotics & Automation Magazine , 18(2):108--118, 2011

    2011

  46. [54]

    Spring-clutch: A safe torque limiter based on a spring and cam mechanism with the ability to reinitialize its position

    Woosub Lee, Junho Choi, and Sungchul Kang. Spring-clutch: A safe torque limiter based on a spring and cam mechanism with the ability to reinitialize its position. In IROS , pages 5140--5145, 2009

    2009

  47. [55]

    Robot-assisted pedestrian evacuation in fire scenarios based on deep reinforcement learning

    Chuan-Yao Li, Fan Zhang, and Liang Chen. Robot-assisted pedestrian evacuation in fire scenarios based on deep reinforcement learning. Chinese Journal of Physics , 92:494--531, 2024

    2024

  48. [56]

    Code as policies: Language model programs for embodied control

    Jacky Liang, Wenlong Huang, Fei Xia, Peng Xu, Karol Hausman, Brian Ichter, Pete Florence, and Andy Zeng. Code as policies: Language model programs for embodied control. In ICRA , pages 9493--9500. IEEE, 2023

    2023

  49. [57]

    Against the achilles’ heel: A survey on red teaming for generative models

    Lizhi Lin, Honglin Mu, Zenan Zhai, Minghan Wang, Yuxia Wang, Renxi Wang, Junjie Gao, Yixuan Zhang, Wanxiang Che, Timothy Baldwin, et al. Against the achilles’ heel: A survey on red teaming for generative models. corr abs/2404.00629 (2024), 2024

    2024 arXiv

  50. [58]

    Robot learning on the job: Human-in-the-loop autonomy and learning during deployment

    Huihan Liu, Soroush Nasiriany, Lance Zhang, Zhiyao Bao, and Yuke Zhu. Robot learning on the job: Human-in-the-loop autonomy and learning during deployment. In Robotics: Science and Systems (RSS) , 2023

    2023

  51. [59]

    Compromising embodied agents with contextual backdoor attacks

    Aishan Liu, Yuguang Zhou, Xianglong Liu, Tianyuan Zhang, Siyuan Liang, Jiakai Wang, Yanjun Pu, Tianlin Li, Junqi Zhang, Wenbo Zhou, et al. Compromising embodied agents with contextual backdoor attacks. arXiv preprint arXiv:2408.02882 , 2024

    2024 arXiv

  52. [60]

    Enhancing the llm-based robot manipulation through human-robot collaboration

    Haokun Liu, Yaonan Zhu, Kenji Kato, Atsushi Tsukahara, Izumi Kondo, Tadayoshi Aoyama, and Yasuhisa Hasegawa. Enhancing the llm-based robot manipulation through human-robot collaboration. RA-L , 9(8):6904--6911, 2024

    2024

  53. [61]

    Model-based runtime monitoring with interactive imitation learning

    Huihan Liu, Shivin Dass, Roberto Martín-Martín, and Yuke Zhu. Model-based runtime monitoring with interactive imitation learning. In ICRA , 2024

    2024

  54. [62]

    Multi-task interactive robot fleet learning with visual world models, 2024

    Huihan Liu, Yu Zhang, Vaarij Betala, Evan Zhang, James Liu, Crystal Ding, and Yuke Zhu. Multi-task interactive robot fleet learning with visual world models, 2024

    2024

  55. [63]

    Poex: Policy executable embodied ai jailbreak attacks

    Xuancun Lu, Zhengxian Huang, Xinfeng Li, Wenyuan Xu, et al. Poex: Policy executable embodied ai jailbreak attacks. arXiv preprint arXiv:2412.16633 , 2024

    2024 arXiv

  56. [64]

    Precise and dexterous robotic manipulation via human-in-the-loop reinforcement learning, 2024

    Jianlan Luo, Charles Xu, Jeffrey Wu, and Sergey Levine. Precise and dexterous robotic manipulation via human-in-the-loop reinforcement learning, 2024

    2024

  57. [65]

    Learning ambidextrous robot grasping policies

    Jeffrey Mahler, Matthew Matl, Vishal Satish, Michael Danielczuk, Bill DeRose, Stephen McKinley, and Ken Goldberg. Learning ambidextrous robot grasping policies. Science Robotics , 4(26):eaau4984, 2019

    2019

  58. [66]

    Roboturk: A crowdsourcing platform for robotic skill learning through imitation

    Ajay Mandlekar, Yuke Zhu, Animesh Garg, Jonathan Booher, Max Spero, Albert Tung, Julian Gao, John Emmons, Anchit Gupta, Emre Orbay, et al. Roboturk: A crowdsourcing platform for robotic skill learning through imitation. In CoRL , pages 879--893. PMLR, 2018

    2018

  59. [67]

    Robust Constrained Reinforcement Learning for Continuous Control with Model Misspecification

    Daniel J Mankowitz, Dan A Calian, Rae Jeong, Cosmin Paduraru, Nicolas Heess, Sumanth Dathathri, Martin Riedmiller, and Timothy Mann. Robust Constrained Reinforcement Learning for Continuous Control with Model Misspecification . arXiv preprint arXiv:2010.10644 , 2020

    2010 arXiv

  60. [68]

    Deployment-efficient reinforcement learning via model-based offline optimization

    Tatsuya Matsushima, Hiroki Furuta, Yutaka Matsuo, Ofir Nachum, and Shixiang Gu. Deployment-efficient reinforcement learning via model-based offline optimization. arXiv preprint arXiv:2006.03647 , 2020

    2006 arXiv

  61. [69]

    Modeling task uncertainty for safe meta-imitation learning

    Tatsuya Matsushima, Naruya Kondo, Yusuke Iwasawa, Kaoru Nasuno, and Yutaka Matsuo. Modeling task uncertainty for safe meta-imitation learning. Frontiers in Robotics and AI , 7:606361, 2020

    2020

  62. [70]

    Example application of iso/ts 15066 to a collaborative assembly scenario

    Bj \"o rn Matthias and Thomas Reisinger. Example application of iso/ts 15066 to a collaborative assembly scenario. In Proceedings of ISR 2016: 47st international symposium on robotics , pages 1--5. VDE, 2016

    2016

  63. [71]

    Orbit: A unified simulation framework for interactive robot learning environments

    Mayank Mittal, Calvin Yu, Qinxi Yu, Jingzhou Liu, Nikita Rudin, David Hoeller, Jia Lin Yuan, Ritvik Singh, Yunrong Guo, Hammad Mazhar, Ajay Mandlekar, Buck Babich, Gavriel State, Marco Hutter, and Animesh Garg. Orbit: A unified simulation framework for interactive robot learni...

    2023

  64. [72]

    Robust Reinforcement Learning: A Review of Foundations and Recent Advances

    Janosch Moos, Kay Hansel, Hany Abdulsamad, Svenja Stark, Debora Clever, and Jan Peters. Robust Reinforcement Learning: A Review of Foundations and Recent Advances . Machine Learning and Knowledge Extraction , 4(1):276--315, 2022

    2022

  65. [73]

    Integrating reinforcement learning with foundation models for autonomous robotics: Methods and perspectives

    Angelo Moroncelli, Vishal Soni, Asad Ali Shahid, Marco Maccarini, Marco Forgione, Dario Piga, Blerina Spahiu, and Loris Roveda. Integrating reinforcement learning with foundation models for autonomous robotics: Methods and perspectives. arXiv preprint arXiv:2410.16411 , 2024

  66. [74]

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

    Abby O'Neill, Abdul Rehman, Abhinav Gupta, Abhiram Maddukuri, Abhishek Gupta, Abhishek Padalkar, Abraham Lee, Acorn Pooley, Agrim Gupta, Ajay Mandlekar, et al. Open x-embodiment: Robotic learning datasets and rt-x models. arXiv preprint arXiv:2310.08864 , 2023

    arXiv

  67. [75]

    T4p: Test-time training of trajectory prediction via masked autoencoder and actor-specific token memory

    Daehee Park, Jaeseok Jeong, Sung-Hoon Yoon, Jaewoo Jeong, and Kuk-Jin Yoon. T4p: Test-time training of trajectory prediction via masked autoencoder and actor-specific token memory. arXiv 2403.10052 , 2024

    2024 arXiv

  68. [76]

    Causality

    Judea Pearl. Causality . Cambridge University Press, 2009

    2009

  69. [77]

    Causal inference using invariant prediction: identification and confidence intervals

    Jonas Peters, Peter Bühlmann, and Nicolai Meinshausen. Causal inference using invariant prediction: identification and confidence intervals. arXiv eprint 1501.01332 , 2015

    2015 arXiv

  70. [78]

    Tta-nav: Test-time adaptive reconstruction for point-goal navigation under visual corruptions

    Maytus Piriyajitakonkij, Mingfei Sun, Mengmi Zhang, and Wei Pan. Tta-nav: Test-time adaptive reconstruction for point-goal navigation under visual corruptions. arXiv 2403.01977 , 2024

    2024 arXiv

  71. [79]

    Habitat 3.0: A co-habitat for humans, avatars and robots

    Xavier Puig, Eric Undersander, Andrew Szot, Mikael Dallaire Cote, Tsung-Yen Yang, Ruslan Partsey, Ruta Desai, Alexander William Clegg, Michal Hlavac, So Yeon Min, et al. Habitat 3.0: A co-habitat for humans, avatars and robots. arXiv preprint arXiv:2310.13724 , 2023

    arXiv

  72. [80]

    Eric Rohmer, Surya P. N. Singh, and Marc Freese. V-rep: A versatile and scalable robot simulation framework. In IROS , pages 1321--1326, 2013

    2013

  73. [81]

    Robust Constrained-MDPs: Soft-Constrained Robust Policy Optimization under Model Uncertainty

    Reazul Hasan Russel, Mouhacine Benosman, and Jeroen Van Baar. Robust Constrained-MDPs: Soft-Constrained Robust Policy Optimization under Model Uncertainty . arXiv preprint arXiv:2010.04870 , 2020

    2010 arXiv

  74. [82]

    Dynamic movement primitives in robotics: A tutorial survey

    Matteo Saveriano, Fares J Abu-Dakka, Alja z Kramberger, and Luka Peternel. Dynamic movement primitives in robotics: A tutorial survey. IJRR , 42(13):1133--1184, 2023

    2023

  75. [83]

    General-purpose foundation models for increased autonomy in robot-assisted surgery

    Samuel Schmidgall, Ji Woong Kim, Alan Kuntz, Ahmed Ezzat Ghazi, and Axel Krieger. General-purpose foundation models for increased autonomy in robot-assisted surgery. Nature Machine Intelligence , pages 1--9, 2024

    2024

  76. [84]

    Gnm: A general navigation model to drive any robot

    Dhruv Shah, Ajay Sridhar, Arjun Bhorkar, Noriaki Hirose, and Sergey Levine. Gnm: A general navigation model to drive any robot. In ICRA , pages 7226--7233, 2023

    2023

  77. [85]

    Self-recovery prompting: Promptable general purpose service robot system with foundation models and self-recovery

    Mimo Shirasaka, Tatsuya Matsushima, Soshi Tsunashima, Yuya Ikeda, Aoi Horo, So Ikoma, Chikaha Tsuji, Hikaru Wada, Tsunekazu Omija, Dai Komukai, et al. Self-recovery prompting: Promptable general purpose service robot system with foundation models and self-recovery. In ICRA , p...

    2024

  78. [86]

    Variable grounding flexible limb tracking center of gravity for sit-to-stand transfer assistance

    Sojiro Sugiura, Jayant Unde, Yaonan Zhu, and Yasuhisa Hasegawa. Variable grounding flexible limb tracking center of gravity for sit-to-stand transfer assistance. RA-L , 9(1):175--182, 2024

    2024

  79. [87]

    Practical tracking control of linear motor via fractional-order sliding mode

    Guanghui Sun, Ligang Wu, Zhian Kuang, Zhiqiang Ma, and Jianxing Liu. Practical tracking control of linear motor via fractional-order sliding mode. Automatica , 94:221--235, 2018

    2018

  80. [88]

    Efros, and Morit Hardt

    Yu Sun, Xiaolong Wang, Zhuang Liu, John Miller, Alexei A. Efros, and Morit Hardt. Test-time training with self-supervision for generalization under distribution shifts. arXiv 1909.13231 , 2020

    1909 arXiv

  81. [89]

    Factorsim: Generative simulation via factorized representation

    Fan-Yun Sun, SI Harini, Angela Yi, Yihan Zhou, Alex Zook, Jonathan Tremblay, Logan Cross, Jiajun Wu, and Nick Haber. Factorsim: Generative simulation via factorized representation. In NeurIPS , 2024

    2024

  82. [90]

    A safety-focused admittance control approach for physical human–robot interaction with rigid multi-arm serial link exoskeletons

    Jianwei Sun, Erik Harrison Kramer, and Jacob Rosen. A safety-focused admittance control approach for physical human–robot interaction with rigid multi-arm serial link exoskeletons. IEEE/ASME Transactions on Mechatronics , pages 1--12, 2024

    2024

  83. [91]

    Reinforcement learning: An introduction

    Richard S Sutton and Andrew G Barto. Reinforcement learning: An introduction . MIT press, 2018

    2018

  84. [92]

    Truby, Robert K

    Ryan L. Truby, Robert K. Katzschmann, Jennifer A. Lewis, and Daniela Rus. Soft robotic fingers with embedded ionogel sensors and discrete actuation modes for somatosensitive manipulation. In RoboSoft , pages 322--329, 2019

    2019

  85. [93]

    Tent: Fully test-time adaptation by entropy minimization

    Dequan Wang, Evan Shelhamer, Shaoteng Liu, Bruno Olshausen, and Trevor Darrell. Tent: Fully test-time adaptation by entropy minimization. arXiv 2006.10726 , 2021

    2006 arXiv

  86. [94]

    Trojanrobot: Physical-world backdoor attacks against vlm-based robotic manipulation

    Xianlong Wang, Hewen Pan, Hangtao Zhang, Minghui Li, Shengshan Hu, Ziqi Zhou, Lulu Xue, Peijin Guo, Yichen Wang, Wei Wan, et al. Trojanrobot: Physical-world backdoor attacks against vlm-based robotic manipulation. arXiv preprint arXiv:2411.11683 , 2024

    2024

  87. [95]

    Robot learning in the era of foundation models: A survey

    Xuan Xiao, Jiahang Liu, Zhipeng Wang, Yanmin Zhou, Yong Qi, Qian Cheng, Bin He, and Shuo Jiang. Robot learning in the era of foundation models: A survey. arXiv preprint arXiv:2311.14379 , 2023

    2023 arXiv

  88. [96]

    Development of human support robot as the research platform of a domestic mobile manipulator

    Takashi Yamamoto, Koji Terada, Akiyoshi Ochiai, Fuminori Saito, Yoshiaki Asahara, and Kazuto Murase. Development of human support robot as the research platform of a domestic mobile manipulator. ROBOMECH journal , 6(1):1--15, 2019

    2019

  89. [97]

    Part to whole: Collaborative prompting for surgical instrument segmentation

    Wenxi Yue, Jing Zhang, Kun Hu, Qiuxia Wu, Zongyuan Ge, Yong Xia, Jiebo Luo, and Zhiyong Wang. Part to whole: Collaborative prompting for surgical instrument segmentation. arXiv preprint arXiv:2312.14481 , 2023

    2023 arXiv

  90. [98]

    Safety bounds in human robot interaction: A survey

    Angeliki Zacharaki, Ioannis Kostavelis, Antonios Gasteratos, and Ioannis Dokas. Safety bounds in human robot interaction: A survey. Safety Science , 127:104667, 2020

    2020

  91. [99]

    Feedback and optimal sensitivity: Model reference transformations, multiplicative seminorms, and approximate inverses

    George Zames. Feedback and optimal sensitivity: Model reference transformations, multiplicative seminorms, and approximate inverses. IEEE Transactions on Automatic Control , 26(2):301--320, 1981

    1981

  92. [100]

    Robotic control via embodied chain-of-thought reasoning

    Micha Zawalski, William Chen, Karl Pertsch, Oier Mees, Chelsea Finn, and Sergey Levine. Robotic control via embodied chain-of-thought reasoning. arXiv preprint arXiv:2407.08693 , 2024

    2024 arXiv

  93. [101]

    Learning agile locomotion on risky terrains

    Chong Zhang, Nikita Rudin, David Hoeller, and Marco Hutter. Learning agile locomotion on risky terrains. In IROS , pages 11864--11871. IEEE, 2024

    2024

  94. [102]

    Sim-to-real transfer in deep reinforcement learning for robotics: a survey

    Wenshuai Zhao, Jorge Pe \ n a Queralta, and Tomi Westerlund. Sim-to-real transfer in deep reinforcement learning for robotics: a survey. In SSCI , pages 737--744. IEEE, 2020

    2020

  95. [103]

    Transferable tactile transformers for representation learning across diverse sensors and tasks

    Jialiang Zhao, Yuxiang Ma, Lirui Wang, and Edward H Adelson. Transferable tactile transformers for representation learning across diverse sensors and tasks. arXiv preprint arXiv:2406.13640 , 2024

    2024 arXiv

  96. [104]

    Rethinking the intermediate features in adversarial attacks: Misleading robotic models via adversarial distillation

    Ke Zhao, Huayang Huang, Miao Li, and Yu Wu. Rethinking the intermediate features in adversarial attacks: Misleading robotic models via adversarial distillation. arXiv preprint arXiv:2411.15222 , 2024

    2024 arXiv

  97. [105]

    Code-as-monitor: Constraint-aware visual programming for reactive and proactive robotic failure detection

    Enshen Zhou, Qi Su, Cheng Chi, Zhizheng Zhang, Zhongyuan Wang, Tiejun Huang, Lu Sheng, and He Wang. Code-as-monitor: Constraint-aware visual programming for reactive and proactive robotic failure detection. arXiv preprint arXiv:2412.04455 , 2024

    2024 arXiv

  98. [106]

    Towards building ai-cps with nvidia isaac sim: An industrial benchmark and case study for robotics manipulation

    Zhehua Zhou, Jiayang Song, Xuan Xie, Zhan Shu, Lei Ma, Dikai Liu, Jianxiong Yin, and Simon See. Towards building ai-cps with nvidia isaac sim: An industrial benchmark and case study for robotics manipulation. In ICSE-SEIP , page 263–274, 2024

    2024

  99. [107]

    Development of sense of self-location based on somatosensory feedback from finger tips for extra robotic thumb control

    Yaonan Zhu, Takayuki Ito, Tadayoshi Aoyama, and Yasuhisa Hasegawa. Development of sense of self-location based on somatosensory feedback from finger tips for extra robotic thumb control. Robomech Journal , 6:1--10, 2019

    2019

  100. [108]

    Cutaneous feedback interface for teleoperated in-hand manipulation

    Yaonan Zhu, Jacinto Colan, Tadayoshi Aoyama, and Yasuhisa Hasegawa. Cutaneous feedback interface for teleoperated in-hand manipulation. In IROS , pages 605--611, 2022

    2022

  101. [109]

    write newline

    " write newline "" before.all 'output.state := FUNCTION fin.entry add.period write newline FUNCTION new.block output.state before.all = 'skip after.block 'output.state := if FUNCTION new.sentence output.state after.block = 'skip output.state before.all = 'skip after.sentence '...

Pith tools

Reviewed August 15, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.