Pith. sign in

REVIEW 4 major objections 6 minor 49 references

OPA-Pack: Object-Property-Aware Robotic Bin Packing

T0 review · 4 major / 6 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 OPA-Pack is the first object-property-aware robotic bin packing framework, raising incompatible-pair avoidance from 52% to 95% and cutting pressure on fragile objects by 29.4% while keeping compactness roughly unchanged.

desk verdict First property-aware bin packing system with real-robot validation, but the headline safety gains are tied to the same ChatGPT-4 labels that drive the training rewards. read the letter →

arxiv 2505.13339 v1 pith:ZDBPJ6GH submitted 2025-05-19 cs.RO cs.AI

Jia-Hui Pan , Yeok Tatt Cheah , Zhengzhe Liu , Ka-Hei Hui , Xiaojie Gao , Pheng-Ann Heng , Yun-Hui Liu , Chi-Wing Fu This is my paper · ORCID
classification cs.ROcs.AI
keywords roboticbinpackingobjectpropertyawarenessdeepQ-learningretrieval-augmentedgenerationchain-of-thoughtreasoningfragileprotectionsafetyeverydaydataset
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

OPA-Pack sets out to prove that robotic bin packing should follow the same object-property rules humans use—keeping heavy objects off fragile ones and separating food, medicine, chemicals, and ignition sources—rather than optimizing geometry alone. The paper claims that a reinforcement-learning packing policy can take these preferences into account if it is given object properties as input and trained with a reward that penalizes crushing fragile items and placing incompatible pairs close together. Using a vision-language model with retrieval-augmented generation and chain-of-thought reasoning to label 1,032 everyday objects, the method reports raising avoidance accuracy from 52% to 95% and reducing pressure on fragile objects by 29.4% while matching the compactness of a geometry-only baseline. If the claims hold, automated packing in e-commerce and warehouses could become safer without sacrificing space efficiency.

What carries the argument

The central machinery is the OPA-Net packing policy built on dueling deep Q-learning. It has four encoders: a point-cloud shape encoder, a pose encoder, a property-embedding layer, and convolutional encoders over three container heightmaps—occupancy, fragility, and avoidance. The fragility heightmap records where fragile objects already sit so the placement predictor keeps heavy items off them; the avoidance heightmap is rendered per candidate object to mark locations close to that object's incompatible pairs. The property-embedding layer is what lets the network tell a steel hammer from a wax candle at decision time. Training is driven by the OPA reward, a weighted sum of compactness, a fragility penalty proportional to the number of fragile objects covered times the object's estimated weight, and a binary avoidance penalty.

What would settle it

Have several independent human raters annotate fragility and density for a random sample of the 1,032 OPA objects and compare against the model's labels; if agreement is low on multi-material objects like the drill, screwdriver, and vial, then the reported 29.4% pressure reduction is being measured against labels that may not reflect real fragility. A second check is to rerun the 200-sequence benchmark with human expert labels as ground truth; if the avoidance advantage over the geometry baseline collapses, the improvement is an artifact of the label source.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

The paper's central claim is that object properties belong inside the packing decision itself: the long-term value of a packing action should include not just how much space the arrangement uses but whether it puts weight on fragile items and whether it places incompatible pairs side by side. OPA-Net, a dueling deep Q-network, takes as input a property vector for each candidate object plus three container heightmaps—occupancy, fragility, and avoidance—and is trained with a reward that is a weighted sum of compactness, a fragility penalty scaled by the object's estimated weight, and a binary avoidance penalty. In 200 random packing sequences in simulation, the policy separates incompatible pairs in 95.0% of cases versus 52.3% for the geometry-only baseline and cuts mean pressure on fragile objects from 5.07 to 3.58, with compactness of 0.413 versus 0.420. The same network, applied to real-scanned supermarket objects and a physical robot arm, still keeps compactness near the baseline while reducing squeezed fragile objects by more than five times.

Load-bearing premise

The load-bearing premise is that the object property annotations—fragility, density level, and avoidance relations—are correct; they are generated by a vision-language model guided by a hand-written material table and checked by a single human on only 100 of the 1,032 objects.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • Safety can be added to packing without a large space penalty: the property-aware policy stays within about 2% compactness of the geometry-only baseline while improving avoidance and fragility metrics substantially.
  • Fragile objects can be protected by learned placement decisions rather than explicit post-hoc rules, cutting pressure on fragile objects by 29.4% in simulation and squeezed fragile objects by more than five times on the physical platform.
  • Object property labels can be produced at scale by a vision-language model combined with retrieval-augmented generation and chain-of-thought reasoning, yielding a released dataset of 1,032 annotated everyday objects.
  • The safety-efficiency trade-off is controllable through the reward weights: raising the fragility penalty further lowers pressure but at a noticeable cost in compactness.
  • The policy transfers from synthetic objects to real-scanned supermarket items, so the learned property-aware behavior is not confined to the training set's meshes.

Reading between the lines

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

  • Inference: the four avoidance relations (sharp-soft, medicine-edible, chemical-edible, ignition-flammable) form a small reusable ontology; new pairwise constraints such as odor or moisture sensitivity could likely be added by extending the property vector and avoidance heightmap without changing the network or training loop.
  • Inference: the explicit reward weights mean the packing preference could be adjusted at test time by reweighting, which is exactly the on-the-fly user-preference modification the paper lists as future work.
  • Inference: since the packing policy is trained on the generated labels, the framework's ceiling is set by label accuracy; improving the property recognition stage, or validating it on more than 100 objects with more than one rater, would likely change the safety numbers.
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 / 6 minor

Summary. The paper proposes OPA-Pack, a two-stage robotic bin packing framework that first recognizes object properties (fragility, softness, sharpness, density level, and semantic categories) using a vision-language model with retrieval-augmented generation and chain-of-thought reasoning, and then trains a deep Q-learning packing policy (OPA-Net) with a reward that penalizes placing heavy objects on fragile ones and packing incompatible object pairs closely, while maintaining compactness. The authors contribute a dataset of 1,032 everyday objects with property annotations, report simulation results on 200 random packing sequences showing an improvement in avoidance accuracy from 52.33% to 95.00% and a 29.4% reduction in pressure on fragile objects relative to the IR-BPP baseline, and demonstrate the approach on a physical robot platform over 50 packing sequences.

Significance. If the reported gains are genuine, the paper addresses a real gap in robotic bin packing, which has largely treated packing as a purely geometric problem. The proposed framework, the new dataset, and the real-robot demonstration are useful contributions. The work is also commendable for releasing the dataset and for including ablations of both the property-recognition pipeline and the network design. However, the central claims of improved safety depend critically on the quality of the ChatGPT-4-generated property labels and on the independence of the evaluation metrics from the training reward, both of which currently have important weaknesses. The contribution is therefore significant but not yet fully established.

major comments (4)
  1. [§V-C, §VII-A, §VII-D] The evaluation metrics Avoid. Acc. and Press. on Frag. are essentially the negative of the reward terms R_avoidance and R_fragility defined in Eqs. (11)-(12), and the DQN is trained to maximize the weighted sum in Eq. (13). Consequently, the reported 42.7% improvement in avoidance accuracy and 29.4% reduction in pressure on fragile objects partly reflect reward optimization rather than an independent measure of real-world safety. I would like to see an evaluation that does not use the same object-property annotations in both the training reward and the evaluation metric, for example by using a manually corrected label set on a held-out subset and recomputing Avoid. Acc. and Press. on Frag. with those corrected labels.
  2. [§VII-D, Fig. 7] The property-recognition accuracy of the full pipeline is validated on only 100 of the 1,032 objects, by a single human evaluator, and no inter-annotator agreement or confidence intervals are reported. Because the same ChatGPT-4-generated labels define both the training signal and the evaluation metrics, a systematic error on the remaining 932 objects would shift the training and evaluation together, making the headline safety gains potentially an artifact of the label source. The authors should either validate a substantially larger and randomly selected subset with multiple annotators, or report the sensitivity of the packing metrics to plausible label noise.
  3. [§VII-E, Table IV] The hyperparameters λ and β in Eq. (13) are chosen after inspecting the evaluation-set results (Table IV), with the chosen values (λ=20, β=0.2) reported as the main configuration. This introduces a selection effect: the headline numbers in Table II are produced by a configuration selected on the same data on which it is evaluated. I recommend reporting results on a separate held-out set, or at least disclosing the selection procedure and its potential overfitting effect.
  4. [§VIII-B, Table VI] The real-robot results are reported as averages over 50 sequences without error bars or statistical significance tests. Since the real-world metrics (# Close Avoid. Pairs and # Squeeze Fragile) also rely on the same ChatGPT-4-based property annotations, the 42.6% reduction in close avoidance pairs and the roughly 5x reduction in squeezed fragile objects need to be accompanied by variance measures and, ideally, independent human verification of at least a subset of the physical outcomes (e.g., visual inspection of whether the persimmon is actually crushed).
minor comments (6)
  1. [§II] There is a typo on the first line: 'geoemtric' should be 'geometric'.
  2. [§IV] The text says 'the prediced inner and outer materials' — 'prediced' should be 'predicted'.
  3. [§VIII-A] The subsection title 'Hardward' should be 'Hardware'.
  4. [Fig. 6] The JSON snippets in Figure 6 contain curly quotes (e.g., “4” and “yes”) that should be straight quotes for consistency and readability.
  5. [Table III] The table formatting is unclear: the first row in each block appears to be the baseline, but the checkmark columns are not labeled for the baseline row; using an explicit 'Baseline' label and consistent row separators would improve readability.
  6. [§VII-C] The claim that the recognition scheme 'achieves a high accuracy of over 90%' is supported only by the 100-object subset in Section VII-D; please report the per-property accuracies and the sample size in the main text where the claim is made.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 0.0 of 10

No significant circularity found; the reported gains are empirical comparisons against baselines under shared evaluation metrics.

full rationale

OPA-Pack's central claims are empirical: on 200 random virtual sequences and 50 real-world cases, OPA-Net is compared against five baselines under the same object-property annotations (Tables II, V, VI). The reward terms R_fragility and R_avoidance (Eqs. 11-12) are indeed aligned with the evaluation metrics 'Press. on Frag.' and 'Avoid. Acc.', but this is a reward-design choice, not a definitional reduction: the metrics are computed from the final packing state for all methods, including baselines that never saw the reward, and the reported gains are relative to those baselines. The property labels are generated by ChatGPT-4 and only human-checked on 100 of 1,032 objects, which is a data-quality and validity concern, not a circularity of the derivation chain. No load-bearing step relies on a self-citation; the cited baseline and architecture works are external (IR-BPP, Dueling DQN, PointNet). No uniqueness theorem or ansatz is imported from the authors' prior work. The real-robot experiments provide an independent, physically grounded check. Therefore no circular step is exhibited.

Assumptions & free parameters 4 free parameters · 5 assumptions · 0 invented entities

The central claims rest on hand-authored property knowledge (Table I), VLM-generated labels, and reward terms that double as evaluation metrics. No new physical entities are introduced; the fragility and avoidance heightmaps are internal network representations.

free parameters (4)
  • lambda (fragility reward weight) = 20
    Selected in Sec. VII-E by comparing lambda=2,20,200 on the OPA dataset; balances pressure reduction against compactness.
  • beta (avoidance reward weight) = 0.2
    Selected in Sec. VII-E by comparing beta=0.02,0.2,2; balances avoidance accuracy against compactness.
  • Material property table (density, density level, fragility) = 15 hand-defined entries
    Table I provides density and fragility for materials used in CoT inference and in computing object weight omega; entries are authored, not measured.
  • Estimated density per density level = average density of materials in the level
    Sec. V-B defines estimated density as the mean of material densities in the predicted level; this feeds weight estimation in the reward.
assumptions (5)
  • domain assumption ChatGPT-4 with RAG and CoT can infer object properties from images, class name, size, retrieved examples, and the material table.
    Central to stage 1 (Sec. IV). Validated on 100 of 1,032 objects by one human participant.
  • ad hoc to paper The four avoidance relation types are sufficient for safe packing.
    Defined in Sec. IV; no external safety standard or user study justifies this set.
  • domain assumption Damage to a fragile object scales with the total weight of objects placed above it.
    Defines the pressure metric and R_fragility (Eq. 11); no contact-force model is used.
  • domain assumption Object properties in the OPA dataset are correct labels usable as ground truth for training and evaluation.
    Labels are produced by the VLM pipeline; human check covers 100/1,032 objects (Sec. VII-D).
  • domain assumption The 1,032 Objaverse objects are representative of real everyday packing items.
    Construction filters in Sec. IV; real-world tests use 87 scanned objects.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of OPA-Pack: Object-Property-Aware Robotic Bin Packing." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/ZDBPJ6GH

@misc{pith2026250513339,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: OPA-Pack: Object-Property-Aware Robotic Bin Packing},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/ZDBPJ6GH}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2505.13339}
}
read the original abstract

Robotic bin packing aids in a wide range of real-world scenarios such as e-commerce and warehouses. Yet, existing works focus mainly on considering the shape of objects to optimize packing compactness and neglect object properties such as fragility, edibility, and chemistry that humans typically consider when packing objects. This paper presents OPA-Pack (Object-Property-Aware Packing framework), the first framework that equips the robot with object property considerations in planning the object packing. Technical-wise, we develop a novel object property recognition scheme with retrieval-augmented generation and chain-of-thought reasoning, and build a dataset with object property annotations for 1,032 everyday objects. Also, we formulate OPA-Net, aiming to jointly separate incompatible object pairs and reduce pressure on fragile objects, while compacting the packing. Further, OPA-Net consists of a property embedding layer to encode the property of candidate objects to be packed, together with a fragility heightmap and an avoidance heightmap to keep track of the packed objects. Then, we design a reward function and adopt a deep Q-learning scheme to train OPA-Net. Experimental results manifest that OPA-Pack greatly improves the accuracy of separating incompatible object pairs (from 52% to 95%) and largely reduces pressure on fragile objects (by 29.4%), while maintaining good packing compactness. Besides, we demonstrate the effectiveness of OPA-Pack on a real packing platform, showcasing its practicality in real-world scenarios.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2505.13339 by the authors.

Figure 1
Figure 1. Illustration of the proposed framework. Our OPA-Pack consists of two stages. In the first stage, we recognize the object properties using a Vision [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p003_1.png] view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. Our pipeline for object property recognition includes (a) object-centric properties and (b) property-based avoidance relations. For a given object, we [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p004_2.png] view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. Some object examples from our OPA dataset divided into three subsets. [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p005_3.png] view at source ↗
Figures from the paper (6 more)
Figure 4
Figure 4. Figure 4: Illustration of the OPA-Net architecture. The network contains four [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p006_4.png]
Figure 5
Figure 5. Figure 5: Visualization of the packing results produced by the baseline [1] and our method from each of the following subsets: Hardware and Stationeries, [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p009_5.png]
Figure 6
Figure 6. Figure 6: Visualization of the property recognition results in our OPA dataset. Our method provides detailed object property annotations, correctly predicting [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p010_6.png]
Figure 7
Figure 7. Figure 7: The ablation studies on each design of our object property recognition scheme. The annotation accuracies are obtained on 100 randomly selected [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p010_7.png]
Figure 8
Figure 8. Figure 8: Our physical packing platform with a NACHI MZ07 robot arm. A [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p012_8.png]
Figure 9
Figure 9. Figure 9: Visual comparison of our method and the baseline in real-world packing results. Left: our method better prevents heavy objects from being placed on [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p013_9.png]

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

49 extracted references · 32 canonical work pages

  1. [1]

    Learning physically realizable skills for online packing of general 3D shapes,

    H. Zhao, Z. Pan, Y . Yu, and K. Xu, “Learning physically realizable skills for online packing of general 3D shapes,” ACM Transactions on Graphics, vol. 42, no. 5, pp. 1–21, 2023

    work page 2023

  2. [2]

    Packing irregular objects in 3D space via hybrid optimization,

    Y . Ma, Z. Chen, W. Hu, and W. Wang, “Packing irregular objects in 3D space via hybrid optimization,” in Computer Graphics Forum , vol. 37, no. 5. Wiley Online Library, 2018, pp. 49–59

    work page 2018

  3. [3]

    Heuristics integrated deep reinforcement learning for online 3D bin packing,

    S. Yang, S. Song, S. Chu, R. Song, J. Cheng, Y . Li, and W. Zhang, “Heuristics integrated deep reinforcement learning for online 3D bin packing,” IEEE Transactions on Automation Science and Engineering , 2023

    work page 2023

  4. [4]

    Robot online 3D bin packing strategy based on deep reinforcement learning and 3D vision,

    J. Jia, H. Shang, and X. Chen, “Robot online 3D bin packing strategy based on deep reinforcement learning and 3D vision,” in IEEE Interna- tional Conference on Networking, Sensing and Control . IEEE, 2022, pp. 1–6

    work page 2022

  5. [5]

    Online 3D bin packing reinforcement learning solution with buffer,

    A. V . Puche and S. Lee, “Online 3D bin packing reinforcement learning solution with buffer,” in IEEE/RSJ International Conference on Intelli- gent Robots and Systems . IEEE, 2022, pp. 8902–8909

    work page 2022

  6. [6]

    Planning irregular object packing via hierarchical reinforcement learning,

    S. Huang, Z. Wang, J. Zhou, and J. Lu, “Planning irregular object packing via hierarchical reinforcement learning,” IEEE Robotics and Automation Letters, vol. 8, no. 1, pp. 81–88, 2022

    2022

  7. [7]

    TAP-Net: transport-and-pack using reinforcement learning,

    R. Hu, J. Xu, B. Chen, M. Gong, H. Zhang, and H. Huang, “TAP-Net: transport-and-pack using reinforcement learning,” ACM Transactions on Graphics, vol. 39, no. 6, pp. 1–15, 2020

    work page 2020

  8. [8]

    Stable bin packing of non-convex 3D objects with a robot manipulator,

    F. Wang and K. Hauser, “Stable bin packing of non-convex 3D objects with a robot manipulator,” in 2019 International Conference on Robotics and Automation. IEEE, 2019, pp. 8698–8704

    work page 2019

Show all 49 references
  1. [9]

    Sdf-pack: Towards compact bin packing with signed-distance- field minimization,

    J.-H. Pan, K.-H. Hui, X. Gao, S. Zhu, Y .-H. Liu, P.-A. Heng, and C.- W. Fu, “Sdf-pack: Towards compact bin packing with signed-distance- field minimization,” in 2023 IEEE/RSJ International Conference on Intelligent Robots and Systems (IROS). IEEE, 2023, pp. 10 612–10 619

    2023

  2. [10]

    PPN-Pack: Placement proposal network for efficient robotic bin packing,

    J.-H. Pan, X. Gao, K.-H. Hui, S. Zhu, Y .-H. Liu, P.-A. Heng, and C.-W. Fu, “PPN-Pack: Placement proposal network for efficient robotic bin packing,” IEEE Robotics and Automation Letters , 2024. 15

    2024

  3. [11]

    Dense robotic packing of irregular and novel 3d objects,

    F. Wang and K. Hauser, “Dense robotic packing of irregular and novel 3d objects,” IEEE Transactions on Robotics , vol. 38, no. 2, pp. 1160– 1173, 2021

    2021

  4. [12]

    A container loading algorithm with static mechanical equilibrium stability constraints,

    A. G. Ramos, J. F. Oliveira, J. F. Gonçalves, and M. P. Lopes, “A container loading algorithm with static mechanical equilibrium stability constraints,” Transportation Research Part B: Methodological , vol. 91, pp. 565–581, 2016

    2016

  5. [13]

    A hybrid genetic algorithm for pack- ing in 3D with deepest bottom left with fill method,

    K. Karabulut and M. M. ˙Inceo˘glu, “A hybrid genetic algorithm for pack- ing in 3D with deepest bottom left with fill method,” in International Conference on Advances in Information Systems . Springer, 2004, pp. 441–450

    2004

  6. [14]

    A hybrid genetic algorithm with a new packing strategy for the three-dimensional bin packing problem,

    K. Kang, I. Moon, and H. Wang, “A hybrid genetic algorithm with a new packing strategy for the three-dimensional bin packing problem,” Applied Mathematics and Computation , vol. 219, no. 3, pp. 1287–1299, 2012

    2012

  7. [15]

    Extreme point-based heuristics for three-dimensional bin packing,

    T. G. Crainic, G. Perboli, and R. Tadei, “Extreme point-based heuristics for three-dimensional bin packing,” Informs Journal on computing , vol. 20, no. 3, pp. 368–384, 2008

    2008

  8. [16]

    HAPE3D—a new constructive algorithm for the 3D irregular packing problem,

    X. Liu, J.-M. Liu, A.-X. Cao, and Z.-L. Yao, “HAPE3D—a new constructive algorithm for the 3D irregular packing problem,” Frontiers of Information Technology & Electronic Engineering, vol. 16, no. 5, pp. 380–390, 2015

    2015

  9. [17]

    V oxel- based solution approaches to the three-dimensional irregular packing problem,

    C. Lamas-Fernandez, J. A. Bennell, and A. Martinez-Sykora, “V oxel- based solution approaches to the three-dimensional irregular packing problem,” Operations Research, 2022

    2022

  10. [18]

    Learning to place new objects in a scene,

    Y . Jiang, M. Lim, C. Zheng, and A. Saxena, “Learning to place new objects in a scene,” The International Journal of Robotics Research , vol. 31, no. 9, pp. 1021–1043, 2012

    2012

  11. [19]

    Online 3D bin packing with constrained deep reinforcement learning,

    H. Zhao, Q. She, C. Zhu, Y . Yang, and K. Xu, “Online 3D bin packing with constrained deep reinforcement learning,” in Proceedings of the AAAI Conference on Artificial Intelligence , vol. 35, no. 1, 2021, pp. 741–749

    2021

  12. [20]

    A generalized reinforcement learning algorithm for online 3d bin-packing,

    R. Verma, A. Singhal, H. Khadilkar, A. Basumatary, S. Nayak, H. V . Singh, S. Kumar, and R. Sinha, “A generalized reinforcement learning algorithm for online 3d bin-packing,” arXiv preprint arXiv:2007.00463, 2020

    2007 arXiv

  13. [21]

    Attend2Pack: Bin packing through deep reinforcement learning with attention,

    J. Zhang, B. Zi, and X. Ge, “Attend2Pack: Bin packing through deep reinforcement learning with attention,” in 2021 International Conference on Machine Learning Workshops , 2021

    2021

  14. [22]

    Adjustable robust reinforcement learning for online 3d bin packing,

    Y . Pan, Y . Chen, and F. Lin, “Adjustable robust reinforcement learning for online 3d bin packing,” Advances in Neural Information Processing Systems, vol. 36, pp. 51 926–51 954, 2023

    2023

  15. [23]

    PackerBot: Variable-sized product packing with heuristic deep rein- forcement learning,

    Z. Yang, S. Yang, S. Song, W. Zhang, R. Song, J. Cheng, and Y . Li, “PackerBot: Variable-sized product packing with heuristic deep rein- forcement learning,” in IEEE/RSJ International Conference on Intelli- gent Robots and Systems . IEEE, 2021, pp. 5002–5008

    2021

  16. [24]

    Container packing problem with balance constraints,

    I. Moon and T. V . L. Nguyen, “Container packing problem with balance constraints,” OR spectrum, vol. 36, no. 4, pp. 837–878, 2014

    2014

  17. [25]

    Two-dimensional strip packing problem with load balancing, load bearing and multi-drop constraints,

    T. A. de Queiroz and F. K. Miyazawa, “Two-dimensional strip packing problem with load balancing, load bearing and multi-drop constraints,” International Journal of Production Economics , vol. 145, no. 2, pp. 511–530, 2013

    2013

  18. [26]

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

    R. Firoozi, J. Tucker, S. Tian, A. Majumdar, J. Sun, W. Liu, Y . Zhu, S. Song, A. Kapoor, K. Hausman, et al., “Foundation models in robotics: Applications, challenges, and the future,” The International Journal of Robotics Research, p. 02783649241281508, 2023

    2023

  19. [27]

    Manipllm: Embodied multimodal large language model for object-centric robotic manipulation,

    X. Li, M. Zhang, Y . Geng, H. Geng, Y . Long, Y . Shen, R. Zhang, J. Liu, and H. Dong, “Manipllm: Embodied multimodal large language model for object-centric robotic manipulation,” in Proceedings of the IEEE/CVF Conference on Computer Vision and Pattern Recognition , 2024, pp....

    2024

  20. [28]

    Generate subgoal images before act: Unlocking the chain-of-thought reasoning in diffusion model for robot manipulation with multimodal prompts,

    F. Ni, J. Hao, S. Wu, L. Kou, J. Liu, Y . Zheng, B. Wang, and Y . Zhuang, “Generate subgoal images before act: Unlocking the chain-of-thought reasoning in diffusion model for robot manipulation with multimodal prompts,” in Proceedings of the IEEE/CVF Conference on Computer Vis...

    2024

  21. [29]

    V oxposer: Composable 3d value maps for robotic manipulation with language models,

    W. Huang, C. Wang, R. Zhang, Y . Li, J. Wu, and L. Fei-Fei, “V oxposer: Composable 3d value maps for robotic manipulation with language models,” arXiv preprint arXiv:2307.05973 , 2023

    2023 arXiv

  22. [30]

    Octopus: Embodied vision-language pro- grammer from environmental feedback,

    J. Yang, Y . Dong, S. Liu, B. Li, Z. Wang, H. Tan, C. Jiang, J. Kang, Y . Zhang, K. Zhou, et al. , “Octopus: Embodied vision-language pro- grammer from environmental feedback,” in European Conference on Computer Vision. Springer, 2025, pp. 20–38

    2025

  23. [31]

    Rekep: Spatio- temporal reasoning of relational keypoint constraints for robotic manip- ulation,

    W. Huang, C. Wang, Y . Li, R. Zhang, and L. Fei-Fei, “Rekep: Spatio- temporal reasoning of relational keypoint constraints for robotic manip- ulation,” arXiv preprint arXiv:2409.01652 , 2024

    2024 arXiv

  24. [32]

    Keypoint action tokens enable in-context imitation learning in robotics,

    N. Di Palo and E. Johns, “Keypoint action tokens enable in-context imitation learning in robotics,” arXiv preprint arXiv:2403.19578 , 2024

    2024 arXiv

  25. [33]

    On the opportunities and risks of foundation models,

    R. Bommasani, D. A. Hudson, E. Adeli, R. Altman, S. Arora, S. von Arx, M. S. Bernstein, J. Bohg, A. Bosselut, E. Brunskill, et al. , “On the opportunities and risks of foundation models,” arXiv preprint arXiv:2108.07258, 2021

    2021 arXiv

  26. [34]

    Gpt-4 technical report,

    J. Achiam, S. Adler, S. Agarwal, L. Ahmad, I. Akkaya, F. L. Aleman, D. Almeida, J. Altenschmidt, S. Altman, S. Anadkat, et al. , “Gpt-4 technical report,” arXiv preprint arXiv:2303.08774 , 2023

    2023 arXiv

  27. [35]

    Manifoundation model for general-purpose robotic manipulation of contact synthesis with arbitrary objects and robots,

    Z. Xu, C. Gao, Z. Liu, G. Yang, C. Tie, H. Zheng, H. Zhou, W. Peng, D. Wang, T. Chen, et al. , “Manifoundation model for general-purpose robotic manipulation of contact synthesis with arbitrary objects and robots,” arXiv preprint arXiv:2405.06964 , 2024

    2024 arXiv

  28. [36]

    Retrieval-augmented generation for ai-generated content: A survey,

    P. Zhao, H. Zhang, Q. Yu, Z. Wang, Y . Geng, F. Fu, L. Yang, W. Zhang, and B. Cui, “Retrieval-augmented generation for ai-generated content: A survey,” arXiv preprint arXiv:2402.19473 , 2024

    2024 arXiv

  29. [37]

    Retrieval- augmented generation for knowledge-intensive nlp tasks,

    P. Lewis, E. Perez, A. Piktus, F. Petroni, V . Karpukhin, N. Goyal, H. Küttler, M. Lewis, W.-t. Yih, T. Rocktäschel, et al. , “Retrieval- augmented generation for knowledge-intensive nlp tasks,” Advances in Neural Information Processing Systems , vol. 33, pp. 9459–9474, 2020

    2020

  30. [38]

    Chain-of-thought prompting elicits reasoning in large language models,

    J. Wei, X. Wang, D. Schuurmans, M. Bosma, F. Xia, E. Chi, Q. V . Le, D. Zhou, et al., “Chain-of-thought prompting elicits reasoning in large language models,” Advances in neural information processing systems , vol. 35, pp. 24 824–24 837, 2022

    2022

  31. [39]

    Towards revealing the mystery behind chain of thought: a theoretical perspective,

    G. Feng, B. Zhang, Y . Gu, H. Ye, D. He, and L. Wang, “Towards revealing the mystery behind chain of thought: a theoretical perspective,” Advances in Neural Information Processing Systems , vol. 36, 2024

    2024

  32. [40]

    Automatic chain of thought prompting in large language models,

    Z. Zhang, A. Zhang, M. Li, and A. Smola, “Automatic chain of thought prompting in large language models,” in The Eleventh International Conference on Learning Representations

  33. [41]

    A survey of chain of thought reasoning: Advances, frontiers and future,

    Z. Chu, J. Chen, Q. Chen, W. Yu, T. He, H. Wang, W. Peng, M. Liu, B. Qin, and T. Liu, “A survey of chain of thought reasoning: Advances, frontiers and future,” arXiv preprint arXiv:2309.15402 , 2023

    2023 arXiv

  34. [42]

    Learning transferable visual models from natural language supervision,

    A. Radford, J. W. Kim, C. Hallacy, A. Ramesh, G. Goh, S. Agarwal, G. Sastry, A. Askell, P. Mishkin, J. Clark, et al., “Learning transferable visual models from natural language supervision,” in International conference on machine learning . PMLR, 2021, pp. 8748–8763

    2021

  35. [43]

    Chatgpt-4,

    OpenAI, “Chatgpt-4,” https://chat.openai.com/chat, 2023

    2023

  36. [44]

    Benchmarking in manipulation research: Using the Yale-CMU- Berkeley object and model set,

    B. Calli, A. Walsman, A. Singh, S. Srinivasa, P. Abbeel, and A. M. Dollar, “Benchmarking in manipulation research: Using the Yale-CMU- Berkeley object and model set,” IEEE Robotics & Automation Magazine, vol. 22, no. 3, pp. 36–52, 2015

    2015

  37. [45]

    Objaverse: A universe of annotated 3d objects,

    M. Deitke, D. Schwenk, J. Salvador, L. Weihs, O. Michel, E. VanderBilt, L. Schmidt, K. Ehsani, A. Kembhavi, and A. Farhadi, “Objaverse: A universe of annotated 3d objects,” in Proceedings of the IEEE/CVF Conference on Computer Vision and Pattern Recognition , 2023, pp. 13 142–13 153

    2023

  38. [46]

    Learning efficient online 3D bin packing on packing configuration trees,

    H. Zhao, Y . Yu, and K. Xu, “Learning efficient online 3D bin packing on packing configuration trees,” in International Conference on Learning Representations, 2021

    2021

  39. [47]

    Q-learning,

    C. J. Watkins and P. Dayan, “Q-learning,” Machine learning, vol. 8, pp. 279–292, 1992

    1992

  40. [48]

    Dueling network architectures for deep reinforcement learning,

    Z. Wang, T. Schaul, M. Hessel, H. Hasselt, M. Lanctot, and N. Freitas, “Dueling network architectures for deep reinforcement learning,” in International conference on machine learning. PMLR, 2016, pp. 1995– 2003

    2016

  41. [49]

    PointNet: Deep learning on point sets for 3d classification and segmentation,

    C. R. Qi, H. Su, K. Mo, and L. J. Guibas, “PointNet: Deep learning on point sets for 3d classification and segmentation,” in Proceedings of the IEEE conference on computer vision and pattern recognition , 2017, pp. 652–660

    2017

Pith tools

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