Pith. sign in

REVIEW 5 major objections 5 minor 66 references

RobotSmith: Generative Robotic Tool Design for Acquisition of Complex Manipulation Skills

T0 review · 5 major / 5 minor · reviewed 2026-08-07 · deepseek-v4-flash

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

Pith's one-line read RobotSmith couples vision-language design priors with physics-simulation optimization so that a robot can invent, refine, and use its own task-specific tools, lifting average task success from 2.8% (no tool) to 50.0% across nine…

desk verdict A genuinely integrated generative tool-design pipeline with strong ablations, but the headline success rate rests on a metric that is visibly wrong for one task. read the letter →

arxiv 2506.14763 v1 pith:5T4FBWMS submitted 2025-06-17 cs.RO

Chunru Lin , Haotian Yuan , Yian Wang , Xiaowen Qiu , Tsun-Hsuan Wang , Minghao Guo , Bohan Wang , Yashraj Narang
show 2 more authors
Dieter Fox Chuang Gan
This is my paper
classification cs.RO MSC 68T40
keywords robottooldesignvision-languagemodelsuseplanningCMA-ESjointoptimizationdeformableobjectmanipulationsim-to-realtransferparameterizedrepresentationgenerativesimulation
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

RobotSmith is an automated pipeline that generates task-specific tools from scratch for robotic manipulation, rather than retrieving human-designed tools or relying on fixed templates. The paper's central claim is that coupling the physical priors of vision-language models with iterative optimization in a physics simulator produces tools and usage trajectories that solve tasks — reaching objects outside the workspace, shaping dough, pouring into bottles — that are otherwise nearly impossible without tools. Across nine simulated manipulation tasks with rigid, deformable, and fluid objects, the pipeline reports an average 50.0% success rate, against 21.4% for generic text-to-3D generation and 11.1% for tool retrieval; the no-tool baseline sits at 2.8%. The paper argues this shows a fully automated design-then-use loop is a viable route to general-purpose robotic manipulation, and it demonstrates physical plausibility by 3D-printing two generated tools and executing the planned motions on a real robot.

What carries the argument

The load-bearing machinery is a modular, parameterized tool representation combined with a joint optimization loop. Each tool is a set of parts — basic primitives (cube, ball, cylinder, ring, tube) or meshes generated by a text-to-3D model — assembled by a programmatic, CSG-like assembly function that enforces connectivity and alignment, so that editing one part's parameters automatically repositions its neighbors without breaking the tool. These parameters (shape dimensions $s$ and trajectory waypoints $q$) are co-optimized by CMA-ES with the simulator score $M(s,q)$ as the objective. The representation is what makes the VLM 'design' meaningful: the language agents propose discrete structural choices, and the optimizer fine-tunes continuous geometry and motion within the proposed structure.

What would settle it

Run the dough-calabash task with the metric replaced or augmented by a physical one, such as requiring two roughly equal lobes by volume rather than CLIP similarity to the phrase 'calabash-shaped dough', and check whether the generated tool still succeeds; or 3D-print all nine generated tools and execute the planned trajectories on a physical robot, counting successes against the same 0.8 threshold used in simulation. If the CLIP-satisfying shape fails the physical metric, or if real-world success rates fall far below the simulated 50.0%, the central claim is contradicted.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

The paper's core claim is that tool design and tool use should be solved together, as one joint optimization problem, with a language-model prior supplying the starting point and physics simulation supplying the correction. RobotSmith first has a pair of collaborating VLM agents — a proposer that outputs tool geometry in a modular, parameterized JSON format and a critic that inspects rendered multi-view images and requests revisions — converge on a candidate design. A third agent plans a manipulation trajectory as a sequence of three API calls (grasp, move, release). Then CMA-ES optimizes the tool's shape parameters, each allowed to vary between 0.5 and 2.0 times its initial value, together with the trajectory's Cartesian waypoints, scoring each candidate by executing it in the Genesis simulator against a task-specific metric. The ablation study is the load-bearing evidence: removing the optimizer collapses the success rate from 50% to 5%, while removing geometry optimization or the text-to-3D component halves it, which the paper presents as evidence that all three stages — semantic design, trajectory generation, and joint physical optimization — are necessary.

Load-bearing premise

The load-bearing premise is that the task-specific reward functions computed in the Genesis simulator faithfully capture real-world success — including the CLIP visual-similarity score that defines the dough-calabash task — and that simulated success transfers to the physical robot, even though quantitative real-world results are reported for only two tasks.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • For a given task description, scene, and reward metric, RobotSmith produces a printable tool geometry, an initial placement, and a full robot trajectory with no human intervention; the system reports 50.0% average success across nine tasks, more than double the best baseline.
  • The joint optimizer is the deciding factor: with it removed, the success rate falls from 50% to 5%, showing that VLM priors alone are far from sufficient for physically grounded execution.
  • Generated tools transfer to physical hardware: 3D-printed tools for the hold-a-phone and dough-calabash tasks were grasped and used by a real robot, and a long-horizon sesame-pancake task was completed with tools designed per subtask.
  • Because the representation supports both primitives and generated meshes, the pipeline can produce functionally diverse tools for the same task (pushing, scooping, enclosing) rather than a single template-derived answer.

Reading between the lines

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

  • The method's ceiling is set by its task metrics, since the optimizer optimizes exactly the simulator's reward; the dough-calabash metric is a CLIP visual similarity to 'calabash-shaped dough', so a shape that reads as calabash in a rendering but fails a physical deformation test would satisfy the metric, making a physics-grounded replacement metric (e.g., equal lobe volumes) a direct stress test.
  • If the approach scales, the automation bottleneck shifts from tool design to reward design: any task expressible as a simulator-computable score becomes a candidate for tool co-design, which suggests a natural pairing with generative reward-synthesis pipelines.
  • The real-world evidence is qualitative (two tasks, no measured success rates); a quantitative sim-to-real benchmark that prints all nine tools and reports physical success against the same 0.8 threshold would tell whether the 50% figure survives contact with reality.
  • CMA-ES is sample-hungry at 20 candidates times 50 iterations per task; swapping in differentiable simulation could make the same joint design loop converge faster and could handle the topology-changing edits the paper lists as a limitation.
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

5 major / 5 minor

Summary. RobotSmith proposes an automated pipeline for generating and using robotic tools. Given a task (T, S0, M), a Proposer VLM and a Critic VLM iteratively produce a modular, part-based tool design expressed through a CSG-like assembly; a Tool User agent synthesizes a trajectory via grasp/move/release APIs; and CMA-ES jointly optimizes tool dimensions and trajectory parameters in the Genesis simulator. The paper evaluates nine simulated manipulation tasks spanning rigid, deformable, and fluid objects, comparing against No Tool, Retrieval, Meshy, and ShapeTalk baselines, and reports a 50.0% average success rate versus 21.4% and 11.1% for the strongest baselines. It also includes qualitative real-world demonstrations for two tasks and a long-horizon pancake-making sequence.

Significance. If the results hold, this is a valuable step toward automated tool design and use, combining VLM commonsense priors with physics-based simulation. The modular, parameterized tool representation and the explicit integration of text-to-3D generation with assembly functions are sensible contributions, and the commitment to release code and APIs supports reproducibility. The task suite is broader than most prior tool-design work, and the 3D-printed real-world demos add credibility. However, the central quantitative claims depend on task metrics in Appendix C that contain at least two concrete defects, and the reported aggregate statistics lack error bars. Until these issues are corrected, the magnitude of the reported advantage over baselines is uncertain.

major comments (5)
  1. [Appendix C.5 (Fill Bottle) and Table 1] The metric for Fill Bottle is written verbatim as '1 - max(0, (dough.height-0.03)/(height0-0.03))', which is identical to the Flatten Dough metric in Appendix C.3 and references 'dough' and 'height0' even though the Fill Bottle scene contains only a bottle, a cup, and water. As printed, the optimization objective and success criterion for this task do not measure pouring water into the bottle. Since the Overall row in Table 1 is the mean of per-task success rates, this contaminated task directly contributes to the headline 50.0% figure. The authors must provide the correct Fill Bottle metric, rerun the affected optimization and evaluation, and update Table 1 and the abstract if the numbers change.
  2. [Appendix C.2 (Reach)] The Reach metric is written as M = max(0, (cube.pos-target_pos).norm()/(pos0-target_pos).norm()). As printed, the metric equals 1 when the cube is at its initial position and decreases to 0 as the cube approaches target_pos, so a success threshold of P>0.8 would reward not reaching the target. If the implementation instead uses P = 1 - M or an equivalent inversion, that scaling must be stated explicitly. As written, the equation is inverted relative to the task description, and the Reach entries in Table 1 are therefore not interpretable. Please correct the equation or clearly define the transformation from M to P for this task.
  3. [Section 4.2 and Table 1] ShapeTalk is described as a baseline and the text states that it 'falls short in all our tasks,' but no ShapeTalk results appear in Table 1 or anywhere else in the paper. Without quantitative results, the claim that RobotSmith consistently outperforms all baselines is unsupported for this method. The authors should either add a ShapeTalk column/row to Table 1 with the same Pbest/SR reporting or explicitly remove ShapeTalk from the baseline comparisons and revise the corresponding text.
  4. [Section 4.1 (Metrics and Reporting)] The experiments report only the best score Pbest among 8 trials and the success rate SR = sum(I[P>0.8])/8, with no per-trial scores, means, standard deviations, or confidence intervals. Both CMA-ES and the VLM-based proposal process are stochastic, so the 50.0% average and the baseline comparisons are point estimates whose reliability cannot be assessed from the current tables. The authors should report trial-level scores for every task and at least mean and standard deviation over multiple independent runs, or justify why best-of-8 is the appropriate statistic for the paper's comparative claims.
  5. [Appendix C.1 (Dough Calabash)] The Dough Calabash metric uses CLIP similarity between a rendered dough image and the phrase 'calabash-shaped dough' as both the optimization objective and the success criterion. Because the same visual proxy drives both the optimizer and the evaluator, a rendering can score high even if the physical dough is not calabash-shaped. The real-world validation in Section 4.4 is qualitative and covers only Hold a Phone and Dough Calabash, so it does not independently confirm that high CLIP scores correspond to physically correct shapes. The authors should either replace this metric with a geometry-aware measure (e.g., aspect-ratio or volume-distribution checks) or provide a calibration study showing that the CLIP score correlates with physical calabash shape.
minor comments (5)
  1. [Section 4.4 (Real-world Experiments)] The real-world experiments are presented qualitatively with images and narrative descriptions but no quantitative success metrics. The abstract and conclusion claim that generated tools and plans 'transfer effectively to physical execution'; this claim would be stronger with task-specific quantitative measures or at least success/failure counts for the real-world trials.
  2. [Appendix C.8 (Transport Water)] The scene configuration is listed twice as 'Initial Scene Configuration S0:' and contains a typo ('a a water tank'). Please clean up the formatting and define a single unambiguous initial configuration.
  3. [Appendix C.7 (Cut Dough)] The metric formula is missing a closing parenthesis: '1 - max(0, (0.2-(dough1.pos-dough2.pos).norm())/0.2'. Additionally, the clustering step 'KMeans(n_cluster=2).fit(dough)' should be described more precisely, including how the two pieces are identified and how their positions are computed.
  4. [Section 4.1 and Appendix C] The paper says 'We scale each task's metric M to a standard score P in [0,1]' but does not give a general scaling rule. Since some metrics are written as normalized errors (e.g., Reach) and others as quality scores (e.g., Transport Water), the mapping from M to P should be stated explicitly for each task to avoid ambiguity.
  5. [Figure 4 and Section 4.2] The ShapeTalk panel in Figure 4 is described as 'edited' and 'initial,' but no quantitative results accompany it. If ShapeTalk remains a baseline, include its numeric results in Table 1; otherwise the figure and text should be adjusted to match the reported experiments.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 0.0 of 10

No circularity: the pipeline optimizes toward the externally specified task metric M, and the reported success rates are standard optimization outcomes rather than predictions derived from fitted inputs.

full rationale

The derivation chain is self-contained and not circular. The problem statement fixes each task as (T, S0, M) with M a task-specific reward function (Sec. 3), and Sec. 3.4 states: "compute a task-specific scalar objective: M(si,q i), which reflects the success or quality of task completion. This objective is then used to guide CMA-ES toward better configurations." The headline numbers in Table 1 are then computed from the same M (Sec. 4.1). Using the same metric for optimization and evaluation is standard policy/reward optimization, not a fitted parameter renamed as a prediction: no parameter is retrofitted to Table 1, and the metrics are fixed before optimization rather than derived from the method's outputs. The self-citations present (e.g., Ubsoft [30] and related-work items) are simulation-support or literature citations and none carries a load-bearing uniqueness or derivation step; there is no imported uniqueness theorem, ansatz-by-citation, or renaming of a known result. The Appendix C.5 Fill Bottle metric is a copy-paste of the Flatten Dough formula and references a nonexistent `dough` variable, and the Dough Calabash metric uses a CLIP rendering proxy; these are evaluation-validity risks that could undermine the numerical claims, but they are not circularity because the optimizer and evaluator both face the same external proxy rather than the metric being defined in terms of the claimed output.

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

The central claim does not introduce new physical entities. The free parameters are experimental design choices: the success threshold 0.8, the 8 trials, the CMA-ES population and range bounds. The main assumptions are that the simulator and the task-specific metrics are faithful proxies for real-world tool use and that the VLM/text-to-3D components provide useful priors. These are stated in Sections 3.4, 4.1, and Appendix C.

free parameters (4)
  • success_threshold = 0.8
    Task success defined as P>0.8 in Section 4.1; threshold chosen by authors, not derived.
  • CMA-ES population and iterations = lambda=20, 50 iterations
    Section 3.4; hyperparameters chosen without sensitivity analysis.
  • optimization bounds = [0.5s0, 2.0s0], +/-0.2m, +/-pi rad
    Section 3.4; hand-set ranges for tool shape and trajectory parameters.
  • trials per task = 8
    Section 4.1; small number of trials, no error bars.
assumptions (4)
  • domain assumption Genesis simulator accurately models rigid, deformable, and fluid dynamics
    All optimization and evaluation occurs in Genesis (Section 3.4); sim-to-real transfer is only qualitatively shown.
  • domain assumption VLM and text-to-3D priors are useful for tool design
    The pipeline relies on o3-mini and Meshy to propose valid geometries and trajectories (Sections 3.2-3.3); no proof they always work.
  • domain assumption Task-specific reward functions capture true task success
    Metrics in Appendix C, e.g., CLIP score for dough calabash, are proxy objectives; errors such as Fill Bottle copy-paste suggest these are not carefully validated.
  • ad hoc to paper CSG-like tool representation is sufficiently expressive
    Section 3.1; the representation covers primitives and text-to-3D meshes, but limits topology to the assembly code the VLM writes.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of RobotSmith: Generative Robotic Tool Design for Acquisition of Complex Manipulation Skills." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/5T4FBWMS

@misc{pith2026250614763,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: RobotSmith: Generative Robotic Tool Design for Acquisition of Complex Manipulation Skills},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/5T4FBWMS}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2506.14763}
}
read the original abstract

Endowing robots with tool design abilities is critical for enabling them to solve complex manipulation tasks that would otherwise be intractable. While recent generative frameworks can automatically synthesize task settings, such as 3D scenes and reward functions, they have not yet addressed the challenge of tool-use scenarios. Simply retrieving human-designed tools might not be ideal since many tools (e.g., a rolling pin) are difficult for robotic manipulators to handle. Furthermore, existing tool design approaches either rely on predefined templates with limited parameter tuning or apply generic 3D generation methods that are not optimized for tool creation. To address these limitations, we propose RobotSmith, an automated pipeline that leverages the implicit physical knowledge embedded in vision-language models (VLMs) alongside the more accurate physics provided by physics simulations to design and use tools for robotic manipulation. Our system (1) iteratively proposes tool designs using collaborative VLM agents, (2) generates low-level robot trajectories for tool use, and (3) jointly optimizes tool geometry and usage for task performance. We evaluate our approach across a wide range of manipulation tasks involving rigid, deformable, and fluid objects. Experiments show that our method consistently outperforms strong baselines in terms of both task success rate and overall performance. Notably, our approach achieves a 50.0\% average success rate, significantly surpassing other baselines such as 3D generation (21.4%) and tool retrieval (11.1%). Finally, we deploy our system in real-world settings, demonstrating that the generated tools and their usage plans transfer effectively to physical execution, validating the practicality and generalization capabilities of our approach.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2506.14763 by the authors.

Figure 1
Figure 1. Our pipeline enables fully autonomous long-horizon manipulation by generating and using [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p002_1.png] view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. Pipeline Overview. The pipeline consists of three modules: (a) Critic Tool Designer, where two VLM agents iteratively propose and evaluate tool designs. The proposer takes in the user prompt, outputs a design, and renders an image, which is passed to the critic for feedback. This process continues until the critic is satisfied with the design; (b) Tool Use Planner that generates usage plans with a minimal set of hig… view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. Gallery of the curated robotic manipulation tasks, that spans diverse physical and functional settings, including rigid, deformable, and fluid objects. This diversity allows comprehensive testing of tool design and usage capabilities across realistic and challenging scenarios. optimization process to refine both components in tandem. This step is crucial, since a suboptimal pairing—even with a plausible tool or traj… view at source ↗
Figures from the paper (2 more)
Figure 4
Figure 4. Figure 4: Failure cases of baseline methods. Results As shown in Tab. 1, our method consistently outperforms all baseline approaches in both task suc￾cess rate and overall performance across most tasks. Baseline No Tool struggles to com￾plete any of the tasks, highlighting the e…
Figure 6
Figure 6. Figure 6: Real-world execution of tools gen￾erated by our system for the dough calabash task (left) and hold a phone task (right). 4.4 Real-world Experiments Hardware setup. To validate the real-world applicability of our method, we 3D printed the tools designed for the hold a p…

Discussion (0). Sign in to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

66 extracted references · 44 canonical work pages

  1. [1]

    Achlioptas, I

    P. Achlioptas, I. Huang, M. Sung, S. Tulyakov, and L. Guibas. ShapeTalk: A language dataset and framework for 3d shape edits and deformations. InConference on Computer Vision and Pattern Recognition (CVPR), 2023. 7

    work page 2023

  2. [2]

    K. R. Allen, T. Lopez-Guevara, K. Stachenfeld, A. Sanchez-Gonzalez, P. Battaglia, J. Ham- rick, and T. Pfaff. Physical design using differentiable learned simulators.arXiv preprint arXiv:2202.00728, 2022. 3

    arXiv 2022

  3. [3]

    K. R. Allen, K. A. Smith, and J. B. Tenenbaum. Rapid trial-and-error learning with simulation supports flexible tool use and physical reasoning.Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, 117(47):29302–29310, 2020. 4

    work page 2020

  4. [4]

    G. Authors. Genesis: A universal and generative physics engine for robotics and beyond, 2024. 3, 6

    work page 2024

  5. [5]

    Baumli, S

    K. Baumli, S. Baveja, F. Behbahani, H. Chan, G. Comanici, S. Flennerhag, M. Gazeau, K. Hol- sheimer, D. Horgan, M. Laskin, et al. Vision-language models as a source of rewards.arXiv preprint arXiv:2312.09187, 2023. 3

    arXiv 2023

  6. [6]

    BlenderKit: Online Asset Library for Blender

    BlenderKit Team. BlenderKit: Online Asset Library for Blender. https://www.blenderkit. com/, 2025. Accessed: 2025-05-12. 7

    work page 2025

  7. [7]

    Brawer, M

    J. Brawer, M. Qin, and B. Scassellati. A causal approach to tool affordance learning. In2020 IEEE/RSJ international conference on intelligent robots and systems (IROS), pages 8394–8399. IEEE, 2020. 4

    work page 2020

  8. [8]

    B. Chen, Z. Xu, S. Kirmani, B. Ichter, D. Sadigh, L. Guibas, and F. Xia. Spatialvlm: Endowing vision-language models with spatial reasoning capabilities. InProceedings of the IEEE/CVF Conference on Computer Vision and Pattern Recognition, pages 14455–14465, 2024. 2

    work page 2024

Show all 66 references
  1. [9]

    J. Chen, Y . Mu, Q. Yu, T. Wei, S. Wu, Z. Yuan, Z. Liang, C. Yang, K. Zhang, W. Shao, et al. Roboscript: Code generation for free-form manipulation tasks across real and simulation.arXiv preprint arXiv:2402.14623, 2024. 1, 3

    2024 arXiv

  2. [10]

    Cheng, H

    A.-C. Cheng, H. Yin, Y . Fu, Q. Guo, R. Yang, J. Kautz, X. Wang, and S. Liu. Spatialrgpt: Grounded spatial reasoning in vision language models.arXiv preprint arXiv:2406.01584, 2024. 2

    2024 arXiv

  3. [11]

    Cherian, R

    A. Cherian, R. Corcodel, S. Jain, and D. Romeres. Llmphy: Complex physical reasoning using large language models and world models.arXiv preprint arXiv:2411.08027, 2024. 2

    2024 arXiv

  4. [12]

    Dalal, A

    M. Dalal, A. Mandlekar, C. Garrett, A. Handa, R. Salakhutdinov, and D. Fox. Imitating task and motion planning with visuomotor transformers.arXiv preprint arXiv:2305.16309, 2023. 1, 3

    2023 arXiv

  5. [13]

    Y . Dong, S. Han, X. Cheng, W. Friedl, R. I. C. Muchacho, M. A. Roa, J. Tumova, and F. T. Pokorny. Co-designing tools and control policies for robust manipulation.arXiv preprint arXiv:2409.11113, 2024. 1, 2, 3, 4

    2024 arXiv

  6. [14]

    Exarchos, K

    I. Exarchos, K. Wang, B. H. Do, F. Stroppa, M. M. Coad, A. M. Okamura, and C. K. Liu. Task-specific design optimization and fabrication for inflated-beam soft robots with growable discrete joints. In2022 International Conference on Robotics and Automation (ICRA), pages 7145–71...

    2022

  7. [15]

    K. Fang, Y . Zhu, A. Garg, A. Kurenkov, V . Mehta, L. Fei-Fei, and S. Savarese. Learning task-oriented grasping for tool manipulation from simulated self-supervision.The International Journal of Robotics Research, 39(2-3):202–216, 2020. 4

    2020

  8. [16]

    J. Goodall. Tool-using and aimed throwing in a community of free-living chimpanzees.Nature, 201(4926):1264–1266, 1964. 1

    1964

  9. [17]

    E. K. Gordon and R. S. Zarrin. Online augmentation of learned grasp sequence policies for more adaptable and data-efficient in-hand manipulation. In2023 IEEE International Conference on Robotics and Automation (ICRA), pages 5970–5976. IEEE, 2023. 3 10

    2023

  10. [18]

    M. Guo, Z. Liu, S. Tian, Z. Xie, J. Wu, and C. K. Liu. Learning to design 3d printable adaptations on everyday objects for robot manipulation. In2024 IEEE International Conference on Robotics and Automation (ICRA), pages 824–830. IEEE, 2024. 1, 2, 3, 4

    2024

  11. [19]

    H. Ha, S. Agrawal, and S. Song. Fit2form: 3d generative model for robot gripper form design. InConference on Robot Learning, pages 176–187. PMLR, 2021. 2, 3

    2021

  12. [20]

    H. Ha, P. Florence, and S. Song. Scaling up and distilling down: Language-guided robot skill acquisition. InConference on Robot Learning, pages 3766–3777. PMLR, 2023. 1, 3

    2023

  13. [21]

    Hansen and A

    N. Hansen and A. Ostermeier. Completely derandomized self-adaptation in evolution strategies. Evolutionary computation, 9(2):159–195, 2001. 6

    2001

  14. [22]

    Hirose, T

    T. Hirose, T. Fujisawa, H. Yoshida, H. Kawasaki, D. Hirayama, and T. Sasaki. Concept of csg and its material properties. InRCC Dams-Roller Compacted Concrete Dams, pages 465–473. Routledge, 2018. 5

    2018

  15. [23]

    Katara, Z

    P. Katara, Z. Xian, and K. Fragkiadaki. Gen2sim: Scaling up robot learning in simulation with generative models. In2024 IEEE International Conference on Robotics and Automation (ICRA), pages 6672–6679. IEEE, 2024. 1, 3

    2024

  16. [24]

    Kawaharazuka, K

    K. Kawaharazuka, K. Okada, and M. Inaba. Adaptive whole-body robotic tool-use learn- ing on low-rigidity plastic-made humanoids using vision and tactile sensors. In2024 IEEE International Conference on Robotics and Automation (ICRA), pages 583–589. IEEE, 2024. 3

    2024

  17. [25]

    L. Ke, J. Wang, T. Bhattacharjee, B. Boots, and S. Srinivasa. Grasping with chopsticks: Combating covariate shift in model-free imitation learning for fine manipulation. In2021 IEEE international conference on robotics and automation (ICRA), pages 6185–6191. IEEE, 2021. 3

    2021

  18. [26]

    M. Li, R. Antonova, D. Sadigh, and J. Bohg. Learning tool morphology for contact-rich manipulation tasks with differentiable simulation. In2023 IEEE International Conference on Robotics and Automation (ICRA), pages 1859–1865. IEEE, 2023. 2

    2023

  19. [27]

    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. InProceedings of the IEEE/CVF Conference on Computer Vision and Pattern Recognition (CVPR), pages ...

    2024

  20. [28]

    Y . Li, T. Kong, L. Li, Y . Li, and Y . Wu. Learning to design and construct bridge without blueprint. In2021 IEEE/RSJ International Conference on Intelligent Robots and Systems (IROS), pages 2398–2405. IEEE, 2021. 3

    2021

  21. [29]

    Liang and A

    J. Liang and A. Boularias. Learning category-level manipulation tasks from point clouds with dynamic graph cnns. In2023 IEEE International Conference on Robotics and Automation (ICRA), pages 1807–1813. IEEE, 2023. 3

    2023

  22. [30]

    C. Lin, J. Fan, Y . Wang, Z. Yang, Z. Chen, L. Fang, T. Wang, Z. Xian, and C. Gan. Ubsoft: A simulation platform for robotic skill learning in unbounded soft environments. InProceedings of the Conference on Robot Learning (CoRL), PMLR 270, pages 4879–4894. PMLR, November

  23. [31]

    X. Lin, Z. Huang, Y . Li, J. B. Tenenbaum, D. Held, and C. Gan. Diffskill: Skill abstraction from differentiable physics for deformable object manipulations with tools.arXiv preprint arXiv:2203.17275, 2022. 4

    2022 arXiv

  24. [32]

    Ling, C.-H

    L. Ling, C.-H. Lin, T.-Y . Lin, Y . Ding, Y . Zeng, Y . Sheng, Y . Ge, M.-Y . Liu, A. Bera, and Z. Li. Scenethesis: A language and vision agentic framework for 3d scene generation.arXiv preprint arXiv:2505.02836, 2025. 1, 3

    2025 arXiv

  25. [33]

    B. Liu, Y . Zhu, C. Gao, Y . Feng, Q. Liu, Y . Zhu, and P. Stone. Libero: Benchmarking knowledge transfer for lifelong robot learning.Advances in Neural Information Processing Systems, 36:44776–44791, 2023. 3 11

    2023

  26. [34]

    R. Liu, Y . Du, F. Bai, J. Lyu, and X. Li. PEARL: Zero-shot cross-task preference alignment and robust reward learning for robotic manipulation. In R. Salakhutdinov, Z. Kolter, K. Heller, A. Weller, N. Oliver, J. Scarlett, and F. Berkenkamp, editors,Proceedings of the 41st Int...

    2024

  27. [35]

    Z. Liu, S. Tian, M. Guo, C. K. Liu, and J. Wu. Learning to design and use tools for robotic manipulation.arXiv preprint arXiv:2311.00754, 2023. 1, 2, 3, 4

    2023 arXiv

  28. [36]

    Y . J. Ma, V . Kumar, A. Zhang, O. Bastani, and D. Jayaraman. Liv: Language-image representa- tions and rewards for robotic control. InInternational Conference on Machine Learning, pages 23301–23320. PMLR, 2023. 3

    2023

  29. [37]

    Meshy: AI 3D Model Generator

    Meshy AI. Meshy: AI 3D Model Generator. https://www.meshy.ai/, 2025. Accessed: 2025-05-11. 7

    2025

  30. [38]

    Y . Mu, J. Chen, Q. Zhang, S. Chen, Q. Yu, C. GE, R. Chen, Z. Liang, M. Hu, C. Tao, et al. Robocodex: multimodal code generation for robotic behavior synthesis. InProceedings of the 41st International Conference on Machine Learning, pages 36434–36454, 2024. 3

    2024

  31. [39]

    Nagata, K

    F. Nagata, K. Watanabe, and K. Izumi. Furniture polishing robot using a trajectory generator based on cutter location data. InProceedings 2001 ICRA. IEEE international conference on robotics and automation (cat. No. 01CH37164), volume 1, pages 319–324. IEEE, 2001. 3

    2001

  32. [40]

    L. Nair, N. Shrivatsav, and S. Chernova. Tool macgyvering: A novel framework for combining tool substitution and construction.arXiv preprint arXiv:2008.10638, 2020. 3

    2008 arXiv

  33. [41]

    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. InProceedings of the IEEE/CVF Conference on Computer Vision...

    2024

  34. [42]

    Gpt-3 o3-mini, 2025

    OpenAI. Gpt-3 o3-mini, 2025. [Large language model]. 5

    2025

  35. [43]

    Z. Qin, K. Fang, Y . Zhu, L. Fei-Fei, and S. Savarese. Keto: Learning keypoint representations for tool manipulation. In2020 IEEE International Conference on Robotics and Automation (ICRA), pages 7278–7285. IEEE, 2020. 4

    2020

  36. [44]

    X. Qiu, Y . Wang, J. Cai, Z. Chen, C. Lin, T.-H. Wang, and C. Gan. Lucibot: Automated robot policy learning from generated videos.arXiv preprint arXiv:2503.09871, 2025. 4

    2025 arXiv

  37. [45]

    Richter, J

    F. Richter, J. Lu, R. K. Orosco, and M. C. Yip. Robotic tool tracking under partially visible kinematic chain: A unified approach.IEEE Transactions on Robotics, 38(3):1653–1670, 2021. 3

    2021

  38. [46]

    Rocamonde, V

    J. Rocamonde, V . Montesinos, E. Nava, E. Perez, and D. Lindner. Vision-language models are zero-shot reward models for reinforcement learning.arXiv preprint arXiv:2310.12921, 2023. 3

    2023 arXiv

  39. [47]

    H. Shi, H. Xu, S. Clarke, Y . Li, and J. Wu. Robocook: Long-horizon elasto-plastic object manipulation with diverse tools.arXiv preprint arXiv:2306.14447, 2023. 1, 3, 4

    2023 arXiv

  40. [48]

    Sontakke, J

    S. Sontakke, J. Zhang, S. Arnold, K. Pertsch, E. Bıyık, D. Sadigh, C. Finn, and L. Itti. Roboclip: One demonstration is enough to learn robot policies.Advances in Neural Information Processing Systems, 36:55681–55693, 2023. 3

    2023

  41. [49]

    C. P. Van Schaik and G. R. Pradhan. A model for tool-use traditions in primates: implications for the coevolution of culture and cognition.Journal of Human Evolution, 44(6):645–664, 2003. 1

    2003

  42. [50]

    Y . Wan, J. Mao, and J. Tenenbaum. Handmethat: Human-robot communication in physical and social environments.Advances in Neural Information Processing Systems, 35:12014–12026,

  43. [51]

    L. Wang, Y . Ling, Z. Yuan, M. Shridhar, C. Bao, Y . Qin, B. Wang, H. Xu, and X. Wang. Gensim: Generating robotic simulation tasks via large language models.arXiv preprint arXiv:2310.01361,

    arXiv

  44. [52]

    T.-H. J. Wang, J. Zheng, P. Ma, Y . Du, B. Kim, A. Spielberg, J. Tenenbaum, C. Gan, and D. Rus. Diffusebot: Breeding soft robots with physics-augmented generative diffusion models. Advances in Neural Information Processing Systems, 36:44398–44423, 2023. 2

    2023

  45. [53]

    Y . Wang, X. Qiu, J. Liu, Z. Chen, J. Cai, Y . Wang, T.-H. J. Wang, Z. Xian, and C. Gan. Architect: Generating vivid and interactive 3d scenes with hierarchical 2d inpainting.Advances in Neural Information Processing Systems, 37:67575–67603, 2024. 1, 3

    2024

  46. [54]

    Y . Wang, Z. Xian, F. Chen, T.-H. Wang, Y . Wang, K. Fragkiadaki, Z. Erickson, D. Held, and C. Gan. Robogen: Towards unleashing infinite data for automated robot learning via generative simulation.arXiv preprint arXiv:2311.01455, 2023. 1, 3

    2023 arXiv

  47. [55]

    Y . R. Wang, J. Duan, D. Fox, and S. Srinivasa. Newton: Are large language models capable of physical reasoning?arXiv preprint arXiv:2310.07018, 2023. 2

    2023 arXiv

  48. [56]

    J. Wen, Y . Zhu, M. Zhu, J. Li, Z. Xu, Z. Che, C. Shen, Y . Peng, D. Liu, F. Feng, et al. Object-centric instruction augmentation for robotic manipulation. In2024 IEEE International Conference on Robotics and Automation (ICRA), pages 4318–4325. IEEE, 2024. 3

    2024

  49. [57]

    Y . Wu, S. Kasewa, O. Groth, S. Salter, L. Sun, O. P. Jones, and I. Posner. Imagine that! leveraging emergent affordances for 3d tool synthesis.arXiv preprint arXiv:1909.13561, 2019. 2, 3

    1909 arXiv

  50. [58]

    A. Xie, F. Ebert, S. Levine, and C. Finn. Improvisation through physical understanding: Using novel objects as tools with visual foresight.arXiv preprint arXiv:1904.05538, 2019. 4

    1904 arXiv

  51. [59]

    T. Xie, S. Zhao, C. H. Wu, Y . Liu, Q. Luo, V . Zhong, Y . Yang, and T. Yu. Text2reward: Reward shaping with language models for reinforcement learning. InThe Twelfth International Conference on Learning Representations. 3

  52. [60]

    M. Xu, W. Yu, P. Huang, S. Liu, X. Zhang, Y . Niu, T. Zhang, F. Xia, J. Tan, and D. Zhao. Creative robot tool use with large language models. In2nd Workshop on Language and Robot Learning: Language as Grounding, 2023. 1, 2, 3, 4

    2023

  53. [61]

    W. Yu, N. Gileadi, C. Fu, S. Kirmani, K.-H. Lee, M. G. Arenas, H.-T. L. Chiang, T. Erez, L. Hasenclever, J. Humplik, et al. Language to rewards for robotic skill synthesis.arXiv preprint arXiv:2306.08647, 2023. 3

    2023 arXiv

  54. [62]

    Y . Zeng, Y . Mu, and L. Shao. Learning reward for robot skills using large language models via self-alignment. InInternational Conference on Machine Learning, pages 58366–58386. PMLR,

  55. [63]

    name " :

    Z. Zhang, F. Hu, J. Lee, F. Shi, P. Kordjamshidi, J. Chai, and Z. Ma. Do vision-language models represent space and how? evaluating spatial frame of reference under ambiguities.arXiv preprint arXiv:2410.17385, 2024. 2 13 A Tool Representation A.1 An example of tool representat...

    2024 arXiv

  56. [65]

    A good tool should be easy to grasp

  57. [66]

    make the dough into a calabash liked shape

    A good tool should be in good shape , and each part looks c on nec te d . $ U S E R _ P R O V I D E D _ P R I N C I P L E S $ 19 [ R E N D E R E D _ F I G U R E S ] B.3 Tool User Prompt Template Now you have a robotic task : On the table , there is a robot arm with a parallel ...

  58. [2024]

    Also available as arXiv preprint arXiv:2411.12711. 3

    arXiv

Pith tools

Reviewed August 7, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.