Pith. sign in

REVIEW 3 major objections 5 minor 3 cited by

A plug-in that turns any fixed-base manipulation model into a mobile one, zero-shot, without mobile-manipulation training data.

Reviewed by Pith at T0; open to challenge. T0 means a machine referee read the full paper against a public rubric. the ladder, T0–T4 →

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

MoTo turns existing fixed-base manipulation models into mobile manipulators by using VLM-picked contact keypoints and trajectory optimization to find docking points, with no training of MoTo itself.

T0 review reviewed 2026-08-05 challenge →

load-bearing objection A plausible modular docking-point method that is undermined by its own fine-tuned backbones: the zero-shot claim is asserted, not tested, and the missing MoManipVLA baseline plus no variance reporting make the empirical case weaker than the writing suggests. the 3 major comments →

arxiv 2509.01658 v1 pith:Q24FILGE submitted 2025-09-01 cs.RO

MoTo: A Zero-shot Plug-in Interaction-aware Navigation for General Mobile Manipulation

Zhenyu Wu , Angyuan Ma , Xiuwei Xu , Hang Yin , Yinan Liang , Ziwei Wang , Jiwen Lu , Haibin Yan This is my paper
classification cs.RO
keywords mobile manipulationzero-shot learningvision-language modelsinteraction keypointsdocking-point navigationtrajectory optimizationmanipulation foundation modelsscene graphs
verification ladder T0 review T1 audit T2 compute T3 formal T4 reserved

The pith

A machine-rendered reading of the paper's core claim, the machinery that carries it, and where it could break.

The reading

Mobile manipulation usually needs large amounts of demonstration data, but fixed-base manipulation models already generalize well from large training sets. MoTo is a plug-in that attaches to any such off-the-shelf fixed-base model and gives it a mobile base, in zero shots, without any mobile manipulation expert data. The key idea is to treat the last-metre problem as aligning two keypoints: one on the target object and one on the robot arm, then solving for base and arm trajectories that bring them together while keeping the arm within a comfortable operating range. If this works, the large ecosystem of fixed-base manipulation models can be deployed for mobile tasks like 'serve me water' or 'prepare a meal' just by adding a navigation layer that knows where to dock. The paper reports higher success rates than existing mobile-manipulation systems on a standard benchmark and in real-world tests.

Core claim

MoTo (Move and Touch) is a plug-in module that takes any fixed-base manipulation model and turns it into a mobile manipulation system. The paper's central claim is that the problem of where to put the base can be solved zero-shot, without training on mobile manipulation demonstrations, by reducing every subtask to a keypoint-alignment problem. A VLM, prompted with an object-centric image and a language subtask, selects interaction keypoints on the target object and on the robot arm; multi-view voting fuses the 2D proposals into a 3D target keypoint. A trajectory optimizer then moves the base and arm so the arm keypoint reaches the object keypoint, while cost terms penalize collisions, sudden

What carries the argument

The central object is the interaction keypoint pair: a target keypoint (TK) on the object and an arm keypoint (AK) on the manipulator. MoTo aligns TK and AK through a constrained trajectory optimization that minimises their Euclidean distance subject to collision, smoothness, and arm-margin costs. The TK is produced by VLM keypoint proposal, keypoint selection, and multi-view 3D voting; the AK is obtained from wrist observation or end-effector proprioception. Aligning the two keypoints is what converts a navigation problem into a manipulation-feasible docking problem.

Load-bearing premise

MoTo assumes every mobile task can be broken into sequential subtasks that each reduce to 'navigate to a spot, lock the base, then run a fixed-base manipulation,' and that all relevant objects are fully visible at sufficient resolution for keypoint extraction.

What would settle it

Place the target object behind a partial occlusion so it is visible only at low resolution in each camera view; MoTo's keypoint proposal and voting should degrade sharply. If a single low-resolution view still yields successful docking and manipulation, the full-visibility assumption is not load-bearing.

Watch this falsifier. Get emailed when new claim-graph text bears on it.

If this is right

  • Any fixed-base manipulation model—heuristic, diffusion-policy, or foundation model—can be lifted to mobile manipulation without retraining, so progress in fixed-base manipulation transfers directly to mobile tasks.
  • The approach does not require mobile manipulation expert data, lowering the cost of deploying mobile manipulation in new environments.
  • Docking points are chosen for interaction feasibility, not just proximity, addressing the compounding-error problem of naively chaining navigation and manipulation.
  • Multi-view voting can produce accurate 3D target keypoints from partial object images, enabling part-level interactions such as opening a fridge by its handle rather than its back.
  • Performance is bounded by the viewpoint generalization of the underlying fixed-base model; the paper finds 3D point-cloud-based policies generalize better across docking poses than some language-conditioned models.

Where Pith is reading between the lines

These are editorial extensions of the paper, not claims the author makes directly.

  • Beyond the paper: the same keypoint-alignment reduction could apply to other mobile manipulation subproblems, such as tool-use over large surfaces or mobile assembly, as long as the subtask decomposes into reach-and-interact primitives.
  • Beyond the paper: the fixed-base reduction sets a testable boundary—tasks requiring simultaneous whole-body coordination, like opening a door with a rotating handle, will need MoTo combined with a whole-body control layer.
  • Beyond the paper: because MoTo depends on a pre-scanned static scene graph, an incremental online reconstruction module would extend it to dynamic environments; one could test whether refreshing keypoints at a higher frequency reduces failures from scene changes.
  • Beyond the paper: the multi-view voting threshold and the clustering resolution together determine keypoint precision; varying the threshold may reveal how sensitive success rate is to keypoint accuracy, a quantity the paper does not directly report.
Share X Bluesky LinkedIn Reddit HN

Editorial analysis

A structured set of objections, weighed in public.

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

Referee Report

3 major / 5 minor

Summary. The paper proposes MoTo, a plug-in module that converts fixed-base manipulation policies into mobile manipulation policies by (1) grounding an instruction in a 3D scene graph, (2) using a VLM to propose and select interaction keypoints on the target object and the robot arm under multi-view voting, and (3) solving a trajectory optimization that moves the base and arm so that the two keypoints align while respecting collision, smoothness, and arm-margin costs. The authors claim that MoTo provides zero-shot mobile manipulation for any off-the-shelf fixed-base manipulation model without requiring mobile manipulation expert data, and they report improved success rates on the OVMM benchmark and on a real dual-arm platform with several manipulation backbones.

Significance. If the zero-shot plug-in claim held, this would be a useful contribution: it would allow the rapidly improving class of fixed-base VLA and diffusion policies to be transferred to mobile platforms without training new mobile policies. The paper has clear strengths: the system is modular, the multi-view keypoint voting is a sensible way to reduce VLM grounding noise, the pipeline is described concretely, and the authors evaluate with several manipulation backbones in both simulation and the real world. They also state limitations honestly in Section 7. However, as detailed below, the experimental setup does not actually test the headline zero-shot claim, and the quantitative evidence is weakened by absent variance reporting and by the omission of the closest prior baseline. The core idea is defensible, but the claims need to be re-scoped or the experiments need to be extended.

major comments (3)
  1. [Abstract, §5, App. A.1/A.3] The central claim that MoTo works zero-shot 'without any requirement on mobile manipulation expert data' is not tested by the paper's experiments. Appendix A.1 states that the authors collected manipulation expert trajectories using an OVMM-heuristic baseline and fine-tuned off-the-shelf manipulation foundation models. Appendix A.3 reports collecting 20k demonstrations to fine-tune OpenVLA with LoRA, and 50 expert demonstrations per task to fine-tune RDT-1B and iDP3 in a real kitchen. These are exactly the kind of mobile-manipulation expert data the abstract says are unnecessary. Consequently, the OpenVLA-with-MoTo gains in Table 1 and the real-world gains in Figure 3 are confounded: they may be due to fine-tuning the manipulation backbone rather than to MoTo's docking-point search. Please either evaluate frozen manipulation backbones without any fine-tuning, or revise the zero-shot/no-e
  2. [§5.1–5.3, Table 1, Fig. 3] The main quantitative claims lack uncertainty estimates. Table 1 reports single point estimates for each success rate, and Figure 3 reports only 10 real-world trials per task with no standard deviation, confidence interval, or per-trial breakdown. An improvement of 2.68% on OVMM (OpenVLA w/ MoTo vs. UniTeam in Table 1) and 16.67% in the real world can easily lie within sampling noise at this sample size. Please report the number of OVMM validation episodes, multiple evaluation seeds, per-task success counts, error bars for the real-robot results, and, where possible, a significance test before claiming state-of-the-art performance.
  3. [§5.1, Table 1] The comparison omits the closest published baseline. MoTo is closely related to MoManipVLA [3], a base-waypoint-optimization method for transferring VLA policies to mobile manipulation, and to IALP [27], but neither appears in Table 1. Since the manuscript claims state-of-the-art performance and MoTo's contribution is precisely a different way of choosing docking points, the evaluation must include those methods. Without them, the reported margins do not support the SOTA claim.
minor comments (5)
  1. [Table 1] The column header appears garbled: 'A verage SR Step' mixes two columns, and numbers such as 1132.5 cannot be success rates. Separate the 'Average SR' column from the 'Step' column and label the latter with its units (presumably episode length).
  2. [Figure 3] The real-world results are shown only as a dot plot. Please add a companion table with mean success rate, task completion rate, number of trials, and per-task counts, since the dots are hard to read and the claimed 16.67% improvement is not accompanied by numerical values in the text.
  3. [§4.2–4.3] Several hyperparameters—τ in Eq. (5), ε0 in Eq. (8), topV, rmin/rmax in Eq. (10), Nq, and the dual-annealing stopping threshold—are never given concrete values. A reproducibility table with these settings would be valuable, as would a brief sensitivity study for τ and ε0.
  4. [§4.1–4.3, Appendix C] The equation numbering is inconsistent: the paper refers to Eq. (1) as the overall objective, then to Eq. (3) and Eq. (4) and Eq. (7) for components. Algorithm 1 says 'Use Eq. (4)' but also calls the cost function O. Please align the numbering and state explicitly what O is in Algorithm 1.
  5. [Throughout] Minor typos and formatting issues: 'Inter view' in Figure 1 should be 'multi-view'; 'Double Annealing' in Appendix C should be 'Dual Annealing'; reference [37] contains 'V oxPoser' with a stray space; and the abstract's 'interaction keypoints framework' should be 'interaction-keypoint framework'.

Circularity Check

1 steps flagged

MoTo's zero-shot claim rests on experiments where the manipulation backbones were fine-tuned on mobile-manipulation expert data, so the reported gains are partly forced by the fitted input.

specific steps
  1. fitted input called prediction [Appendix A.1/A.3 vs Abstract and Table 1]
    "We utilize an OVMM-heuristic baseline to collect manipulation expert trajectories that include robot proprioception, action, and visual observations to fine-tune off-the-shelf manipulation foundation models. ... we collected a total of 20k data and fine-tuned 10k epoch on 8 RTX 3090 GPUs using the LoRA strategy."

    The abstract defines MoTo's central claim as zero-shot, 'without any requirement on mobile manipulation expert data.' The experiments used to support that claim (Table 1: OpenVLA w/ MoTo; Fig. 3: RDT-1B/iDP3 w/ MoTo) rely on backbones fine-tuned on expert demonstrations collected during mobile manipulation (20k OVMM demonstrations; 50 demonstrations per real kitchen task). The success rates are therefore predictions of a model fitted to the same benchmark/task distribution, not predictions of an off-the-shelf fixed-base manipulation model plus MoTo. The gain attributed to the plug-in is statistically forced by the fine-tuning input and does not isolate MoTo's docking-point optimization.

full rationale

MoTo's internal derivation (Secs. 4.2-4.3, Eqs. 3-10) is largely self-contained: target and arm keypoints come from VLM/DINOv2/SAM proposals + multi-view voting, and base/arm trajectories are produced by minimizing keypoint distance plus collision, smoothness, and margin costs. None of these terms is fit to the evaluation data, and no uniqueness theorem is imported from the authors' prior work. The citations to the authors' MoManipVLA and SG-Nav are related-work references, not load-bearing justifications of MoTo's formulation. However, the central empirical claim that MoTo is a zero-shot plug-in 'without any requirement on mobile manipulation expert data' is contradicted by the paper's own Appendix A.1/A.3, which describes fine-tuning OpenVLA on 20k OVMM mobile-manipulation expert trajectories and fine-tuning RDT-1B/iDP3 on 50 expert demonstrations per real-world task. Because the headline Table 1 and Figure 3 gains are obtained with these fitted backbones, the zero-shot 'prediction' is confounded with the training input: the result does not establish that an arbitrary frozen off-the-shelf manipulation model is empowered by MoTo alone. This is a partial circularity/confound in the evaluation of the paper's central claim, though the optimization method itself is not definitionally circular.

Axiom & Free-Parameter Ledger

6 free parameters · 5 axioms · 0 invented entities

MoTo itself has no learned parameters, so the ledger is dominated by hand-chosen optimization hyperparameters and strong domain assumptions about observable scenes, available fixed-base policies, and decomposability of tasks.

free parameters (6)
  • epsilon_0
    Collision safety margin in Eq. 8, chosen by hand.
  • tau
    Euclidean distance threshold for multi-view keypoint voting in Eq. 5.
  • topV
    Number of keypoint proposals the VLM must select per view.
  • r_min, r_max
    Bounds on arm radius used in margin cost Eq. 10; robot-specific constants.
  • N_q
    Number of query points sampled on the robot surface for collision cost.
  • dual annealing stopping threshold epsilon
    Stopping condition in Algorithm 1, not specified numerically.
axioms (5)
  • domain assumption A fixed-base manipulation policy with competence on the low-level instruction is available and can complete the subtask once the base is docked.
    Stated in the Problem Statement and used throughout to justify focusing only on docking points.
  • domain assumption Each subtask can be executed by navigating then fixing the base; simultaneous base-arm coordination is excluded.
    Section 4.1 footnote excludes tasks requiring simultaneous base and arm movement; the limitation section admits no whole-body control.
  • domain assumption The 3D scene reconstruction (ConceptGraph) and SLAM are accurate enough for keypoint projection and voting.
    Used throughout the pipeline; failure cases in Appendix D.2 cite localization errors as a source of failure.
  • domain assumption A VLM can select a relevant interaction keypoint from DINOv2/SAM proposals without task-specific training.
    Section 4.2 builds the zero-shot claim on this capability.
  • domain assumption All relevant objects are fully observable and at sufficient resolution.
    Explicitly stated as a limitation in Section 7.

reviewed 2026-08-05 · how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of MoTo: A Zero-shot Plug-in Interaction-aware Navigation for General Mobile Manipulation." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/Q24FILGE

@misc{pith2026250901658,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: MoTo: A Zero-shot Plug-in Interaction-aware Navigation for General Mobile Manipulation},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/Q24FILGE}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2509.01658}
}
Share X Bluesky LinkedIn Reddit HN
read the original abstract

Mobile manipulation stands as a core challenge in robotics, enabling robots to assist humans across varied tasks and dynamic daily environments. Conventional mobile manipulation approaches often struggle to generalize across different tasks and environments due to the lack of large-scale training. However, recent advances in manipulation foundation models demonstrate impressive generalization capability on a wide range of fixed-base manipulation tasks, which are still limited to a fixed setting. Therefore, we devise a plug-in module named MoTo, which can be combined with any off-the-shelf manipulation foundation model to empower them with mobile manipulation ability. Specifically, we propose an interaction-aware navigation policy to generate robot docking points for generalized mobile manipulation. To enable zero-shot ability, we propose an interaction keypoints framework via vision-language models (VLM) under multi-view consistency for both target object and robotic arm following instructions, where fixed-base manipulation foundation models can be employed. We further propose motion planning objectives for the mobile base and robot arm, which minimize the distance between the two keypoints and maintain the physical feasibility of trajectories. In this way, MoTo guides the robot to move to the docking points where fixed-base manipulation can be successfully performed, and leverages VLM generation and trajectory optimization to achieve mobile manipulation in a zero-shot manner, without any requirement on mobile manipulation expert data. Extensive experimental results on OVMM and real-world demonstrate that MoTo achieves success rates of 2.68% and 16.67% higher than the state-of-the-art mobile manipulation methods, respectively, without requiring additional training data.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2509.01658 by Angyuan Ma, Haibin Yan, Hang Yin, Jiwen Lu, Xiuwei Xu, Yinan Liang, Zhenyu Wu, Ziwei Wang.

Figure 1
Figure 1. Figure 1: MoTo can be plugged into any fixed-base manipulation model and transferred to mobile [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p002_1.png] view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. Figure 2: The pipeline of MoTo. Based on robot scanning RGB-D observation to get 3D scene point [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p004_2.png] view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. Figure 3: Real-world experimental results. All methods are run 10 times on the three types of mobile [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p008_3.png] view at source ↗
Figure 4
Figure 4. Figure 4: Real-world experimental platforms and deployment environments. [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p013_4.png] view at source ↗
Figure 5
Figure 5. Figure 5: Visualization of mobile manipulation trajectories for real-world experiments. [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p015_5.png] view at source ↗
Figure 6
Figure 6. Figure 6: Visualization results for keypoint generation. MoTo selects keypoint proposals (red points) [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p016_6.png] view at source ↗
Figure 7
Figure 7. Figure 7: Failure Cases in real-world experiments. [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p016_7.png] view at source ↗

discussion (0)

Sign in with ORCID, Apple, or X to comment. Anyone can read and Pith papers without signing in.

Forward citations

Cited by 3 Pith papers

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

  1. DockAnywhere: Data-Efficient Visuomotor Policy Learning for Mobile Manipulation via Novel Demonstration Generation

    cs.RO 2026-04 unverdicted novelty 7.0

    DockAnywhere lifts single demonstrations to diverse docking points via structure-preserving augmentation and point-cloud spatial editing to improve viewpoint generalization in visuomotor policies for mobile manipulation.

  2. Learning Category-level Last-meter Navigation from RGB Demonstrations of a Single-instance

    cs.RO 2025-12 conditional novelty 5.0

    An RGB-only imitation-learning policy trained on one chair generalizes to unseen chairs and environments for last-meter base positioning, though reported success depends on an added heuristic stopping rule and a 0.3 m...

  3. N2M: Bridging Navigation and Manipulation by Learning Pose Preference from Rollout

    cs.RO 2025-09 conditional novelty 5.0

    N2M predicts preferable base poses for manipulation policies from ego-centric point clouds, learned from rollouts, lifting success from 3% to 54% in the PnPCounterToCab task.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

55 extracted references · 29 canonical work pages · cited by 3 Pith papers · 2 internal anchors

  1. [1]

    Xiong, R

    H. Xiong, R. Mendonca, K. Shaw, and D. Pathak. Adaptive mobile manipulation for articulated objects in the open world. arXiv preprint arXiv:2401.14403, 2024

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2024

  2. [2]

    R. Yang, Y . Kim, R. Hendrix, A. Kembhavi, X. Wang, and K. Ehsani. Harmonic mobile manipulation. arXiv preprint arXiv:2312.06639, 2023

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2023

  3. [3]

    Z. Wu, Y . Zhou, X. Xu, Z. Wang, and H. Yan. Momanipvla: Transferring vision-language- action models for general mobile manipulation. arXiv preprint arXiv:2503.13446, 2025

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2025

  4. [4]

    A. Xiao, N. Janaka, T. Hu, A. Gupta, K. Li, C. Yu, and D. Hsu. Robi butler: Remote multimodal interactions with household robot assistant. arXiv preprint arXiv:2409.20548, 2024

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2024

  5. [5]

    Abbatematteo, E

    B. Abbatematteo, E. Rosen, S. Thompson, T. Akbulut, S. Rammohan, and G. Konidaris. Com- posable interaction primitives: A structured policy class for efficiently learning sustained- contact manipulation skills. In 2024 IEEE International Conference on Robotics and Automa- tion (ICRA), pages 7522–7529. IEEE, 2024. 9

    work page 2024

  6. [6]

    Y . Peng, Z. Wang, Y . Zhang, S. Zhang, N. Cai, F. Wu, and M. Chen. Revolutionizing battery disassembly: The design and implementation of a battery disassembly autonomous mobile manipulator robot (beam-1). arXiv preprint arXiv:2407.06590, 2024

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2024

  7. [7]

    ˇStibinger, G

    P. ˇStibinger, G. Broughton, F. Majer, Z. Rozsyp´alek, A. Wang, K. Jindal, A. Zhou, D. Thakur, G. Loianno, T. Krajn´ık, et al. Mobile manipulator for autonomous localization, grasping and precise placement of construction material in a semi-structured environment.RA-L, 6(2):2595– 2602, 2021

    work page 2021

  8. [8]

    Huang, D

    X. Huang, D. Batra, A. Rai, and A. Szot. Skill transformer: A monolithic policy for mobile manipulation. In ICCV, pages 10852–10862, 2023

    work page 2023

  9. [9]

    Yokoyama, A

    N. Yokoyama, A. Clegg, J. Truong, E. Undersander, T.-Y . Yang, S. Arnaud, S. Ha, D. Batra, and A. Rai. Asc: Adaptive skill coordination for robotic mobile manipulation. RA-L, 9(1): 779–786, 2023

    work page 2023

  10. [10]

    X. Li, M. Zhang, Y . Geng, H. Geng, Y . Long, Y . Shen, R. Zhang, J. Liu, and H. Dong. Mani- pllm: Embodied multimodal large language model for object-centric robotic manipulation. In CVPR, pages 18061–18070, 2024

    work page 2024

  11. [11]

    M. J. Kim, K. Pertsch, S. Karamcheti, T. Xiao, A. Balakrishna, S. Nair, R. Rafailov, E. Foster, G. Lam, P. Sanketi, et al. Openvla: An open-source vision-language-action model. arXiv preprint arXiv:2406.09246, 2024

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2024

  12. [12]

    S. Liu, L. Wu, B. Li, H. Tan, H. Chen, Z. Wang, K. Xu, H. Su, and J. Zhu. Rdt-1b: a diffusion foundation model for bimanual manipulation. arXiv preprint arXiv:2410.07864, 2024

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2024

  13. [13]

    H. Yin, X. Xu, Z. Wu, J. Zhou, and J. Lu. Sg-nav: Online 3d scene graph prompting for llm-based zero-shot object navigation. arXiv preprint arXiv:2410.08189, 2024

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2024

  14. [14]

    D. Choi, A. Fung, H. Wang, and A. H. Tan. Find everything: A general vision language model approach to multi-object search. arXiv preprint arXiv:2410.00388, 2024

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2024

  15. [15]

    H.-S. Fang, C. Wang, H. Fang, M. Gou, J. Liu, H. Yan, W. Liu, Y . Xie, and C. Lu. Anygrasp: Robust and efficient grasp perception in spatial and temporal domains. T-RO, 2023

    work page 2023

  16. [16]

    Y . Ze, G. Yan, Y .-H. Wu, A. Macaluso, Y . Ge, J. Ye, N. Hansen, L. E. Li, and X. Wang. Gnfactor: Multi-task real robot learning with generalizable neural feature fields. In CoRL, pages 284–301, 2023

    work page 2023

  17. [17]

    J. Gu, D. S. Chaplot, H. Su, and J. Malik. Multi-skill mobile manipulation for object rear- rangement. arXiv preprint arXiv:2209.02778, 2022

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2022

  18. [18]

    Yenamandra, A

    S. Yenamandra, A. Ramachandran, K. Yadav, A. Wang, M. Khanna, T. Gervet, T.-Y . Yang, V . Jain, A. W. Clegg, J. Turner, et al. Homerobot: Open-vocabulary mobile manipulation. arXiv preprint arXiv:2306.11565, 2023

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2023

  19. [19]

    Brohan, N

    A. Brohan, N. Brown, J. Carbajal, Y . Chebotar, J. Dabis, C. Finn, K. Gopalakrishnan, K. Haus- man, A. Herzog, J. Hsu, et al. Rt-1: Robotics transformer for real-world control at scale.arXiv preprint arXiv:2212.06817, 2022

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2022

  20. [20]

    Z. Fu, T. Z. Zhao, and C. Finn. Mobile aloha: Learning bimanual mobile manipulation with low-cost whole-body teleoperation. arXiv preprint arXiv:2401.02117, 2024

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2024

  21. [21]

    R.-Z. Qiu, Y . Hu, G. Yang, Y . Song, Y . Fu, J. Ye, J. Mu, R. Yang, N. Atanasov, S. Scherer, et al. Learning generalizable feature fields for mobile manipulation. arXiv preprint arXiv:2403.07563, 2024. 10

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2024

  22. [22]

    MoMa-Kitchen: A 100K+ Benchmark for Affordance-Grounded Last-Mile Navigation in Mobile Manipulation

    P. Zhang, X. Gao, Y . Wu, K. Liu, D. Wang, Z. Wang, B. Zhao, Y . Ding, and X. Li. Moma- kitchen: A 100k+ benchmark for affordance-grounded last-mile navigation in mobile manipu- lation. arXiv preprint arXiv:2503.11081, 2025

    work page internal anchor Pith review Pith/arXiv arXiv 2025

  23. [23]

    S. Yan, Z. Zhang, M. Han, Z. Wang, Q. Xie, Z. Li, Z. Li, H. Liu, X. Wang, and S.-C. Zhu. M2diffuser: Diffusion-based trajectory optimization for mobile manipulation in 3d scenes. arXiv preprint arXiv:2410.11402, 2024

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2024

  24. [24]

    Mendonca, E

    R. Mendonca, E. Panov, B. Bucher, J. Wang, and D. Pathak. Continuously improving mobile manipulation with autonomous real-world rl. arXiv preprint arXiv:2409.20568, 2024

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2024

  25. [25]

    P. Liu, Y . Orru, J. Vakil, C. Paxton, N. M. M. Shafiullah, and L. Pinto. Ok-robot: What really matters in integrating open-knowledge models for robotics. arXiv preprint arXiv:2401.12202, 2024

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2024

  26. [26]

    Rosen, S

    E. Rosen, S. James, S. Orozco, V . Gupta, M. Merlin, S. Tellex, and G. Konidaris. Synthesizing navigation abstractions for planning with portable manipulation skills. InConference on Robot Learning, pages 2278–2287. PMLR, 2023

    work page 2023

  27. [27]

    F. Wang, S. Lyu, P. Zhou, A. Duan, G. Guo, and D. Navarro-Alarcon. Instruction-augmented long-horizon planning: Embedding grounding mechanisms in embodied mobile manipulation. 2025

    work page 2025

  28. [28]

    X. Meng, X. Yang, S. Jung, F. Ramos, S. S. Jujjavarapu, S. Paul, and D. Fox. Aim my robot: Precision local navigation to any object. arXiv preprint arXiv:2411.14770, 2024

    work page internal anchor Pith review Pith/arXiv arXiv 2024

  29. [29]

    Quartey, E

    B. Quartey, E. Rosen, S. Tellex, and G. Konidaris. Verifiably following complex robot instruc- tions with foundation models. arXiv preprint arXiv:2402.11498, 2024

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2024

  30. [30]

    M. Kelly. An introduction to trajectory optimization: How to do your own direct collocation. SIAM Review, 59(4):849–904, 2017

    work page 2017

  31. [31]

    Hewing, K

    L. Hewing, K. P. Wabersich, M. Menner, and M. N. Zeilinger. Learning-based model predictive control: Toward safe learning in control. CRAS, 3(1):269–296, 2020

    work page 2020

  32. [32]

    M. B. Chang, T. Ullman, A. Torralba, and J. B. Tenenbaum. A compositional object-based approach to learning physical dynamics. arXiv preprint arXiv:1612.00341, 2016

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2016

  33. [33]

    Sundermeyer, A

    M. Sundermeyer, A. Mousavian, R. Triebel, and D. Fox. Contact-graspnet: Efficient 6-dof grasp generation in cluttered scenes. In ICRA, pages 13438–13444, 2021

    work page 2021

  34. [34]

    K. Mo, Y . Qin, F. Xiang, H. Su, and L. Guibas. O2o-afford: Annotation-free large-scale object-object affordance learning. In CoRL, pages 1666–1677, 2022

    work page 2022

  35. [35]

    C. Chi, Z. Xu, S. Feng, E. Cousineau, Y . Du, B. Burchfiel, R. Tedrake, and S. Song. Diffusion policy: Visuomotor policy learning via action diffusion. IJRR, 2023

    work page 2023

  36. [36]

    Huang, Z

    S. Huang, Z. Wang, P. Li, B. Jia, T. Liu, Y . Zhu, W. Liang, and S.-C. Zhu. Diffusion-based generation, optimization, and planning in 3d scenes. In CVPR, pages 16750–16761, 2023

    work page 2023

  37. [37]

    Huang, C

    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

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2023

  38. [38]

    Huang, C

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

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2024

  39. [39]

    Oquab, T

    M. Oquab, T. Darcet, T. Moutakanni, H. V o, M. Szafraniec, V . Khalidov, P. Fernandez, D. Haz- iza, F. Massa, A. El-Nouby, et al. Dinov2: Learning robust visual features without supervision. arXiv preprint arXiv:2304.07193, 2023. 11

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2023

  40. [40]

    Kirillov, E

    A. Kirillov, E. Mintun, N. Ravi, H. Mao, C. Rolland, L. Gustafson, T. Xiao, S. Whitehead, A. C. Berg, W.-Y . Lo, et al. Segment anything. InICCV, pages 4015–4026, 2023

    work page 2023

  41. [41]

    Carpentier, G

    J. Carpentier, G. Saurel, G. Buondonno, J. Mirabel, F. Lamiraux, O. Stasse, and N. Mansard. The pinocchio c++ library: A fast and flexible implementation of rigid body dynamics algo- rithms and their analytical derivatives. In2019 IEEE/SICE International Symposium on System Integration (SII), pages 614–619. IEEE, 2019

    work page 2019

  42. [42]

    Xiang, D

    Y . Xiang, D. Sun, W. Fan, and X. Gong. Generalized simulated annealing algorithm and its application to the thomson model. Physics Letters A, 233(3):216–220, 1997

    1997

  43. [43]

    Melnik, M

    A. Melnik, M. B ¨uttner, L. Harz, L. Brown, G. C. Nandi, A. PS, G. K. Yadav, R. Kala, and R. Haschke. Uniteam: Open vocabulary mobile manipulation challenge. arXiv preprint arXiv:2312.08611, 2023

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2023

  44. [44]

    B. Yu, H. Kasaei, and M. Cao. L3mvn: Leveraging large language models for visual target navigation. In 2023 IEEE/RSJ International Conference on Intelligent Robots and Systems (IROS), pages 3554–3560. IEEE, 2023

    work page 2023

  45. [45]

    Y . Ze, Z. Chen, W. Wang, T. Chen, X. He, Y . Yuan, X. B. Peng, and J. Wu. Generalizable humanoid manipulation with improved 3d diffusion policies.arXiv preprint arXiv:2410.10803, 2024

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2024

  46. [46]

    Q. Gu, A. Kuwajerwala, S. Morin, K. M. Jatavallabhula, B. Sen, A. Agarwal, C. Rivera, W. Paul, K. Ellis, R. Chellappa, et al. Conceptgraphs: Open-vocabulary 3d scene graphs for perception and planning. In 2024 IEEE International Conference on Robotics and Automation (ICRA), pages 5021–5028. IEEE, 2024

    work page 2024

  47. [47]

    T. Ren, S. Liu, A. Zeng, J. Lin, K. Li, H. Cao, J. Chen, X. Huang, Y . Chen, F. Yan, et al. Grounded sam: Assembling open-world models for diverse visual tasks. arXiv preprint arXiv:2401.14159, 2024

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2024

  48. [48]

    Move a target object from container A to container B

    M. Shridhar, J. Thomason, D. Gordon, Y . Bisk, W. Han, R. Mottaghi, L. Zettlemoyer, and D. Fox. Alfred: A benchmark for interpreting grounded instructions for everyday tasks. In Proceedings of the IEEE/CVF conference on computer vision and pattern recognition , pages 10740–10749, 2020. 12 A Implementation Details A.1 Simulator Experiment The OVMM benchmar...

    work page 2020

  49. [49]

    Grasp the target

    Place the target in the plate Get some food for me Strawberry, Banana or LemonI want to eat some food I am hungry I want to eat a strawberry Strawberry Serve me water I want a cup of water Cup 1. Grasp the target

    work page

  50. [50]

    Grasp target filled with cold water

    work page

  51. [51]

    Mix hot and cold water

    work page

  52. [52]

    Put down the targets I want to drink water Cup, Mug or BowlI need drink Give me some water, please! Prepare a meal Prepare a launch Banana, Strawberry or Corn

    work page

  53. [53]

    Put the target in the Pan

    work page

  54. [54]

    Grasp the cooked target

    work page

  55. [55]

    Serve me water

    Put the target in the Bowl Make some salad Warm up the food Cook for a meal iDP3: The iDP3 policy takes dual-arm 6-DOF joint positions, gripper angles, and point-cloud frames (640×480 depth → 3D XYZRGB) from a frontal Orbbec Femto Bolt (20 Hz) as inputs. We reduced both the agent-state vector and action vector to 14 dimensions (7 per arm) to match our dua...

    work page

This paper was first reviewed by deepseek-v4-flash on August 5, 2026.