Pith. sign in

REVIEW 4 major objections 5 minor 1 cited by

DG-MAP claims pairwise diffusion models plus search plans up to eight robot arms with over 90% success, using only single- and dual-arm 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 ↗

T0 review · deepseek-v4-flash

2026-08-04 21:07 UTC pith:LELCQDVI

load-bearing objection Pairwise-diffusion + MAPF search is a real and useful combination, but the central scaling claim needs a stress test for three-arm coordination and error bars. the 4 major comments →

arxiv 2509.08160 v1 pith:LELCQDVI submitted 2025-09-09 cs.RO cs.AIcs.MA

Diffusion-Guided Multi-Arm Motion Planning

Viraj Parimi , Brian C. Williams This is my paper
classification cs.RO cs.AIcs.MA
keywords multi-arm motion planningdiffusion modelsMulti-Agent Path Findingconflict resolutionpairwise decompositionscalable planningreceding horizonmanipulation
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.

This paper proposes a multi-arm motion planner that combines two conditional diffusion models with a Multi-Agent Path Finding (MAPF)-style search. One model generates feasible single-arm trajectories; a second generates collision-avoiding trajectories for a pair of arms. The search interleaves rebranching among pre-sampled plans and repairing conflicts with the dual-arm model. The central claim is that this pairwise decomposition scales to teams of 3–8 arms while staying above roughly 90% success, even though the models are trained only on single- and dual-arm demonstrations. This matters because it suggests that costly higher-order multi-arm training data may be unnecessary for many coordinated manipulation tasks.

Core claim

DG-MAP shows that a MAPF-inspired decomposition—plan each arm independently, detect the earliest pairwise collision, and repair that pair with a dedicated dual-arm diffusion model—can produce collision-free plans for up to eight 6-DoF arms. In experiments, the planner exceeds 90% average success across easy, medium, and hard goal-reaching tasks and all team sizes, outperforms a learning-based baseline trained on the same limited single/dual-arm data, and stays competitive with a baseline trained on richer three- and four-arm data. It also achieves 89% success on a four-arm pick-and-place task. The paper's core claim is that pairwise interaction modeling, combined with search over candidate t

What carries the argument

Two conditional denoising diffusion models serve as proposal generators: the single-arm model (epsilon_theta1) samples future joint-action sequences conditioned on an arm's own observation history, and the dual-arm model (epsilon_theta2) samples ego-arm actions conditioned on a paired observation that concatenates the conflicting arm's transformed state with the ego-arm's state. A best-first search over plan-index tuples, using a cost function of smoothness, goal proximity, and collision penalty, explores alternatives through Rebranch (trying other pre-sampled single-arm plans) and Repair (regenerating plans with the dual-arm model). The collision-free duration t* is used for receding-horizo

Load-bearing premise

Multi-arm collisions can be resolved one pair at a time: a diffusion model trained only on two interacting arms, together with search, suffices to coordinate any number of arms, so coordination that intrinsically requires three or more arms moving at once is not modeled.

What would settle it

A concrete test is a three-arm task in which all three arms must pass through a narrow shared bottleneck simultaneously with no way to sequentialize the passage: if DG-MAP's pairwise repair cycles fail or success rates drop well below the reported 90%, the pairwise-decomposition assumption is the cause.

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

Share X Bluesky LinkedIn Reddit HN

If this is right

  • If the central claim holds, multi-arm planners can be trained from single- and dual-arm demonstrations, removing the need for expensive full-team data collection.
  • The search-over-diffusion-proposals architecture converts a generative model into a repair mechanism, so a collision encountered during search directly conditions the next sampling round.
  • Receding-horizon execution up to the predicted collision-free time allows the planner to adapt to dynamic conditions while keeping computation bounded.
  • The reported pick-and-place success (89%) indicates the approach generalizes beyond simple goal-reaching to multi-stage manipulation tasks.
  • The pairwise-decomposition principle, if correct, suggests that most practical multi-arm conflicts are local interactions between two arms, so scalable planning can focus on resolving those local conflicts.

Where Pith is reading between the lines

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

  • A natural stress test is a task where three or more arms must simultaneously pass through a narrow shared bottleneck; if DG-MAP fails or times out there, the pairwise assumption itself would be the limiting factor.
  • The dual-arm diffusion model could be reused as a collision-avoidance prior in trajectory optimization or as a local planner inside other hierarchical multi-robot systems, not just within this specific search.
  • When pairwise repair repeatedly fails, an adaptive mechanism that switches to a higher-order interaction model—trained on triple-arm data when available—could extend the framework to intrinsically three-arm-coordinated scenarios.
  • The same single/dual-arm decomposition may transfer to heterogeneous robot teams, provided the paired observation transformation is redefined for different morphologies,

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

4 major / 5 minor

Summary. The paper proposes DG-MAP, a multi-arm motion planner that combines two conditional diffusion models—one trained on single-arm BiRRT trajectories and one on dual-arm interactions—with a MAPF-inspired search. At each receding-horizon step, each arm proposes B candidate delta-action sequences from the single-arm model; the search detects the earliest pairwise collision and generates successors by either re-selecting an existing candidate (Rebranch) or sampling a new candidate from the dual-arm model conditioned on the conflicting partner (Repair). The planner executes up to the earliest predicted collision time and re-plans. Experiments in PyBullet with 3–8 six-DoF arms on goal-reaching tasks and a four-arm pick-and-place task compare DG-MAP against the learning-based baselines of Ha et al. (2020), trained on limited or extended interaction data. The paper reports success rates above 88–98% for DG-MAP, outperforming the limited-data baseline and slightly outperforming or matching the extended-data baseline, while using only single- and dual-arm training data.

Significance. If the claims hold, DG-MAP is a useful step toward data-efficient multi-arm planning: it avoids collecting large N-arm demonstration datasets and leverages a structured search to resolve collisions that a purely end-to-end policy misses. The combination of diffusion-based trajectory generation with MAPF-style conflict resolution is sensible, and the pick-and-place result (89% success vs. 71.4% for the extended-data baseline) is encouraging. The paper does not ship machine-checked proofs or code, and its central scaling claim rests on an explicit pairwise-decomposition assumption that is not stress-tested. The empirical evaluation is also missing variance and compute normalization, so the strength of the current evidence is moderate rather than decisive.

major comments (4)
  1. The pairwise-repair mechanism is load-bearing for the N>2 scaling claim, but the paper does not show that the search terminates or avoids three-arm cycles. Repair(i,j) samples a fresh plan for i conditioned only on j; it imposes no constraint that the new plan avoid a third arm k, and a later repair of i against k can recreate a collision with j. A concrete deadlock is possible: plans a1,b1,c1 collide between a1 and b1; Repair yields a2 avoiding b1 but colliding with c1; Repair of a2 against c1 yields a3 avoiding c1 but colliding again with b1. The bookkeeping set K records only tried plan indices, not pairwise spatio-temporal constraints, so the same conflict can reappear. Appendix A.1 concedes that 'complex coordination strategies involving three or more arms simultaneously might not be fully captured by this pairwise approach,' and the benchmark difficulty is defined by pairwise works
  2. All success rates are point estimates with no error bars, confidence intervals, trial counts, or multiple seeds. This is particularly problematic for the small differences claimed against Baseline-ED (e.g., N=8 easy 0.951 vs 0.951; N=3 easy 0.980 vs 0.984). Without variance information, the statements 'consistently outperforms' and 'remains competitive' are not statistically supported. Please report the number of scenarios per cell, seeds, and mean±std or CIs; the pick-and-place result should also include variance across trials.
  3. The comparison is not compute-normalized. DG-MAP is a search-based planner with a 60 s planning timeout and B=10 candidate samples per arm, while the baselines are end-to-end learned policies. The success-rate tables do not reflect planning latency, and Figure 5 shows only a coarse runtime comparison without error bars or timing methodology. Since the central claim is 'efficiently scales to larger number of arms,' the paper should report per-query wall-clock time, success rate as a function of planning timeout, and a compute-normalized comparison (e.g., same total CPU/GPU budget for all methods).
  4. The planner cannot recover if all initial single-arm proposals contain intrinsic collisions; Appendix A.1 acknowledges this but does not quantify it. The dual-arm model only handles inter-arm conflicts, so the overall success rate is upper-bounded by the single-arm model's ability to produce at least one feasible trajectory per arm. Please report how often failure is caused by the single-arm proposals versus by inter-arm search failure, and consider an ablation that injects known-good single-arm trajectories to separate the two effects.
minor comments (5)
  1. The variable t* is used at line 18 but its initialization is not specified. Please initialize t* to T_p or define it explicitly.
  2. The notation for the conflict bookkeeping set K is ambiguous. The text says 'conflicting plan indices' but the set is used per arm in Algorithms 2 and 3. Define K as a set of (arm, plan-index) pairs or as per-arm sets, and update node construction accordingly.
  3. The loss expressions contain unmatched brackets and nested norms that are hard to read. Please clean up the notation, e.g., write E[||ϵ - ϵ_θ(...)||²].
  4. The phrase 'consistently high average success rates above 90%' is contradicted by the hard-difficulty cells for N=6 and N=8 (0.888 in both). Please clarify whether the claim refers to the 'Average' column only or to all settings, and quote the correct range (e.g., >88%).
  5. The paper would benefit from releasing code and trained diffusion models; the project website currently points to a teaser page but not to a repository. This is not required for acceptance but would substantially improve reproducibility.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged

No significant circularity: DG-MAP's success rates are measured on held-out scenarios against collision-checked search, and the pairwise-decomposition assumption is an explicit, acknowledged limitation rather than a derived conclusion.

full rationale

The paper's derivation chain is self-contained. The single-arm diffusion model (epsilon_theta1) is trained on single-arm BiRRT demonstrations and the dual-arm model (epsilon_theta2) on dual-arm BiRRT demonstrations; the planner then proposes candidate trajectories and resolves detected pairwise collisions through a MAPF-style search, with collision checking performed by forward simulation. The reported success rates (Tables 1–3, 5–6) are measured on test scenarios with novel base poses and goal positions that are distinct from training data, so the metric is not a re-sampling of the training objective. Each diffusion model is trained to denoise expert action sequences, not to optimize the reported success rate; the search's cost function is used only to order candidates and is not fitted to the test outcomes. The central 'collisions are primarily pairwise' claim is an explicit modeling/design assumption, and the paper itself flags its limit in Appendix A.1: 'complex coordination strategies involving three or more arms simultaneously might not be fully captured by this pairwise approach.' That is an honest limitation, not a circular inference. The only co-authored citation, [12], appears in related work and as a future-work pointer; it is not load-bearing for the validity of DG-MAP, and no uniqueness theorem or ansatz is imported from it. The paper does not rename a known result, does not fit a parameter to a subset and then call it a prediction, and does not define its key quantities in terms of one another. Accordingly, no circularity steps are identified.

Axiom & Free-Parameter Ledger

5 free parameters · 4 axioms · 0 invented entities

The central claim relies on a domain assumption that pairwise conflict resolution is sufficient for multi-arm coordination, and on the learned models' ability to generalize from BiRRT demonstrations. Several hand-set hyperparameters (B, timeout, cost weights, horizons) affect the reported success rates. No new physical or conceptual entities are introduced.

free parameters (5)
  • Planning batch size B = 10
    Number of candidate trajectory samples per arm per search node. Chosen by hand, affects search breadth and runtime.
  • Planning timeout = 60s
    Time limit for the search in each receding-horizon cycle. Hand-set; affects success rate vs. reactivity.
  • Collision penalty P_coll = 10
    Large penalty in the cost function applied when any collision occurs. Arbitrary scale; influences node ordering.
  • Observation horizon T_o = 2
    Number of past observation frames fed to the diffusion models. Chosen by hand.
  • Prediction horizon T_p = 16
    Length of delta-action sequences generated by the models and searched by the planner. Hand-set.
axioms (4)
  • domain assumption Collisions are primarily pairwise, so a dual-arm interaction model suffices to resolve multi-arm conflicts.
    Stated in the abstract and used to justify training only single- and dual-arm models. The authors note in A.1 that three-or-more-arm coordination may not be captured.
  • domain assumption The trained diffusion models generate feasible trajectory proposals for single arms and collision-avoiding repairs for pairs.
    The method assumes the learned models generalize from BiRRT demonstrations to new base poses and goals. This is an empirical assumption about learned policy quality.
  • domain assumption MAPF-style priority decomposition is valid for continuous multi-arm motion planning.
    The paper borrows the MAPF framework of independent planning plus conflict resolution, without formal guarantees for the continuous, kinodynamic setting.
  • domain assumption The PyBullet simulator accurately models kinematics and collisions.
    All training and evaluation are done in simulation; physical transfer is not validated.

pith-pipeline@v1.3.0-alltime-deepseek · 11201 in / 7568 out tokens · 92302 ms · 2026-08-04T21:07:56.966701+00:00 · methodology

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Diffusion-Guided Multi-Arm Motion Planning." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/LELCQDVI

@misc{pith2026250908160,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Diffusion-Guided Multi-Arm Motion Planning},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/LELCQDVI}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2509.08160}
}
Share X Bluesky LinkedIn Reddit HN
read the original abstract

Multi-arm motion planning is fundamental for enabling arms to complete complex long-horizon tasks in shared spaces efficiently but current methods struggle with scalability due to exponential state-space growth and reliance on large training datasets for learned models. Inspired by Multi-Agent Path Finding (MAPF), which decomposes planning into single-agent problems coupled with collision resolution, we propose a novel diffusion-guided multi-arm planner (DG-MAP) that enhances scalability of learning-based models while reducing their reliance on massive multi-arm datasets. Recognizing that collisions are primarily pairwise, we train two conditional diffusion models, one to generate feasible single-arm trajectories, and a second, to model the dual-arm dynamics required for effective pairwise collision resolution. By integrating these specialized generative models within a MAPF-inspired structured decomposition, our planner efficiently scales to larger number of arms. Evaluations against alternative learning-based methods across various team sizes demonstrate our method's effectiveness and practical applicability. Project website can be found at https://diff-mapf-mers.csail.mit.edu

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2509.08160 by Brian C. Williams, Viraj Parimi.

Figure 1
Figure 1. Figure 1: Multi-Arm Motion Planning: Timestamped snapshots compare an end-to-end learn￾ing method (top) with our DG-MAP approach (bottom) on a multi-arm pick-and-place task. Both were trained using only lower-order interaction data (single/dual-arm trajectories). The end-to-end method fails due to collision with another arm in the shared workspace, while DG-MAP success￾fully completes the task by leveraging speciali… view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. Figure 2: Overview of how DG-MAP operates in a closed-loop, receding horizon controller, gen [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p004_2.png] view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. Figure 3: Visualization of test tasks for four arms across different difficulty levels: easy (left), [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p007_3.png] view at source ↗
Figure 4
Figure 4. Figure 4: Visualization of the multi-arm pick￾and-place task where arms are tasked to pick ob￾jects from the ground onto the central bin. Method Success (↑) Steps (↓) Baseline-LD 0.375 4479 Baseline-ED 0.714 6018 DG-MAP 0.890 5390 [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p008_4.png] view at source ↗
Figure 5
Figure 5. Figure 5: Computation time of Baseline-ED com￾pared to DG-MAP in seconds The core design of DG-MAP focuses on de￾composing complexity via single and dual-arm interactions, which significantly reduces train￾ing data requirements and directly addresses the most frequent conflict types. However, com￾plex coordination strategies involving three or more arms simultaneously might not be fully captured by this pairwise app… 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 1 Pith paper

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

  1. Navigating the Clutter: Waypoint-Based Bi-Level Planning for Multi-Robot Systems

    cs.RO 2026-04 unverdicted novelty 6.0

    Waypoint-based bi-level planning with curriculum RLVR improves multi-robot task success rates in dense-obstacle benchmarks over motion-agnostic and VLA baselines.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

30 extracted references · 16 canonical work pages · cited by 1 Pith paper · 2 internal anchors

  1. [1]

    Tomasello.A Natural History of Human Thinking

    M. Tomasello.A Natural History of Human Thinking. Harvard University Press, 2014. ISBN 9780674724778. URLhttp://www.jstor.org/stable/j.ctt6wpq11

    work page 2014

  2. [2]

    Sebanz, H

    N. Sebanz, H. Bekkering, and G. Knoblich. Joint action: bodies and minds moving to- gether.Trends in Cognitive Sciences, 10(2):70–76, 2006. ISSN 1364-6613. doi:https: //doi.org/10.1016/j.tics.2005.12.009. URLhttps://www.sciencedirect.com/science/ article/pii/S1364661305003566

    doi:10.1016/j.tics.2005.12.009 2006

  3. [3]

    Salas, N

    E. Salas, N. Cooke, and M. Rosen. On teams, teamwork, and team performance: Discoveries and developments.Human factors, 50:540–7, 07 2008. doi:10.1518/001872008X288457

    work page doi:10.1518/001872008x288457 2008

  4. [4]

    S. M. LaValle.Planning algorithms. Cambridge university press, 2006

    work page 2006

  5. [5]

    S. M. LaValle. Rapidly-exploring random trees : a new tool for path planning.The annual research report, 1998. URLhttps://api.semanticscholar.org/CorpusID:14744621

    work page 1998

  6. [6]

    Karaman and E

    S. Karaman and E. Frazzoli. Sampling-based algorithms for optimal motion planning, 2011. URLhttps://arxiv.org/abs/1105.1186

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2011

  7. [7]

    Kuffner and S

    J. Kuffner and S. LaValle. Rrt-connect: An efficient approach to single-query path planning. In Proceedings 2000 ICRA. Millennium Conference. IEEE International Conference on Robotics and Automation. Symposia Proceedings (Cat. No.00CH37065), volume 2, pages 995–1001 vol.2, 2000. doi:10.1109/ROBOT.2000.844730

    arXiv 2000

  8. [8]

    A. H. Qureshi and Y . Ayaz. Intelligent bidirectional rapidly-exploring random trees for optimal motion planning in complex cluttered environments.Robotics and Autonomous Systems, 68: 1–11, June 2015. ISSN 0921-8890. doi:10.1016/j.robot.2015.02.007. URLhttp://dx.doi. org/10.1016/j.robot.2015.02.007

    work page doi:10.1016/j.robot.2015.02.007 2015

  9. [9]

    Kavraki, P

    L. Kavraki, P. Svestka, J.-C. Latombe, and M. Overmars. Probabilistic roadmaps for path planning in high-dimensional configuration spaces.IEEE Transactions on Robotics and Au- tomation, 12(4):566–580, 1996. doi:10.1109/70.508439

    doi:10.1109/70.508439 1996

  10. [10]

    M. Seo, Y . Cho, Y . Sung, P. Stone, Y . Zhu, and B. Kim. Presto: Fast motion planning using diffusion models based on key-configuration environment representation, 2025. URLhttps: //arxiv.org/abs/2409.16012

    work page internal anchor Pith review Pith/arXiv arXiv 2025

  11. [11]

    Huang, B

    H. Huang, B. Sundaralingam, A. Mousavian, A. Murali, K. Goldberg, and D. Fox. Diffusion- seeder: Seeding motion optimization with diffusion for rapid motion planning, 2024. URL https://arxiv.org/abs/2410.16727

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2024

  12. [12]

    J. Chen, J. Li, Y . Huang, C. Garrett, D. Sun, C. Fan, A. Hofmann, C. Mueller, S. Koenig, and B. C. Williams. Cooperative task and motion planning for multi-arm assembly systems, 2022. URLhttps://arxiv.org/abs/2203.02475

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2022

  13. [13]

    Stern, N

    R. Stern, N. Sturtevant, A. Felner, S. Koenig, H. Ma, T. Walker, J. Li, D. Atzmon, L. Cohen, T. Kumar, et al. Multi-agent pathfinding: Definitions, variants, and benchmarks. InProceed- ings of the International Symposium on Combinatorial Search, volume 10, pages 151–158, 2019. 9

    work page 2019

  14. [14]

    H. Ha, J. Xu, and S. Song. Learning a decentralized multi-arm motion planner. InConference on Robotic Learning (CoRL), 2020

    work page 2020

  15. [15]

    Y . Song, J. Sohl-Dickstein, D. P. Kingma, A. Kumar, S. Ermon, and B. Poole. Score-based generative modeling through stochastic differential equations, 2021. URLhttps://arxiv. org/abs/2011.13456

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2021

  16. [16]

    J. Ho, A. Jain, and P. Abbeel. Denoising diffusion probabilistic models, 2020. URLhttps: //arxiv.org/abs/2006.11239

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2020

  17. [17]

    Carvalho, A

    J. Carvalho, A. T. Le, M. Baierl, D. Koert, and J. Peters. Motion planning diffusion: Learning and planning of robot motions with diffusion models, 2024. URLhttps://arxiv.org/abs/ 2308.01557

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2024

  18. [18]

    Janner, Y

    M. Janner, Y . Du, J. B. Tenenbaum, and S. Levine. Planning with diffusion for flexible behavior synthesis, 2022. URLhttps://arxiv.org/abs/2205.09991

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2022

  19. [19]

    Z. Zhu, M. Liu, L. Mao, B. Kang, M. Xu, Y . Yu, S. Ermon, and W. Zhang. Madiff: Offline multi-agent learning with diffusion models, 2025. URLhttps://arxiv.org/abs/2305. 17330

    work page 2025

  20. [20]

    Shaoul, I

    Y . Shaoul, I. Mishani, S. Vats, J. Li, and M. Likhachev. Multi-robot motion planning with diffusion models, 2024. URLhttps://arxiv.org/abs/2410.03072

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2024

  21. [21]

    Erdmann and T

    M. Erdmann and T. Lozano-Perez. On multiple moving objects. InProceedings. 1986 IEEE International Conference on Robotics and Automation, volume 3, pages 1419–1424, 1986. doi:10.1109/ROBOT.1986.1087401

    work page arXiv 1986

  22. [22]

    Sharon, R

    G. Sharon, R. Stern, A. Felner, and N. R. Sturtevant. Conflict-based search for optimal multi- agent pathfinding.Artificial Intelligence, 219:40–66, 2015

    work page 2015

  23. [23]

    C. Chi, S. Feng, Y . Du, Z. Xu, E. Cousineau, B. Burchfiel, and S. Song. Diffusion policy: Visuomotor policy learning via action diffusion. InProceedings of Robotics: Science and Systems (RSS), 2023

    2023

  24. [24]

    Coumans and Y

    E. Coumans and Y . Bai. Pybullet, a python module for physics simulation for games, robotics and machine learning, 2016

    work page 2016

  25. [25]

    Calli, A

    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, 22(3):36–52, 2015. doi:10.1109/MRA.2015.2448951

    work page arXiv 2015

  26. [26]

    Longitudinal Radiation Force of Laser Pulses and Optics of Moving Particles

    A. Miller and P. Allen. Graspit! a versatile simulator for robotic grasping.IEEE Robotics & Automation Magazine, 11(4):110–122, 2004. doi:10.1109/MRA.2004.1371616

    work page internal anchor Pith review Pith/arXiv arXiv 2004

  27. [27]

    Weisz and P

    J. Weisz and P. K. Allen. Pose error robust grasping from contact wrench space metrics.2012 IEEE International Conference on Robotics and Automation, pages 557–562, 2012. URL https://api.semanticscholar.org/CorpusID:2488065

    work page 2012

  28. [28]

    J. Gao, B. Sarkar, F. Xia, T. Xiao, J. Wu, B. Ichter, A. Majumdar, and D. Sadigh. Physically grounded vision-language models for robotic manipulation. InIEEE International Conference on Robotics and Automation (ICRA). IEEE, 2024

    work page 2024

  29. [29]

    Nichol and P

    A. Nichol and P. Dhariwal. Improved denoising diffusion probabilistic models, 2021. URL https://arxiv.org/abs/2102.09672

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2021

  30. [30]

    re- tracing

    Z. Wang, J. J. Hunt, and M. Zhou. Diffusion policies as an expressive policy class for offline reinforcement learning, 2023. URLhttps://arxiv.org/abs/2208.06193. 10 A Appendix A.1 Limitations While DG-MAP demonstrates significant promise and effectiveness across various multi-arm tasks, several aspects offer avenues for future research and enhancement. Cu...

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2023