Pith. sign in

REVIEW 4 major objections 5 minor 8 cited by

A modular planning system with zero robot training data matches or beats a model fine-tuned on 350 hours of demonstrations.

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

2026-08-02 18:26 UTC pith:G2WY72TJ

load-bearing objection A credible zero-training modular baseline that beats a fine-tuned VLA on a self-selected benchmark; the evaluation protocol needs tightening before the headline is taken at face value, but the core result is probably right. the 4 major comments →

arxiv 2603.09971 v2 pith:G2WY72TJ submitted 2026-03-10 cs.RO

TiPToP: A Modular Open-Vocabulary Robot Manipulation System That Plans

William Shen , Nishanth Kumar , Sahit Chintalapudi , Ryan Lindeborg , Jie Wang , Christopher Watson , Edward Hu , Jing Cao
show 3 more authors
Dinesh Jayaraman Leslie Pack Kaelbling Tom\'as Lozano-P\'erez
This is my paper
classification cs.RO
keywords robot manipulationtask and motion planningvision-language-action modelsfoundation modelsopen-vocabularyzero-shotmodular systemspick-and-place
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 tries to establish that a capable robot manipulation system can be built entirely from off-the-shelf components, with no robot-specific training data. TiPToP takes a stereo image pair and a natural-language instruction, builds a 3D object-centric scene model using pretrained vision models, grounds the instruction into symbolic predicates, and then lets a GPU-parallelized task-and-motion planner compute a full trajectory. Across 28 scenes and 165 trials, it attains a 74.6% success rate and faster average completion times on five of six measured scenes, compared with 52.4% for a state-of-the-art vision-language-action model fine-tuned on 350 hours of demonstrations. If this holds, it would mean that open-vocabulary, multi-step manipulation is not the exclusive province of end-to-end learned policies, and that modular systems can be debugged, extended, and improved component by component.

Core claim

The authors claim that composing pretrained depth, segmentation, grasp, and language models with a GPU-parallelized task-and-motion planner (cuTAMP) yields a manipulation system that, with zero robot training data, matches or outperforms π0.5-DROID, a VLA fine-tuned on 350 hours of demonstrations. Across 28 scenes and 165 trials, TiPToP attains 74.6% success versus 52.4%, higher task progress in distractor, semantic, and multi-step categories, and faster time-to-success on five of six scenes. They also show that the modular architecture enables component-level failure tracing, with grasping as the dominant bottleneck, and that new embodiments and skills can be added within hours.

What carries the argument

The central mechanism is a two-branch pipeline that fuses semantic and geometric understanding into an object-centric scene representation, then hands it to cuTAMP, a GPU-parallelized task-and-motion planner. A vision-language model turns the instruction into symbolic predicates (currently on(a,b)), grounding open-vocabulary references like 'peanut butter crackers' or 'largest toy' onto detected objects; stereo depth, segmentation, and grasp-prediction models supply per-object meshes and candidate grasps. cuTAMP enumerates plan skeletons, initializes thousands of sampled solutions, and jointly optimizes grasp and placement poses against collision, stability, and kinematic constraints, genera

Load-bearing premise

The central premise that carries the headline number is that the chosen evaluation scenes, task menus, and termination limits treat the trained baseline fairly; if those choices instead favor a system that reasons about semantics and geometry, the 74.6% vs 52.4% gap is not a general statement.

What would settle it

Run both systems on 100 third-party-designed tasks with identical success criteria and per-task time budgets matched to each controller's rates, and check whether the aggregate gap persists; a targeted version is to put a single concave object (a banana) in front of TiPToP and observe whether the convex-hull mesh repeatedly causes grasp or placement failures.

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

If this is right

  • A manipulation system that requires no robot training data and can be installed on a standard DROID setup in under an hour is a viable alternative to end-to-end VLAs for pick-and-place and multi-step tasks.
  • Component-level failure tracing becomes practical, steering improvement effort to the weakest modules—grasping first, then scene completion, VLM detection, and planning.
  • Time-to-success is roughly half that of the reactive VLA on single-step real-world tasks, because the planner commits to a single time-optimal trajectory instead of iterating a closed-loop policy.
  • The complementary failure modes suggest a hybrid design: using a VLA as a closed-loop skill primitive inside the TAMP framework to recover from grasp slips and unexpected object motion.
  • Because components are swappable, the system should improve automatically as better depth estimators, grasp predictors, and VLMs become available.

Where Pith is reading between the lines

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

  • The headline comparison is sensitive to the evaluation protocol: tasks were chosen to suit both systems, categories reward VLM grounding and multi-step geometric reasoning, and baseline termination limits differ; an independently curated task set could shrink or reverse the gap.
  • The open-loop architecture means robustness depends on static scenes and precise tracking; adding closed-loop replanning after each pick-and-place, as the paper itself suggests, would likely address the dominant grasp-failure mode.
  • The modular decomposition yields a direct testable extension: swapping in a stronger vision-language model should improve semantic and distractor tasks without touching the planner, while swapping in a better grasp predictor should directly reduce the largest failure class.
  • Single-viewpoint convex-hull meshes are the root of failures on concave objects like bananas; multi-view perception or learned shape completion is a natural next experiment that would test whether the perception module, not the planner, is the binding constraint.

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. This paper presents TiPToP, a modular open-vocabulary manipulation system that combines pretrained perception models (FoundationStereo, M2T2, SAM-2, Gemini Robotics-ER) with the GPU-parallelized task-and-motion planner cuTAMP. From a single stereo image pair and a natural-language instruction, TiPToP builds an object-centric scene representation, produces a symbolic goal, plans a full pick-and-place trajectory, and executes it open-loop with a joint impedance controller. The main empirical claim is that TiPToP, which requires no robot training data, 'matches or outperforms' π0.5-DROID, a VLA fine-tuned on 350 hours of DROID data, across 28 evaluation scenes: aggregate success 98/165 (74.6%) vs. 55/165 (52.4%), with faster average completion time on five of six measured scenes. The evaluation includes simulation, an in-house DROID setup, and an external DROID setup operated by a separate team, plus deployment on UR5e and WidowX and a wiping extension. A failure analysis over 173 additional trials attributes most failures to grasping, mesh approximation, VLM detection, and planner timeouts. The abstract also claims first place on the MolmoSpaces benchmark, though this is not described in the body.

Significance. If the claimed result holds, it is significant: a zero-robot-data modular system composed of off-the-shelf foundation models and geometric planning would be a competitive alternative to a VLA fine-tuned on embodiment-specific demonstrations, and the modular architecture provides a practical route for component-level debugging. The paper has real strengths: it releases open-source code, uses an external evaluation team for part of the study, reports both success rate and task progress, and honestly discusses open-loop execution as a key limitation. However, the headline comparison is not yet convincing as stated. The termination budget for π0.5-DROID differs between the external and designer-run scenes, real-world scenes use only five trials with no significance testing, and the task menu is author-selected. The conclusion 'matches or outperforms' therefore needs a matched-protocol rerun or equivalent evidence before it can be accepted.

major comments (4)
  1. [Appendix C; Table I] The unmarked scenes in Table I were run by the external team, where π0.5-DROID trials were terminated after 800 control steps; at 15 Hz this is ≈53 s. The dagger-marked designer scenes used a 120 s timeout. The Semantic category, in which TiPToP's margin is largest (26/40 vs. 10/40), consists entirely of unmarked scenes; AirPods→cup is also unmarked. Since π0.5 is a closed-loop policy that may need multiple grasp attempts and recovery cycles, an 800-step cutoff can convert a late success into a failure precisely on these semantic and multi-step tasks. Appendix C asserts the limits are 'generous' but gives no π0.5 completion-time distribution, and Table II reports only mean time-to-success on successful trials, which cannot establish that the cutoff was non-binding. Please rerun the external scenes with a matched wall-clock budget (120 s), or provide time-to-success and time-to-failure di
  2. [Section VII-A; Table I] Real-world scenes use 5 trials per scene and no error bars, confidence intervals, or significance tests. Many per-scene differences, such as 1/5 vs. 4/5 or 2/5 vs. 5/5, are within binomial noise. Task selection was explicitly based on 'tasks that both TiPToP and π0.5-DROID seemed capable of,' and the tasks were then grouped into categories that reward TiPToP's symbolic grounding and long-horizon planning strengths. This is not necessarily invalid, but the paper should justify the menu and provide per-category confidence intervals or a permutation test over scenes. Without this, the aggregate 74.6% vs. 52.4% cannot be cleanly separated from task-selection effects.
  3. [Abstract] The abstract claims that TiPToP 'ranks first overall on pick and pick-and-place tasks among methods not trained on in-distribution data' on the MolmoSpaces benchmark. No section of the paper describes MolmoSpaces, the comparison set, the task suite, or the numeric results. A benchmark-ranking claim cannot be evaluated from the abstract alone. Either add the full MolmoSpaces evaluation to the experiments or remove the claim from the abstract.
  4. [Table II; Appendix C] The completion-time comparison (Q2) uses average time-to-success over successful trials only, with a manually stopped timer for π0.5 and an automatically stopped timer for TiPToP, and no per-trial distributions or sample sizes are reported. Because failed π0.5 trials can be long and are excluded, the five-of-six speed advantage may overstate the difference. Please report all trials or medians/ranges, and use the same termination and measurement procedure for both systems.
minor comments (5)
  1. [Title; Section IV-B] There are typographical errors: 'Open-V ocabulary' in the title and 'logical relations betweeen' in Section IV-B. Please proofread the manuscript.
  2. [Appendix B] The impedance controller equation includes gains Kp and Kd, and the text says they were tuned, but no numerical values or tuning procedure are given. Provide the values in the appendix or point to the open-source controller for reproducibility.
  3. [Appendix C; Table I] Task-progress metrics are defined per-task with different scoring rules and penalties, and Appendix C notes that progress metrics 'may vary by the evaluator and the task.' Aggregating these heterogeneous scores in the TP column of Table I is not meaningful across scenes. Report TP only within matched scenes or provide a consistent metric.
  4. [Table II] The table reports mean time-to-success without indicating the number of successful trials used for each mean. Some entries are likely based on a single success. Include per-trial values or at least counts and confidence intervals.
  5. [Section VII-C] The abstract says TiPToP can be deployed on a standard DROID setup in under an hour, while the UR5e adaptation is described as taking 'a few hours.' Clarify that the sub-hour figure applies only to the already-supported DROID configuration, not to new embodiments.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged

No circular derivation: the central claim is an externally anchored empirical benchmark; minor self-citation of cuTAMP is not load-bearing.

full rationale

The paper's headline result is an empirical benchmark (98/165 vs. 55/165 success over 28 scenes) against an independent external VLA baseline, π0.5-DROID, with unmarked scenes run by an external evaluation team. There is no fitted quantity that is renamed as a prediction: TiPToP uses pretrained foundation models and existing TAMP/motion-planning code (cuTAMP, cuRobo) with no robot-training data and no parameters fit to the evaluation outcomes. The author-overlap citations (cuTAMP [48], SceneComplete [1], PRoC3S [13], OWL-TAMP [33]) describe components or related work rather than serving as load-bearing proof of the central comparison. The main caveats are experimental-design fairness issues, not circularity: the authors state they "chose natural language goal expressions and objects that corresponded to tasks that both TiPToP and pi0.5-DROID seemed capable of" (Section VII-A), and Appendix C discloses different termination limits (800 external steps for pi0.5 vs. 120 s for designer-run trials), which could affect the success-rate gap but does not make the result equivalent to its inputs by construction. The abstract's MolmoSpaces "ranks first" claim is not reproduced in the body, so it cannot be independently verified, but that is a missing-support concern, not a circularity. Score 2 reflects only the minor, non-load-bearing self-citation of cuTAMP as an implementation component.

Axiom & Free-Parameter Ledger

4 free parameters · 7 axioms · 0 invented entities

No new physical entities are introduced. The central comparison rests on assumptions about static scenes, single-view perception, convex-hull geometry, VLM correctness, planner correctness, and fair evaluation, plus hand-set execution and evaluation constants.

free parameters (4)
  • controller gains Kp, Kd = not reported
    Tuned per Appendix B to improve trajectory tracking; open-loop execution accuracy depends on them.
  • cuRobo time_dilation_factor = 0.6
    Set in both simulation and real experiments (Appendix C); directly scales planned trajectory timing and affects the speed comparison.
  • TiPToP planning timeout = 30-60 s
    TiPToP fails if no plan is found within the budget (Appendix C); affects measured success rate.
  • baseline termination limits = 60 s sim / 800 steps external / 120 s designer
    Applied to pi0.5-DROID trials (Appendix C); the authors call them generous, but they are evaluation choices that affect measured success and failure.
axioms (7)
  • domain assumption Scene is static during open-loop execution; no object moves or slips after planning.
    Stated in Section VI: TiPToP does not monitor execution or replan and fails when objects move or grasps slip; failure analysis attributes 31/55 failures to grasping.
  • domain assumption A single calibrated wrist-camera viewpoint at t=0 shows all task-relevant objects well enough.
    Perception uses one stereo pair from a capture pose (Section III-B); Section VIII lists single-viewpoint perception as a limitation.
  • domain assumption Convex hulls of single-view object point clouds approximate object geometry for collision checking.
    Per-object meshes are convex hulls projected downward from one viewpoint (Section IV-C); the paper notes banana/concave-object failures.
  • domain assumption RANSAC's dominant fitted plane is the table.
    Table detection assumes the dominant planar surface is the table (Section IV-C).
  • domain assumption Gemini's object detection and On(a,b) goal grounding are correct for the task.
    VLM output directly becomes the symbolic goal G; VLM errors are 6/55 failures (Section VII-E), and the prompt supports only a single predicate (Section IV-B, Appendix E).
  • standard math cuTAMP/cuRobo correctly find feasible collision-free plans when one exists within the time budget.
    Planning relies on published GPU-accelerated TAMP and motion planning (Section V); correctness is assumed from prior literature.
  • ad hoc to paper The evaluation protocol does not systematically favor TiPToP: task selection, trial counts, and termination limits are fair to both systems.
    Evaluation protocol in Section VII-A and Appendix C; if false, the headline comparative claim is unsupported.

pith-pipeline@v1.3.0-alltime-deepseek · 20628 in / 13887 out tokens · 125607 ms · 2026-08-02T18:26:18.376264+00:00 · methodology

0 comments
read the original abstract

We present TiPToP, a modular manipulation system that integrates pretrained foundation models with a GPU-accelerated Task and Motion Planner to solve tasks directly from RGB images and natural language. TiPToP composes perception, planning, and execution modules and requires no robot training data. It can be deployed on a standard DROID setup in under an hour and adapted to new embodiments with minimal effort. We evaluate TiPToP against $\pi_{0.5}\text{-DROID}$, a state-of-the-art VLA fine-tuned on 350 hours of demonstrations, across two real-world DROID setups (one operated by an external team) and simulation, where TiPToP attains a higher average success rate and faster average completion time. We also evaluate on the MolmoSpaces benchmark, where TiPToP ranks first overall on pick and pick-and-place tasks among methods not trained on in-distribution data. We further show that TiPToP's modularity enables us to trace failures to specific components, revealing where to target improvements. We release TiPToP open-source to serve as a reproducible baseline and to enable further research on modular manipulation systems. Project website and code: https://tiptop-robot.github.io

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2603.09971 by Christopher Watson, Dinesh Jayaraman, Edward Hu, Jie Wang, Jing Cao, Leslie Pack Kaelbling, Nishanth Kumar, Ryan Lindeborg, Sahit Chintalapudi, Tom\'as Lozano-P\'erez, William Shen.

Figure 1
Figure 1. Figure 1: TiPToP operating over various environments and embodiments. (a) TiPToP moves an obstructing Coke can out of the way to complete a long-horizon packing task in a DROID setup. (b) TiPToP solves two pick-and-place tasks requiring semantic understanding on an external DROID setup. (c) TiPToP deployed on a UR5e and (d) on a Trossen WidowX AI. Abstract—We present TiPToP, an extensible modular system that combine… view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. Figure 2: TiPToP System Overview. TiPToP takes a stereo RGB image pair and a natural language instruction L as input and outputs robot joint trajectories with gripper commands. (a) The perception module constructs an object-centric 3D scene representation using learned depth estimation, grasp prediction, object detection, and segmentation. (b) The planning module uses GPU-parallelized TAMP (cuTAMP) to find feasible … view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. Figure 3: Perception Module. (a) Depth map predicted by FoundationStereo with sharp object boundaries. (b) Grasps predicted by M2T2 on the scene point cloud (colors correspond to grasp confidences). (c) Labeled object bounding boxes and symbolic goal G predicted by Gemini (On(a, b) specifies that object a should be placed on object or surface b). IV. PERCEPTION MODULE The perception module takes the initial observat… view at source ↗
Figure 4
Figure 4. Figure 4: Wiping. We demonstrate that TiPToP can be straight￾forwardly extended to perform wiping in addition to pick￾and-place. Task instruction: “erase the whiteboard and put everything into the bowl”. C. Cross-Embodiment Generalization To validate TiPToP’s modularity with respect to embodi￾ments, we deployed the system on a UR5e arm with a wrist￾mounted Intel Realsense D435 camera (Figure 1c). Adapting to the new… view at source ↗
Figure 5
Figure 5. Figure 5: Failure Analysis. Sankey diagram showing outcomes of 173 trials. The most common failure modes are grasping failures (missed or unstable grasps), followed by scene com￾pletion errors, VLM detection errors, then cuTAMP failures. code outside of the additions described above. E. Failure Analysis A key advantage of TiPToP’s modular architecture is the ability to ‘debug’ the system by tracing the root cause of… view at source ↗
Figure 6
Figure 6. Figure 6: Object Segmentation. SAM-2 generates eight pixel￾level segmentation masks from the bounding boxes in Fig. 3c. contrast, plans once and either produces a full trajectory or explicitly fails if no valid plan is found. We use a 30–60 second planning timeout for TiPToP. In simulation, we terminated π0.5-DROID trials after 60s or upon success and reset object configurations identically across all trials for eac… 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 8 Pith papers

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

  1. Improving Robotic Generalist Policies via Flow Reversal Steering

    cs.RO 2026-06 unverdicted novelty 7.0

    Flow Reversal Steering steers flow matching generalist policies by reversing suboptimal actions to nearby better modes, enabling improved zero-shot control, quick distillation, and RL bootstrapping in robotic manipulation.

  2. VoLo: A Physical Orchestrator for Open-Vocabulary Long-Horizon Manipulation

    cs.RO 2026-06 unverdicted novelty 7.0

    VoLoAgent uses a VLM to steer heterogeneous robot capabilities as interruptible tools for long-horizon manipulation and introduces the RoboVoLo benchmark, claiming substantial outperformance over single VLA/VLM or too...

  3. Hypothesis-driven Model Expansion under Uncertainty for Open-World Robot Planning

    cs.RO 2026-07 conditional novelty 6.5

    HUME lets robots generate, plan over, and actively verify object-centric hypotheses from foundation models so incomplete symbolic models become usable for open-world household tasks.

  4. Decompose and Reorganize: Planning with Primitives and Visuomotor Policies Learned from Demonstrations

    cs.RO 2026-07 conditional novelty 6.0

    DR-LfD decomposes demonstrations into contact-level skills, learns them as equivariant primitives and visuomotor policies, and uses TAMP to recombine them for long-horizon tasks.

  5. Addressing the Orchestration Gap in Generalist Robots via Physical Agency

    cs.RO 2026-07 conditional novelty 6.0

    A closed-loop inference-time orchestrator using a frontier VLM lifts frozen robot policies from 12.8% to 53.3% on LIBERO-PRO and from near-zero to over 90% on reasoning-limited real-robot tasks, without retraining the...

  6. GraspGen-X: Cross-Embodiment 6-DOF Diffusion-based Grasping

    cs.RO 2026-05 unverdicted novelty 6.0

    GraspGen-X extends diffusion 6-DOF grasping to cross-embodiment via swept-volume gripper encoding, trained on procedural grippers and 2B grasps, claiming best zero-shot generalization to novel grippers in sim and real tests.

  7. Learning Bilevel Policies over Symbolic World Models for Long-Horizon Planning

    cs.AI 2026-05 unverdicted novelty 6.0

    BISON learns bilevel policies over symbolic world models to generalize long-horizon robotic planning beyond VLA and end-to-end baselines while remaining efficient even at 10,000-object scale.

  8. A Conversational Framework for Human-Robot Collaborative Manipulation with Distributed Generative AI models

    cs.RO 2026-06 unverdicted novelty 3.0

    Presents a distributed ROS 2 framework integrating local LLMs and VLMs for conversational human-robot manipulation tasks with operator confirmation and experimental evaluation on a Franka FR3 arm.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

70 extracted references · 29 linked inside Pith · cited by 8 Pith papers

  1. [1]

    Scenecom- plete: Open-world 3d scene completion in cluttered real world environments for robot manipulation.IEEE Robotics and Automation Letters (RA-L), 2025

    Aditya Agarwal, Gaurav Singh, Bipasha Sen, Tom ´as Lozano-P´erez, and Leslie Pack Kaelbling. Scenecom- plete: Open-world 3d scene completion in cluttered real world environments for robot manipulation.IEEE Robotics and Automation Letters (RA-L), 2025. URL https://arxiv.org/abs/2410.23643

    arXiv 2025

  2. [2]

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

    Michael Ahn, Anthony Brohan, Noah Brown, Yevgen Chebotar, Omar Cortes, Byron David, Chelsea Finn, Chuyuan Fu, Keerthana Gopalakrishnan, Karol Haus- man, et al. Do as i can, not as i say: Grounding language in robotic affordances. InConference on Robot Learning (CoRL), 2022. URL https://arxiv.org/abs/2204.01691

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2022

  3. [3]

    From pixels to predicates: Learning symbolic world models via pretrained vision- language models.Robotics and Automation Letters (RA- L), 2026

    Ashay Athalye, Nishanth Kumar, Tom Silver, Yichao Liang, Jiuguang Wang, Tom ´as Lozano-P ´erez, and Leslie Pack Kaelbling. From pixels to predicates: Learning symbolic world models via pretrained vision- language models.Robotics and Automation Letters (RA- L), 2026. URL https://arxiv.org/abs/2501.00296

    arXiv 2026

  4. [4]

    Qwen3-vl technical report.arXiv preprint arXiv:2511.21631, 2025

    Shuai Bai, Yuxuan Cai, Ruizhe Chen, Keqin Chen, Xionghui Chen, Zesen Cheng, Lianghao Deng, Wei Ding, Chang Gao, Chunjiang Ge, et al. Qwen3-vl technical report.arXiv preprint arXiv:2511.21631, 2025. URL https://arxiv.org/abs/2511.21631

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2025

  5. [5]

    Multidimensional binary search trees used for associative searching.Communications of the ACM (CACM), 1975

    Jon Louis Bentley. Multidimensional binary search trees used for associative searching.Communications of the ACM (CACM), 1975. URL https://dl.acm.org/doi/10. 1145/361002.361007

    arXiv 1975

  6. [6]

    Gr00t n1: An open foundation model for generalist humanoid robots.arXiv preprint arXiv:2503.14734, 2025

    Johan Bjorck, Fernando Casta ˜neda, Nikita Cherniadev, Xingye Da, Runyu Ding, Linxi Fan, Yu Fang, Dieter Fox, Fengyuan Hu, Spencer Huang, Joel Jang, Zhenyu Jiang, Jan Kautz, Kaushil Kundalia, Lawrence Lao, Zhiqi Li, Zongyu Lin, Kevin Lin, Guilin Liu, Edith Llontop, Loic Magne, Ajay Mandlekar, Avnish Narayan, Soroush Nasiriany, Scott Reed, You Liang Tan, G...

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2025

  7. [7]

    InRobotics: Science and Systems (RSS), 2025

    Kevin Black, Noah Brown, Danny Driess, Adnan Es- mail, Michael Equi, Chelsea Finn, Niccolo Fusai, Lachy Groom, Karol Hausman, Brian Ichter, et al.π 0: A vision- language-action flow model for general robot control. InRobotics: Science and Systems (RSS), 2025. URL https://arxiv.org/abs/2410.24164

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2025

  8. [8]

    Monitoring the execution of robot plans using semantic knowledge.Robotics and Autonomous Sys- tems (RAS), 2008

    Abdelbaki Bouguerra, Lars Karlsson, and Alessandro Saffiotti. Monitoring the execution of robot plans using semantic knowledge.Robotics and Autonomous Sys- tems (RAS), 2008. URL https://www.sciencedirect.com/ science/article/abs/pii/S0921889008001152

    2008

  9. [9]

    Rt-2: Vision-language-action models transfer web knowledge to robotic control

    Anthony Brohan, Noah Brown, Justice Carbajal, Yevgen Chebotar, Xi Chen, Krzysztof Choromanski, Tianli Ding, Danny Driess, Avinava Dubey, Chelsea Finn, et al. Rt-2: Vision-language-action models transfer web knowledge to robotic control. InConference on Robot Learning (CoRL), 2023. URL https://proceedings.mlr.press/v229/ zitkovich23a.html

    2023

  10. [10]

    Bi-level belief space search for com- pliant part mating under uncertainty.arXiv preprint arXiv:2409.15774, 2024

    Sahit Chintalapudi, Leslie Pack Kaelbling, and Tom ´as Lozano-P´erez. Bi-level belief space search for com- pliant part mating under uncertainty.arXiv preprint arXiv:2409.15774, 2024. URL https://arxiv.org/abs/2409. 15774

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2024

  11. [11]

    Tenenbaum, Tom´as Lozano-P´erez, and Leslie Pack Kaelbling

    Rohan Chitnis, Tom Silver, Joshua B. Tenenbaum, Tom´as Lozano-P´erez, and Leslie Pack Kaelbling. Learning neuro-symbolic relational transition models for bilevel planning. InIEEE/RSJ International Conference on Intelligent Robots and Systems (IROS), 2022. URL https://arxiv.org/abs/2105.14074

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2022

  12. [12]

    Long- horizon manipulation of unknown objects via task and motion planning with estimated affordances

    Aidan Curtis, Xiaolin Fang, Leslie Pack Kaelbling, Tom´as Lozano-P ´erez, and Caelan Reed Garrett. Long- horizon manipulation of unknown objects via task and motion planning with estimated affordances. InIEEE International Conference on Robotics and Automation (ICRA), 2022. URL https://arxiv.org/abs/2108.04145

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2022

  13. [13]

    Trust the proc3s: Solving long-horizon robotics problems with llms and constraint satisfaction

    Aidan Curtis, Nishanth Kumar, Jing Cao, Tom ´as Lozano- P´erez, and Leslie Pack Kaelbling. Trust the proc3s: Solving long-horizon robotics problems with llms and constraint satisfaction. InConference on Robot Learning (CoRL), 2024. URL https://arxiv.org/abs/2406.05572

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2024

  14. [14]

    Partially observable task and motion planning with uncertainty and risk awareness

    Aidan Curtis, George Matheos, Nishad Gothoskar, Vikash Mansinghka, Joshua Tenenbaum, Tom´as Lozano- P´erez, and Leslie Pack Kaelbling. Partially observable task and motion planning with uncertainty and risk awareness. InRobotics: Science and Systems (RSS),

  15. [15]

    Molmo and pixmo: Open weights and open data for state-of-the-art vision-language models

    Matt Deitke, Christopher Clark, Sangho Lee, Rohun Tripathi, Yue Yang, Jae Sung Park, Mohammadreza Salehi, Niklas Muennighoff, Kyle Lo, Luca Soldaini, et al. Molmo and pixmo: Open weights and open data for state-of-the-art vision-language models. InIEEE/CVF Conference on Computer Vision and Pattern Recognition (CVPR), 2025. URL https://arxiv.org/abs/2409.17146

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2025

  16. [16]

    Anygrasp: Robust and efficient grasp perception in spatial and temporal domains.IEEE Transactions on Robotics (T-RO), 2023

    Hao-Shu Fang, Chenxi Wang, Hongjie Fang, Minghao Gou, Jirong Liu, Hengxu Yan, Wenhai Liu, Yichen Xie, and Cewu Lu. Anygrasp: Robust and efficient grasp perception in spatial and temporal domains.IEEE Transactions on Robotics (T-RO), 2023. URL https: //ieeexplore.ieee.org/document/10167687

    arXiv 2023

  17. [17]

    Fikes and Nils J

    Richard E. Fikes and Nils J. Nilsson. Strips: A new approach to the application of theorem prov- ing to problem solving.Artificial Intelligence, 1971. URL https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/ pii/0004370271900105

    arXiv 1971

  18. [18]

    Random sample consensus: A paradigm for model fitting with appli- cations to image analysis and automated cartography

    Martin A Fischler and Robert C Bolles. Random sample consensus: A paradigm for model fitting with appli- cations to image analysis and automated cartography. Communications of the ACM (CACM), 1981. URL https://dl.acm.org/doi/10.1145/358669.358692

    arXiv 1981

  19. [19]

    FFRob: Leveraging symbolic planning for efficient task and motion planning

    Caelan Reed Garrett, Tom ´as Lozano-P ´erez, and Leslie Pack Kaelbling. FFRob: Leveraging symbolic planning for efficient task and motion planning. International Journal of Robotics Research (IJRR),

  20. [20]

    PDDLStream: Integrating symbolic planners and blackbox samplers via optimistic adaptive planning

    Caelan Reed Garrett, Tom ´as Lozano-P ´erez, and Leslie Pack Kaelbling. PDDLStream: Integrating symbolic planners and blackbox samplers via optimistic adaptive planning. InInternational Conference on Au- tomated Planning and Scheduling (ICAPS), 2020. URL https://ojs.aaai.org/index.php/ICAPS/article/view/6739

    2020

  21. [21]

    Integrated task and motion planning.Annual Review of Control, Robotics, and Autonomous Systems, 2021

    Caelan Reed Garrett, Rohan Chitnis, Rachel Holladay, Beomjoon Kim, Tom Silver, Leslie Pack Kaelbling, and Tom ´as Lozano-P ´erez. Integrated task and motion planning.Annual Review of Control, Robotics, and Autonomous Systems, 2021. URL https://www.annualreviews.org/doi/full/10.1146/annurev- control-091420-084139

    doi:10.1146/annurev- 2021

  22. [22]

    Gemini robotics: Bringing ai into the physical world.arXiv preprint arXiv:2503.20020, 2025

    Gemini Robotics Team, Saminda Abeyruwan, Joshua Ainslie, Jean-Baptiste Alayrac, Montserrat Gonzalez Arenas, Travis Armstrong, Ashwin Balakrishna, Robert Baruch, Maria Bauza, Michiel Blokzijl, et al. Gemini robotics: Bringing ai into the physical world.arXiv preprint arXiv:2503.20020, 2025. URL https://arxiv.org/ abs/2503.20020

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2025

  23. [23]

    Gemini: A family of highly capable multimodal models

    Gemini Team, Rohan Anil, Sebastian Borgeaud, Jean- Baptiste Alayrac, Jiahui Yu, Radu Soricut, Johan Schalk- wyk, Andrew M Dai, Anja Hauth, Katie Millican, et al. Gemini: A family of highly capable multimodal models. arXiv preprint arXiv:2312.11805, 2023. URL https: //arxiv.org/abs/2312.11805

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2023

  24. [25]

    Inner monologue: Embodied reasoning through planning with language models

    Wenlong Huang, Fei Xia, Ted Xiao, Harris Chan, Jacky Liang, Pete Florence, Andy Zeng, Jonathan Tompson, Igor Mordatch, Yevgen Chebotar, Pierre Sermanet, Noah Brown, Tomas Jackson, Linda Luu, Sergey Levine, Karol Hausman, and Brian Ichter. Inner monologue: Embodied reasoning through planning with language models. In Conference on Robot Learning (CoRL), 202...

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2022

  25. [26]

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

    Wenlong Huang, Chen Wang, Ruohan Zhang, Yunzhu Li, Jiajun Wu, and Li Fei-Fei. V oxposer: Composable 3d value maps for robotic manipulation with language models. InConference on Robot Learning (CoRL), 2023. URL https://proceedings.mlr.press/v229/huang23b.html

    2023

  26. [27]

    URL https://arxiv.org/abs/2411.14053

    arXiv

  27. [28]

    In- tegrated task and motion planning in belief space

    Leslie Pack Kaelbling and Tom ´as Lozano-P ´erez. In- tegrated task and motion planning in belief space. International Journal of Robotics Research (IJRR),

  28. [29]

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

    Alexander Khazatsky, Karl Pertsch, Suraj Nair, Ash- win Balakrishna, Sudeep Dasari, Siddharth Karamcheti, Soroush Nasiriany, Mohan Kumar Srirama, Lauryn Luo, Kathy Vuong, et al. Droid: A large-scale in-the-wild robot manipulation dataset. InRobotics: Science and Sys- tems (RSS), 2024. URL https://arxiv.org/abs/2403.12945

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2024

  29. [30]

    Hierar- chical task and motion planning in the now

    Leslie Pack Kaelbling and Tom ´as Lozano-P´erez. Hierar- chical task and motion planning in the now. InIEEE International Conference on Robotics and Automation (ICRA), 2011. URL https://ieeexplore.ieee.org/document/ 5980391

    2011

  30. [31]

    Berg, Wan-Yen Lo, Piotr Doll ´ar, and Ross Girshick

    Alexander Kirillov, Eric Mintun, Nikhila Ravi, Hanzi Mao, Chloe Rolland, Laura Gustafson, Tete Xiao, Spencer Whitehead, Alexander C. Berg, Wan-Yen Lo, Piotr Doll ´ar, and Ross Girshick. Segment anything. In IEEE/CVF International Conference on Computer Vision (ICCV), 2023. URL https://arxiv.org/abs/2304.02643

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2023

  31. [32]

    Learning efficient abstract planning models that choose what to predict

    Nishanth Kumar, Willie McClinton, Rohan Chitnis, Tom Silver, Tom´as Lozano-P ´erez, and Leslie Pack Kaelbling. Learning efficient abstract planning models that choose what to predict. InConference on Robot Learning (CoRL), 2023. URL https://proceedings.mlr.press/v229/ kumar23a.html

    2023

  32. [33]

    Open-world task and motion planning via vision-language model inferred constraints

    Nishanth Kumar, William Shen, Fabio Ramos, Dieter Fox, Tom ´as Lozano-P ´erez, Leslie Pack Kaelbling, and Caelan Reed Garrett. Open-world task and motion planning via vision-language model inferred constraints. arXiv preprint arXiv:2411.08253, 2024. URL https: //arxiv.org/abs/2411.08253

    arXiv 2024

  33. [34]

    Openvla: An open-source vision-language-action model.arXiv preprint arXiv:2406.09246, 2024

    Moo Jin Kim, Karl Pertsch, Siddharth Karamcheti, Ted Xiao, Ashwin Balakrishna, Suraj Nair, Rafael Rafailov, Ethan Foster, Grace Lam, Pannag Sanketi, et al. Openvla: An open-source vision-language-action model.arXiv preprint arXiv:2406.09246, 2024. URL https://arxiv.org/ abs/2406.09246

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2024

  34. [35]

    Code as policies: Language model programs for em- bodied control

    Jacky Liang, Wenlong Huang, Fei Xia, Peng Xu, Karol Hausman, Brian Ichter, Pete Florence, and Andy Zeng. Code as policies: Language model programs for em- bodied control. InIEEE International Conference on Robotics and Automation (ICRA), 2023. URL https: //arxiv.org/abs/2209.07753

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2023

  35. [36]

    Tenenbaum, Tom Silver, Jo ˜ao F

    Yichao Liang, Nishanth Kumar, Hao Tang, Adrian Weller, Joshua B. Tenenbaum, Tom Silver, Jo ˜ao F. Henriques, and Kevin Ellis. Visualpredicator: Learning abstract world models with neuro-symbolic predicates for robot planning. InInternational Conference on Learning Representations (ICLR), 2025. URL https://arxiv.org/abs/ 2410.23156

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2025

  36. [37]

    Demon- strating ok-robot: What really matters in integrating open-knowledge models for robotics

    Peiqi Liu, Yaswanth Orru, Jay Vakil, Chris Paxton, Nur Muhammad Mahi Shafiullah, and Lerrel Pinto. Demon- strating ok-robot: What really matters in integrating open-knowledge models for robotics. InRobotics: Sci- ence and Systems (RSS), 2024. URL https://arxiv.org/ abs/2401.12202

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2024

  37. [38]

    Foresight and reconsideration in hierarchical planning and execution

    Martin Levihn, Leslie Pack Kaelbling, Tom ´as Lozano- P´erez, and Mike Stilman. Foresight and reconsideration in hierarchical planning and execution. InIEEE/RSJ In- ternational Conference on Intelligent Robots and Systems (IROS), 2013. URL https://dspace.mit.edu/handle/1721. 1/90271

    2013

  38. [39]

    Graspgen: A diffusion-based framework for 6- dof grasping with on-generator training.arXiv preprint arXiv:2507.13097, 2025

    Adithyavairavan Murali, Balakumar Sundaralingam, Yu- Wei Chao, Wentao Yuan, Jun Yamada, Mark Carlson, Fabio Ramos, Stan Birchfield, Dieter Fox, and Clemens Eppner. Graspgen: A diffusion-based framework for 6- dof grasping with on-generator training.arXiv preprint arXiv:2507.13097, 2025. URL https://arxiv.org/abs/2507. 13097

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2025

  39. [40]

    Nils J. Nilsson. Shakey the robot. Technical re- port, SRI International, Artificial Intelligence Center,

  40. [41]

    Isaac Sim, 2024

    NVIDIA. Isaac Sim, 2024. URL https://developer.nvidia. com/isaac/sim

    2024

  41. [42]

    Howe, Craig A

    Drew McDermott, Malik Ghallab, Adele E. Howe, Craig A. Knoblock, Ashwin Ram, Manuela M. Veloso, Daniel S. Weld, and David E. Wilkins. PDDL: The planning domain definition language, 1998. URL https://www.semanticscholar.org/paper/PDDL- the-planning-domain-definition-language-McDermott- Ghallab/d82c6b8081343b2eae63d45feefe630233ad60e1

    1998

  42. [43]

    Gpt-4o system card.arXiv preprint arXiv:2410.21276, 2024

    OpenAI. Gpt-4o system card.arXiv preprint arXiv:2410.21276, 2024. URL https://arxiv.org/abs/2410. 21276

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2024

  43. [44]

    Execution monitoring in robotics: A survey.Robotics and Autonomous Systems (RAS), 2005

    Ola Pettersson. Execution monitoring in robotics: A survey.Robotics and Autonomous Systems (RAS), 2005. URL https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/ pii/S092188900500134X

    2005

  44. [45]

    Physical Intelligence, Kevin Black, Noah Brown, James Darpinian, Karan Dhabalia, Danny Driess, Adnan Es- mail, Michael Equi, Chelsea Finn, Niccolo Fusai, Manuel Y . Galliker, Dibya Ghosh, Lachy Groom, Karol Hausman, Brian Ichter, Szymon Jakubczak, Tim Jones, Liyiming Ke, Devin LeBlanc, Sergey Levine, Adrian Li-Bell, Mohith Mothukuri, Suraj Nair, Karl Pert...

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2025

  45. [47]

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

    Open X-Embodiment Collaboration. Open x- embodiment: Robotic learning datasets and rt-x models. InIEEE International Conference on Robotics and Automation (ICRA), 2024. URL https://arxiv.org/abs/2310.08864

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2024

  46. [48]

    Differentiable gpu- parallelized task and motion planning

    William Shen, Caelan Garrett, Nishanth Kumar, Ankit Goyal, Tucker Hermans, Leslie Pack Kaelbling, Tom ´as Lozano-P´erez, and Fabio Ramos. Differentiable gpu- parallelized task and motion planning. InRobotics: Science and Systems (RSS), 2025. URL https://arxiv.org/ abs/2411.11833

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2025

  47. [49]

    Tenenbaum

    Tom Silver, Rohan Chitnis, Nishanth Kumar, Willie McClinton, Tom´as Lozano-P´erez, Leslie Pack Kaelbling, and Joshua B. Tenenbaum. Predicate invention for bilevel planning. InAAAI Conference on Artificial Intelligence (AAAI), 2023. URL https://ojs.aaai.org/index.php/AAAI/ article/view/26429

    2023

  48. [50]

    Progprompt: Generating situated robot task plans using large language models

    Ishika Singh, Valts Blukis, Arsalan Mousavian, Ankit Goyal, Danfei Xu, Jonathan Tremblay, Dieter Fox, Jesse Thomason, and Animesh Garg. Progprompt: Generating situated robot task plans using large language models. InIEEE International Conference on Robotics and Au- tomation (ICRA), 2023. URL https://arxiv.org/abs/2209. 11302

    2023

  49. [51]

    Com- bined task and motion planning through an extensible planner-independent interface layer

    Siddharth Srivastava, Eugene Fang, Lorenzo Riano, Ro- han Chitnis, Stuart Russell, and Pieter Abbeel. Com- bined task and motion planning through an extensible planner-independent interface layer. InIEEE Interna- tional Conference on Robotics and Automation (ICRA),

  50. [52]

    URL https://arxiv.org/abs/2408.00714

    Pith/arXiv arXiv

  51. [53]

    SAM 3D: 3dfy anything in images.arXiv preprint arXiv:2511.16624, 2025

    SAM 3D Team, Xingyu Chen, Fu-Jen Chu, Pierre Gleize, Kevin J Liang, Alexander Sax, Hao Tang, Weiyao Wang, Michelle Guo, Thibaut Hardin, Xiang Li, Aohan Lin, Jiawei Liu, Ziqi Ma, Anushka Sagar, Bowen Song, Xiaodong Wang, Jianing Yang, Bowen Zhang, Piotr Doll´ar, Georgia Gkioxari, Matt Feiszli, and Jitendra Malik. SAM 3D: 3dfy anything in images.arXiv prepr...

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2025

  52. [55]

    A survey on deep stereo matching in the twen- ties.International Journal of Computer Vision (IJCV),

    Fabio Tosi, Luca Bartolomei, and Matteo Poggi. A survey on deep stereo matching in the twen- ties.International Journal of Computer Vision (IJCV),

  53. [56]

    Logic-geometric programming: An optimization-based approach to combined task and mo- tion planning

    Marc Toussaint. Logic-geometric programming: An optimization-based approach to combined task and mo- tion planning. InInternational Joint Conference on Artificial Intelligence (IJCAI), 2015. URL https://www. ijcai.org/Proceedings/15/Papers/274.pdf

    2015

  54. [57]

    Differentiable physics and stable modes for tool-use and manipulation planning

    Marc Toussaint, Kelsey Allen, Kevin Smith, and Joshua Tenenbaum. Differentiable physics and stable modes for tool-use and manipulation planning. InRobotics: Science and Systems (RSS), 2018. URL https://www. roboticsproceedings.org/rss14/p44.html

    2018

  55. [58]

    Jie Wang, Matthew Leonard, Kostas Daniilidis, Dinesh Jayaraman, and Edward S. Hu. Evaluatingπ 0 in the wild: Strengths, problems, and the future of generalist robot policies, 2025. URL https://penn-pal-lab.github.io/Pi0- Experiment-in-the-Wild/

    2025

  56. [59]

    Ratliff, and Dieter Fox

    Balakumar Sundaralingam, Siva Kumar Sastry Hari, Adam Fishman, Caelan Reed Garrett, Karl Van Wyk, Valts Blukis, Alexander Millane, Helen Oleynikova, Ankur Handa, Fabio Ramos, Nathan D. Ratliff, and Dieter Fox. curobo: Parallelized collision-free robot motion generation. InIEEE International Conference on Robotics and Automation (ICRA), 2023. URL https: //...

    arXiv 2023

  57. [60]

    Contact-graspnet: Efficient 6-dof grasp generation in cluttered scenes

    Martin Sundermeyer, Arsalan Mousavian, Rudolph Triebel, and Dieter Fox. Contact-graspnet: Efficient 6-dof grasp generation in cluttered scenes. InIEEE International Conference on Robotics and Automation (ICRA), 2021. URL https://arxiv.org/abs/2103.14127

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2021

  58. [61]

    Foundationstereo: Zero-shot stereo matching

    Bowen Wen, Matthew Trepte, Joseph Aribido, Jan Kautz, Orazio Gallo, and Stan Birchfield. Foundationstereo: Zero-shot stereo matching. InIEEE/CVF Conference on Computer Vision and Pattern Recognition (CVPR), 2025. URL https://arxiv.org/abs/2501.09898

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2025

  59. [62]

    Guiding long- horizon task and motion planning with vision language models

    Zhutian Yang, Caelan Reed Garrett, Dieter Fox, Tom ´as Lozano-P´erez, and Leslie Pack Kaelbling. Guiding long- horizon task and motion planning with vision language models. InIEEE International Conference on Robotics and Automation (ICRA), 2025. URL https://arxiv.org/abs/ 2410.02193

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2025

  60. [63]

    put the ob- ject into the container

    Wentao Yuan, Adithyavairavan Murali, Arsalan Mousa- vian, and Dieter Fox. M2t2: Multi-task masked trans- former for object-centric pick and place. InConfer- ence on Robot Learning (CoRL), 2023. URL https: //proceedings.mlr.press/v229/yuan23a.html. APPENDIX A. cuTAMP Extensions We made several extensions to cuTAMP [48] to improve real-world deployability: ...

    2023

  61. [68]

    Llm3: Large language model-based task and motion planning with motion failure reasoning

    Shu Wang, Muzhi Han, Ziyuan Jiao, Zeyu Zhang, Ying Nian Wu, Song-Chun Zhu, and Hangxin Liu. Llm3: Large language model-based task and motion planning with motion failure reasoning. InIEEE/RSJ International Conference on Intelligent Robots and Systems (IROS),

  62. [69]

    URL https://arxiv.org/abs/2403.11552

    Pith/arXiv arXiv

  63. [70]

    Fast- foundationstereo: Real-time zero-shot stereo matching

    Bowen Wen, Shaurya Dewan, and Stan Birchfield. Fast- foundationstereo: Real-time zero-shot stereo matching. arXiv preprint arXiv:2512.11130, 2025. URL https: //arxiv.org/abs/2512.11130

    arXiv 2025

  64. [1984]

    URL https://ai.stanford.edu/ ∼nilsson/OnlinePubs- Nils/shakey-the-robot.pdf

  65. [2013]

    URL https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/10.1177/ 0278364913484072

  66. [2014]

    URL https://people.eecs.berkeley.edu/ ∼russell/ papers/icra14-planrob.pdf

  67. [2018]

    1177/0278364917739114

    URL https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/abs/10. 1177/0278364917739114

  68. [2024]

    URL https://www.roboticsproceedings.org/rss20/ p118.pdf

  69. [2025]

    URL https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/ s11263-024-02331-0

  70. [2026]

    URL https://arxiv.org/abs/2601.17895

    arXiv