Manipulate-to-Navigate: Reinforcement Learning with Visual Affordances and Manipulability Priors

Joni Pajarinen; Yuying Zhang

REVIEW 4 major objections 2 minor 30 references

Manipulate-to-Navigate: Reinforcement Learning with Visual Affordances and Manipulability Priors

T0 review · 4 major / 2 minor · reviewed 2026-08-15 · deepseek-v4-flash

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

Pith's one-line read Combining manipulability priors with affordance maps lets a mobile manipulator learn to clear obstacles and navigate, and the learned policy transfers to a real Spot robot.

desk verdict A plausible integration of known ideas for a real problem, but the central claim about the manipulability prior needs an ablation before it can be credited. read the letter →

arxiv 2508.13151 v1 pith:BMU6FRCB submitted 2025-08-18 cs.RO cs.SYeess.SY

Yuying Zhang , Joni Pajarinen This is my paper · ORCID

classification cs.ROcs.SYeess.SY

keywords manipulate-to-navigatemobilemanipulationreinforcementlearningmanipulabilityprioraffordancemapSpotrobotdynamicenvironmentssim-to-realtransfer

verification ladder T0 review T1 audit T2 compute T3 formal

The pith

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

The reading

The paper tackles 'manipulate-to-navigate' tasks, where a mobile robot must move movable obstacles out of its own path before it can drive forward. It claims that a reinforcement learning policy can learn such tasks effectively when two ideas are added: a manipulability prior that prefers base positions where the arm can move freely, and an affordance map that highlights where manipulation actions are useful. The claim is demonstrated in two simulated tasks with a Spot robot, Reach and Door, both of which require manipulation before base motion. The Reach policy is also transferred to a real Spot robot, which performs the task successfully. If the paper is right, this is a practical route to robots that actively reshape dynamic environments instead of treating navigation and manipulation as separate problems.

What carries the argument

The carrying mechanism is the pairing of a manipulability prior with an affordance map. The manipulability prior is a kinematic score computed from the robot's model that rates body positions and arm configurations by how freely the end effector can move, biasing exploration toward positions that are promising for manipulation. The affordance map marks where high-quality manipulation actions are available in the observed scene. Together they focus the policy on feasible and meaningful actions, reducing unnecessary exploration in the sparse manipulate-to-navigate setting.

What would settle it

Run the Reach and Door tasks with the manipulability prior removed, inverted, or replaced by a uniform prior; if success rates and learning speed do not change, the prior is not doing the claimed work. Also record the manipulability scores at the end-effector poses chosen in successful episodes; if successful policies systematically avoid high-manipulability postures, the proposed mechanism is not the cause of success.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

The paper's central claim is that for a mobile manipulator in a dynamic environment, learning to manipulate can be made effective by first focusing the policy on high-manipulability body positions and then using affordance maps to select high-quality manipulation actions. This combination reduces unnecessary exploration and lets the agent discover that it must clear obstacles before navigating. The evidence is the Reach task, where the robot must place its end effector in a target area and then move its base forward while keeping the effector fixed, and the Door task, where the robot must push a door aside to clear its path. In both tasks the learned policy first manipulates and then navigates the base forward successfully in simulation; the Reach policy transfers to a real Spot robot and succeeds there as well.

Load-bearing premise

The method assumes that body positions where the arm is most dexterous are also the best positions for clearing obstacles and letting the base pass, and that the simulator's contact behavior is close enough to the real Spot for the learned policy to transfer.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

Mobile manipulators can learn sequences where manipulation and navigation are controlled by a single policy rather than planned as two separate tasks.
Biasing exploration with kinematic manipulability reduces the number of useless actions a sparse-reward agent must try before discovering that obstacles can be moved.
The Reach policy, learned in simulation, is reported to transfer to a real Spot robot, indicating that the learned behavior is not just a simulation artifact.
The two new tasks, Reach and Door, provide repeatable benchmarks for the manipulate-to-navigate problem in dynamic environments.

Reading between the lines

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

The same prior-plus-affordance recipe could accelerate learning in other contact-rich tasks, such as opening doors, pushing debris, or rearranging objects, whenever the kinematic prior happens to align with effective contact.
A testable extension is to replace the fixed kinematic prior with a learned one that adapts to obstacle geometry; if the learning advantage persists across varied environments, the bottleneck is exploration rather than the specific prior.
Because the prior is fixed from kinematics, the approach could mislead exploration in tasks where the best clearing action uses a stiff, low-manipulability posture, such as pushing a heavy obstacle with the shoulder; measuring failures in that regime would bound the method's scope.

Share X Bluesky LinkedIn Reddit HN

Signed reviews

No signed human review yet.

Editorial analysis

A structured set of objections, weighed in public.

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

Desk Editor's Note

read the letter

Colleague,

Quick take on arXiv:2508.13151. The paper tackles a real gap: mobile manipulators that must clear movable obstacles before navigating. The proposed combination—manipulability priors plus affordance maps as RL guidance—is a sensible integration of known ideas, and the two Spot-based tasks (Reach, Door) are a reasonable first benchmark. The real-robot transfer of the Reach policy is a nice proof-of-concept. That's the good part.

The soft spot is the central causal claim. The abstract says the method reduces unnecessary exploration and lets the robot learn more effectively, but we get no numbers, no baselines, no ablation that isolates the contribution of the manipulability prior. The stress-test concern is fair: manipulability is a kinematic measure; it does not encode contact forces or whether a high-manipulability push actually unblocks the path. In the Door task, a high-manipulability configuration might push the door sideways and re-block the corridor. In the Reach task, the prior might encode the solution rather than test it, since keeping the end effector fixed while the base advances is nearly the definition of manipulability. Without an ablation removing the prior, we cannot tell whether the prior is doing the work or just shaping exploration in a way that happens to match the task geometry.

That said, these are questions for the experiments to answer, not reasons to dismiss the paper. The problem is important, the method is clearly described at the abstract level, and the two-task setup plus hardware transfer is a reasonable initial evaluation. The lack of quantitative results in the abstract is common in this literature, though it does make it impossible to verify the claims from the abstract alone. Our copy of the full text was corrupted by an encoding issue, so I could not inspect equations or tables; that is a review logistics problem, not a flaw in the work.

Who is this for? Researchers working on mobile manipulation and RL-based task-and-motion planning will find it relevant. It deserves a serious referee, and the referee should focus on the ablation: remove the manipulability prior, remove the affordance maps, and compare success rates and sample efficiency. If the prior's contribution survives that, the paper is a solid contribution. I'd bring it to our reading group as a maybe, and I'd cite it if the experimental section checks out.

Referee Report

4 major / 2 minor

Summary. The manuscript proposes a reinforcement-learning approach for 'manipulate-to-navigate' scenarios, in which a mobile manipulator must clear movable obstacles before navigating. The method combines a manipulability prior over the robot's body configuration with affordance maps for manipulation action selection. Two simulated tasks, Reach and Door, are introduced for a Boston Dynamics Spot, and the Reach policy is reported to transfer to a real Spot. The central claims are that the combined priors reduce unnecessary exploration and enable successful manipulation-then-navigation behavior. The submitted full text, however, is largely undecodable because of an encoding corruption, so only the abstract could be reviewed in detail.

Significance. The paper addresses a timely problem, and the two proposed tasks are plausible benchmarks for mobile manipulation; the attempt to transfer the learned policy to a real robot is a strength. If the claimed results were fully reported, the contribution could be valuable. However, the manuscript as supplied does not allow verification of the central claim: no quantitative success rates, baselines, ablations, error analysis, or training details are decodable. The causal role of the manipulability prior in particular is asserted rather than demonstrated.

major comments (4)

[Full text] The supplied full text is corrupted by a character-encoding problem, leaving only the abstract readable. Equations, tables, experimental protocols, and the details of the real-robot transfer cannot be audited. Because the paper's claims depend on those details, the manuscript cannot be accepted in this form; a readable version must be resubmitted. In particular, the reported simulation and hardware results need to show quantitative success rates, trial counts, and error bars.
[Abstract] The abstract reports that the method 'allows a robot to effectively interact with and traverse dynamic environments' but gives no quantitative results and no comparison to baselines. In particular, there is no ablation that removes the manipulability prior or the affordance maps, so the central claim that the prior improves learning is not supported by the available material. The manuscript should include a baseline without the prior, a baseline without affordance maps, and a comparison to a policy trained from scratch, with success rates on both tasks.
[Method (as far as decodable)] The method assumes that high-manipulability body positions are also effective positions for clearing obstacles and enabling navigation, but this alignment is not established in the readable material. Manipulability is a kinematic property and does not by itself predict contact forces, obstacle motion, or path clearance; in the Door task, a high-manipulability push could move the door in a way that obstructs the corridor. A sensitivity analysis or a comparison against uniform exploration is needed to show that the prior is not biasing exploration away from successful strategies.
[Abstract] The real-robot transfer of the Reach policy is stated as successful, but no details of the hardware experiment are provided in the readable text. The authors should report the number of trials, the definition of success, and any failures or corrective interventions, since this is the only evidence for real-world validity.

minor comments (2)

[Abstract] The abstract would be clearer if it gave a concrete success-rate summary rather than the general phrase 'Results show that our method allows...'.
[Full text] The reference list, figure captions, and table contents are not decodable; ensure the resubmitted version has intact fonts and encoding so that all bibliographic entries and display items can be inspected.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 0.0 of 10

No significant circularity: manipulability prior and affordance maps are external inputs, and success is measured by task completion.

full rationale

At the abstract and readable-fragment level, the method is self-contained: the manipulability prior is an external kinematic bias computed from the robot's Jacobian, and the affordance maps are external visual/geometric inputs used to select candidate actions. The RL policy is evaluated on task completion (clearing the path and advancing the base), not on reproducing the prior or on any quantity fitted to the prior. No equation in the accessible text defines a fitted parameter in terms of the success metric, and there is no load-bearing self-citation chain: the method does not invoke a prior result as the sole justification for its central claim. The Reach task does align the prior with the task geometry, since keeping the end effector fixed while moving the base is closely related to kinematic manipulability, but the prior is an input to exploration rather than an output of the learned policy; this is a design choice, not a circular reduction. Missing ablations are a correctness and evidence concern, not circularity. The full text is corrupted by an encoding issue, so equations and tables could not be fully audited; based on the available abstract and readable fragments, no circularity is established. Quoting the abstract: 'Our method combines manipulability priors to focus the robot on high manipulability body positions with affordance maps for selecting high-quality manipulation actions' — both are inputs, and the reported outcome is traversal success, not the prior itself.

Assumptions & free parameters 0 free parameters · 2 assumptions · 0 invented entities

Audit is limited to the abstract because the full text arrived with corrupted encoding. No explicit free parameters are visible. The method rests on two domain assumptions that cannot be verified from the abstract: that manipulability priors bias exploration toward successful strategies, and that the simulation-to-real gap is small enough for the reported transfer. No new physical entities are introduced.

assumptions (2)

domain assumption A manipulability prior computed from body configuration ranks manipulation actions by usefulness for clearing navigation obstacles.
Central to the method's claim of reducing exploration; no ablation or supporting analysis is visible in the abstract.
domain assumption The simulation environment for Reach and Door is sufficiently faithful to the real Spot robot for the reported real-robot transfer to be meaningful.
The real-robot claim depends on sim-to-real transfer, which is asserted rather than demonstrated in the abstract.

how reviews work

0 comments

Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Manipulate-to-Navigate: Reinforcement Learning with Visual Affordances and Manipulability Priors." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/BMU6FRCB

@misc{pith2026250813151,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Manipulate-to-Navigate: Reinforcement Learning with Visual Affordances and Manipulability Priors},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/BMU6FRCB}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2508.13151}
}

read the original abstract

Mobile manipulation in dynamic environments is challenging due to movable obstacles blocking the robot's path. Traditional methods, which treat navigation and manipulation as separate tasks, often fail in such 'manipulate-to-navigate' scenarios, as obstacles must be removed before navigation. In these cases, active interaction with the environment is required to clear obstacles while ensuring sufficient space for movement. To address the manipulate-to-navigate problem, we propose a reinforcement learning-based approach for learning manipulation actions that facilitate subsequent navigation. Our method combines manipulability priors to focus the robot on high manipulability body positions with affordance maps for selecting high-quality manipulation actions. By focusing on feasible and meaningful actions, our approach reduces unnecessary exploration and allows the robot to learn manipulation strategies more effectively. We present two new manipulate-to-navigate simulation tasks called Reach and Door with the Boston Dynamics Spot robot. The first task tests whether the robot can select a good hand position in the target area such that the robot base can move effectively forward while keeping the end effector position fixed. The second task requires the robot to move a door aside in order to clear the navigation path. Both of these tasks need first manipulation and then navigating the base forward. Results show that our method allows a robot to effectively interact with and traverse dynamic environments. Finally, we transfer the learned policy to a real Boston Dynamics Spot robot, which successfully performs the Reach task.

Review history (2 revisions) →

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

30 extracted references · 24 canonical work pages

[1]

+ i:a vw J+2 l4 ܂e kvh];P,ijn7so d 7 T,m O ݽ k d׎-x^Ʀ غ Lqĸ|[72 m۳ v! μ <@έGcSmm@ 3 ? aM 1a oo/eL_X ؽk A8X> il¶q+

11em plus .33em minus .07em @technote 4000 4000 100 4000 4000 500 `\.=1000 = #1 #1 #1 0pt [0pt][0pt] #1 * \| ** #1 \@IEEEauthorblockNstyle \@IEEEauthorblockAstyle \@IEEEauthordefaulttextstyle \@IEEEauthorblockconfadjspace -0.25em \@IEEEauthorblockNtopspace 0.0ex \@IEEEauthorblockAtopspace 0.0ex \@IEEEauthorblockNinterlinespace 2.6ex \@IEEEauthorblockAinte...

arXiv
[2]

Z. Fu, X. Cheng, and D. Pathak, ``Deep whole-body control: Learning a unified policy for manipulation and locomotion,'' in Conference on Robot Learning ( CoRL ) , 2022

work page 2022
[3]

Zimmermann, R

S. Zimmermann, R. Poranne, and S. Coros, ``Go fetch!-dynamic grasps using boston dynamics spot with external robotic arm,'' in 2021 IEEE International Conference on Robotics and Automation (ICRA). 1em plus 0.5em minus 0.4em IEEE, 2021, pp. 4488--4494

work page 2021
[4]

F. Xia, C. Li, R. Mart \' n-Mart \' n, O. Litany, A. Toshev, and S. Savarese, ``Relmogen: Leveraging motion generation in reinforcement learning for mobile manipulation,'' arXiv preprint arXiv:2008.07792, 2020

arXiv 2008
[5]

Reister, M

F. Reister, M. Grotz, and T. Asfour, ``Combining navigation and manipulation costs for time-efficient robot placement in mobile manipulation tasks,'' IEEE Robotics and Automation Letters, vol. 7, no. 4, pp. 9913--9920, 2022

work page 2022
[6]

Yokoyama, A

N. Yokoyama, A. W. Clegg, E. Undersander, S. Ha, D. Batra, and A. Rai, ``Adaptive skill coordination for robotic mobile manipulation,'' arXiv preprint arXiv:2304.00410, 2023

arXiv 2023
[7]

Zacharias, W

F. Zacharias, W. Sepp, C. Borst, and G. Hirzinger, ``Using a model of the reachable workspace to position mobile manipulators for 3-d trajectories,'' in 2009 9th IEEE-RAS International Conference on Humanoid Robots. 1em plus 0.5em minus 0.4em IEEE, 2009, pp. 55--61

work page 2009
[8]

Y. Gong, G. Sun, A. Nair, A. Bidwai, R. CS, J. Grezmak, G. Sartoretti, and K. A. Daltorio, ``Legged robots for object manipulation: A review,'' arXiv e-prints, pp. arXiv--2303, 2023

work page 2023

Show all 30 references

[9]

Thakar, S

S. Thakar, S. Srinivasan, S. Al-Hussaini, P. M. Bhatt, P. Rajendran, Y. Jung Yoon, N. Dhanaraj, R. K. Malhan, M. Schmid, V. N. Krovi et al., ``A survey of wheeled mobile manipulation: A decision-making perspective,'' Journal of Mechanisms and Robotics, vol. 15, no. 2, p. 020801, 2023

2023
[10]

Vahrenkamp, T

N. Vahrenkamp, T. Asfour, G. Metta, G. Sandini, and R. Dillmann, ``Manipulability analysis,'' in 2012 12th ieee-ras international conference on humanoid robots (humanoids 2012). 1em plus 0.5em minus 0.4em IEEE, 2012, pp. 568--573

2012
[11]

Y. Li, J. Zhao, Y. Li, Z. Wu, R. Cao, M. Tomizuka, and Y.-H. Liu, ``Dbpf: A framework for efficient and robust dynamic bin-picking,'' IEEE Robotics and Automation Letters, 2024

2024
[12]

Jauhri, J

S. Jauhri, J. Peters, and G. Chalvatzaki, ``Robot learning of mobile manipulation with reachability behavior priors,'' IEEE Robotics and Automation Letters, vol. 7, no. 3, pp. 8399--8406, 2022

2022
[13]

L. Naik, S. Kalkan, and N. Kr \"u ger, ``Pre-grasp approaching on mobile robots: A pre-active layered approach,'' IEEE Robotics and Automation Letters, vol. 9, no. 3, pp. 2606--2613, 2024

2024
[14]

P \'e rez-Cruz, ``Kullback-leibler divergence estimation of continuous distributions,'' in 2008 IEEE international symposium on information theory

F. P \'e rez-Cruz, ``Kullback-leibler divergence estimation of continuous distributions,'' in 2008 IEEE international symposium on information theory. 1em plus 0.5em minus 0.4em IEEE, 2008, pp. 1666--1670

2008
[15]

Khetarpal, Z

K. Khetarpal, Z. Ahmed, G. Comanici, D. Abel, and D. Precup, ``What can i do here? a theory of affordances in reinforcement learning,'' in International Conference on Machine Learning. 1em plus 0.5em minus 0.4em PMLR, 2020, pp. 5243--5253

2020
[16]

J. G. Greeno, ``Gibson's affordances.'' 1994

1994
[17]

Mandikal and K

P. Mandikal and K. Grauman, ``Learning dexterous grasping with object-centric visual affordances,'' in 2021 IEEE international conference on robotics and automation (ICRA). 1em plus 0.5em minus 0.4em IEEE, 2021, pp. 6169--6176

2021
[18]

Y. Deng, X. Guo, Y. Wei, K. Lu, B. Fang, D. Guo, H. Liu, and F. Sun, ``Deep reinforcement learning for robotic pushing and picking in cluttered environment,'' in 2019 IEEE/RSJ International Conference on Intelligent Robots and Systems (IROS). 1em plus 0.5em minus 0.4em Ieee, 2...

2019
[19]

Zhang, K

H. Zhang, K. Mi, and Z. Zhang, ``Base placement optimization for coverage mobile manipulation tasks,'' arXiv preprint arXiv:2304.08246, 2023

2023 arXiv
[20]

Honerkamp, T

D. Honerkamp, T. Welschehold, and A. Valada, ``Learning kinematic feasibility for mobile manipulation through deep reinforcement learning,'' IEEE Robotics and Automation Letters, vol. 6, no. 4, pp. 6289--6296, 2021

2021
[21]

O. Y. Lee, A. Xie, K. Fang, K. Pertsch, and C. Finn, ``Affordance-guided reinforcement learning via visual prompting,'' arXiv preprint arXiv:2407.10341, 2024

2024 arXiv
[22]

Y. Geng, B. An, H. Geng, Y. Chen, Y. Yang, and H. Dong, ``Rlafford: End-to-end affordance learning for robotic manipulation,'' in 2023 IEEE International Conference on Robotics and Automation (ICRA). 1em plus 0.5em minus 0.4em IEEE, 2023, pp. 5880--5886

2023
[23]

Belkhale and D

S. Belkhale and D. Sadigh, ``Plato: Predicting latent affordances through object-centric play,'' in Proceedings of The 6th Conference on Robot Learning, ser. Proceedings of Machine Learning Research, K. Liu, D. Kulic, and J. Ichnowski, Eds., vol. 205. 1em plus 0.5em minus 0.4e...

2023
[24]

Borja-Diaz, O

J. Borja-Diaz, O. Mees, G. Kalweit, L. Hermann, J. Boedecker, and W. Burgard, ``Affordance learning from play for sample-efficient policy learning,'' in 2022 International Conference on Robotics and Automation (ICRA). 1em plus 0.5em minus 0.4em IEEE, 2022, pp. 6372--6378

2022
[25]

S. Ling, Y. Wang, R. Wu, S. Wu, Y. Zhuang, T. Xu, Y. Li, C. Liu, and H. Dong, ``Articulated object manipulation with coarse-to-fine affordance for mitigating the effect of point cloud noise,'' in 2024 IEEE International Conference on Robotics and Automation (ICRA). 1em plus 0....

2024
[26]

Khazatsky, A

A. Khazatsky, A. Nair, D. Jing, and S. Levine, ``What can i do here? learning new skills by imagining visual affordances,'' in 2021 IEEE International Conference on Robotics and Automation (ICRA). 1em plus 0.5em minus 0.4em IEEE, 2021, pp. 14\,291--14\,297

2021
[27]

Kuang, J

Y. Kuang, J. Ye, H. Geng, J. Mao, C. Deng, L. Guibas, H. Wang, and Y. Wang, ``Ram: Retrieval-based affordance transfer for generalizable zero-shot robotic manipulation,'' arXiv preprint arXiv:2407.04689, 2024

2024 arXiv
[28]

Oquab, T

M. Oquab, T. Darcet, T. Moutakanni, H. V. Vo, M. Szafraniec, V. Khalidov, P. Fernandez, D. Haziza, F. Massa, A. El-Nouby, R. Howes, P.-Y. Huang, H. Xu, V. Sharma, S.-W. Li, W. Galuba, M. Rabbat, M. Assran, N. Ballas, G. Synnaeve, I. Misra, H. Jegou, J. Mairal, P. Labatut, A. J...

2023
[29]

Zhang, D

C. Zhang, D. Han, Y. Qiao, J. U. Kim, S.-H. Bae, S. Lee, and C. S. Hong, ``Faster segment anything: Towards lightweight sam for mobile applications,'' arXiv preprint arXiv:2306.14289, 2023

2023 arXiv
[30]

Van Hasselt, A

H. Van Hasselt, A. Guez, and D. Silver, ``Deep reinforcement learning with double q-learning,'' in Proceedings of the AAAI conference on artificial intelligence, vol. 30, no. 1, 2016

2016

Pith tools

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

[1] [1]

+ i:a vw J+2 l4 ܂e kvh];P,ijn7so d 7 T,m O ݽ k d׎-x^Ʀ غ Lqĸ|[72 m۳ v! μ <@έGcSmm@ 3 ? aM 1a oo/eL_X ؽk A8X> il¶q+

11em plus .33em minus .07em @technote 4000 4000 100 4000 4000 500 `\.=1000 = #1 #1 #1 0pt [0pt][0pt] #1 * \| ** #1 \@IEEEauthorblockNstyle \@IEEEauthorblockAstyle \@IEEEauthordefaulttextstyle \@IEEEauthorblockconfadjspace -0.25em \@IEEEauthorblockNtopspace 0.0ex \@IEEEauthorblockAtopspace 0.0ex \@IEEEauthorblockNinterlinespace 2.6ex \@IEEEauthorblockAinte...

arXiv

[2] [2]

Z. Fu, X. Cheng, and D. Pathak, ``Deep whole-body control: Learning a unified policy for manipulation and locomotion,'' in Conference on Robot Learning ( CoRL ) , 2022

work page 2022

[3] [3]

Zimmermann, R

S. Zimmermann, R. Poranne, and S. Coros, ``Go fetch!-dynamic grasps using boston dynamics spot with external robotic arm,'' in 2021 IEEE International Conference on Robotics and Automation (ICRA). 1em plus 0.5em minus 0.4em IEEE, 2021, pp. 4488--4494

work page 2021

[4] [4]

F. Xia, C. Li, R. Mart \' n-Mart \' n, O. Litany, A. Toshev, and S. Savarese, ``Relmogen: Leveraging motion generation in reinforcement learning for mobile manipulation,'' arXiv preprint arXiv:2008.07792, 2020

arXiv 2008

[5] [5]

Reister, M

F. Reister, M. Grotz, and T. Asfour, ``Combining navigation and manipulation costs for time-efficient robot placement in mobile manipulation tasks,'' IEEE Robotics and Automation Letters, vol. 7, no. 4, pp. 9913--9920, 2022

work page 2022

[6] [6]

Yokoyama, A

N. Yokoyama, A. W. Clegg, E. Undersander, S. Ha, D. Batra, and A. Rai, ``Adaptive skill coordination for robotic mobile manipulation,'' arXiv preprint arXiv:2304.00410, 2023

arXiv 2023

[7] [7]

Zacharias, W

F. Zacharias, W. Sepp, C. Borst, and G. Hirzinger, ``Using a model of the reachable workspace to position mobile manipulators for 3-d trajectories,'' in 2009 9th IEEE-RAS International Conference on Humanoid Robots. 1em plus 0.5em minus 0.4em IEEE, 2009, pp. 55--61

work page 2009

[8] [8]

Y. Gong, G. Sun, A. Nair, A. Bidwai, R. CS, J. Grezmak, G. Sartoretti, and K. A. Daltorio, ``Legged robots for object manipulation: A review,'' arXiv e-prints, pp. arXiv--2303, 2023

work page 2023