Learning to Prune Branches in Modern Tree-Fruit Orchards

Abhinav Jain; Cindy Grimm; Stefan Lee

REVIEW 4 major objections 5 minor 28 references

Learning to Prune Branches in Modern Tree-Fruit Orchards

T0 review · 4 major / 5 minor · reviewed 2026-08-06 · deepseek-v4-flash

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

Pith's one-line read A closed-loop visuomotor policy trained entirely in simulation, using only optical flow from a wrist camera, guides a robot cutter to pruning points on real apple trees and orients the cutter perpendicular to the branch.

desk verdict Solid simulator and 6DOF optical-flow controller, but the zero-shot transfer claim is only supported by a lab proxy, not an orchard, and the real-world planner comparison is too weak for the 'outperforms' claim. read the letter →

arxiv 2507.23015 v1 pith:E4OZHQHC submitted 2025-07-30 cs.RO cs.LG

Abhinav Jain , Cindy Grimm , Stefan Lee This is my paper · ORCID

classification cs.ROcs.LG

keywords roboticpruningopticalflowsim-to-realtransfervisuomotorpolicyreinforcementlearningsynthetictreegenerationorchardroboticsL-systems

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 tries to establish that the reaching and orientation part of dormant tree pruning can be done by a learned visuomotor policy that never sees a 3D reconstruction of the tree. The policy is trained in a purpose-built simulator that procedurally generates V-Trellis Envy apple trees from an L-system model with pruning and tie-down cycles, and it observes the world only as optical flow images from a wrist-mounted camera, plus the target cut point and robot state. In simulation the policy reaches correctly oriented cuts in about 30% of 3,000 trials, about half the 60% of an oracle planner with perfect geometry. On a physical proxy tree it achieves 35% success with zero-shot transfer, while a point-cloud-based RRT-Connect planner mostly fails because thin tertiary branches are missing from the reconstruction. The authors argue this makes reconstruction-free robotic pruning feasible and that optical flow is the key representation for seeing thin branches outdoors.

What carries the argument

Two mechanisms carry the argument. The first is a procedural tree generator built on an L-system plant model extended with cyclic pruning and branch tie-down operations; branches are modeled as cantilever beams deflected to each tie point, which reproduces the curvature and clutter of V-Trellis Envy trees closely enough that a policy trained on them transfers to a physical tree. The second is the optical flow observation space: instead of RGB or depth, the policy receives a two-channel optical flow image computed between consecutive camera frames, which in field tests captures the geometry of thin tertiary branches better than a depth camera. Around these, a PPO-based LSTM policy with a privileged critic (given true branch orientation during training) and an autoencoding visual encoder learns the reaching, pointing, and perpendicularity behavior from shaped rewards.

What would settle it

Count branch orientations, curvatures, and clutter densities in a set of real dormant V-Trellis Envy trees and compare them with the generator's output; if the real distribution puts many branches in the azimuth/elevation cells where the RL policy's success is near zero (around ±145 degrees azimuth at 0 degrees elevation) or if real trees have substantially more dense tertiary branching, the reported 30-35% success rates should be expected to drop in the field.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

The authors claim that a closed-loop controller for the pruning reach task can be learned entirely in simulation and transferred zero-shot to a real robot by using optical flow images instead of RGB or depth. The controller takes a cut point and a stream of optical flow frames from an eye-in-hand camera, outputs 6-DOF end-effector velocities, and is rewarded for reducing distance to the cut point, pointing the cutter at the branch, and aligning the cutter jaws perpendicular to it. With a proximal-policy-optimization actor-critic trained on procedurally generated trees, the policy reaches the success criteria (jaws within 5 cm of the cut point, orientation within 30 degrees) in 30% of simulation trials and 35% of real-world trials, about half the simulation performance of an oracle RRT-Connect planner with perfect tree geometry and better than point-cloud-based planning on a real tree where thin branches are poorly reconstructed.

Load-bearing premise

The central assumption is that the procedurally generated trees are geometrically close enough to real V-Trellis Envy trees that a policy trained on them will behave the same on a real tree; the paper validates this on a single proxy tree but has not formally checked the synthetic branch statistics against commercial orchards.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

Robotic pruning can proceed without a complete 3D model of the tree, sidestepping depth-sensor failures in bright sunlight and the cost of dense reconstruction.
Because optical flow preserves thin branches that point-cloud pipelines miss, the learned policy can reach cut points that a point-cloud-based planner cannot even see.
The policy's 30-35% success sits at roughly half of an oracle planner, so a practical system would still need a fallback planner or policy improvements, but it establishes a viable reconstruction-free baseline.
The success criteria are compatible with a contact-based admittance controller, so the learned reach-and-orient behavior can feed into an existing system that makes the actual cut once the branch is in the jaws.
The modified tree generator is not specific to V-Trellis; it can produce other planar orchard architectures (upright fruiting offshoot, tall spindle) with the same pruning-and-tie-down process.

Reading between the lines

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

If the simulator's geometry is the bottleneck, a cheap validation step would be to measure branch-angle and curvature histograms from a few real trees and reject synthetic trees outside that distribution; this would make the zero-shot claim testable before field deployment.
The failure cells (branches pointing directly at or away from the robot) likely reflect the UR5's kinematic limits and the pruner's asymmetric mounting, so a different arm or a repositioning of the robot base could close part of the gap to the oracle.
Optical flow as an observation space may generalize to other manipulation tasks on thin, cluttered structures outside orchards, such as wiring, harvesting, or canopy inspection, wherever depth cameras are unreliable.
A direct extension would be to replace the point-cost specification with a learned detector that proposes cut points from the same optical flow stream, turning the reach policy into an end-to-end pruner.

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

Here's my take: this is a real step forward for optical-flow visuomotor pruning, but the zero-shot transfer claim is braver than the evidence. The paper itself is transparent about the lab proxy and the unverified simulator realism, so the gap is in the abstract and conclusion, not in the body.

What's actually new: this is the first extension I know of that takes the You et al. optical-flow pruning idea from 2D perpendicular approach to full 6DOF with visible obstacle avoidance. The modified L-Py generator with cyclic pruning and tie-downs is a solid piece of engineering, and the simulation evaluation is decent: 3000 trials, an oracle RRT-Connect upper-bound comparison, and a task-space failure analysis that correctly identifies the UR5's reachability limits and self-collision zones. The reward design is careful, and using RAFT optical flow for sim-to-real is consistent with their prior work.

Soft spots, in rough proportion: first, the real-world evaluation is on a lab tree with custom plastic connectors that fix branch location and orientation. That removes exactly the variation the simulator was trying to capture. The paper says so in Section V-B, but the abstract still says 'zero-shot transfer' and 'deploy in the real world.' With 20 trials, 35% is not distinguishable from the 30% simulation number, and there are no confidence intervals. Second, the RRT-Connect comparison does not support 'outperforms point-cloud planners.' The point cloud covers one branch, goal poses are manually supplied 5cm from the cutpoint, and the planner gets 60 seconds; 5 of 10 cutpoints were missing from the cloud entirely. The comparison is suggestive, not controlled. Third, Section III concedes the simulated tree geometry is not formally verified against real orchards. That is the right kind of honesty, but it is a load-bearing assumption for the whole sim-to-real story. Minor: no code or data release, and the real-world runs are 4x slower than sim.

Who is this for? People building orchard simulators or working on optical-flow control for thin structures will get real value. The failure analysis and the L-Py extension are the strongest parts. The deployment claim should be read as a lab feasibility study, not an orchard demo.

My recommendation: send it to peer review — it's a serious, well-written paper that deserves referee time. But I'd push for major revision: temper the zero-shot language, add confidence intervals, release the code/models, or better, run a small pilot in an actual V-Trellis orchard. Desk rejection would be a mistake.

Referee Report

4 major / 5 minor

Summary. The paper presents a closed-loop visuomotor controller for robotic dormant pruning in V-trellis apple orchards. The controller consumes optical flow images from a wrist-mounted camera, a goal specification for the cut point, and robot proprioception, and outputs 6DOF end-effector velocities. Training is done with PPO in a PyBullet simulator whose trees are generated by an L-Py extension that models annual pruning and tie-downs. The reward function combines reaching, pointing, perpendicularity, collision, and slack terms. In simulation, the policy achieves 30.06% success over 3000 trials against an oracle RRT-Connect baseline with perfect geometry at 60.4%. In the real world, the policy attains 35% success over 20 trials on a laboratory proxy tree built from real apple branches with custom connectors. A point-cloud-based RRT-Connect baseline succeeds on 2 of 10 trials on a single reconstructed branch. The paper also provides a task-space analysis of failure modes as a function of branch orientation. The central claim is that optical-flow-based visuomotor control transfers zero-shot from simulation to a real tree and outperforms point-cloud-based planning in the real world.

Significance. If the central claim were fully supported, the paper would make a useful contribution: it offers a perception approach that avoids fragile 3D reconstruction of thin branches, an openly described synthetic tree generator that addresses a gap in existing L-systems tools, and a sensible oracle-planner upper bound for evaluating learned policies. The failure-mode analysis in Section VI is a step toward understanding where learned pruning policies fail. However, the real-world evidence is preliminary and the headline claims exceed what the experimental design can support, because the real-world environment is a lab proxy with artificial connectors and the baseline planner is not run under comparable conditions.

major comments (4)

[Section V-B, Figure 5] The real-world evaluation is conducted on a proxy tree built in the laboratory from real apple branches attached with custom plastic connectors that control branch location and orientation, with an orchard backdrop and a printed cutter. This removes the natural variability in branch attachment, clutter density, tie-down geometry, lighting, and weather that the simulator was designed to model. The abstract's statement that the policy is deployed 'in the real-world for an example V-Trellis envy tree' is therefore an overstatement. Please either evaluate on an actual orchard tree or explicitly reframe all real-world claims as validation on a lab proxy, not as orchard deployment.
[Section V-B, Real-World Results] Only 20 real-world trials are reported, with 7 successes (35%). The exact binomial 95% confidence interval for this result is approximately 15% to 59%, which is so wide that the result is not statistically distinguishable from the 30% simulation success rate. The claim of 'matching the results in simulation' and 'high sim-to-real transferability' is not supported by this sample size. Please report confidence intervals or credible intervals for all success rates and avoid claims of equivalence based on point estimates.
[Section V-B, RRT-Connect comparison] The RRT-Connect baseline is not a controlled comparison. It reconstructs only one branch rather than the full tree, uses manually supplied collision-free goal poses 5 cm from the cutpoint, is limited to 60 seconds of planning time, and is executed only for cutpoints that are visible in the point cloud. With 10 trials and 2 successes, the statement 'our visuomotor policy outperforms point cloud based planners' is not supported. A fair comparison would give both methods the same cutpoints, the same perception input, and the same success criteria, or the claim should be limited to the observation that the point cloud failed to capture some tertiary branches.
[Section III, 'Simulating the Reaching Task'] The authors state that the synthetic tree geometry 'has not been formally verified [to be] statistically consistent with real orchards.' This is a load-bearing limitation because the paper's central claim is zero-shot transfer from simulation to the real world. Without quantitative evidence that the simulated branch diameter, length, orientation, curvature, and clutter distributions match commercial V-Trellis Envy orchards, the reported 30-35% success rates may not transfer beyond the specific lab proxy tested. Please provide a statistical comparison between the synthetic tree bank and orchard scans (e.g., branch diameter/length histograms, orientation distributions, clutter density), or temper the zero-shot transfer claim accordingly.

minor comments (5)

[Abstract] The cultivar name should be capitalized: 'V-Trellis Envy tree', not 'V-Trellis envy tree'.
[Figure 4] For the real-world trials, only 20 points are shown for each error distribution; consider adding a bootstrapped confidence band or a violin-style plot so the reader can judge the spread without over-interpreting the density curves.
[Section IV-C, Equation (3)] The perpendicularity reward uses the absolute value of the cosine similarity, which rewards the cutter's left-right vector being aligned with either direction of the branch. If the cutter jaws are symmetric so that anti-parallel alignment is also acceptable, please state this explicitly; otherwise clarify the intended direction.
[Section IV-C] The reward weights alpha_m = 5, alpha_p1 = 6, and alpha_p2 = 2 are described only as 'empirically determined.' A sentence on the selection procedure or a small sensitivity study would improve reproducibility.
[Section V-A] The oracle RRT-Connect success rate is reported as 60.4% over 3000 cutpoints, but the description of goal-configuration sampling could be clearer: state explicitly that the 60.4% is the fraction of cutpoints for which at least one of the 100 sampled goal configurations has a collision-free path, and whether the same 3D locations are used as for the RL policy.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 0.0 of 10

No significant circularity: the policy is evaluated against independently defined geometric success criteria, and the oracle and real-world baselines are not used to fit the learned policy.

full rationale

The paper's central claim is zero-shot sim-to-real transfer of an optical-flow-based RL pruning policy. The success definition is stated independently in Section III: 'the jaws of the cutter must be within 5cm of the cutpoint with the branch within the cutter mouth' and 'pointing and perpendicularity must be within 30 degrees.' These thresholds are geometric and are not derived from the policy's behavior; they are applied identically to the RL policy, the oracle RRT-Connect planner, and the real-world trials. The reward function (Eqs. 1-4) is shaped from reaching, pointing, perpendicularity, collision, and termination terms, but it is a training objective rather than the evaluation metric, and no reward parameters are fitted to real-world success. The oracle planner uses 'accurate tree mesh' and samples 100 goal configurations within the success region; it is presented as an approximate upper bound ('best-case performance'), not as a tuning signal for the policy. In the real world, the same trained policy is deployed without fine-tuning, and the RRT-Connect baseline is given manually supplied collision-free goal poses 5 cm from the cutpoint, which if anything favors the baseline. The self-citations ([13], [15], [18]) support the choice of optical flow and the admittance-controller compatibility of the success criteria, but these are prior published results used as motivation, not as an unverified premise that the current derivation depends on. The paper also discloses limitations, including 'we have not formally verified that the tree geometry is statistically consistent with real orchards' and that the real-world tree uses 'custom plastic connectors to control branch location and orientation,' plus a small number of real trials. These concern external validity and statistical strength, not circularity. No equation reduces to its own input, no fitted parameter is renamed as a prediction, and no uniqueness theorem or ansatz is imported from the authors' prior work to force the conclusion. Therefore the derivation chain is self-contained with respect to circularity.

Assumptions & free parameters 3 free parameters · 5 assumptions · 0 invented entities

The central result rests on simulation-to-real transfer. The ledger lists the manually chosen values and unverified assumptions that determine the reported success rates, since no code or data is provided to independently check them.

free parameters (3)

Reward weights alpha_m, alpha_p1, alpha_p2 = 5, 6, 2
Empirically determined weights in Eq. 4 balancing reaching, perpendicularity, and pointing rewards; policy behavior depends on these values.
Likely-reachable region bounds = 70-95 cm from robot base
Heuristic region for sampling training cutpoints, based on robot reach, branch length, and camera visibility; controls which cutpoints the policy ever sees.
Success thresholds = 5 cm distance, 30 degrees orientation
Defined in Section III to match admittance controller requirements; all success rates are measured against these thresholds and are not varied for sensitivity.

assumptions (5)

domain assumption Synthetic tree geometries generated by modified L-Py with cantilever beam tie-down are statistically representative of real V-Trellis Envy orchards.
Explicitly unverified in Section III; zero-shot transfer and success rates depend on this assumption. Compared to scans and a horticultural expert, but no formal validation.
domain assumption Optical flow from a wrist-mounted camera, computed by RAFT, provides sufficient state information to reach cutpoints and avoid visible collisions under sim-to-real shift.
Invoked in Section IV-A; policy perception is limited to optical flow, cutpoint image, and proprioception, so the method stands or falls on optical-flow sufficiency.
domain assumption PyBullet rigid-body simulation and the UR5 inverse Jacobian dynamics adequately model the real robot and branch contacts for zero-shot transfer.
Simulator described in Section III; the policy is trained entirely in simulation, so transfer depends on simulation realism for contacts and kinematics.
standard math PPO training with a privileged critic and auxiliary autoencoder yields a policy that generalizes to novel trees and real branches.
RL methodology; relies on standard convergence and generalization assumptions for model-free policy optimization.
ad hoc to paper The lab proxy tree, built from real apple branches with custom plastic connectors and an orchard backdrop, is a valid stand-in for a real orchard.
Real-world evaluation in Section V-B uses a proxy tree in a lab, not an outdoor orchard; claims of real-world transfer are conditioned on this proxy being representative.

how reviews work

0 comments

Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Learning to Prune Branches in Modern Tree-Fruit Orchards." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/E4OZHQHC

@misc{pith2026250723015,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Learning to Prune Branches in Modern Tree-Fruit Orchards},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/E4OZHQHC}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2507.23015}
}

read the original abstract

Dormant tree pruning is labor-intensive but essential to maintaining modern highly-productive fruit orchards. In this work we present a closed-loop visuomotor controller for robotic pruning. The controller guides the cutter through a cluttered tree environment to reach a specified cut point and ensures the cutters are perpendicular to the branch. We train the controller using a novel orchard simulation that captures the geometric distribution of branches in a target apple orchard configuration. Unlike traditional methods requiring full 3D reconstruction, our controller uses just optical flow images from a wrist-mounted camera. We deploy our learned policy in simulation and the real-world for an example V-Trellis envy tree with zero-shot transfer, achieving a 30% success rate -- approximately half the performance of an oracle planner.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2507.23015 by the authors.

**Figure 2.** Pruning in modern, planar fruit orchards. Left and middle: V-Trellis architecture (Envy apples) from a modern orchard. Trees are grown 4’ apart [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p002_2.png] view at source ↗

**Figure 3.** Left: Side view of the cutter with the pointing direction [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p004_3.png] view at source ↗

Figures from the paper (2 more)

**Figure 4.** Figure 4: Error distributions for the (left) distance, (middle) pointing, and [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p005_4.png]

**Figure 6.** Figure 6: Top : RBG image of the branch that was reconstructed with chosen [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p006_6.png]

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

28 extracted references · 24 canonical work pages

[1]

Cost estimation of establishing a cider apple orchard in western washington,

S. P. Galinato, R. K. Gallardo, and C. A. Miles, “Cost estimation of establishing a cider apple orchard in western washington,” Washington State Univ. Ext. Publ. FS141E , 2013

work page 2013
[2]

Pruning tree fruit - the basics,

G. Moulton, J. King, and Washington State University Mount Vernon Research and Extension Unit, “Pruning tree fruit - the basics,” Wash- ington State University College of Agricultural, Human, and Natural Resource Sciences

work page
[3]

How farm labor crisis impacting pruning,

INFACO, “How farm labor crisis impacting pruning,” Accessed August 8, 2022 [Online]

work page 2022
[4]

Immigrants and american agriculture,

N. A. Economy, “Immigrants and american agriculture,” 2019

work page 2019
[5]

(infographic) the u.s. labor shortage,

Ag America Lending, “(infographic) the u.s. labor shortage,” 6 2022

work page 2022
[6]

From strawberries to apples, a wave of agriculture robotics may ease the farm labor crunch,

J. Daniels, “From strawberries to apples, a wave of agriculture robotics may ease the farm labor crunch,” CNBC, 3 2018

work page 2018
[7]

An expert system for automatically pruning vines,

S. Corbett-Davies, T. Botterill, R. Green, and V . Saxton, “An expert system for automatically pruning vines,” in Proceedings of the 27th Conference on Image and Vision Computing New Zealand , IVCNZ ’12, (New York, NY , USA), p. 55–60, Association for Computing Machinery, 2012

work page 2012
[8]

Trimbot2020: an outdoor robot for automatic gardening,

N. Strisciuglio, R. Tylecek, M. Blaich, N. Petkov, P. Biber, J. Hem- ming, E. van Henten, T. Sattler, M. Pollefeys, T. Gevers, et al. , “Trimbot2020: an outdoor robot for automatic gardening,” in ISR 2018; 50th International Symposium on Robotics , pp. 1–6, VDE, 2018

work page 2018

Show all 28 references

[9]

Bumblebee: A path towards fully autonomous robotic vine pruning,

A. Silwal, F. Yandun, A. Nellithimaru, T. Bates, and G. Kantor, “Bumblebee: A path towards fully autonomous robotic vine pruning,” arXiv preprint arXiv:2112.00291

arXiv
[10]

Evaluation of low-cost depth sensors for outdoor applications,

R. Haenel, Q. Semler, E. Semin, P. Grussenmeyer, and S. Tabbone, “Evaluation of low-cost depth sensors for outdoor applications,” The International Archives of the Photogrammetry, Remote Sensing and Spatial Information Sciences , vol. 48, pp. 101–108, 2022

2022
[11]

Uncov- ering implementable dormant pruning decisions from three different stakeholder perspectives,

D. Flynn, A. Jain, H. Knight, C. G. Wilson, and C. Grimm, “Uncov- ering implementable dormant pruning decisions from three different stakeholder perspectives,” 2024

2024
[12]

L-systems: from the theory to visual models of plants,

P. Prusinkiewicz, M. Hammel, J. Hanan, and R. Mech, “L-systems: from the theory to visual models of plants,” in Proceedings of the 2nd CSIRO Symposium on Computational Challenges in Life Sciences , vol. 3, pp. 1–32, Citeseer, 1996

1996
[13]

Optical flow-based branch segmentation for complex orchard environments,

A. You, C. Grimm, and J. R. Davidson, “Optical flow-based branch segmentation for complex orchard environments,” in IEEE/RSJ Inter- national Conference on Intelligent Robots and Systems, IROS 2022, Kyoto, Japan, October 23-27, 2022 , pp. 9180–9186, IEEE, 2022

2022
[14]

Reaching pruning locations in a vine using a deep reinforcement learning policy,

F. Yandun, T. Parhar, A. Silwal, D. Clifford, Z. Yuan, G. Levine, S. Yaroshenko, and G. Kantor, “Reaching pruning locations in a vine using a deep reinforcement learning policy,” in 2021 IEEE Interna- tional Conference on Robotics and Automation (ICRA) , pp. 2400– 2406, 2021

2021
[15]

Semi- autonomous precision pruning of upright fruiting offshoot orchard systems: An integrated approach,

A. You, N. Parayil, J. G. Krishna, U. Bhattarai, R. Sapkota, D. Ahmed, M. Whiting, M. Karkee, C. M. Grimm, and J. R. Davidson, “Semi- autonomous precision pruning of upright fruiting offshoot orchard systems: An integrated approach,” IEEE Robotics & Automation Magazine, 2023

2023
[16]

Cherry training systems,

G. A. Lang, S. Musacchi, M. D. Whiting, et al. , “Cherry training systems,” 2015

2015
[17]

Pybullet, a python module for physics simulation for games, robotics and machine learning

E. Coumans and Y . Bai, “Pybullet, a python module for physics simulation for games, robotics and machine learning.” http:// pybullet.org, 2016–2021

2016
[18]

Precision fruit tree pruning using a learned hybrid vision/interaction controller,

A. You, H. Kolano, N. Parayil, C. Grimm, and J. R. Davidson, “Precision fruit tree pruning using a learned hybrid vision/interaction controller,” in 2022 International Conference on Robotics and Automa- tion, ICRA 2022, Philadelphia, PA, USA, May 23-27, 2022 , pp. 2280– 2286, ...

2022
[19]

Proximal policy optimization algorithms,

J. Schulman, F. Wolski, P. Dhariwal, A. Radford, and O. Klimov, “Proximal policy optimization algorithms,” ArXiv, vol. abs/1707.06347, 2017

2017 arXiv
[20]

Stable-baselines3: Reliable reinforcement learning implemen- tations,

A. Raffin, A. Hill, A. Gleave, A. Kanervisto, M. Ernestus, and N. Dor- mann, “Stable-baselines3: Reliable reinforcement learning implemen- tations,” Journal of Machine Learning Research , vol. 22, no. 268, pp. 1–8, 2021

2021
[21]

Raft: Recurrent all-pairs field transforms for optical flow,

Z. Teed and J. Deng, “Raft: Recurrent all-pairs field transforms for optical flow,” in Computer Vision–ECCV 2020: 16th European Conference, Glasgow, UK, August 23–28, 2020, Proceedings, Part II 16, pp. 402–419, Springer, 2020

2020
[22]

On the continuity of rotation representations in neural networks,

Y . Zhou, C. Barnes, J. Lu, J. Yang, and H. Li, “On the continuity of rotation representations in neural networks,” in Proceedings of the IEEE/CVF conference on computer vision and pattern recognition , pp. 5745–5753, 2019

2019
[23]

Masked world models for visual control,

Y . Seo, D. Hafner, H. Liu, F. Liu, S. James, K. Lee, and P. Abbeel, “Masked world models for visual control,” in Conference on Robot Learning, 2022

2022
[24]

Soft actor-critic: Off- policy maximum entropy deep reinforcement learning with a stochastic actor,

T. Haarnoja, A. Zhou, P. Abbeel, and S. Levine, “Soft actor-critic: Off- policy maximum entropy deep reinforcement learning with a stochastic actor,” in International conference on machine learning , pp. 1861– 1870, PMLR, 2018

2018
[25]

Asymmetric actor critic for image-based robot learning,

L. Pinto, M. Andrychowicz, P. Welinder, W. Zaremba, and P. Abbeel, “Asymmetric actor critic for image-based robot learning,” arXiv preprint arXiv:1710.06542, 2017

2017 arXiv
[26]

Kirk, ed., Graphics Gems III

D. Kirk, ed., Graphics Gems III . USA: Academic Press Professional, Inc., 1992

1992
[27]

Measurement of areas on a sphere using fibonacci and latitude–longitude lattices,

´A. Gonz ´alez, “Measurement of areas on a sphere using fibonacci and latitude–longitude lattices,” Mathematical Geosciences , vol. 42, pp. 49–64, 2010

2010
[28]

Open3D: A modern library for 3D data processing,

Q.-Y . Zhou, J. Park, and V . Koltun, “Open3D: A modern library for 3D data processing,” arXiv:1801.09847, 2018

2018 arXiv

Pith tools

Reviewed August 6, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.

[1] [1]

Cost estimation of establishing a cider apple orchard in western washington,

S. P. Galinato, R. K. Gallardo, and C. A. Miles, “Cost estimation of establishing a cider apple orchard in western washington,” Washington State Univ. Ext. Publ. FS141E , 2013

work page 2013

[2] [2]

Pruning tree fruit - the basics,

G. Moulton, J. King, and Washington State University Mount Vernon Research and Extension Unit, “Pruning tree fruit - the basics,” Wash- ington State University College of Agricultural, Human, and Natural Resource Sciences

work page

[3] [3]

How farm labor crisis impacting pruning,

INFACO, “How farm labor crisis impacting pruning,” Accessed August 8, 2022 [Online]

work page 2022

[4] [4]

Immigrants and american agriculture,

N. A. Economy, “Immigrants and american agriculture,” 2019

work page 2019

[5] [5]

(infographic) the u.s. labor shortage,

Ag America Lending, “(infographic) the u.s. labor shortage,” 6 2022

work page 2022

[6] [6]

From strawberries to apples, a wave of agriculture robotics may ease the farm labor crunch,

J. Daniels, “From strawberries to apples, a wave of agriculture robotics may ease the farm labor crunch,” CNBC, 3 2018

work page 2018

[7] [7]

An expert system for automatically pruning vines,

S. Corbett-Davies, T. Botterill, R. Green, and V . Saxton, “An expert system for automatically pruning vines,” in Proceedings of the 27th Conference on Image and Vision Computing New Zealand , IVCNZ ’12, (New York, NY , USA), p. 55–60, Association for Computing Machinery, 2012

work page 2012

[8] [8]

Trimbot2020: an outdoor robot for automatic gardening,

N. Strisciuglio, R. Tylecek, M. Blaich, N. Petkov, P. Biber, J. Hem- ming, E. van Henten, T. Sattler, M. Pollefeys, T. Gevers, et al. , “Trimbot2020: an outdoor robot for automatic gardening,” in ISR 2018; 50th International Symposium on Robotics , pp. 1–6, VDE, 2018

work page 2018