Semantic-Geometric Task Representations for Bimanual Manipulation from Human Demonstrations to Robot Action Planning

Dorothea Koert; Franziska Herbert; Georgia Chalvatzaki; Han Liu; Vignesh Prasad

REVIEW 5 major objections 5 minor 30 references

Semantic-Geometric Task Representations for Bimanual Manipulation from Human Demonstrations to Robot Action Planning

T0 review · 5 major / 5 minor · reviewed 2026-08-03 · deepseek-v4-flash

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

Pith's one-line read Semantic–geometric scene graphs let robots forecast bimanual tasks and transfer the skill to new bodies.

desk verdict A solid incremental contribution with a load-bearing evaluation flaw: all models are compared at the same epoch despite known differences in convergence speed, and the abstract overstates what is in the body. read the letter →

arxiv 2601.11460 v2 pith:HGUBNBLY submitted 2026-01-16 cs.RO cs.LG

Franziska Herbert , Vignesh Prasad , Han Liu , Dorothea Koert , Georgia Chalvatzaki This is my paper

classification cs.ROcs.LG

keywords semantic-geometricgraphbimanualmanipulationtaskrepresentationactionpredictionmotionmessagepassingneuralnetworktransformertransferlearning

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 bimanual manipulation tasks are best represented as temporal scene graphs that fuse semantic relations with geometric motion histories, and that this fusion materially improves prediction of future actions, objects, and motions. The authors argue that this representation is especially valuable when demonstrations vary in action order and object involvement, where sequence-based and geometry-only models degrade. They further claim that the graph encoder learns a task-level abstraction decoupled from action labels, so a robot can reuse it by finetuning only the decoder on a small robot dataset. If the claim holds, it gives manipulation robots a reusable, embodiment-agnostic task representation that lowers the data cost of transferring skills from human demos.

What carries the argument

The central object is the temporal scene graph G=(V,E,u), where each node carries a one-hot object identity plus a sampled history of 3D coordinates, each edge carries multi-hot semantic spatial relations (static and dynamic), and a global vector carries the task ID. The MPNN encoder iteratively updates node, edge, and global embeddings, alternating with temporal self-attention and using per-iteration weights and residual connections; two transformer decoders then attend to the global embeddings (for action/object sequences) and node embeddings (for motion), enabling the separation of task-agnostic scene representation from action-conditioned reasoning.

What would settle it

Train every baseline encoder to convergence (or with early stopping on a validation split) on the same KIT Bimacs and Ours(Bimacs) tasks, then rerun the leave-one-subject-out evaluation; if the MPNN no longer consistently outperforms the Transformer on high-variability tasks like wiping and cereals, the central claim fails. Alternatively, the robot transfer could be falsified by running the frozen-encoder, decoder-only-finetuned model on a task with higher action/object variability and showing it can no longer complete the sequence.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

On its own terms, the paper shows that jointly encoding object identities, inter-object semantic relations, and per-object motion histories in a single spatial-temporal graph—processed by a message-passing encoder—supports simultaneous forecasting of action sequences, associated objects, and object trajectories over long horizons, with accuracy gains that grow with task variability in action ordering and object usage. The same encoder, frozen after human-demo training, transfers to a physical bimanual robot when only the transformer decoder is finetuned, yielding full task success on a simple cooking task and higher action accuracy than models trained on robot data alone.

Load-bearing premise

The comparison assumes that evaluating all encoder architectures at the same training epoch—at which the MPNN has converged faster—is a fair measure, so the reported benefit of the semantic–geometric encoder over baselines may partly reflect a convergence-rate advantage rather than representation quality.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

This representation should let robots learn manipulation skills from human demonstrations with far less robot-specific data, since the encoder is reusable across embodiments.
Tasks with high action or object variability are precisely where explicit semantic–geometric relational structure pays off, guiding dataset design and architecture choice.
The joint action–object–motion prediction enables online action selection with action chunking and temporal ensembles, producing smooth long-horizon execution.
The predicted object motions open a path to model-predictive control or trajectory optimization, going beyond action selection.
Multi-task training suggests the encoder learns shared concepts across tasks, so one model can serve a repertoire of bimanual skills.

Reading between the lines

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

A strong test of the claimed advantage would be to train every baseline to its own convergence; the paper's fixed-epoch comparison likely favors the faster-converging MPNN, so the true gap may be smaller.
The representation's embodiment-agnostic claim could be probed by zero-shot transfer (no finetuning) to a second robot with different kinematics, which the paper's results suggest would currently fail—highlighting that 'embodiment-agnostic' is partial.
The same graph formalism could be extended to human-robot collaboration or unimanual tasks by annotating hand roles and adding gaze or language modalities, as the authors note as future work.
The edge features encode only hand-crafted semantic relations; learning relations from raw point clouds could remove the annotation bottleneck and is a natural next step.

Share X Bluesky LinkedIn Reddit HN

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

The core idea is worth your time: a semantic–geometric temporal scene graph for bimanual manipulation, combining object identities, semantic edge features, per-object motion histories, and global task context in a single MPNN encoder with a Transformer decoder. The decoder-only finetuning for embodiment transfer is a practical recipe that could reduce robot-specific data needs. The paper does a good job ablating against four baselines across multiple datasets, and the real-robot feasibility study, though simple, shows the representations can drive online action selection.

That said, the central empirical claim rests on a fragile comparison. The authors state in Section V-B that MPNN models converge faster than the baselines, yet they evaluate all models at the same epoch rather than at each model's best epoch or via early stopping. A faster-converging model evaluated at that fixed point is likely further along its optimization trajectory than slower baselines, which may be undertrained. The paper does not report learning curves or per-model best-epoch results, so the reported MPNN advantage on high-variability tasks could shrink or vanish if the baselines were trained to convergence. This is a load-bearing concern, and it needs to be addressed with per-model early stopping or at least a sensitivity analysis across epochs.

There are also smaller issues. The abstract claims two real-robot tasks, learned ProMPs, and finetuned vision-language model baselines, none of which appear in the body—the physical experiments cover one cooking task with predefined primitives. Figures 4 and 5 show no error bars despite averaging over four seeds, so it is hard to assess the margins. No code or data are released, and the private datasets limit reproducibility. The paper does acknowledge the robot experiment is a feasibility study, which is honest.

The representation itself is a reasonable incremental advance rather than a breakthrough, but it is clearly motivated and the experiments, once the epoch issue is fixed, could make a contribution. The reviewer's stress test is on target here: the common-epoch protocol is the weakest assumption and should be the primary revision request.

Bottom line: send it to peer review with a request for major revision. The authors need to retrain baselines to their own convergence, add variance estimates, align the abstract with the actual experiments, and ideally release code and data. The idea deserves a serious look, but the evaluation needs to be airtight before this representation claim is accepted.

Referee Report

5 major / 5 minor

Summary. This paper proposes a semantic–geometric task graph representation for bimanual manipulation, where each scene is a temporal graph with object-ID and 3D-position node features, semantic-relation edge features, and a task-ID global feature. An MPNN encoder with temporal attention produces graph embeddings, and Transformer-based decoder heads predict future actions, associated objects, and object motions. The model is trained with a weighted classification plus MSE regression loss and uses action chunking and temporal ensembles for long-horizon prediction. Experiments compare the MPNN encoder against Dreher, Lagamtzis, Transformer, and Decoder-only baselines on KIT Bimacs, a newly collected four-task dataset (two overlapping with KIT), and a mixed dataset, followed by a robot transfer study that freezes the encoder and finetunes only the decoder on robot demonstrations. The reported robot experiment achieves 90% success on a simple bimanual cooking task using predefined primitives.

Significance. If the central claim holds, the contribution is a reusable task abstraction that reduces robot-specific data needs and improves long-horizon task forecasting. Strengths include systematic comparisons against four encoder baselines, leave-one-subject-out evaluation with four seeds, multiple datasets, and a physical robot feasibility study with decoupled encoder/decoder finetuning. No circular reasoning is evident: the transfer claim is tested by independent robot demonstrations, and hyperparameters are shared across models. However, the empirical support is not yet convincing because of a potentially unfair evaluation protocol, an unablated task-ID global feature, missing variance reporting, and abstract claims that are not backed by the body. The central idea is worth pursuing, but the current manuscript overstates the evidence.

major comments (5)

[Section V-B, Figures 4 and 5] The paper evaluates all models at the same training epoch because 'MPNN models converge faster or at a similar rate to the other models.' This is the weakest load-bearing methodological premise. A faster-converging model is farther along its optimization trajectory at a fixed epoch, so the baselines may be undertrained. No per-model best-epoch results, learning curves, or validation-based early stopping are reported. Since the central claim is that the MPNN representation outperforms sequence/graph baselines especially under high variability, the reported advantage could be an artifact of evaluating undertrained competitors. The authors should report results at each model’s own best validation epoch (or show learning curves) and compare those as the primary results.
[Abstract vs. Sections V-A and V-C] The abstract claims the method 'outperform[s] graph ablations, Transformer, decoder-only, and finetuned vision-language model baselines' and that the planner couples predictions with 'learned Probabilistic Movement Primitives.' The body contains no vision-language model baselines anywhere, and the robot experiment uses 'predefined primitive sequences' / 'predefined robot primitives' (Sections V-A, V-C, and the Discussion), not learned ProMPs. These are unsupported claims that materially overstate the results. The abstract should be revised to match the experiments actually reported, or the missing baselines and ProMP experiments should be added.
[Section IV-A3, V-A] The MPNN encoder is given a one-hot task-ID global feature, while the baseline encoders (Dreher, Lagamtzis, Transformer, Decoder-only) do not receive global task features. In multi-task and mixed-dataset settings, the task ID can directly provide a strong prior about the distribution of actions and objects, independent of the semantic–geometric graph structure. This confound means the MPNN’s advantage may be partly due to additional task information rather than the proposed representation. The paper should ablate the global task feature, or provide the same task information to the baselines, to support the claim that jointly modeling semantic relations and geometric evolution is the source of improvement.
[Figures 4 and 5] The text reports averages over four seeds but Figures 4 and 5 show no error bars, variance, or significance tests. Many statements such as 'our MPNN clearly outperforms all models' and 'Dreher performs poorly' are qualitative. Given the same-epoch protocol and the lack of variance information, the reader cannot assess whether the differences are meaningful. The authors should include error bars or per-seed ranges for all plotted metrics and, where appropriate, paired significance tests across seeds.
[Section V-A, Table I] The authors state that hyperparameters were selected so that 'their total parameter counts fall within the same range as our proposed encoder, ensuring a fair comparison across model architectures,' but no parameter counts are reported. Since model capacity is a key potential confound, the paper should provide a table with the actual number of parameters for each architecture (and ideally training FLOPs or runtime), along with the hyperparameter search ranges, so the fairness claim can be verified.

minor comments (5)

[Section IV-B1, Eq. (1)] The notation 'f^{(k+1)}_{vw} += ...' is unusual for an assignment and makes the residual structure ambiguous. Please use explicit residual notation such as 'f^{(k+1)} = f^{(k)} + ...' to clarify the update.
[Section V-B, text near Figure 3] The description of the cooking example says 'approach and retreat are predicted for very short time spans' and 'predictions flicker between place and stir.' This suggests some temporal instability; it would be helpful to mention whether this is a known limitation or specific to this trial.
[Section V-C, Table II] The robot transfer table reports means and standard deviations, which is good, but it would be clearer to also report the number of trials and per-task breakdowns for the real-robot success rate, especially since 'one failure stems from a single missed left-hand action.'
[Section I and VI] The introduction and conclusion both say the method is evaluated against 'state-of-the-art GNN-based approaches [9], [11]' but reference [9] appears to be the same Lagamtzis work cited as [22] with a different venue/year; please verify the references to avoid double-citing the same approach.
[Figure 2] The architecture figure is dense and the flow from 'Temporal Ensembles' to the decoders is not fully clear. A short caption explaining the training-time vs inference-time data flow would improve readability.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 0.0 of 10

No significant circularity; the central claims are empirically evaluated against external baselines and independent robot data.

full rationale

The paper's derivation chain is not circular. The semantic–geometric graph representation is defined explicitly (node features: object ID + 3D coordinates; edge features: semantic relations; global feature: task ID), and the MPNN encoder plus Transformer decoder is an architectural proposal, not a mathematical derivation that assumes its own conclusion. The central empirical claim—that jointly encoding semantic relations and geometric evolution improves prediction—is tested by comparing against external baselines (Dreher et al., Lagamtzis et al.), a Transformer, and a decoder-only model, all using the same decoder and comparable parameter counts. No fitted parameter is renamed as a prediction: the model predicts future actions, objects, and motions from past scene graphs in a leave-one-subject-out protocol. The robot transfer claim is tested by freezing the encoder and finetuning only the decoder on separately collected robot demonstrations, and by comparing finetuned, non-finetuned, and robot-only models; this does not presuppose the outcome. There are no self-citations used as load-bearing evidence, and no uniqueness theorem or prior same-author result is invoked to force the architecture choice. The one notable methodological concern is the statement in Section V-B that all models are evaluated at the same epoch because MPNN converges faster; this could disadvantage slower-converging baselines, but it is a training-protocol fairness issue, not circularity, since the compared predictions are still computed from held-out inputs rather than from the training targets. The paper also candidly states limitations (e.g., requiring finetuning for robot transfer, the robot study being a feasibility test), which further indicates that the claims are not constructed to be self-validating. Therefore, a non-circularity finding with score 0 is appropriate.

Assumptions & free parameters 8 free parameters · 6 assumptions · 0 invented entities

The central results rest on annotated scene-graph data, a fixed set of semantic relations, and an evaluation protocol that compares models at a common epoch despite different convergence rates. The method is a standard deep-learning pipeline with hyperparameters chosen by search; no physical entities are postulated and no formal derivation is attempted.

free parameters (8)

history length H = 10
Chosen by hyperparameter search (Section V-A); sets how many past frames the graph nodes and edges encode.
sampling rate S = 10
Chosen by hyperparameter search; sets every S-th frame used in node and edge history.
prediction horizon P = 10
Chosen by hyperparameter search; defines how many future frames the action, object, and motion heads predict.
hidden dimension d_MP = 64
Chosen by hyperparameter search; shared embedding size for node, edge, and global features.
message passing iterations K = 3
Chosen by hyperparameter search; number of refinement rounds in the MPNN encoder.
action-object history length n_past = 20
Chosen by hyperparameter search; number of past semantic action-object pairs per hand used in the decoder query.
motion loss weight beta_MSE = 1000
Chosen to balance classification and regression losses; strongly weights motion MSE and shapes the learned representation.
baseline RGCN blocks (Lagamtzis) = 20 (original uses 36)
Selected so baseline parameter count is comparable; alters baseline capacity and therefore the comparison.

assumptions (6)

domain assumption KIT Bimacs dataset annotations (ground-truth hand actions, 3D bounding boxes, semantic object-object relations) are reliable and sufficient for node and edge features.
Section V-A: the dataset provides ground-truth annotations; the method never tests robustness to noisy or missing perception input.
domain assumption The fixed set of static/dynamic semantic relations from [27] captures the task-relevant interaction structure.
Section IV-A.2 uses multi-hot edge encodings of these relations; no analysis shows which relations are needed or that the set is complete.
ad hoc to paper A one-hot task-ID global feature does not leak action-label information into the encoder, preserving action-decoupled representations.
Section IV-A.3 defines global features as one-hot task ID; since tasks have characteristic action sequences, task ID may correlate with actions and weaken the decoupling claim.
ad hoc to paper Evaluating all architectures at the same training epoch is a fair comparison.
Section V-B evaluates all models at the same epoch while noting MPNN converges faster; this premise is load-bearing for the reported ranking.
domain assumption Overlapping action-chunked predictions can be combined via exponentially decayed temporal ensembles into a valid long-horizon plan.
Section IV-C adopts action chunking and temporal ensembles from [30] without ablation or validation of the smoothing choice.
domain assumption Predicted action-object pairs can be executed by predefined robot primitives plus a precondition checker, so the robot result tests the representation's action-selection ability.
Section V-C: actions trigger predefined primitives only when safe; the checker filters predictions, so the 90% success rate does not isolate the learned model.

how reviews work

0 comments

Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Semantic-Geometric Task Representations for Bimanual Manipulation from Human Demonstrations to Robot Action Planning." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/HGUBNBLY

@misc{pith2026260111460,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Semantic-Geometric Task Representations for Bimanual Manipulation from Human Demonstrations to Robot Action Planning},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/HGUBNBLY}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2601.11460}
}

read the original abstract

Learning structured task representations from human demonstrations is essential for bimanual manipulation, where action ordering, object involvement, and interaction geometry vary significantly across executions. A key challenge lies in jointly capturing the discrete semantic task structure and the temporal evolution of object-centric geometric relations in a form that supports reasoning over task progression. We introduce a semantic--geometric graph-based task representation that jointly encodes object identities, inter-object semantic relations, and per-object motion histories, via a Message Passing Neural Network (MPNN) encoder and a Transformer-based decoder. The encoder operates solely on the temporal scene graph, producing structured representations decoupled from action labels. The decoder then conditions on action-context to forecast future actions, associated objects, and object motions. This decoupling learns task-agnostic representations, enabling encoder reuse across embodiments through decoder-only finetuning on a small robot dataset. Across eleven bimanual tasks from two datasets, we find that the benefit of structured semantic--geometric representations over simpler sequence-based models grows with task variability in action ordering and object involvement. At deployment, a planner couples the action and motion predictions with learned Probabilistic Movement Primitives, achieving full task success on two real-robot bimanual tasks and outperforming graph ablations, Transformer, decoder-only, and finetuned vision-language model baselines.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2601.11460 by the authors.

**Figure 1.** Overview of our approach. We learn graph representations from bimanual human demonstrations of manipulation tasks. A Message Passing Neural Network is used to learn the underlying concepts of the task, which can subsequently be used to replicate the task on other agents or environments. Abstract— Learning structured task representations from human demonstrations is essential for understanding longhorizon manipulati… view at source ↗

**Figure 2.** Graph model architecture: the graph encoder transforms features into embeddings, MPNN learns graph embeddings, and prediction heads forecast actions, objects, and motions. IV. LEARNING SEMANTIC-GEOMETRIC TASK GRAPH-REPRESENTATIONS We propose an approach for learning semantic-geometric task graph-representations from bimanual human demonstrations. Each task is modeled as a sequence of actions, performed in order, wh… view at source ↗

**Figure 3.** Predictions on a cooking task of the KIT Bimacs Dataset using the observations of just 100 timesteps (denoted by the vertical dashed line). The first three plots show the 3D motions for the different objects in the scene. The last plot shows the action and action-object predictions for both hands. representations. Each model uses a different encoder structure, but uses our decoder to ensure comparability between th… view at source ↗

Figures from the paper (2 more)

**Figure 4.** Figure 4: Accuracies for the different action and object predictions of the different models on the various datasets (higher values are better). similar accuracies on simple tasks like cooking, but underperforms on complex tasks with higher object variation like wiping or actio…

**Figure 5.** Figure 5: Results of the RMSE for motion prediction of different models on the various datasets (lower is better). Overall object prediction accuracies are lower compared to other tasks, as sub-task order may vary across demonstrations, eliminating unique solutions for object p…

Discussion (0). Sign in to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

30 extracted references · 3 linked inside Pith

[1]

Visual genome: Connecting language and vision using crowdsourced dense image annotations,

R. Krishnaet al., “Visual genome: Connecting language and vision using crowdsourced dense image annotations,”International journal of computer vision, 2017

2017
[2]

3d scene graph: A structure for unified semantics, 3d space, and camera,

I. Armeniet al., “3d scene graph: A structure for unified semantics, 3d space, and camera,” inIEEE/CVF international conference on computer vision, 2019

2019
[3]

Visual graphs from motion (vgfm): Scene understanding with object geometry reasoning,

P. Gayet al., “Visual graphs from motion (vgfm): Scene understanding with object geometry reasoning,” inAsian Conference on Computer Vision, 2018

2018
[4]

3-d scene graph: A sparse and semantic rep- resentation of physical environments for intelligent agents,

U.-H. Kimet al., “3-d scene graph: A sparse and semantic rep- resentation of physical environments for intelligent agents,”IEEE transactions on cybernetics, 2019

2019
[5]

Learning 3d semantic scene graphs from 3d indoor reconstructions,

J. Waldet al., “Learning 3d semantic scene graphs from 3d indoor reconstructions,” inIEEE/CVF Conference on Computer Vision and Pattern Recognition, 2020

2020
[6]

An introduction to graph theory,

D. Grinberg, “An introduction to graph theory,”preprint arXiv:2308.04512, 2023

arXiv 2023
[7]

A comprehensive survey on graph neural networks,

Z. Wuet al., “A comprehensive survey on graph neural networks,” IEEE transactions on neural networks and learning systems, 2020

2020
[8]

Geometric deep learning: Grids, groups, graphs, geodesics, and gauges,

M. M. Bronsteinet al., “Geometric deep learning: Grids, groups, graphs, geodesics, and gauges,”preprint arXiv:2104.13478, 2021

arXiv 2021

Show all 30 references

[9]

Exploiting spatio-temporal human-object rela- tions using graph neural networks for human action recognition and 3d motion forecasting,

D. Lagamtziset al., “Exploiting spatio-temporal human-object rela- tions using graph neural networks for human action recognition and 3d motion forecasting,” inIEEE/RSJ International Conference on Intelligent Robots and Systems (IROS), 2023

2023
[10]

Action-conditioned generation of bimanual object manipulation sequences,

H. Razaliet al., “Action-conditioned generation of bimanual object manipulation sequences,” inAAAI conference on artificial intelligence, 2023

2023
[11]

Learning object-action relations from bimanual human demonstration using graph networks,

C. R. Dreheret al., “Learning object-action relations from bimanual human demonstration using graph networks,”IEEE Robotics and Automation Letters, 2019

2019
[12]

Spatial temporal graph convolutional networks for skeleton-based action recognition,

S. Yanet al., “Spatial temporal graph convolutional networks for skeleton-based action recognition,” inAAAI conference on artificial intelligence, 2018

2018
[13]

Deep representation learning for human motion prediction and classification,

J. Butepageet al., “Deep representation learning for human motion prediction and classification,” inIEEE conference on computer vision and pattern recognition, 2017

2017
[14]

Joint action recognition and pose estimation from video,

B. Xiaohan Nie, C. Xiong, and S.-C. Zhu, “Joint action recognition and pose estimation from video,” inIEEE Conference on Computer Vision and Pattern Recognition (CVPR), 2015

2015
[15]

Non-local graph convolutional network for joint activity recognition and motion prediction,

D. Zhanget al., “Non-local graph convolutional network for joint activity recognition and motion prediction,” inIEEE/RSJ International Conference on Intelligent Robots and Systems (IROS), 2021

2021
[16]

Symbiotic graph neural networks for 3d skeleton-based human action recognition and motion prediction,

M. Liet al., “Symbiotic graph neural networks for 3d skeleton-based human action recognition and motion prediction,”IEEE transactions on pattern analysis and machine intelligence, 2021

2021
[17]

Spatio-temporal fusion for human action recognition via joint trajectory graph,

Y . Zhenget al., “Spatio-temporal fusion for human action recognition via joint trajectory graph,” inAAAI conference on artificial intelli- gence, 2024

2024
[18]

Scene-perception graph convolutional networks for human action prediction,

J. Taoet al., “Scene-perception graph convolutional networks for human action prediction,” inInternational Joint Conference on Neural Networks, 2021

2021
[19]

Learning asynchronous and sparse human-object interaction in videos,

R. Moraiset al., “Learning asynchronous and sparse human-object interaction in videos,” inIEEE/CVF conference on computer vision and pattern recognition, 2021

2021
[20]

Cognition guided human-object relationship detec- tion,

Z. Zenget al., “Cognition guided human-object relationship detec- tion,”IEEE Transactions on Image Processing, 2023

2023
[21]

Hiergat: hierarchical spatial-temporal network with graph and transformer for video hoi detection,

J. Wuet al., “Hiergat: hierarchical spatial-temporal network with graph and transformer for video hoi detection,”Multimedia Systems, 2025

2025
[22]

Graph neural networks for joint action recog- nition, prediction and motion forecasting for industrial human-robot collaboration,

D. Lagamtziset al., “Graph neural networks for joint action recog- nition, prediction and motion forecasting for industrial human-robot collaboration,” in56th International Symposium on Robotics, 2023

2023
[23]

J. L. Grosset al.,Handbook of Graph Theory. CRC press, 2013

2013
[24]

Algorithmic graph theory and sage,

D. Joyneret al., “Algorithmic graph theory and sage,” 2013

2013
[25]

Neural message passing for quantum chemistry,

J. Gilmeret al., “Neural message passing for quantum chemistry,” in International conference on machine learning. PMLR, 2017

2017
[26]

Relational inductive biases, deep learning, and graph networks,

P. W. Battagliaet al., “Relational inductive biases, deep learning, and graph networks,”preprint arXiv:1806.01261, 2018

2018 arXiv
[27]

Recognition and prediction of manipulation ac- tions using enriched semantic event chains,

F. Ziaeetabaret al., “Recognition and prediction of manipulation ac- tions using enriched semantic event chains,”Robotics and Autonomous Systems, 2018

2018
[28]

Roformer: Enhanced transformer with rotary position embedding,

J. Suet al., “Roformer: Enhanced transformer with rotary position embedding,”Neurocomputing, 2024

2024
[29]

Attention is all you need,

A. Vaswaniet al., “Attention is all you need,”Advances in neural information processing systems, 2017

2017
[30]

Learning fine-grained bimanual manipulation with low-cost hardware,

T. Z. Zhaoet al., “Learning fine-grained bimanual manipulation with low-cost hardware,”Robotics: Science and Systems, 2023

2023

Pith tools

Reviewed August 3, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.

[1] [1]

Visual genome: Connecting language and vision using crowdsourced dense image annotations,

R. Krishnaet al., “Visual genome: Connecting language and vision using crowdsourced dense image annotations,”International journal of computer vision, 2017

2017

[2] [2]

3d scene graph: A structure for unified semantics, 3d space, and camera,

I. Armeniet al., “3d scene graph: A structure for unified semantics, 3d space, and camera,” inIEEE/CVF international conference on computer vision, 2019

2019

[3] [3]

Visual graphs from motion (vgfm): Scene understanding with object geometry reasoning,

P. Gayet al., “Visual graphs from motion (vgfm): Scene understanding with object geometry reasoning,” inAsian Conference on Computer Vision, 2018

2018

[4] [4]

3-d scene graph: A sparse and semantic rep- resentation of physical environments for intelligent agents,

U.-H. Kimet al., “3-d scene graph: A sparse and semantic rep- resentation of physical environments for intelligent agents,”IEEE transactions on cybernetics, 2019

2019

[5] [5]

Learning 3d semantic scene graphs from 3d indoor reconstructions,

J. Waldet al., “Learning 3d semantic scene graphs from 3d indoor reconstructions,” inIEEE/CVF Conference on Computer Vision and Pattern Recognition, 2020

2020

[6] [6]

An introduction to graph theory,

D. Grinberg, “An introduction to graph theory,”preprint arXiv:2308.04512, 2023

arXiv 2023

[7] [7]

A comprehensive survey on graph neural networks,

Z. Wuet al., “A comprehensive survey on graph neural networks,” IEEE transactions on neural networks and learning systems, 2020

2020

[8] [8]

Geometric deep learning: Grids, groups, graphs, geodesics, and gauges,

M. M. Bronsteinet al., “Geometric deep learning: Grids, groups, graphs, geodesics, and gauges,”preprint arXiv:2104.13478, 2021

arXiv 2021