Pith. sign in

REVIEW 4 major objections 5 minor 3 cited by

CollaBot: Vision-Language Guided Simultaneous Collaborative Manipulation

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 ↗

Pith's one-line read CollaBot claims a vision-language pipeline can coordinate any number of mobile manipulators to move large objects, with a simulation success rate of 52%.

desk verdict A plausible modular system for variable-robot collaborative manipulation, undermined by an abstract that claims far more than the body reports. read the letter →

arxiv 2508.03526 v2 pith:ITVFJJYT submitted 2025-08-05 cs.RO

Kun Song , Gaoming Chen , Shentao Ma , Ninglong Jin , Guangbao Zhao , Mingyu Ding , Zhenhua Xiong , Jia Pan This is my paper · ORCID
classification cs.RO
keywords simultaneouscollaborativemanipulationmulti-robotvision-languagemodelslargeobjectgraspingSEEMsegmentationmotionplanningin-contextlearningmobilemanipulators
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

CollaBot is a proposed generalist framework for simultaneous collaborative manipulation: several mobile manipulators cooperate to move large objects like tables and chairs. The paper's central claim is that a modular pipeline—segmentation with SEEM, vision-language inference of how many robots to use and what motion constraints to respect, a learned local grasp network, and two-stage sampling-based planning—can handle varying numbers of robots, objects, and tasks without retraining. The full-text experiments report an overall success rate of 52% over five table- and chair-moving tasks, with two-robot translations succeeding 66.7% of the time and a three-robot table task succeeding 40% of the time. This matters because prior simultaneous collaborative manipulation methods often fix the robot count, assume known object models, or require predefined grasps, whereas CollaBot tries to infer all of these from language and vision.

What carries the argument

The central mechanism is the split of grasping into local and global stages. LoGNet (Large Object Grasp Net) is a PointNet-backed network trained on ShapeNet- and DA2-derived local point clouds to output a grasp pose—translation, approach vector, and in-plane rotation—near a reference point. A VLM then performs global coordination: given an image with numbered candidate grasp points, it selects a dispersed, force-favorable set for the inferred number of robots, guided by chain-of-thought prompting with evaluation metrics and output examples. This local-global decomposition is what lets the framework scale to arbitrary robot counts; the paper's own Table 1 also shows that two of four tested VLMs cannot ground the numbered labels reliably, making VLM grounding a load-bearing step.

What would settle it

Run the pipeline on the five reported tasks twice, once with the assumed subtask tuple hand-supplied and once with a real language-to-subtask planner, and compare success rates; if the second run collapses, the claimed language-driven generality is carried by the missing planner.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

On its own terms, the paper establishes that simultaneous collaborative manipulation can be decomposed into four stages: SEEM-based object segmentation and point-cloud extraction; VLM-based inference of the needed robot count and motion constraints; two-stage grasping, where LoGNet generates locally stable grasp poses near a reference point and a VLM selects which grasp points to use from an annotated image; and a two-stage motion planner that first moves robots to grasp poses with RRT* and then plans an object trajectory under constraints, tracked with reactive control. The contribution is the integrated framework rather than any single new module. The paper argues that this decomposition generalizes across object classes, task types, and team sizes, and it offers the 52% simulation success rate as evidence.

Load-bearing premise

The framework assumes a task planner that turns free-form natural-language instructions into structured subtasks specifying an object, an initial pose, and a final pose, and that planner is never implemented or tested.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • If the framework works as claimed, a multi-robot team can be reconfigured for a task without retraining when the number of robots changes; the three-robot table experiment is the demonstration.
  • Adding robots to a large-object transport task lowers the maximum contact force each robot must supply, as the three-robot table task shows a large drop in fmax relative to the two-robot version.
  • The success rate varies strongly by task type: translation tasks with ordinary poses succeed far more often than vertical flipping tasks, so the framework's demonstrated generality is strongest for translation-dominated manipulations.
  • VLM prompt design is load-bearing: ablations show that removing evaluation metrics, chain-of-thought reasoning, or output examples degrades grasp selection, meaning the framework's performance depends on prompt engineering.
  • Large-object local grasping benefits from a dedicated local network; the comparison against GraspNet indicates that networks trained mainly on small objects produce poorer and sometimes colliding grasps on large objects.

Reading between the lines

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

  • The full text and conclusion report a 52% overall success rate, while the metadata abstract states 72% and mentions real-world experiments; a reader should take 52% as the number the manuscript's results actually support.
  • Because the task planner that converts free-form instructions into structured subtasks is assumed rather than implemented, the end-to-end language-driven claim is conditional on that component existing and working.
  • The failure analysis attributes half of the failures to collaborative grasp generation, so adding a grasp-replanning or recovery loop—flagged as future work—is the most direct way to raise the reported success rate.
  • With only five tasks and five object images per task evaluated, the claimed generalization across objects and tasks is provisional; running the same pipeline on a broader object set would make the claim testable.
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.

Referee Report

4 major / 5 minor

Summary. The paper proposes CollaBot, a modular framework for simultaneous collaborative manipulation (SCM) with multiple mobile manipulators. The pipeline consists of SEEM-based object segmentation, VLM-based inference of the number of participating robots and of motion constraints, a learned local grasp network (LoGNet) trained on ShapeNet/DA2 data, a VLM-based selection of collaborative grasp points, and a two-stage RRT*-based planner. The body text reports a 52% success rate over 25 simulation trials spanning five manipulations; the arXiv metadata abstract instead claims a 72% success rate, behavior-cloning comparisons, and real-world experiments that the body does not provide.

Significance. If the results were fully supported, CollaBot would be a valuable step toward generalizing SCM beyond fixed robot teams and predefined grasps. The local/global decomposition of grasp planning is a reasonable design, and testing four VLMs plus a prompt ablation is useful. That said, the evidence in the manuscript is too thin and partly self-referential to support the advertised claims: the language-to-subtask planner is assumed rather than implemented, the evaluation uses very small trial counts with no baseline, and the reported grasp-quality metrics partly mirror the criteria encoded in the VLM prompt.

major comments (4)
  1. [Abstract (body and arXiv metadata)] The quantitative headline is inconsistent between versions of the same paper. The body abstract and the Conclusion report a success rate of 52%, and Table 3 is consistent with that figure (13/25). The arXiv metadata abstract, however, claims a 72% success rate, 'a substantial improvement over behavior cloning-based methods,' and successful real-world experiments. No behavior-cloning baseline and no real-world experiment appear anywhere in the body text. This mismatch is load-bearing because the advertised central result is not the one the manuscript actually reports; the authors must either supply the missing experiments or correct the abstract.
  2. [Problem Formulation] The paper's title and Introduction motivate collaborative manipulation from arbitrary natural-language instructions, but the Problem Formulation states, 'we assume there exists a task planner that can decompose this instruction into subtasks T = [O, p_init, p_end].' This planner is never implemented, evaluated, or ablated, and the experiments feed structured subtasks directly into the pipeline (Table 3 lists tasks such as TABLE, CHAIR, Flip TABLE, Align, and TABLE-3 with no language input). Consequently, the end-to-end vision-language-guided claim is not demonstrated; the tested system starts after the language-to-subtask conversion. The authors should either implement and evaluate the planner or explicitly rescope the contribution to manipulation from structured subtasks.
  3. [Overall Success Rate (Table 3)] The overall-success claim rests on only five trials per task, for a total of 25 trials, with no confidence intervals, no statistical analysis, and no comparison against any baseline method. The per-task counts (3/5, 3/5, 1/5, 4/5, 2/5) and the aggregate 52% cannot support the conclusion that the framework is effective and generalizable across objects, tasks, and robot numbers. At minimum, the authors should report many more trials, provide variance or interval estimates, and include the promised behavior-cloning or other SCM baselines; without those, the central quantitative claim is unsupported.
  4. [Grasp Points Selection and Table 1] Table 1 reports grasp-quality metrics for all four VLMs, but Qwen-VL-Max and DeepSeek-R1 fail the grounding check (GS) in every row; for failed grounding, the selected labels do not correspond to actual image locations, so the reported ω, MSV, and fmax values for those rows are not meaningful grasp-quality measurements. In addition, the three prompt metrics used for VLM selection (center of mass inside the grasp convex hull, gripper alignment with gravity, and local stability) are essentially the same criteria quantified by MSV and fmax in Table 1. The evaluation therefore partly measures how well the VLM obeys the prompt rather than independently validating collaborative grasp quality. An independent selection baseline (e.g., random selection or an optimization-based picker) is needed to make the comparison interpretable.
minor comments (5)
  1. [Ablation Study on the Prompt Design (Table 2)] Table 2 is based on only three images per condition, and for both models the rows 'w/o BC' and 'w/o B' are numerically identical; this looks like a reporting error. The success counts (2 or 3 out of 3) are too coarse to support the claim that evaluation metrics and CoT are each necessary.
  2. [Evaluation of Collaborative Grasp Poses Generation] In the text, the model is called 'DeepSeek-R11,' which appears to be 'DeepSeek-R1' with a footnote marker; please clean up the notation.
  3. [Problem Formulation, Eq. (1)] Eq. (1) writes F(e_i,e_j,t)=0, but the text says the first derivative of F is zero to enforce a constant relative pose; the notation should be corrected to avoid implying the relative pose itself is zero.
  4. [Experiments, simulation setup] The experiments do not describe the simulation environment, robot model, physics engine, camera parameters, or random seeds; these details are needed for reproducibility.
  5. [Table 1] The '/' entries under fmax for several failed cases are unexplained; please state what they mean (e.g., no feasible grasp or no solution to Eq. (5)).

Circularity Check

1 steps flagged · score 4.0 of 10

Grasp-quality evaluation is partly self-referential: the VLM prompt and the reported metrics share the same criteria, so Table 1 largely measures prompt adherence; the overall 52% task success remains an independent signal.

  1. fitted input called prediction [Collaborative Grasp Poses Generation: Grasp Points Selection and Evaluation of Collaborative Grasp Poses Generation]
    "Inspired by human decision-making during grasping, we introduced three metrics for this task. ... VLM needs to ensure the object’s center of mass is as close as possible to the interior of the convex hull formed by grasp points. ... The angle between the gripper and the external force, e.g., gravity. ... The local stability of the grasp point. ... Four metrics are used to evaluate the result. ... A smaller fmax indicates that this task can be achieved more easily based on the selected grasp points."

    The prompt given to the VLM specifies the exact criteria later used as evaluation metrics: center-of-mass inside the grasp convex hull, gripper alignment with gravity, and local stability. The reported metrics enforce the same properties: omega measures force closure, MSV measures symmetry of grasp points around the object centroid, and fmax measures the maximum contact force under gravity and is explicitly said to evaluate 'the angle of the gripper and collaboration between all robots.' Thus Table 1 does not independently validate grasp quality; it largely measures whether the VLM followed the prompt. A compliant VLM succeeds by construction on the same quantities it was instructed to optimize.

full rationale

The overall CollaBot pipeline is not circular: the 52% success rate in Table 3 is obtained by executing SEEM segmentation, VLM grasp selection, LoGNet local grasp generation, RRT*-based planning, and trajectory tracking, with failures attributed to grasp generation, planning, and segmentation. LoGNet is trained on DA2/ShapeNet grasp annotations and is not evaluated solely by the prompt criteria. No load-bearing self-citation or imported uniqueness theorem is used. The principal circular element is the grasp-point selection evaluation: the VLM is prompted with the same criteria that the quantitative metrics omega, MSV, and fmax then measure, making Table 1 a partial test of instruction-following rather than an independent assessment of grasp quality. Other weaknesses, such as the unimplemented task planner assumed in the Problem Formulation and the discrepancy between the metadata abstract's 72% success rate and the body's 52%, are gaps in support or consistency, not circularity.

Assumptions & free parameters 4 free parameters · 6 assumptions · 0 invented entities

The framework's generality rests on several unverified inputs: an assumed task planner, the reliability of SEEM and of the chosen VLM for label grounding, and DA2-based grasp ground truth. These are borrowed from prior work or assumed without measurement, so the demonstrated generalization is conditional on them. No new physical entities are postulated; LoGNet and the prompt designs are implementation artifacts.

free parameters (4)
  • K, number of grasp candidates per image = 10 for 2-robot tasks, 15 for TABLE-3
    Hand-chosen with no ablation; it defines the candidate set the VLM selects from (Grasp Points Projection).
  • LoGNet trained weights (PointNet backbone plus MLP heads) = trained on 88,976 local point clouds from ShapeNet/DA2
    The local grasp regressor is fitted to DA2 annotations; no quantitative local-grasp benchmark is reported, only a qualitative comparison with GraspNet.
  • Local point-cloud window threshold, ||P - p||_inf < 1 = 1 (units unspecified)
    Threshold defining the local crop around a grasp point (Eq. 2); set by hand.
  • Loss weights lambda_1, lambda_2, lambda_3 = all set to 1
    The authors state they simply set all of them to 1 (Training Detail, Eq. 3); no tuning analysis.
assumptions (6)
  • domain assumption A task planner exists that converts free-form instructions into T = [O, pinit, pend].
    Problem Formulation assumes it; never implemented or evaluated, yet the stated objective is arbitrary instruction inputs.
  • domain assumption Rigid closed-chain grasp: relative end-effector poses are constant (F-dot = 0) with no slip during transport.
    Eq. 1 imposes F-dot = 0 throughout the motion, requiring rigid grasps and fixed contacts; slip is not tested.
  • domain assumption SEEM segmentation yields a faithful fused object point cloud Pobj from RGB-D images.
    The entire grasp pipeline consumes Pobj; the authors report 16.7 percent of failures come from SEEM missing the object.
  • domain assumption DA2 grasp annotations are valid ground truth for large-object local grasping.
    LoGNet is trained to regress DA2 grasp poses; there is no independent check that DA2 grasps are the right target for collaborative transport.
  • domain assumption VLMs can ground numbered labels and reason about grasp metrics from a single annotated image.
    Two of four tested VLMs fail grounding entirely (Table 1), so the system's success depends on this capability.
  • ad hoc to paper Local grasp stability requires the gripper approach direction roughly parallel to the local surface normal.
    Stated as an assumption in Grasp Points Projection to filter collision-free points; no ablation or justification beyond intuition.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of CollaBot: Vision-Language Guided Simultaneous Collaborative Manipulation." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/ITVFJJYT

@misc{pith2026250803526,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: CollaBot: Vision-Language Guided Simultaneous Collaborative Manipulation},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/ITVFJJYT}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2508.03526}
}
read the original abstract

One central goal of robotics is to enable robots to interact with the physical world. Traditional manipulation studies primarily focus on single robots and relatively small objects. However, factory and domestic environments often require large-object manipulation, such as moving tables, where multiple robots must work collaboratively. Existing studies still lack a generalizable framework that can handle diverse objects, tasks, and robot team sizes. In this work, we propose CollaBot, a generalist framework for simultaneous collaborative manipulation. First, we use SEEM for scene segmentation and target-object extraction. Then, we propose a collaborative grasping framework that decomposes the task into local grasp pose generation and global coordination. Finally, we design a two-stage planning module to generate collision-free trajectories for task execution. Experimental results across different settings with varying objects, tasks, and numbers of robots indicate that our framework achieves a 72% success rate. This marks a substantial improvement over behavior cloning-based methods, validating the advantages of the proposed framework in complex multi-robot cooperative tasks. Real-world experiments further demonstrate the feasibility of our method in practical applications.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2508.03526 by the authors.

Figure 1
Figure 1. An Example for the proposed framework. With the [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p001_1.png] view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. The overall framework of proposed method. SCM tasks are divided into three parts. Task constrains, like the target [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p003_2.png] view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. Illustration for local grasp poses generation. Local [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p004_3.png] view at source ↗
Figures from the paper (2 more)
Figure 4
Figure 4. Figure 4: An example of using 3 robots to move a table. 1-6: Collaborative grasping is achieved. 7-12: SCM is performed. [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p006_4.png]
Figure 5
Figure 5. Figure 5: Comparison of GraspNet and LoGNet. LoGNet is [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p006_5.png]

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Forward citations

Cited by 3 Pith papers

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

  1. A Closed-Loop Multi-Agent Framework for Robust Multi-Robot Manipulation

    cs.RO 2026-07 conditional novelty 6.0 of 10

    A closed-loop multi-agent LLM framework enables heterogeneous robots to collaboratively manipulate objects by decomposing tasks, grounding actions via visual tools, and recovering from execution failures hierarchically.

  2. IndoorR2X: Indoor Robot-to-Everything Coordination with LLM-Driven Planning

    cs.RO 2026-03 conditional novelty 6.0 of 10

    Fusing IoT/CCTV into a shared semantic state lets LLM multi-robot planners keep high success while cutting path length, actions, and tokens versus robot-only sharing under partial observability.

  3. Duet: Dual-Robot Understanding via Efficient Teaching

    cs.RO 2026-06 unverdicted novelty 5.0 of 10

    DUET pretrains collaborative policies on human-human VR demonstrations then fine-tunes on minimal robot teleoperation data, achieving equal or better performance than robot-only baselines with 5.4x faster collection a...

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

35 extracted references · 19 canonical work pages · cited by 3 Pith papers

  1. [1]

    , " * write output.state after.block = add.period write newline

    ENTRY address archivePrefix author booktitle chapter edition editor eid eprint howpublished institution isbn journal key month note number organization pages publisher school series title type volume year label extra.label sort.label short.list INTEGERS output.state before.all mid.sentence after.sentence after.block FUNCTION init.state.consts #0 'before.a...

  2. [2]

    write newline

    " write newline "" before.all 'output.state := FUNCTION n.dashify 't := "" t empty not t #1 #1 substring "-" = t #1 #2 substring "--" = not "--" * t #2 global.max substring 't := t #1 #1 substring "-" = "-" * t #2 global.max substring 't := while if t #1 #1 substring * t #2 global.max substring 't := if while FUNCTION word.in bbl.in capitalize " " * FUNCT...

  3. [3]

    Aldaco, J.; Armstrong, T.; Baruch, R.; Bingham, J.; Chan, S.; Draper, K.; Dwibedi, D.; Finn, C.; Florence, P.; Goodrich, S.; et al. 2024. Aloha 2: An enhanced low-cost hardware for bimanual teleoperation. arXiv preprint arXiv:2405.02292

    arXiv 2024

  4. [4]

    G.; Xiao, T.; Singh, S.; Jain, V.; Ren, A.; Vuong, Q.; Varley, J.; Herzog, A.; Leal, I.; Kirmani, S.; et al

    Arenas, M. G.; Xiao, T.; Singh, S.; Jain, V.; Ren, A.; Vuong, Q.; Varley, J.; Herzog, A.; Leal, I.; Kirmani, S.; et al. 2024. How to prompt your robot: A promptbook for manipulation skills with code as policies. In 2024 IEEE International Conference on Robotics and Automation (ICRA), 4340--4348. IEEE

    work page 2024

  5. [5]

    Brohan, A.; Brown, N.; Carbajal, J.; Chebotar, Y.; Chen, X.; Choromanski, K.; Ding, T.; Driess, D.; Dubey, A.; Finn, C.; et al. 2023. Rt-2: Vision-language-action models transfer web knowledge to robotic control. arXiv preprint arXiv:2307.15818

    arXiv 2023

  6. [6]

    Brohan, A.; Brown, N.; Carbajal, J.; Chebotar, Y.; Dabis, J.; Finn, C.; Gopalakrishnan, K.; Hausman, K.; Herzog, A.; Hsu, J.; et al. 2022. Rt-1: Robotics transformer for real-world control at scale. arXiv preprint arXiv:2212.06817

    arXiv 2022

  7. [7]

    X.; Funkhouser, T.; Guibas, L.; Hanrahan, P.; Huang, Q.; Li, Z.; Savarese, S.; Savva, M.; Song, S.; Su, H.; et al

    Chang, A. X.; Funkhouser, T.; Guibas, L.; Hanrahan, P.; Huang, Q.; Li, Z.; Savarese, S.; Savva, M.; Song, S.; Su, H.; et al. 2015. Shapenet: An information-rich 3d model repository. arXiv preprint arXiv:1512.03012

    arXiv 2015

  8. [8]

    Chen, J.; Yu, C.; Zhou, X.; Xu, T.; Mu, Y.; Hu, M.; Shao, W.; Wang, Y.; Li, G.; and Shao, L. 2024. EMOS : Embodiment-aware Heterogeneous Multi-robot Operating System with LLM Agents. arXiv preprint arXiv:2410.22662

    arXiv 2024

Show all 35 references
  1. [9]

    Fang, H.-S.; Wang, C.; Gou, M.; and Lu, C. 2020. Graspnet-1billion: A large-scale benchmark for general object grasping. In Proceedings of the IEEE/CVF conference on computer vision and pattern recognition, 11444--11453

    2020

  2. [10]

    Feng, Z.; Hu, G.; Sun, Y.; and Soon, J. 2020. An overview of collaborative robotic manipulation in multi-robot systems. Annual Reviews in Control, 49: 113--127

    2020

  3. [11]

    Gao, J.; Wang, Z.; Xiao, Z.; Wang, J.; Wang, T.; Cao, J.; Hu, X.; Liu, S.; Dai, J.; and Pang, J. 2024. Coohoi: Learning cooperative human-object interaction with manipulated object dynamics. Advances in Neural Information Processing Systems, 37: 79741--79763

    2024

  4. [12]

    Haviland, J.; and Corke, P. 2021. NEO: A novel expeditious optimisation algorithm for reactive motion control of manipulators. IEEE Robotics and Automation Letters, 6(2): 1043--1050

    2021

  5. [13]

    Huang, H.; Lin, F.; Hu, Y.; Wang, S.; and Gao, Y. 2024 a . Copa: General robotic manipulation through spatial constraints of parts with foundation models. In 2024 IEEE/RSJ International Conference on Intelligent Robots and Systems (IROS), 9488--9495. IEEE

    2024

  6. [14]

    Huang, W.; Wang, C.; Li, Y.; Zhang, R.; and Fei-Fei, L. 2024 b . Rekep: Spatio-temporal reasoning of relational keypoint constraints for robotic manipulation. arXiv preprint arXiv:2409.01652

    2024 arXiv

  7. [15]

    Huang, W.; Wang, C.; Zhang, R.; Li, Y.; Wu, J.; and Fei-Fei, L. 2023. Voxposer: Composable 3d value maps for robotic manipulation with language models. arXiv preprint arXiv:2307.05973

    2023 arXiv

  8. [16]

    F.; Hashmi, M

    Karim, M. F.; Hashmi, M. S.; Bollimuntha, S.; Tapeti, M. R.; Singh, G.; Govindan, N.; and Krishna, K. M. 2025. DG16M: A Large-Scale Dataset for Dual-Arm Grasping with Force-Optimized Grasps. arXiv preprint arXiv:2503.08358

    2025 arXiv

  9. [17]

    J.; Pertsch, K.; Karamcheti, S.; Xiao, T.; Balakrishna, A.; Nair, S.; Rafailov, R.; Foster, E.; Lam, G.; Sanketi, P.; et al

    Kim, M. J.; Pertsch, K.; Karamcheti, S.; Xiao, T.; Balakrishna, A.; Nair, S.; Rafailov, R.; Foster, E.; Lam, G.; Sanketi, P.; et al. 2024. Openvla: An open-source vision-language-action model. arXiv preprint arXiv:2406.09246

    2024 arXiv

  10. [18]

    Liu, S.; Wu, L.; Li, B.; Tan, H.; Chen, H.; Wang, Z.; Xu, K.; Su, H.; and Zhu, J. 2024. Rdt-1b: a diffusion foundation model for bimanual manipulation. arXiv preprint arXiv:2410.07864

    2024 arXiv

  11. [19]

    Liu, T.; Liu, Z.; Jiao, Z.; Zhu, Y.; and Zhu, S.-C. 2021. Synthesizing diverse and physically stable grasps with arbitrary hand structures using differentiable force closure estimator. IEEE Robotics and Automation Letters, 7(1): 470--477

    2021

  12. [20]

    Y.; and Xiong, Z

    Liu, W.; Ren, M.; Song, K.; Wang, M. Y.; and Xiong, Z. 2025. A Planning Framework for Complex Flipping Manipulation of Multiple Mobile Manipulators. IEEE Robotics and Automation Letters

    2025

  13. [21]

    Mandi, Z.; Jain, S.; and Song, S. 2024. Roco: Dialectic multi-robot collaboration with large language models. In 2024 IEEE International Conference on Robotics and Automation (ICRA), 286--299. IEEE

    2024

  14. [22]

    Matsuura, Y.; Kawaharazuka, K.; Hiraoka, N.; Kojima, K.; Okada, K.; and Inaba, M. 2023. Development of a whole-body work imitation learning system by a biped and bi-armed humanoid. In 2023 IEEE/RSJ International Conference on Intelligent Robots and Systems (IROS), 10374--10381. IEEE

    2023

  15. [23]

    R.; Su, H.; Mo, K.; and Guibas, L

    Qi, C. R.; Su, H.; Mo, K.; and Guibas, L. J. 2017. Pointnet: Deep learning on point sets for 3d classification and segmentation. In Proceedings of the IEEE conference on computer vision and pattern recognition, 652--660

    2017

  16. [24]

    Rus, D.; Donald, B.; and Jennings, J. 1995. Moving furniture with teams of autonomous robots. In Proceedings 1995 IEEE/RSJ International Conference on Intelligent Robots and Systems. Human Robot Interaction and Cooperative Robots, volume 1, 235--242. IEEE

    1995

  17. [25]

    Sandakalum, T.; and Ang Jr, M. H. 2022. Motion planning for mobile manipulators—a systematic review. Machines, 10(2): 97

    2022

  18. [26]

    Shome, R.; and Bekris, K. E. 2019. Anytime multi-arm task and motion planning for pick-and-place of individual objects via handoffs. In 2019 International Symposium on Multi-Robot and Multi-Agent Systems (MRS), 37--43. IEEE

    2019

  19. [27]

    Shorinwa, O.; and Schwager, M. 2020. Scalable collaborative manipulation with distributed trajectory planning. In 2020 IEEE/RSJ International Conference on Intelligent Robots and Systems (IROS), 9108--9115. IEEE

    2020

  20. [28]

    V.; Zhou, D.; et al

    Wei, J.; Wang, X.; Schuurmans, D.; Bosma, M.; Xia, F.; Chi, E.; Le, Q. V.; Zhou, D.; et al. 2022. Chain-of-thought prompting elicits reasoning in large language models. Advances in neural information processing systems, 35: 24824--24837

    2022

  21. [29]

    S.; Jiang, N.; Bera, A.; Tan, L.; and Jagannathan, S

    Wu, Y.; Xiong, Z.; Hu, Y.; Iyengar, S. S.; Jiang, N.; Bera, A.; Tan, L.; and Jagannathan, S. 2024. SELP: Generating safe and efficient task plans for robot agents with large language models. arXiv preprint arXiv:2409.19471

    2024 arXiv

  22. [30]

    Xie, F.; Chowdhury, A.; De Paolis Kaluza, M.; Zhao, L.; Wong, L.; and Yu, R. 2020. Deep imitation learning for bimanual robotic manipulation. Advances in neural information processing systems, 33: 2327--2337

    2020

  23. [31]

    Zhai, G.; Zheng, Y.; Xu, Z.; Kong, X.; Liu, Y.; Busam, B.; Ren, Y.; Navab, N.; and Zhang, Z. 2022. DA2 Dataset: Toward Dexterity-Aware Dual-Arm Grasping. IEEE Robotics and Automation Letters, 7(4): 8941--8948

    2022

  24. [32]

    Zhang, C.; Sun, S.; Liu, K.; Zhou, C.; Zhao, X.; Tan, M.; and Huang, Y. 2025. A Reactive Framework for Whole-Body Motion Planning of Mobile Manipulators Combining Reinforcement Learning and SDF-Constrained Quadratic Programmi. arXiv preprint arXiv:2503.23975

    2025 arXiv

  25. [33]

    Zhang, X.; Qin, H.; Wang, F.; Dong, Y.; and Li, J. 2024. LaMMA-P: Generalizable Multi-Agent Long-Horizon Task Allocation and Planning with LM-Driven PDDL Planner. arXiv preprint arXiv:2409.20560

    2024 arXiv

  26. [34]

    Zhou, C.; Lei, M.; Zhao, L.; Wang, Z.; and Zheng, Y. 2022. Topp-mpc-based dual-arm dynamic collaborative manipulation for multi-object nonprehensile transportation. In 2022 International Conference on Robotics and Automation (ICRA), 999--1005. IEEE

    2022

  27. [35]

    Zou, X.; Yang, J.; Zhang, H.; Li, F.; Li, L.; Wang, J.; Wang, L.; Gao, J.; and Lee, Y. J. 2023. Segment everything everywhere all at once. Advances in neural information processing systems, 36: 19769--19782

    2023

Pith tools

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