Pith. sign in

REVIEW 5 major objections 5 minor 31 references

Prompt-responsive Object Retrieval with Memory-augmented Student-Teacher Learning

T0 review · 5 major / 5 minor · reviewed 2026-08-16 · deepseek-v4-flash

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

Pith's one-line read This paper claims that a robot can be given a prompt — a text description, a point in an image, or a box around an object — and then retrieve that specific object from a cluttered scene without retraining for the object.

desk verdict A clean, well-engineered student-teacher pipeline for prompt-conditioned grasping that deserves review, but the prompt-responsiveness claim rests solely on ground-truth bounding-box prompts. read the letter →

arxiv 2505.02232 v1 pith:MYVVVYMK submitted 2025-05-04 cs.RO cs.AIcs.LG

Malte Mosbach , Sven Behnke This is my paper · ORCID
classification cs.ROcs.AIcs.LG
keywords prompt-responsivemanipulationSegmentAnything2student-teacherlearningmemory-augmentedpolicyreinforcementobjectretrievalfromclutterimplicitstateestimationzero-shotreal-robottransfer
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

This paper claims that a robot can be given a prompt — a text description, a point in an image, or a box around an object — and then retrieve that specific object from a cluttered scene without retraining for the object. The method couples the promptable segmentation model SAM 2 with reinforcement learning through a student-teacher scheme: a teacher policy learns from privileged simulator state, and a memory-augmented student policy learns to imitate it from SAM 2's imperfect detections. Because occlusions and misdetections make the detections non-Markovian, the student consumes a history of detections through an LSTM or Transformer to implicitly reconstruct the target's state. The authors report high success rates in simulation for tabletop and bin picking, and similar success rates on a real robot for seen and unseen objects. If correct, this offers a path to warehouse-style 'pick this item' commands without per-object retraining or explicit object models.

What carries the argument

The load-bearing mechanism is memory-augmented student-teacher learning with SAM 2 as the prompt-responsive perception backbone. SAM 2 maps a user prompt to a segmentation mask; the mask is projected onto a depth-derived point cloud and encoded by a PointNet-like encoder, and this encoding is concatenated with proprioception and fed to a history-aware policy (an LSTM or Transformer) that consumes a window of recent detections. Keeping SAM 2 out of the RL loop — training the teacher on privileged state and only distilling to the visual student — makes training tractable, and the history processing lets the student compensate for missing or unstable detections by implicitly tracking the target across time.

What would settle it

Run the deployed student policy on the real robot with deliberately noisy prompts — a text description that fits two objects in the scene, a click point on the wrong object, or a bounding box misaligned by several pixels — and measure success rates against the ground-truth-derived box prompts used in training. A large drop would show that the simulated automatic prompting is not a faithful proxy for real user prompts and that the policy's prompt-responsiveness is narrower than claimed.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

The central discovery is that imperfect, prompt-derived detections from a vision foundation model can serve as the observation space for a dexterous manipulation policy, provided the policy can integrate detection history. The authors formulate the problem as a partially observable Markov decision process: SAM 2's outputs are non-Markovian, so the student policy receives a sequence of detected point clouds, with a feature marking which points SAM 2 assigns to the target, and must implicitly infer the underlying object state. Training proceeds in two stages. First, a PPO-trained teacher policy solves the task using privileged simulator information, including oriented bounding boxes, a heightmap of the clutter, and fingertip states. Then, a student policy is trained with DAgger to imitate the teacher from proprioception and SAM 2-based detections alone. The student's memory-augmented architectures recover most of the teacher's performance, and the learned policies transfer zero-shot to a real robot. The authors interpret the decreasing imitation loss with longer visible context as evidence that the student learns to infer the true object state from the detection history rather than memorizing a reactive mapping.

Load-bearing premise

The automated prompting in simulation, which projects the ground-truth target mesh into the camera frame to build SAM 2's bounding-box prompt, is assumed to be a faithful proxy for real user prompts, whether text, points, or boxes; the real-robot experiments do not report which prompt modality was used.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • A single policy can handle many object types: in simulation, the teacher and student generalize across dozens of training objects, and the real-robot results show similar success for held-out objects.
  • Occlusion robustness follows from memory: because the student consumes detection history, targets can disappear from view or be misdetected without breaking the policy, unlike earlier prompt-based grasping that required unobstructed tracking.
  • The same pipeline should extend to other manipulation skills beyond retrieval, since the formulation is a generic POMDP solved by history-aware imitation from imperfect foundation-model detections.
  • Prompt-conditioning removes the need for explicit object models at deployment: the robot never sees a CAD model or ground-truth state at test time, only the user's prompt and the RGB-D stream.

Reading between the lines

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

  • Because the student policy's observation space is independent of prompt modality — the prompt only shapes the SAM 2 mask — the same trained policy could be exposed to text, point, or box prompts at deployment without retraining, but this is untested: the real-robot section does not report which modality was used.
  • The implicit state estimation carried by the student's memory could be probed directly: train a linear classifier on the student's recurrent state to predict the target's true pose, testing whether the model genuinely tracks state rather than merely reacting to recent masks.
  • The approach suggests a general recipe for grounding any promptable foundation model into RL policies: factor the problem into a privileged teacher, a foundation-model observer, and a memory-augmented student, which could apply to other perception backbones and to tasks where sensory signals are lossy or intermittent.
  • One stress test not reported: bin picking on the real robot. The simulation results for bins are strong, but the real-robot experiments cover only tabletop scenes, so the 'cluttered bin' claim currently rests on simulation evidence alone.
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.

Referee Report

5 major / 5 minor

Summary. The manuscript proposes a two-stage student-teacher framework for prompt-conditioned grasping from clutter. A teacher policy is trained with PPO on privileged simulator state (target OBB, heightmap, fingertip states), and a memory-augmented student policy is trained with DAgger to imitate the teacher from proprioception plus detections produced by SAM 2 from automated bounding-box prompts. The student architectures considered are a 1D-CNN, an LSTM, and a Transformer. Experiments are conducted in Isaac Lab on 48 training and 12 held-out YCB objects in both tabletop and bin scenarios, reporting 80-86% student goal success in simulation and 50-60% success in 10-trial real-robot tabletop runs. The authors claim prompt-responsive policies and zero-shot real-robot transfer, with the core idea that a history of imperfect SAM 2 detections enables implicit state estimation.

Significance. If the claims hold, the paper makes a useful engineering contribution: it shows a tractable way to use SAM 2 outputs as observations for an RL policy without backpropagating through the foundation model, and the context-length ablation is a clean, internally consistent test of the memory hypothesis. The release of videos and code is a strength, and the explicit evaluation of held-out objects is good practice. The broader significance is currently limited, however, by the gap between the claimed prompt modalities (points and language) and the only implemented modality (ground-truth bounding boxes), as well as by the thin real-robot evaluation and the absence of a direct comparison with prior SAM-based grasping work.

major comments (5)
  1. [III.D, Fig. 2, Table V] The only prompt modality actually implemented and evaluated is the automated tight bounding box computed by projecting the ground-truth target mesh into the camera frame (Section III.D). The paper's central claim, however, is framed around user prompts of point, text, or bounding-box type (Section III.A and Fig. 2). SAM 2 is not a text-conditioned model, and no mechanism is described for converting an open-vocabulary text description into a SAM 2 prompt; Table V does not state which prompt modality was used for the real-robot trials. Because the student's belief state is built from SAM 2 detections generated under oracle-quality boxes, a deployment with point or language prompts would face a different detection-error distribution than anything seen in training. As written, the experiments demonstrate responsiveness to ground-truth bounding boxes, not to 'human-understandable prompts' as claimed in the abstract.
  2. [V.B, Table V] The real-robot evidence is limited to 10 trials per condition, with no variance estimates, no statistical test, and no bin-picking deployment; the conclusion acknowledges that bin-picking deployment is future work. The statement that 'the strong performance of the policies in simulation transfers to our real robot system' is not supported at the claimed precision: 5/10 versus 6/10 differences between train and test objects are within sampling noise, and the 50-60% real-robot success is substantially below the 84-86% simulated student success for the same tabletop task. The zero-shot transfer claim needs either more trials, error bars, or a more modest interpretation.
  3. [V.A, Table IV, Fig. 3(C)] The architecture ablation does not isolate the memory mechanism. All three student architectures (1D-CNN, LSTM, Transformer) consume a history of observations, and no non-memory student is included, so the claim that history-awareness is a core mechanism is only partially tested. The context-length curve in Fig. 3(C) is a useful qualitative check, but it is reported for a single teacher-student setting, without numerical loss values or error bars. I would also like to see a student variant without SAM 2 detections to evaluate the contribution of the VFM backbone to the reported performance.
  4. [II.A, V] No direct comparison is made to the authors' prior Grasp Anything method [21], which also uses SAM for prompt-based tabletop grasping. Because [21] is cited as related work and addresses the same task family, the absence of a baseline makes it difficult to assess what the memory-augmented student-teacher formulation adds over the prior instance-segmentation-plus-RL pipeline. This is particularly relevant for evaluating the paper's novelty and the practical significance of the reported gains.
  5. [III.D, I] The necessity of the student-teacher decomposition is asserted but not empirically tested. The authors motivate it by compute constraints, but no comparison is shown to an alternative policy trained directly on SAM 2 detections with reward, or to an end-to-end variant. Without such an ablation, the first of the two 'core mechanisms' listed in the introduction remains a design choice rather than a demonstrated requirement.
minor comments (5)
  1. [III.D] Typo: 'follwoing' should be 'following'.
  2. [Table V] The spacing in the results table is inconsistent ('6/10' vs '6 /10'), and the table would benefit from a column indicating the prompt modality used for each trial.
  3. [Fig. 3] The text and figure caption refer to an 'imitation loss' while the y-axis in the bottom-right panel reads 'DAgger Loss'; the values are too small to read, and the relationship between 'Visible Timesteps' and the history length H in Section III.D should be stated explicitly.
  4. [Table I] The entry 'SAM2 detected point-cloud 4D* Npoints' does not define the fourth feature dimension or the value of Npoints; this is needed to reproduce the student observation space.
  5. [III.D] DAgger hyperparameters (number of iterations, dataset size, history length H, and the choice of teacher used for the context-length experiment) are not reported; please add them.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 0.0 of 10

No significant circularity: the empirical student-teacher pipeline is self-contained, and no load-bearing claim reduces to its own inputs.

full rationale

The paper makes empirical claims rather than formal derivations, and its main components are independently testable. The teacher is trained with privileged simulator state; the student is distilled from the teacher via DAgger using SAM 2 detections; and performance is measured by task success in simulation and on a real robot. The memory hypothesis is tested directly by the context-length experiment, where the paper reports 'a clear pattern of decreasing loss with increasing context length,' which is a genuine empirical test rather than an assumption smuggled in. The only step that could be questioned is the automated prompting mechanism in Section III.D: 'we automate prompt generation by leveraging ground-truth object geometry from simulation. Specifically, we extract points on the mesh surface of the target object and project them into the camera frame. From these projected points, we compute a tight bounding box in the image space, which is then used as the prompt for SAM 2.' This means training-time prompts are derived from the ground-truth target identity, so the evaluation does not cover the full space of user prompts advertised in Section III.A (text, points, or boxes). That is a threat to external validity, not circularity: the paper never claims to have evaluated point or text prompting, and no prediction is fitted from the data it is then said to predict. The real-robot results in Table V are reported as raw success counts without converting a fitted parameter into a claimed generalization. The sole self-citation, Mosbach and Behnke [21] on SAM-based grasping, is used as related work and is not load-bearing for the present method. No uniqueness theorem is imported from the authors' prior work, no ansatz is justified only by self-citation, and no known result is renamed as organization. Hence, while the prompt-modality gap should be flagged as a correctness/validation risk, it does not constitute circular reasoning, and the paper's core derivation chain is self-contained.

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

No new physical entities, forces, or state variables are postulated; the memory-augmented student is an architecture, not an invented entity. The free parameters are hand-tuned training and evaluation constants, not parameters fitted to reproduce a scientific constant.

free parameters (4)
  • Reward weights (alive, grab, lift, reach goal, goal bonus) = 0.01, 10.0, 40.0, 100.0, 10.0
    Hand-designed reward shaping in Table II; teacher policy quality, and therefore the student ceiling, depends on these weights, but they are not fitted to external data.
  • History length H for student observations = Not stated explicitly; context study uses 1, 2, 4, 8, 16
    The student's ability to infer state from detection history depends on H, and the final deployed H is not reported.
  • Success threshold for goal-reaching = 5 cm
    Defines whether goal-reaching counts as success; affects all reported success rates.
  • Termination contact thresholds = 5.0 (arm), 25.0 (tabletop or bin)
    Hand-set thresholds in Table III shape teacher exploration and safety behavior; alternative values would change trained policies.
assumptions (4)
  • domain assumption SAM 2 detections, obtained from ground-truth-seeded bounding boxes in simulation, contain enough signal for the student to infer the target object's state over time.
    Core premise of the perception pipeline in Sections I and III.D; not directly measured against alternative prompt types.
  • domain assumption A teacher trained with privileged simulator state is a sufficient expert for learning the manipulation task.
    Student performance is bounded by teacher; Table IV shows teacher ceiling 82-94%, and no analysis of teacher suboptimality is provided.
  • domain assumption Simulation (Isaac Lab with YCB objects) captures the contact dynamics and perception conditions needed for real-robot transfer.
    Real-robot evaluation is limited to tabletop with 10 trials per condition; bin-picking real deployment is explicitly left to future work.
  • standard math DAgger with a learned policy in the loop is a valid way to distill the teacher's behavior.
    Standard imitation-learning framework from Ross et al. [29]; no formal convergence guarantees are needed for the empirical claim.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Prompt-responsive Object Retrieval with Memory-augmented Student-Teacher Learning." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/MYVVVYMK

@misc{pith2026250502232,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Prompt-responsive Object Retrieval with Memory-augmented Student-Teacher Learning},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/MYVVVYMK}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2505.02232}
}
read the original abstract

Building models responsive to input prompts represents a transformative shift in machine learning. This paradigm holds significant potential for robotics problems, such as targeted manipulation amidst clutter. In this work, we present a novel approach to combine promptable foundation models with reinforcement learning (RL), enabling robots to perform dexterous manipulation tasks in a prompt-responsive manner. Existing methods struggle to link high-level commands with fine-grained dexterous control. We address this gap with a memory-augmented student-teacher learning framework. We use the Segment-Anything 2 (SAM 2) model as a perception backbone to infer an object of interest from user prompts. While detections are imperfect, their temporal sequence provides rich information for implicit state estimation by memory-augmented models. Our approach successfully learns prompt-responsive policies, demonstrated in picking objects from cluttered scenes. Videos and code are available at https://memory-student-teacher.github.io

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2505.02232 by the authors.

Figure 1
Figure 1. We present a student-teacher framework that enables [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p001_1.png] view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. We propose to train prompt-guided policies in two stages. First, the teacher policy is trained with model-free RL to [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p003_2.png] view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. Training performance of (A) the teacher policies, (B) the student policies, and (C) the imitation loss over time steps. [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p005_3.png] view at source ↗

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

31 extracted references · 19 canonical work pages

  1. [21]

    Grasp anything: Combining teacher- augmented policy gradient learning with instance segmentation to grasp arbitrary objects,

    M. Mosbach and S. Behnke, “Grasp anything: Combining teacher- augmented policy gradient learning with instance segmentation to grasp arbitrary objects,” in IEEE International Conference on Robotics and Automation (ICRA) . IEEE, 2024

    work page 2024

  2. [1]

    GPT-4 technical report,

    OpenAI, “GPT-4 technical report,” CoRR, vol. abs/2303.08774, 2023. [Online]. Available: https://doi.org/10.48550/arXiv.2303.08774

    arXiv doi:10.48550/arxiv.2303.08774 2023

  3. [2]

    Segment anything,

    A. Kirillov, E. Mintun, N. Ravi, H. Mao, C. Rolland, L. Gustafson, T. Xiao, S. Whitehead, A. C. Berg, W.-Y . Lo et al. , “Segment anything,” arXiv preprint arXiv:2304.02643 , 2023

    arXiv 2023

  4. [3]

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

    B. Zitkovich, T. Yu, S. Xu, P. Xu, T. Xiao, F. Xia, J. Wu, P. Wohlhart, S. Welker, A. Wahid et al. , “RT-2: Vision-language-action models transfer web knowledge to robotic control,” in 7th Annual Conference on Robot Learning , 2023

    work page 2023

  5. [4]

    Language mod- els are few-shot learners,

    T. Brown, B. Mann, N. Ryder, M. Subbiah, J. D. Kaplan, P. Dhariwal, A. Neelakantan, P. Shyam, G. Sastry, A. Askellet al., “Language mod- els are few-shot learners,” Advances in Neural Information Processing Systems (NeurIPS), vol. 33, 2020

    work page 2020

  6. [5]

    Lifelong robot learning with human assisted language planners,

    M. Parakh, A. Fong, A. Simeonov, T. Chen, A. Gupta, and P. Agrawal, “Lifelong robot learning with human assisted language planners,” in CoRL 2023 Workshop on Learning Effective Abstractions for Planning (LEAP), 2023

    2023

  7. [6]

    Language models as zero-shot planners: Extracting actionable knowledge for embodied agents,

    W. Huang, P. Abbeel, D. Pathak, and I. Mordatch, “Language models as zero-shot planners: Extracting actionable knowledge for embodied agents,” in International Conference on Machine Learning (ICML) . PMLR, 2022

    work page 2022

  8. [7]

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

    M. Ahn, A. Brohan, N. Brown, Y . Chebotar, O. Cortes, B. David, C. Finn, C. Fu, K. Gopalakrishnan, K. Hausman et al. , “Do as i can, not as i say: Grounding language in robotic affordances,” arXiv preprint arXiv:2204.01691, 2022

    arXiv 2022

Show all 31 references
  1. [8]

    From Socrates to expert systems: The limits of calculative rationality,

    H. L. Dreyfus, “From Socrates to expert systems: The limits of calculative rationality,” Bulletin of the American Academy of Arts and Sciences, vol. 40, no. 4, 1987

    1987

  2. [9]

    A system for general in-hand object re-orientation,

    T. Chen, J. Xu, and P. Agrawal, “A system for general in-hand object re-orientation,” in Conference on Robot Learning (CoRL) . PMLR, 2022

    2022

  3. [10]

    Visual dexterity: In-hand dexterous manipulation from depth,

    T. Chen, M. Tippur, S. Wu, V . Kumar, E. Adelson, and P. Agrawal, “Visual dexterity: In-hand dexterous manipulation from depth,” arXiv preprint arXiv:2211.11744, 2022

    2022 arXiv

  4. [11]

    Dexpbt: Scaling up dexterous manipulation for hand-arm systems with population based training,

    A. Petrenko, A. Allshire, G. State, A. Handa, and V . Makoviychuk, “Dexpbt: Scaling up dexterous manipulation for hand-arm systems with population based training,” arXiv preprint arXiv:2305.12127 , 2023

    2023 arXiv

  5. [12]

    Eureka: Human- level reward design via coding large language models,

    Y . J. Ma, W. Liang, G. Wang, D.-A. Huang, O. Bastani, D. Ja- yaraman, Y . Zhu, L. Fan, and A. Anandkumar, “Eureka: Human- level reward design via coding large language models,” arXiv preprint arXiv:2310.12931, 2023

    2023 arXiv

  6. [13]

    Dis- tilled feature fields enable few-shot language-guided manipulation,

    W. Shen, G. Yang, A. Yu, J. Wong, L. P. Kaelbling, and P. Isola, “Dis- tilled feature fields enable few-shot language-guided manipulation,” in 7th Annual Conference on Robot Learning (CoRL) , 2023

    2023

  7. [14]

    Sam 2: Segment anything in images and videos,

    N. Ravi, V . Gabeur, Y .-T. Hu, R. Hu, C. Ryali, T. Ma, H. Khedr, R. R ¨adle, C. Rolland, L. Gustafson, E. Mintun, J. Pan, K. V . Alwala, N. Carion, C.-Y . Wu, R. Girshick, P. Doll ´ar, and C. Feichtenhofer, “Sam 2: Segment anything in images and videos,” arXiv preprint arXiv:...

    2024 arXiv

  8. [15]

    Emergence of maps in the memories of blind navigation agents,

    E. Wijmans, M. Savva, I. Essa, S. Lee, A. S. Morcos, and D. Batra, “Emergence of maps in the memories of blind navigation agents,” AI Matters, vol. 9, no. 2, 2023

    2023

  9. [16]

    Resilient legged local navigation: Learning to traverse with compromised perception end-to-end,

    C. Zhang, J. Jin, J. Frey, N. Rudin, M. E. Mattamala Aravena, C. Cadena, and M. Hutter, “Resilient legged local navigation: Learning to traverse with compromised perception end-to-end,” in 41st IEEE Conference on Robotics and Automation (ICRA 2024) , 2024

    2024

  10. [17]

    Learning-based robotic grasping: A review,

    Z. Xie, X. Liang, and C. Roberto, “Learning-based robotic grasping: A review,” Frontiers in Robotics and AI , vol. 10, 2023

    2023

  11. [18]

    Real-time grasp detection using con- volutional neural networks,

    J. Redmon and A. Angelova, “Real-time grasp detection using con- volutional neural networks,” in IEEE international conference on robotics and automation (ICRA) , 2015

    2015

  12. [19]

    End-to-end training of deep visuomotor policies,

    S. Levine, C. Finn, T. Darrell, and P. Abbeel, “End-to-end training of deep visuomotor policies,” The Journal of Machine Learning Research (JMLR), 2016

    2016

  13. [20]

    QT- Opt: Scalable deep reinforcement learning for vision-based robotic manipulation,

    D. Kalashnikov, A. Irpan, P. Pastor, J. Ibarz, A. Herzog, E. Jang, D. Quillen, E. Holly, M. Kalakrishnan, V . Vanhoucke et al. , “QT- Opt: Scalable deep reinforcement learning for vision-based robotic manipulation,” arXiv preprint arXiv:1806.10293 , 2018

    2018 arXiv

  14. [22]

    Learning by cheating,

    D. Chen, B. Zhou, V . Koltun, and P. Kr ¨ahenb¨uhl, “Learning by cheating,” in Conference on Robot Learning (CoRL) . PMLR, 2020

    2020

  15. [23]

    Rma: Rapid motor adaptation for legged robots,

    A. Kumar, Z. Fu, D. Pathak, and J. Malik, “Rma: Rapid motor adaptation for legged robots,” arXiv preprint arXiv:2107.04034, 2021

    2021 arXiv

  16. [24]

    Rapid locomotion via reinforcement learning,

    G. B. Margolis, G. Yang, K. Paigwar, T. Chen, and P. Agrawal, “Rapid locomotion via reinforcement learning,” The International Journal of Robotics Research (IJRR) , vol. 43, no. 4, 2024

    2024

  17. [25]

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

    A. Brohan, Y . Chebotar, C. Finn, K. Hausman, A. Herzog, D. Ho, J. Ibarz, A. Irpan, E. Jang, R. Julian et al., “Do as i can, not as i say: Grounding language in robotic affordances,” in Conference on Robot Learning (CoRL). PMLR, 2023

    2023

  18. [26]

    Rt-1: Robotics transformer for real-world control at scale,

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

    2022 arXiv

  19. [27]

    Proximal policy optimization algorithms,

    J. Schulman, F. Wolski, P. Dhariwal, A. Radford, and O. Klimov, “Proximal policy optimization algorithms,” arXiv preprint arXiv:1707.06347, 2017

    2017 arXiv

  20. [28]

    Long short-term memory,

    S. Hochreiter and J. Schmidhuber, “Long short-term memory,” Neural computation, vol. 9, no. 8, 1997

    1997

  21. [29]

    A reduction of imitation learning and structured prediction to no-regret online learning,

    S. Ross, G. J. Gordon, and D. Bagnell, “A reduction of imitation learning and structured prediction to no-regret online learning,” in 14th International Conference on Artificial Intelligence and Statistics (AISTATS), ser. JMLR Proceedings, vol. 15, 2011

    2011

  22. [30]

    Orbit: A unified simulation framework for interactive robot learning environments,

    M. Mittal, C. Yu, Q. Yu, J. Liu, N. Rudin, D. Hoeller, J. L. Yuan, R. Singh, Y . Guo, H. Mazhar, A. Mandlekar, B. Babich, G. State, M. Hutter, and A. Garg, “Orbit: A unified simulation framework for interactive robot learning environments,” IEEE Robotics and Automa- tion Lette...

    2023

  23. [31]

    The YCB object and model set: Towards common benchmarks for manipulation research,

    B. Calli, A. Singh, A. Walsman, S. Srinivasa, P. Abbeel, and A. M. Dollar, “The YCB object and model set: Towards common benchmarks for manipulation research,” in International Conference on Advanced Robotics (ICAR). IEEE, 2015

    2015

Pith tools

Reviewed August 16, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.