Pith. sign in

REVIEW 4 major objections 4 minor 38 references

Open, Reproducible and Trustworthy Robot-Based Experiments with Virtual Labs and Digital-Twin-Based Execution Tracing

T0 review · 4 major / 4 minor · reviewed 2026-08-05 · deepseek-v4-flash

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

Pith's one-line read This paper claims that robot-conducted experiments can be made reproducible and trustworthy by logging sensor data together with the robot's beliefs, perception decisions, and reasoning traces, and by sharing these traces through a cloud-ba

desk verdict A clear architecture paper whose central reproducibility claim is asserted, not yet demonstrated; worth engaging if the authors share artifacts and a validation study. read the letter →

arxiv 2508.11406 v1 pith:VCRP6SYN submitted 2025-08-15 cs.RO cs.AI

Benjamin Alt , Mareike Picklum , Sorin Arion , Franklin Kenghagho Kenfack , Michael Beetz This is my paper · ORCID
classification cs.ROcs.AI
keywords reproducibleroboticssemanticexecutiontracesdigitaltwinvirtuallaboratoryNEEMepisodicmemoryrobotscientistscloudFAIRdata
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 argues that robots doing science can leave evidence not only of what happened, but of why it happened, by recording sensor data alongside belief states, perception choices, and reasoning. It presents a semantic execution tracing framework that unifies these layers, and a cloud platform, the Virtual Research Building (VRB), where containerized deterministic robot simulations can be shared, replayed, and validated. Execution episodes are stored as semantically annotated episodic memories with content-addressable immutability, and reproduction is judged by comparing semantic task structures rather than raw trajectories. If the approach works, researchers could rerun a robot experiment and inspect the internal decision-making that produced the outcome, across labs and over time.

What carries the argument

The load-bearing mechanism is the semantic execution trace: a unified, timestamped record that binds raw sensor data to symbolic belief states and semantic annotations, organized as Narrative-Enabled Episodic Memories (NEEMs). The trace is produced by three interacting layers—perception pipeline trees, imagination-enabled digital-twin simulation, and verification/audit—and is stored immutably in a distributed knowledge service. Reproducibility is assessed not by bit-identical motion but by semantic comparison of task execution trees, which lets the platform tolerate small numerical differences while still validating the experimental procedure.

What would settle it

Run a single VRB task execution twice in identical containers on two different CPU architectures without manual seed and timing management. If the semantic validation reports the episodes as equivalent while the raw sensor streams or belief-state trajectories diverge beyond a stated tolerance, the claim that traces provide ground-truth procedural evidence is falsified.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

The central claim is that reproducibility for robot-based experiments can be achieved by making the robot's epistemic state part of the experimental record. The tracing framework captures three layers: adaptive perception as annotated perception pipeline trees, imagination-enabled cognitive traces that compare simulated predictions against observed outcomes in a semantic digital twin, and context-adaptive verification and audit through a plugin-like verifier framework. These traces are grounded in the SOMA ontology and persisted as NEEMs in a distributed knowledge service with content-addressable storage. The VRB combines deterministic simulation backends, a deterministic motion planner and

Load-bearing premise

The platform's reproducibility guarantee assumes the simulated robot and environment faithfully stand in for the real experiment, and that nondeterminism from floating-point arithmetic, random algorithms, and timing is actively managed by researchers rather than automatically controlled by the platform.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • Researchers can replay a published robot experiment from shared containers and inspect the robot's beliefs, perception decisions, and verification steps, not just its final sensor logs.
  • Semantic validation via graph isomorphism makes reproduction robust to minor low-level numerical differences across physics simulators and hardware.
  • Domain-specific ontologies and SWRL rules let labs automate quality checks during execution, such as requiring minimum contact forces for a successful grasp.
  • Storing episodes in a queryable NEEM database enables scientists to test hypotheses as logical queries over many robot executions, supporting meta-analyses.
  • Content-addressed immutable storage makes trace tampering detectable, supporting audit and trust in shared experimental records.

Reading between the lines

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

  • If semantic execution traces become standard supplementary material for robotic experiments, peer review could shift from checking whether code exists to auditing the robot's perceptual confidence and failure-recovery reasoning directly.
  • The same trace-plus-validation stack could generalize to other embodied autonomous systems, such as drones or laboratory automation, where reproducing decision-making matters as much as reproducing outcomes.
  • Determinism is the fragile hinge: without automated detection of nondeterministic sources, cross-platform reproduction may pass semantic validation while hiding divergent low-level behavior; a stricter test would compare raw sensor streams across architectures.
  • Semantic equivalence of task trees may accept executions that differ in unmodeled aspects, so weighting semantic comparison with sensor-level divergence metrics would be a natural, testable strengthening.
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 / 4 minor

Summary. This manuscript describes two contributions toward reproducible robot experiments: a semantic execution tracing framework that integrates perception traces (RoboKudo), cognitive/prospection traces (NaivPhys4RP), and context-adaptive verification (RobAuditor) into a unified record; and the AICOR Virtual Research Building (VRB), a cloud platform built on containerized simulation, NEEMHub episodic memory, Multiverse-based backends, and ontology-based validation. The paper presents the architecture, components, and intended workflows, and concludes that a reproducibility pipeline has been implemented and demonstrated. The manuscript contains no experimental evaluation, benchmark, or runnable artifact; all claims about demonstrated reproducibility are unsupported by data.

Significance. If the described system works as claimed, the combination of semantic execution traces, deterministic containerized simulation, and shared episodic memory would be a practically useful infrastructure for reproducible and FAIR-aligned robotics research. A strength is the integration of several already-published open-source components (RoboKudo, PyCRAM, Giskard, Multiverse, NEEMHub), which lowers the barrier to adoption. However, the present manuscript provides no evidence that the integrated pipeline has been run end-to-end or that its reproducibility guarantees hold. The significance is therefore conditional on an evaluation that the paper does not currently provide.

major comments (4)
  1. [Abstract and §V] The central claim—'we have implemented and demonstrated a reproducibility pipeline'—is not supported by any experiment, benchmark, or artifact in the manuscript. The text is an architecture description: there are no repeated task runs, no cross-backend comparisons, no semantic trace similarity results, no runtime or failure data, and no protocol by which an independent researcher could verify the pipeline. Because the stated contribution is a demonstration, not merely a design, this is a load-bearing gap. Please add an evaluation section with concrete runs (e.g., N repetitions of a task in the VRB, semantic trace matching scores, comparison across at least two simulation backends) and make any associated code/data available.
  2. [§IV-C] The reproducibility guarantee rests on assertions that MuJoCo, Bullet, Gazebo, Giskard, and PyCRAM exhibit deterministic behavior. These assertions are stated without formal specification or empirical evidence. Determinism in physics engines and planners depends on solver settings, integration steps, threading, library versions, and data-dependent code paths. The manuscript should state precisely which components and configurations are deterministic, and validate that claim by repeated executions under identical and slightly perturbed conditions. Without such evidence, the claim that the VRB 'ensures reproducibility' is not established.
  3. [§IV-C and §IV-F1] The semantic validation mechanism is described as comparing 'structured, meaning-based representations' using graph isomorphism on task execution trees, but no algorithmic details or evaluation are given. It is unclear which graphs are compared, how semantic annotations are normalized, how raw/symbolic data are mapped into the graphs, and how tolerance for low-level numeric variation is set. Since this validation is what makes a reproduced execution scientifically meaningful, the method must be demonstrated with positive and negative controls: cases that should be judged equivalent and cases that should be judged different, with reported agreement rates.
  4. [§IV-F1] The limitations paragraph concedes that 'researchers must explicitly manage randomness sources' and 'must validate that their task executions are robust to small timing variations.' This places a substantial share of the reproducibility burden on the end user, yet the abstract and conclusion present the platform as automatically enabling reproducible science. The manuscript should state, with evidence, which parts of the pipeline are automated and which require user intervention, and should describe tooling that automatically flags nondeterminism (e.g., trace comparison that reports divergences) rather than merely advising users to validate.
minor comments (4)
  1. [§V] Typo in the final paragraph: 'This we believe addresses addresses a critical gap' should read 'addresses a critical gap.'
  2. [References] References [22] and [24] refer to the same ICRA 2024 paper by Mania et al.; the duplicate should be removed and in-text citations adjusted.
  3. [Abstract and Introduction] The wording 'ensuring that automated experimentation is transparent and replicable' and 'the first cloud platform' overstate what is shown. Softer modality ('supports', 'contributes') would be more accurate until the system is evaluated and a comparative survey of cloud robotics platforms is provided.
  4. [§IV-B] The claim that cryptographic hashing of NEEM documents 'guarantees that execution traces are immutable and verifiable' should be qualified: hashing ensures tamper evidence only if the hash is anchored and the full document is retrieved; the mechanism is not described in enough detail for a reader to assess the guarantee.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 0.0 of 10

No circular derivation: architecture/infrastructure paper with self-citations; central 'demonstrated' claim is an evidence gap, not a circular reduction.

full rationale

This paper does not contain a derivation chain, fitted parameters, or quantitative predictions that could reduce to their inputs by construction. It is an integration/architecture description: the semantic execution tracing framework and the VRB combine previously published components (RoboKudo, NaivPhys4RP, RobAuditor, NEEMHub, Multiverse, Giskard, PyCRAM) and describe their intended behavior. The main load-bearing assertion—that a reproducibility pipeline was 'implemented and demonstrated' (Section V)—is not supported by experimental results in the manuscript, but that is an unsupported empirical claim, not a circular one. The paper's own Section IV-F1 explicitly concedes that floating-point arithmetic, non-deterministic algorithms, and real-time constraints can break cross-platform reproducibility and that researchers 'must validate that their task executions are robust to small timing variations'; thus the determinism assumptions are stated as assumptions rather than smuggled in as derived results. The heavy self-citation is present, but it is used to point to specific software components and prior system papers, not to justify the central claim by authority alone. No equation, definition, or validation criterion in the paper is shown to be equivalent to its own inputs, so no specific circular step can be exhibited. The appropriate finding is no significant circularity; the concern flagged by the skeptic belongs to evidence quality and experimental validation, not to circular reasoning.

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

No free parameters are fitted. The axioms are the standard domain assumptions behind the reproducibility claims, all of which the paper itself flags as imperfect. No new physical or conceptual entities are introduced; the VRB is a software platform, not a postulated entity.

assumptions (3)
  • domain assumption Deterministic simulation backends (MuJoCo, Bullet, Gazebo) and deterministic planning components yield reproducible execution traces.
    This is the core reproducibility premise, repeated in Section IV-C; the paper admits limitations in Section IV-F1 that undermine this assumption without a complete solution.
  • domain assumption Semantically annotated NEEM episodes provide ground-truth evidence of procedural rigor.
    Stated in Section I ('ground-truth evidence of procedural rigor'); the belief states used as ground truth come from the robot's own perception and reasoning, with no independent verification.
  • standard math IEEE 754 floating-point arithmetic provides sufficient cross-platform consistency for reproducible simulation.
    This is invoked in Section IV-F1 but the paper itself notes that CPU architecture and compiler optimizations can cause platform-dependent behavior, so the assumption is weak.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Open, Reproducible and Trustworthy Robot-Based Experiments with Virtual Labs and Digital-Twin-Based Execution Tracing." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/VCRP6SYN

@misc{pith2026250811406,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Open, Reproducible and Trustworthy Robot-Based Experiments with Virtual Labs and Digital-Twin-Based Execution Tracing},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/VCRP6SYN}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2508.11406}
}
read the original abstract

We envision a future in which autonomous robots conduct scientific experiments in ways that are not only precise and repeatable, but also open, trustworthy, and transparent. To realize this vision, we present two key contributions: a semantic execution tracing framework that logs sensor data together with semantically annotated robot belief states, ensuring that automated experimentation is transparent and replicable; and the AICOR Virtual Research Building (VRB), a cloud-based platform for sharing, replicating, and validating robot task executions at scale. Together, these tools enable reproducible, robot-driven science by integrating deterministic execution, semantic memory, and open knowledge representation, laying the foundation for autonomous systems to participate in scientific discovery.

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

38 extracted references · 36 canonical work pages

  1. [1]

    R. B. Bausell, The Problem with Science: The Reproducibility Crisis and What to Do About It . Oxford University Press, Jan. 2021

    work page 2021

  2. [2]

    Replicability Crisis and Scientific Reforms: Over- looked Issues and Unmet Challenges,

    M. Andreoletti, “Replicability Crisis and Scientific Reforms: Over- looked Issues and Unmet Challenges,” International Studies in the Philosophy of Science , vol. 33, no. 3, pp. 135–151, Jul. 2020

    work page 2020

  3. [3]

    Open Science by Design: Realizing a Vision for 21st Century Research,

    National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine, “Open Science by Design: Realizing a Vision for 21st Century Research,” National Academies Press, Tech. Rep., Aug. 2018

    work page 2018

  4. [4]

    To- wards robot scientists for autonomous scientific discovery,

    A. Sparkes, W. Aubrey, E. Byrne, A. Clare, M. N. Khan, M. Liakata, M. Markham, J. Rowland, L. N. Soldatova, K. E. Whelan et al., “To- wards robot scientists for autonomous scientific discovery,” Automated experimentation, vol. 2, no. 1, p. 1, 2010

    work page 2010

  5. [5]

    Cheaper faster drug development validated by the repositioning of drugs against neglected tropical diseases,

    K. Williams, E. Bilsland, A. Sparkes, W. Aubrey, M. Young, L. N. Soldatova, K. De Grave, J. Ramon, M. De Clare, W. Sirawaraporn et al., “Cheaper faster drug development validated by the repositioning of drugs against neglected tropical diseases,” Journal of the Royal society Interface, vol. 12, no. 104, p. 20141289, 2015

    work page 2015

  6. [6]

    A curious formulation robot enables the discovery of a novel protocell behavior,

    J. Grizou, L. J. Points, A. Sharma, and L. Cronin, “A curious formulation robot enables the discovery of a novel protocell behavior,” Science advances, vol. 6, no. 5, p. eaay4237, 2020

    work page 2020

  7. [7]

    Toward “on-demand

    J. Li, Y . Tu, R. Liu, Y . Lu, and X. Zhu, “Toward “on-demand” materials synthesis and scientific discovery through intelligent robots,” Advanced Science, vol. 7, no. 7, p. 1901957, 2020

    work page 2020

  8. [8]

    Scaling Laws in Scientific Discovery with AI and Robot Scientists

    P. Zhang, H. Zhang, H. Xu, R. Xu, Z. Wang, C. Wang, A. Garg, Z. Li, A. Ajoudani, and X. Liu, “Scaling laws in scientific discovery with ai and robot scientists,” arXiv preprint arXiv:2503.22444 , 2025

    work page Pith review arXiv 2025

Show all 38 references
  1. [9]

    Artificial intelligence to win the nobel prize and beyond: Creating the engine for scientific discovery,

    H. Kitano, “Artificial intelligence to win the nobel prize and beyond: Creating the engine for scientific discovery,” AI magazine , vol. 37, no. 1, pp. 39–49, 2016

    2016

  2. [10]

    Explainable robotic plan execution monitoring under partial observability,

    G. Coruhlu, E. Erdem, and V . Patoglu, “Explainable robotic plan execution monitoring under partial observability,” IEEE Transactions on Robotics, vol. 38, no. 4, pp. 2495–2515, 2022

    2022

  3. [11]

    Robot manipulation in every- day activities with the cram 2.0 cognitive architecture and generalized action plans,

    M. Beetz, G. Kazhoyan, and D. Vernon, “Robot manipulation in every- day activities with the cram 2.0 cognitive architecture and generalized action plans,” Cognitive Systems Research , p. 101375, 2025

    2025

  4. [12]

    Cram—a cognitive robot abstract machine for everyday manipulation in human environments,

    M. Beetz, L. M ¨osenlechner, and M. Tenorth, “Cram—a cognitive robot abstract machine for everyday manipulation in human environments,” in 2010 IEEE/RSJ international conference on intelligent robots and systems. IEEE, 2010, pp. 1012–1017

    2010

  5. [13]

    Knowrob 2.0—a 2nd generation knowledge processing framework for cognition-enabled robotic agents,

    M. Beetz, D. Beßler, A. Haidu, M. Pomarlan, A. K. Bozcuo ˘glu, and G. Bartels, “Knowrob 2.0—a 2nd generation knowledge processing framework for cognition-enabled robotic agents,” in 2018 IEEE inter- national conference on robotics and automation (ICRA). IEEE, 2018, pp. 512–519

    2018

  6. [14]

    To- wards autonomous verification: Integrating cognitive AI and semantic digital twins in medical robotics,

    P. Mania, M. Neumann, F. Kenghagho Kenfack, and M. Beetz, “To- wards autonomous verification: Integrating cognitive AI and semantic digital twins in medical robotics,” in 2025 International Conference on Robotics and Automation (ICRA) . IEEE, 2025

    2025

  7. [15]

    Containers for computa- tional reproducibility,

    D. Moreau, K. Wiebels, and C. Boettiger, “Containers for computa- tional reproducibility,” Nature Reviews Methods Primers, vol. 3, no. 1, p. 50, 2023

    2023

  8. [16]

    Reproducible research environments with repo2docker,

    J. Forde, T. Head, C. Holdgraf, Y . Panda, G. Nalvarete, B. Ragan- Kelley, and E. Sundell, “Reproducible research environments with repo2docker,” ICML 2018 RML , 2018

    2018

  9. [17]

    Binder 2.0 - reproducible, interactive, sharable environments for science at scale,

    P. Jupyter, M. Bussonnier, J. Forde, J. Freeman, B. Granger, T. Head, C. Holdgraf, K. Kelley, G. Nalvarte, A. Osheroff, M. Pacer, Y . Panda, F. Perez, B. Ragan-Kelley, and C. Willing, “Binder 2.0 - reproducible, interactive, sharable environments for science at scale,” 01 2018...

    2018

  10. [18]

    Fair data enabling new horizons for materials research,

    M. Scheffler, M. Aeschlimann, M. Albrecht, T. Bereau, H.-J. Bungartz, C. Felser, M. Greiner, A. Groß, C. T. Koch, K. Kremer et al. , “Fair data enabling new horizons for materials research,” Nature, vol. 604, no. 7907, pp. 635–642, 2022

    2022

  11. [19]

    Livedocs: Crafting interactive development environments from research findings,

    P. C. Klein, C. Lehrenfeld, M. Osterhoff, and M. Uecker, “Livedocs: Crafting interactive development environments from research findings,” 2024. [Online]. Available: https://arxiv.org/abs/ 2402.09475

    2024 arXiv

  12. [20]

    Cloud-operated open literate educational resources: The case of the mybinder,

    A. Corbi, D. Burgos, and A. M. P ´erez, “Cloud-operated open literate educational resources: The case of the mybinder,” IEEE Transactions on Learning Technologies, vol. 17, pp. 893–902, 2024

    2024

  13. [21]

    Rapyuta: A cloud robotics platform,

    G. Mohanarajah, D. Hunziker, R. D’Andrea, and M. Waibel, “Rapyuta: A cloud robotics platform,” IEEE Transactions on Automation Science and Engineering, vol. 12, no. 2, pp. 481–493, 2015

    2015

  14. [22]

    An open and flexible robot perception framework for mobile manipulation tasks,

    P. Mania, S. Stelter, G. Kazhoyan, and M. Beetz, “An open and flexible robot perception framework for mobile manipulation tasks,” in 2024 International Conference on Robotics and Automation (ICRA). IEEE, 2024

    2024

  15. [23]

    Perception through cognitive emulation :

    F. Kenghagho K., M. Neumann, P. Mania, and M. Beetz, “Perception through cognitive emulation : ”a second iteration of naivphys4rp for learningless and safe recognition and 6d-pose estimation of (transpar- ent) objects”,” in 2024 IEEE International Conference on Robotics and Au...

    2024

  16. [24]

    An open and flexible robot perception framework for mobile manipulation tasks,

    P. Mania, S. Stelter, G. Kazhoyan, and M. Beetz, “An open and flexible robot perception framework for mobile manipulation tasks,” in 2024 IEEE International Conference on Robotics and Automation (ICRA) . IEEE, 2024, pp. 17 445–17 451

    2024

  17. [25]

    Foundations of the socio-physical model of activities (soma) for autonomous robotic agents 1,

    D. Beßler, R. Porzel, M. Pomarlan, A. Vyas, S. H ¨offner, M. Beetz, R. Malaka, and J. Bateman, “Foundations of the socio-physical model of activities (soma) for autonomous robotic agents 1,” in Formal ontology in information systems . IOS Press, 2021, pp. 159–174

    2021

  18. [26]

    Robauditor — a methodology for scalable and context-adaptive task execution verification in safety-critical robotic processes,

    F. Kenghagho Kenfack, J.-B. Weibel, S. Aloui, M. Prada, M. Neumann, C. Dubois, M. Raveendran, Nirmal Grossard, A. Remazeilles, M. Vincze, and M. Beetz, “Robauditor — a methodology for scalable and context-adaptive task execution verification in safety-critical robotic processe...

    2025

  19. [27]

    Robotizing the sterility testing process: scientific challenges for bringing agile robots into the laboratory,

    A. Remazeilles, I. Rasines, A. Fernandez, M. Neumann, M. Beetz, M. Grossard, C. Hellingman, C.-H. Coulon, T. Cichon, F. Gosselin et al. , “Robotizing the sterility testing process: scientific challenges for bringing agile robots into the laboratory,” in Iberian Robotics confer...

    2022

  20. [28]

    Multiverse,

    G. Nguyen and M. Beetz, “Multiverse,” December 2024. [Online]. Available: https://github.com/Multiverse-Framework/Multiverse

    2024

  21. [29]

    Pycram: A python framework for cognition-enbabled robtics

    J. Dech, “Pycram: A python framework for cognition-enbabled robtics.” [Online]. Available: https://github.com/cram2/pycram

  22. [30]

    Mujoco: A physics engine for model-based control,

    E. Todorov, T. Erez, and Y . Tassa, “Mujoco: A physics engine for model-based control,” in 2012 IEEE/RSJ international conference on intelligent robots and systems . IEEE, 2012, pp. 5026–5033

    2012

  23. [31]

    Bullet physics simulation,

    E. Coumans, “Bullet physics simulation,” in ACM SIGGRAPH 2015 Courses, 2015, p. 1

    2015

  24. [32]

    Design and use paradigms for gazebo, an open-source multi-robot simulator,

    N. Koenig and A. Howard, “Design and use paradigms for gazebo, an open-source multi-robot simulator,” in 2004 IEEE/RSJ international conference on intelligent robots and systems (IROS)(IEEE Cat. No. 04CH37566), vol. 3. Ieee, 2004, pp. 2149–2154

    2004

  25. [33]

    Trans- lating universal scene descriptions into knowledge graphs for robotic environment,

    G. Nguyen, D. Beßler, S. Stelter, M. Pomarlan, and M. Beetz, “Trans- lating universal scene descriptions into knowledge graphs for robotic environment,” in 2024 IEEE International Conference on Robotics and Automation (ICRA). IEEE, 2024, pp. 9389–9395

    2024

  26. [34]

    Neem hand- book,

    M. Beetz, D. Beßler, S. Koralewski, M. Pomarlan, A. Vyas, A. Hawkin, K. Dhanabalachandran, and S. Jongebloed, “Neem hand- book,” online], Institute for Artificial Intelligence (IAI), University of Bremen, 2020

    2020

  27. [35]

    An open-source motion planning framework for mobile manipulators using constraint-based task space control with linear mpc,

    S. Stelter, G. Bartels, and M. Beetz, “An open-source motion planning framework for mobile manipulators using constraint-based task space control with linear mpc,” in 2022 IEEE/RSJ International Conference on Intelligent Robots and Systems (IROS) , 2022, pp. 1671–1678

    2022

  28. [36]

    K ¨umpel, Actionable Knowledge Graphs How Daily Activity Appli- cations Can Benefit From Embodied Web Knowledge

    M. K ¨umpel, Actionable Knowledge Graphs How Daily Activity Appli- cations Can Benefit From Embodied Web Knowledge . Universitaet Bremen (Germany), 2024

    2024

  29. [37]

    Robotic shopping assistance for everyone: Dynamic query generation on a semantic digital twin as a basis for autonomous shopping assistance,

    M. K ¨umpel, J. Dech, A. Hawkin, and M. Beetz, “Robotic shopping assistance for everyone: Dynamic query generation on a semantic digital twin as a basis for autonomous shopping assistance,” in Proceedings of the 2023 International Conference on Autonomous Agents and Multiagent...

    2023

  30. [38]

    Cutting events: towards autonomous plan adaption by robotic agents through image-schematic event seg- mentation,

    K. Dhanabalachandran, V . Hassouna, M. M. Hedblom, M. K ¨uempel, N. Leusmann, and M. Beetz, “Cutting events: towards autonomous plan adaption by robotic agents through image-schematic event seg- mentation,” in Proceedings of the 11th Knowledge Capture Confer- ence, 2021, pp. 25–32

    2021

Pith tools

Reviewed August 5, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.