Spatial Reasoning via Deep Vision Models for Robotic Sequential Manipulation
Bibliographic record
Abstract
In this paper, we propose using deep neural architectures (i.e., vision transformers and ResNet) as heuristics for sequential decision-making in robotic manipulation problems. This formulation enables predicting the subset of objects that are relevant for completing a task. Such problems are often addressed by task and motion planning (TAMP) formulations combining symbolic reasoning and continuous motion planning. In essence, the action-object relationships are resolved for discrete, symbolic decisions that are used to solve manipulation motions (e.g., via nonlinear trajectory optimization). However, solving long-horizon tasks requires consideration of all possible action-object combinations which limits the scalability of TAMP approaches. To overcome this combinatorial complexity, we introduce a visual perception module integrated with a TAMP-solver. Given a task and an initial image of the scene, the learned model outputs the relevancy of objects to accomplish the task. By incorporating the predictions of the model into a TAMP formulation as a heuristic, the size of the search space is significantly reduced. Results show that our framework finds feasible solutions more efficiently when compared to a state-of-the-art TAMP solver.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".