Stable Object Placement Planning From Contact Point Robustness
Bibliographic record
Abstract
We introduce a planner designed to guide robot manipulators in stably placing objects within complex scenes. Our proposed method reverses the traditional approach to object placement: our planner selects contact points first and then determines a placement pose that solicits the selected points. This is instead of sampling poses, identifying contact points, and evaluating pose quality. Our algorithm facilitates stability-aware object placement planning, imposing no restrictions on object shape, convexity, or mass density homogeneity, while avoiding combinatorial computational complexity. Our proposed stability heuristic enables our planner to find a solution about 20 times faster when compared to the same algorithm not making use of the heuristic and eight times faster than a state-of-the-art method that uses the traditional sample-and-evaluate approach. The proposed planner is also more successful in finding stable placements than the five other benchmarked algorithms. Derived from first principles and validated in ten real robot experiments, our approach provides a general and scalable solution to the problem of rigid object placement planning.
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 | 0.000 |
| 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".