MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4414270450 · doi:10.1109/access.2025.3610811

Integrated Task and Motion Planning for Multi-Robot Manipulation in Industry and Service Automation

2025· article· en· W4414270450 on OpenAlexafffund
Ilknur Umay, William Melek, Barış Fi̇dan

Bibliographic record

VenueIEEE Access · 2025
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEngineering
TopicAdvanced Manufacturing and Logistics Optimization
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Waterloo
FundersMitacs
KeywordsMotion planningTask (project management)ReachabilityAutomationProbabilistic roadmapProbabilistic logicRobotDomain (mathematical analysis)Key (lock)

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

This paper introduces a fully integrated task and motion planning framework for robotic manipulation in dynamic and uncertain environments, particularly in multi-arm manipulator systems where reachability constraints change over time. Existing approaches, including probabilistic road maps and traditional task-and-motion planning (TAMP) frameworks, struggle with high-dimensionality, infeasible actions, and limited adaptability. To address these challenges, we propose a novel planning system that seamlessly integrates high-level symbolic task planning with low-level motion execution via a Dynamic Shared-Space Graph (D-SSG) and a Planning Domain Definition Language (PDDL)-based interface layer. The key contribution of this work is a real-time re-planning mechanism that dynamically adjusts to task failures, geometric constraints, and environmental variations, ensuring robust execution. Extensive simulations in ROS and Gazebo demonstrate a measurable reduction in planning time and a significant increase in task success rates under cluttered and uncertain conditions. These results establish the proposed framework as a promising solution for advancing multi-robot coordination in industrial and service automation applications.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Simulation or modeling · Consensus signal: Simulation or modeling
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.707
Threshold uncertainty score0.312

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.061
GPT teacher head0.332
Teacher spread0.272 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designSimulation or modeling
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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".

Quick stats

Citations0
Published2025
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueIEEE AccessSame topicAdvanced Manufacturing and Logistics OptimizationFrench-language works237,207