Skip to content
aiqbench takeAI Research

aiqbench analysis

This paper proposes separating a robot's symbolic task plan from its runtime perception, so that objects moved mid-task update where actions happen without forcing a full re-plan. The reported gains are large in one controlled setup (66.7pp vs. 2.2pp success under a 10 cm displacement), but they come from a fixed plan with moved objects, so readers should check how well the results transfer to broader scene changes. For AI readers, the practical point is that language-conditioned manipulation can be made more robust through structured plans and verification, without task-specific training.
Source coveringarXiv
What this isA model's reading of the article and related coverage, written for aiqbench. Not the publisher's words.

Sequential Planning via Anchored Robotic Keypoints

arXiv3 min read

arXiv:2606.30613v2 Announce Type: replace Abstract: Changes in a robot's observations do not automatically imply changes in the task it is solving, but language-conditioned manipulation systems often fail to separate the two. If an object moves, for example, the locations at which actions should be executed may change while the underlying manipulation plan remains valid. We introduce Sequential Planning via Anchored Robotic Keypoints (SPARK), which separates a task's symbolic plan from its execution-time perceptual grounding, and we experimentally isolate whether a fixed symbolic plan can survive substantial changes to the scene through execution-time re-grounding. SPARK represents the task as a symbolic behavior tree whose object references are grounded to current 3D observations during execution, allowing the robot to update where actions are performed while preserving the plan. Runtime verification then enables local recovery and renewed grounding, only resorting to a new plan if necessary. To test the separation between plan and perceptual-grounding, we perform a set of manipulation experiments with a fixed plan while moving objects during execution. Under a 10 cm displacement, verification and adaptation maintain 66.7pp task success, compared with 2.2pp when disabled, demonstrating the importance of the underlying principle. Without task-specific model training, SPARK also achieves 72.6pp mean success across six LIBERO-PRO settings and 68pp across eleven physical task-embodiment settings on three robot platforms. Together, these results show that robustness does not require re-planning the task and for an important class of failures, it is sufficient to preserve the plan and update the system's perception of a changing world. Code and videos can be found at https://cwru-aism.github.io/spark-page/

Abstract:Changes in a robot's observations do not automatically imply changes in the task it is solving, but language-conditioned manipulation systems often fail to separate the two. If an object moves, for example, the locations at which actions should be executed may change while the underlying manipulation plan remains valid. We introduce Sequential Planning via Anchored Robotic Keypoints (SPARK), which separates a task's symbolic plan from its execution-time perceptual grounding, and we experimentally isolate whether a fixed symbolic plan can survive substantial changes to the scene through execution-time re-grounding. SPARK represents the task as a symbolic behavior tree whose object references are grounded to current 3D observations during execution, allowing the robot to update where actions are performed while preserving the plan. Runtime verification then enables local recovery and renewed grounding, only resorting to a new plan if necessary. To test the separation between plan and perceptual-grounding, we perform a set of manipulation experiments with a fixed plan while moving objects during execution. Under a 10 cm displacement, verification and adaptation maintain 66.7pp task success, compared with 2.2pp when disabled, demonstrating the importance of the underlying principle. Without task-specific model training, SPARK also achieves 72.6pp mean success across six LIBERO-PRO settings and 68pp across eleven physical task-embodiment settings on three robot platforms. Together, these results show that robustness does not require re-planning the task and for an important class of failures, it is sufficient to preserve the plan and update the system's perception of a changing world. Code and videos can be found at this https URL

Robotics (cs.RO)

arXiv:2606.30613 [cs.RO]

(or arXiv:2606.30613v2 [cs.RO] for this version)

https://doi.org/10.48550/arXiv.2606.30613 Focus to learn more arXiv-issued DOI via DataCite

arXivLabs is a framework that allows collaborators to develop and share new arXiv features directly on our website.

Both individuals and organizations that work with arXivLabs have embraced and accepted our values of openness, community, excellence, and user data privacy. arXiv is committed to these values and only works with partners that adhere to them.

Have an idea for a project that will add value for arXiv's community? Learn more about arXivLabs.

Full text under the publisher's open licence · 347 words

Related coverage