The DOI matches its Crossref record; 34 of the 34 references it cites were found in a registry or an index; none of the 4 sources its claims cite is checked for support yet.
Learning from Demonstrations Through the Use of Non-rigid Registration
Overview
AI snapshot
Written from the paper’s full text.
TL;DR
The paper presents trajectory transfer, a method that adapts a demonstrated end-effector trajectory to a new scene by non-rigidly registering the training point cloud to the test point cloud and warping the trajectory accordingly. It validates the approach mainly by enabling a PR2 robot to tie five knot types from demonstrations, and also shows qualitative results on other manipulation tasks.
Key findings
- With one demonstration per knot, success under random rope perturbations depended on perturbation size: at \(d_{pert}=3\) cm, success was 5/5 for overhand, figure-eight, and square, 3/5 for double-overhand, and 1/5 for clove hitch; at \(d_{pert}=10\) cm, success was 4/5, 1/5, 3/5, 3/5, and 0/5 respectively.
- The PR2 autonomously tied five knot types: overhand, figure-eight, double-overhand, square knot, and clove hitch around a pole.
- For the overhand knot, the authors collected 148 trajectory segments, including 36 demonstrations of the standard 3-step sequence and 40 additional segments starting from failure states; the nearest-neighbor policy was qualitatively able to tie knots from a larger set of initial configurations and recover from failure states.
- The same algorithm and code were applied to folding a T-shirt, picking up a plate with a two-arm motion, and opening a bottle, with qualitative success reported.
Methods
- Trajectory transfer: register the training scene point cloud to the test scene point cloud using a modified TPS-RPM non-rigid registration algorithm, then apply the resulting transformation \(f\) to demonstrated end-effector positions and use the Jacobian \(Jf(p)\) to transform orientations.
- Convert the transferred end-effector trajectory into a joint trajectory by solving an optimization problem that trades off smoothness, end-effector pose error, collision avoidance, and joint limits, using the trajectory optimization method from Schulman et al. and initializing from the demonstration.
- For multi-step tasks, repeatedly choose the nearest demonstration by registration cost, apply trajectory transfer, and execute the resulting trajectory; experiments used a PR2 with kinesthetic teaching and RGBD point clouds, with rope points extracted by color filtering.
Limitations
- The paper states that the cost-function invariance assumption in Equation (7) is strong and can fail even for rigid transformations, for example when absolute end-effector orientation matters.
- The paper states that dynamics covariance holds only approximately in knot tying and was checked qualitatively by comparing final rope states at training and test time.
- The paper reports only qualitative results for the many-demonstration overhand knot policy and for the other manipulation tasks; no quantitative success rates are given for those settings. The single-demonstration results also show low success for clove hitch and for larger perturbations.
Model-written summary. Check it against the paper before relying on it.
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
Statistics
Verification
Claims the paper makes
13 Own result · 12 Own interpretation · 3 No full text of the sources · 1 No basis given
A result the paper reports from its own data — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“As our main experimental validation, we enable a PR2 robot to autonomously tie five different types of knots in rope.”
- Also stated in: § 5 Experiments with rope · p. 9 · plain
“We enabled the PR2 to autonomously tie five different types of knot: overhand, figure-eight, double-overhand, square knot, and clove hitch (around a pole).”
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
- Also stated in: § 5 Experiments with rope · p. 9 · plain
The paper states this without a source or data behind it here, so there is nothing to check it against. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“This policy recovers from failures, assuming that the demonstrator has provided examples of the failure states along with the corrective motions that get out of them.”
- Also stated in: § 4 Generalizing from many examples: nearest neighbor method · p. 9 · plain
“This policy enables the robot to recover from errors, provided that the demonstrator has provided a demonstration starting from the failure state.”
plainconditional- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: unclear — It is unclear why the paper says it holds.
- The authors state this as an assumption: The demonstrator has provided examples of the failure states along with the corrective motions that get out of them.
- Also stated in: § 4 Generalizing from many examples: nearest neighbor method · p. 9 · plain
A result the paper reports from its own data — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“and it is also able to choose corrective movements to recover from the failure states.”
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
A result the paper reports from its own data — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“We found that the regularization r ( B ) was necessary because sometimes the transformation is underdetermined in certain dimensions.”
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
A result the paper reports from its own data — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“Bottom row, left: demonstration and autonomous execution of plate pickup. Round plate from training was registered to rectangular plate at test time.”
plaindirectSingle case- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
A result the paper reports from its own data — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“we find that the nearest-neighbor policy from Section 4 is able to successfully tie knots from a much larger set of initial configurations than was possible with a single demonstration”
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
A result the paper reports from its own data — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“Two of the common failure modes were (1) the rope would end up in a previously unseen crossing state, often due to a small difference in its position; (2) the robot would grab the wrong piece of rope, or two pieces instead of one.”
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: unclear — It is unclear whether the paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
A result the paper reports from its own data — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“In our experiments, this initialization strategy led to finding good locally-optimal trajectories.”
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
A result the paper reports from its own data — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“executing shirt folding procedure autonomously on small T-shirt, based on single demonstration on large T-shirt.”
plaindirectSingle case- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
A result the paper reports from its own data — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“As expected, the failure rate increases at higher d pert, where the test situation is further away from the training situation.”
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
- It may state two separate claims as one. 5
- The quote only partly states this claim. 1
- Probably not a substantial claim. 4
A result the paper reports from its own data — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“Two of the common failure modes were (1) the rope would end up in a previously unseen crossing state, often due to a small difference in its position; (2) the robot would grab the wrong piece of rope, or two pieces instead of one.”
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: unclear — It is unclear whether the paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
A result the paper reports from its own data — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“Bottom row, right: demonstration and autonomous execution of bottle opening. The bottle used at test time had a different size and shape from the one used for training.”
plaindirectSingle case- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
The quote only partly states this claim.
A result the paper reports from its own data — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“Assumption 4 holds approximately in this domain; we have checked this qualitatively by comparing the final states of the rope at training and test time.”
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
A result the paper reports from its own data — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“We found that this approach was not sufficient because there is often no continuous and collision-free trajectory that achieves the desired end-effector trajectory, so we need to compromise.”
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“With this quadratic regularization term, the optimization problem still can be solved analytically as a least squares problem.”
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“That said, one can imagine situations where Equation (7) does not hold, even for a rigid transformation f -for example, when absolute orientation of the robot's end-effector matters.”
hedged- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
In the paper
“As shown in [18], Equation (1) can be analytically solved efficiently; details are provided in Appendix 9.1.”
What the sources say
- Not checked — no full text of the sourcecites [18] Wahba, G.: Spline models for observational data, Society for Industrial Mathematics, vol. 59 (1990) source
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“The above results suggest that when starting from a state that is very close to a demonstration, the success rate is high, at least for the easier knots.”
hedgedcorrelational- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“In the knot tying domain, the goal set is defined topologically, and a transformation f will preserve it, provided that it is a homeomorphism (i.e., a continuous function whose inverse is continuous), justifying assumption 3.”
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim.
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“In contrast, our approach operates directly on point clouds-the outputs of our sensor hardware-so it is suitable for this task, and it can be applied to a new task without developing a new vision system.”
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
The authors state this as an assumption.
The demonstrator has provided examples of the failure states along with the corrective motions that get out of them.
“This policy recovers from failures, assuming that the demonstrator has provided examples of the failure states along with the corrective motions that get out of them.”
The authors state this as an assumption.
There exists a class of smooth transformations f such that L(STATE, TRAJ) = L(f(STATE), f(TRAJ)).
“Our trajectory transfer procedure can be justified by assuming that there is a class of smooth transformations f with the following property:”
The authors state this as an assumption.
The dynamics of the system are covariant under the transformation f (Equation 10 holds).
“4. Equation (10) holds, i.e., the dynamics are covariant under f .”
The authors state this as an assumption.
The goal set is preserved by f (f(G)=G).
“3. f ( G ) = G , i.e., the goal set is preserved by f”
The authors state this as an assumption.
f transforms STATE_train into STATE_test (f(STATE_train)=STATE_test).
“1. f ( STATE t train ) = STATE t test , i.e., f transforms STATE train into STATEtest.”
The authors state this as an assumption.
The demonstration ends up in the goal state (STATE_{t+1}^{train} ∈ G).
“2. STATE t + 1 train ∈ G , i.e., the demonstration ends up in the goal state.”
The paper relies on this without support.
For each segment, the end-effector trajectory depends on the geometry of the rope in some way that must be inferred by the algorithm.
“For each of these segments, the end-effector trajectory ought to depend on the geometry of the rope in some way that must be inferred by the algorithm.”
The paper relies on this without support.
The procedure for tying a given type of knot can be broken into several segments based on grab and release events.
“The procedure for tying a given type of knot can be broken into several segments based on grab and release events.”
Citations
Cites
ROS: an open-source Robot Operating System
Quigley, M. (2009) · Proceedings - IEEE International Conference on Robotics and Automation/Proceedings · Cited by 8,729
Spline Models for Observational Data
Wahba, G. (1990) · doi:10.2307/2938687 · Cited by 7,398
Shape matching and object recognition using shape contexts
Belongie, S., Malik, J., & Puzicha, J. (2002) · IEEE Transactions on Pattern Analysis and Machine Intelligence · doi:10.1109/34.993558 · Cited by 6,306
Bradski, G. R. (2000) · Medical Entomology and Zoology · Cited by 5,994
3D is here: Point Cloud Library (PCL)
Rusu, R., & Cousins, S. (2011) · IEEE International Conference on Robotics and Automation · doi:10.1109/icra.2011.5980567 · Cited by 5,513
Spline Models for Observational Data.
Müller, H., & Wahba, G. (1991) · Journal of the American Statistical Association · doi:10.2307/2290434 · Cited by 4,992
Spline Models for Observational Data
Wahba, G. (1990) · doi:10.1137/1.9781611970128 · Cited by 4,184
Abraham, R., & Young, H. D. (1968) · American Journal of Physics · doi:10.1119/1.1974504 · Cited by 3,129
Image quilting for texture synthesis and transfer
Efros, A. A., & Freeman, W. T. (2001) · ACM SIGGRAPH Conference (SIGGRAPH) · doi:10.1145/383259.383296 · Cited by 2,435
2008 IEEE/RSJ International Conference on Intelligent Robots and Systems
(2008) · doi:10.1109/iros13647.2008 · Cited by 2,203
Hill, D. L. G., Batchelor, P. G., Holden, M., & Hawkes, D. J. (2001) · Physics in Medicine and Biology · doi:10.1088/0031-9155/46/3/201 · Cited by 2,093
Reconstruction and representation of 3D objects with radial basis functions
Carr, J. C., Beatson, R. K., Cherrie, J. B., Mitchell, T. J., Fright, W. R., McCallum, B. C., & Evans, T. R. (2001) · Proceedings of the 28th annual conference on Computer graphics and interactive techniques · doi:10.1145/383259.383266 · Cited by 1,852 · cited 1×
“, [17]) that thin plate splines extrapolate well on spatial data; extrapolation is”
BackgroundA new point matching algorithm for non-rigid registration
Chui, H., & Rangarajan, A. (2003) · Computer Vision and Image Understanding · doi:10.1016/s1077-3142(03)00009-2 · Cited by 1,560
On Learning, Representing, and Generalizing a Task in a Humanoid Robot
Calinon, S., Guenter, F., & Billard, A. (2007) · IEEE Transactions on Systems, Man and Cybernetics, Part B (Cybernetics) · doi:10.1109/tsmcb.2006.886952 · Cited by 1,090
Robot Programming by Demonstration
Billard, A., Calinon, S., Dillmann, R., & Schaal, S. (2008) · Springer eBooks · doi:10.1007/978-3-540-30301-5_60 · Cited by 1,078
Ensemble of exemplar-SVMs for object detection and beyond
Malisiewicz, T., Gupta, A., & Efros, A. A. (2011) · 2011 International Conference on Computer Vision · doi:10.1109/iccv.2011.6126229 · Cited by 865
A new algorithm for non-rigid point matching
Chui, H., & Rangarajan, A. (2002) · IEEE Computer Society Conference on Computer Vision and Pattern Recognition/Proceedings - IEEE Computer Society Conference on Computer Vision and Pattern Recognition/Proceedings · doi:10.1109/cvpr.2000.854733 · Cited by 443
Finding Locally Optimal, Collision-Free Trajectories with Sequential Convex Optimization
Schulman, J., Ho, J., Lee, A., Awwal, I., Bradlow, H., & Abbeel, P. (2013) · Robotics: Science and Systems · doi:10.15607/rss.2013.ix.031 · Cited by 442
Self-citationOpenRAVE: A Planning Architecture for Autonomous Robotics
Diankov, R., & Kuffner, J. (2008) · Cited by 381
Nonparametric scene parsing: Label transfer via dense scene alignment
Liu, C., Yuen, J., & Torralba, A. B. (2009) · IEEE Computer Society Conference on Computer Vision and Pattern Recognition/Proceedings - IEEE Computer Society Conference on Computer Vision and Pattern Recognition/Proceedings · doi:10.1109/cvpr.2009.5206536 · Cited by 313
International Symposium on Robotics Research
(2013) · The International Journal of Robotics Research · doi:10.1177/0278364913487641 · Cited by 259
Example-Based 3D Scan Completion
Pauly, M. V., Mitra, N. J., Giesen, J., Groß, M. H., & Guibas, L. (2005) · doi:10.2312/sgp/sgp05/023-032 · Cited by 233
Knotting/unknotting manipulation of deformable linear objects
Wakamatsu, H., Arai, E., & Hirai, S. (2006) · The International Journal of Robotics Research · doi:10.1177/0278364906064819 · Cited by 132
Motion Planning for Robotic Manipulation of Deformable Linear Objects
Saha, M., Isto, P., & Latombe, J. (2008) · Springer eBooks · doi:10.1007/978-3-540-77457-0_3 · Cited by 101
Hand eye coordination in rope handling
INABA, M., & INOUE, H. (1985) · Journal of the Robotics Society of Japan · doi:10.7210/jrsj.3.538 · Cited by 95
Demonstration-Guided Motion Planning
Gu, Y., & Alterovitz, R. (2016) · Springer tracts in advanced robotics · doi:10.1007/978-3-319-29363-9_17 · Cited by 84
Motion planning for robotic manipulation of deformable linear objects
Saha, M., & Isto, P. (2006) · Proceedings - IEEE International Conference on Robotics and Automation/Proceedings · doi:10.1109/robot.2006.1642074 · Cited by 81
Hand-eye coordination in rope handling
Inoue, H. (1984) · Medical Entomology and Zoology · Cited by 77
Calinon, S., D'halluin, F., Caldwell, D. G., & Billard, A. G. (2009) · 2009 9th IEEE-RAS International Conference on Humanoid Robots · doi:10.1109/ichr.2009.5379592 · Cited by 73
(2003) · doi:10.1109/robot.2003.1242193 · Cited by 73
One-handed knotting of a flexible rope with a high-speed multifingered hand having tactile sensors
Yamakawa, Y., Namiki, A., Ishikawa, M., & Shimojo, M. (2007) · IEEE/RSJ International Conference on Intelligent Robots and Systems (IROS) · doi:10.1109/iros.2007.4399379 · Cited by 61
Bell, M. (2010) · doi:10.1349/ddlp.367 · Cited by 35
Nonparametric scene parsing: Label transfer via dense scene alignment
Liu, C., Yuen, J., & Torralba, A. B. (2009) · IEEE Computer Society Conference on Computer Vision and Pattern Recognition/Proceedings - IEEE Computer Society Conference on Computer Vision and Pattern Recognition/Proceedings · doi:10.1109/cvprw.2009.5206536 · Cited by 9
Knotting/raveling manipulation of linear objects
Wakamatsu, H., TSUMAYA, A., SHIRASE, K., Arai, E., & Hirai, S. (2004) · IEEE/RSJ International Conference on Intelligent Robots and Systems (IROS) · doi:10.1109/iros.2003.1249642 · Cited by 5
Cited by
Sorted by citations
An Introduction to Deep Reinforcement Learning
François-Lavet, V., Henderson, P., Islam, R., Bellemare, M. G., & Pineau, J. (2018) · Foundations and Trends® in Machine Learning · doi:10.1561/2200000071 · Cited by 1,512
“Thus, transfer learning may also be of crucial importance (Schulman et al., 2016; Liu et al., 2017).”
Recent Advances in Robot Learning from Demonstration
Ravichandar, H., Polydoros, A. S., Chernova, S., & Billard, A. (2020) · Annu. Rev. Control. Robotics Auton. Syst. · doi:10.1146/annurev-control-100819-063206 · Cited by 947
Deep Imitation Learning for Complex Manipulation Tasks from Virtual Reality Teleoperation
Zhang, T., McCarthy, Z., Jow, O., Lee, D., Chen, X., Goldberg, K., & Abbeel, P. (2018) · 2018 IEEE International Conference on Robotics and Automation (ICRA) · doi:10.1109/icra.2018.8461249 · Cited by 609
“It has been applied successfully to a wide range of domains in robotics, for example to autonomous driving [4], [5], [6], autonomous helicopter flight [7], gesturing [8], and manipulation [9], [10].”
Self-citationAn algorithmic perspective on imitation learning
Osa, T., Pajarinen, J., Neumann, G., Bagnell, J. A., Abbeel, P., & Peters, J. (2018) · Foundations and Trends in Robotics · doi:10.1561/2300000053 · Cited by 405
“Way points with non-rigid registration [Schulman et al., 2013] A point cloud of the given scene Generalization based on point clouds of a given scene Stochasticity of demonstrations is not considered”
BackgroundMethodInfluentialSelf-citationAn Algorithmic Perspective on Imitation Learning
Osa, T., Pajarinen, J., Neumann, G. M., Bagnell, J. A., Abbeel, P., & Peters, J. (2018) · now publishers, Inc. eBooks · doi:10.1561/9781680834116 · Cited by 394
Self-citation
Metadata
- Authors
- Schulman, J., Ho, J., Lee, C., & Abbeel, P.
- Affiliations
- University of California, Berkeley (US)
- Corresponding author
- Schulman, John
- Venue
- Springer Tracts in Advanced Robotics
- Publisher
- Springer International Publishing
- Published
- 2016
- Pages
- 339-354
- ISSN
- 1610-742X (ISSN-L)
- 1610-7438
- OpenAlex
- W2472053385
- Cited by
- 133
- References
- 31
- Citations by year
- 2026: 1 · 2025: 4 · 2024: 4 · 2023: 9 · 2022: 14 · 2021: 15 · 2020: 18 · 2019: 12 · 2018: 18 · 2017: 13 · 2016: 6
- FWCI
- 38.92
- Type
- book chapter
- Language
- en
- Open access
- closed
- Locations
- Springer tracts in advanced robotics (publishedVersion)
- Topics
- Physical Sciences › Engineering › Control and Systems Engineering › Robot Manipulation and Learning
- Physical Sciences › Computer Science › Artificial Intelligence › Reinforcement Learning in Robotics
- Physical Sciences › Engineering › Biomedical Engineering › Soft Robotics and Applications
- Keywords
- imitation learning, non-rigid registration, robotic manipulation, multi-step tasks, PR2 robot, knot tying, rope manipulation
About these checks
Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.
A language model drew the claims from the paper on 2026-10-06, under version 3 of the claim definition (model deepseek-v4.1-flash, prompt extract-v3).
A second model labelled each claim on 2026-10-06 (model jev-1.13-20260917, definition revision gold-guideline-v0.2).
Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.
Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.
What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›
Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review
