SearcharxivSearch

arXiv · 2008.02321

Can I Pour into It? Robot Imagining Open Containability Affordance of Previously Unseen Objects via Physical Simulations

Abstract

Open containers, i.e., containers without covers, are an important and ubiquitous class of objects in human life. In this letter, we propose a novel method for robots to "imagine" the open containability affordance of a previously unseen object via physical simulations. We implement our imagination method on a UR5 manipulator. The robot autonomously scans the object with an RGB-D camera. The scanned 3D model is used for open containability imagination which quantifies the open containability affordance by physically simulating dropping particles onto the object and counting how many particles are retained in it. This quantification is used for open-container vs. non-open-container binary classification (hereafter referred to as open container classification). If the object is classified as an open container, the robot further imagines pouring into the object, again using physical simulations, to obtain the pouring position and orientation for real robot autonomous pouring. We evaluate our method on open container classification and autonomous pouring of granular material on a dataset containing 130 previously unseen objects with 57 object categories. Although our proposed method uses only 11 objects for simulation calibration (training), its open container classification aligns well with human judgements. In addition, our method endows the robot with the capability to autonomously pour into the 55 containers in the dataset with a very high success rate. We also compare to a deep learning method. Results show that our method achieves the same performance as the deep learning method on open container classification and outperforms it on autonomous pouring. Moreover, our method is fully explainable.

Explore related subjects

Keep this discovery

BibTeXRIS

Hongtao Wu, Gregory S. Chirikjian. 2020-08-05. Can I Pour into It? Robot Imagining Open Containability Affordance of Previously Unseen Objects via Physical Simulations. https://arxiv.org/abs/2008.02321

Cite the original work for its findings. Save a collection to share your selection of sources.

KEEP EXPLORING

Related papers

IMLE-VLA: Fast Single-Step Action Generation for Vision-Language-Action Policies

Vision-language-action (VLA) policies leverage pretrained vision-language backbones to achieve strong cross-task generalization. A leading design couples this backbone with a dedicated continuous action head trained via diffusion or flow matching. However, such heads rely on iterative multi-step sampling, for example 10 Euler steps in $\pi_{0.5}$. This creates an inference bottleneck that produces stop-and-go movement in the robot and slower task completion. We introduce IMLE-VLA, which replaces the iterative action head with a single-step conditional generator trained via conditional Implicit Maximum Likelihood Estimation (cIMLE). The cIMLE objective promotes multimodal action coverage, avoiding the mode collapse of naive regression heads while eliminating multi-step sampling entirely. When IMLE-VLA is applied to $\pi_{0.5}$, it increases inference frequency 3.67x (55 Hz vs. 15 Hz), enabling up to 11x higher action throughput. On the 40-task LIBERO benchmark, IMLE-VLA achieves the highest average success rate (98.0%) among all baselines while leading in inference frequency. Under the test-time perturbations of LIBERO-plus, IMLE-VLA retains $\pi_{0.5}$'s robustness while other baselines degrade sharply, confirming that the cIMLE head preserves generalization. Real-world experiments on a Franka Emika Panda across four tasks demonstrate smoother motion (2.2x to 3.0x lower jerk) and faster task completion, with IMLE-VLA outperforming $\pi_{0.5}$ on every task and reducing average VLA inference time per episode by 3.9x to 6.6x. Videos and code are available at https://kianhk6.github.io/IMLE-VLA/

cs.RO

ObstaDiff: Generalizable Diffusion Policy Learning via Obstacle-aware Representations

Imitation learning has achieved impressive results in robotic manipulation, yet most existing approaches assume clean backgrounds and lack explicit mechanisms for obstacle-aware motion generation. Extending such policies to cluttered, real-world scenes with unstructured obstacles remains a key generalization challenge. We present ObstaDiff, a decomposed diffusion-policy framework with a lightweight obstacle-aware visual encoder. ObstaDiff extracts a structured target-obstacle-background representation, enabling the downstream alignment policy to generate end-effector trajectories toward a target-centered bottleneck pose while reasoning about surrounding obstacles. We evaluate ObstaDiff on 61 real-robot greenhouse trials per method (366 executions in total). ObstaDiff achieves 75.41% average task success and 8.20% average obstacle collision rate, outperforming representative imitation-learning baselines and improving generalization in cluttered agricultural scenes.

cs.RO

Testing Between the Test Cases: Proving End-to-End Steering in Conditions You Never Drove

AI-based automated vehicle testing is challenging because a model that passes every test condition can still fail in the real world. Formal verification offers a way to directly address this gap. On a simulated highway and an arterial road we trained two small end-to-end steering networks each in CARLA, one on clear conditions alone and one on clear, fog, night and low sun. All four models were driven against a 2.19 ft lane-departure budget. Without driving again, we used bound propagation, a formal method that reads the trained weights, to compute how far steering can drift at every disturbance strength between two captured images. One calculation covers more than a campaign could drive: on the arterial it spans 133 poses, where ten intensities each would be 10^133 combinations, in minutes on one GPU. Not only did formal verification find conditions that broke the clear-trained policy without simulation testing, it provided some preliminary evidence for potential failures between the test cases. Our overall conclusion is that formal verification is a viable complement to simulation, and could be adopted as a part of verification and validation for automated driving.

cs.RO