Searcharxiv⌕ Search
Home/Archive/arXiv

arXiv · 2504.19131

Making Physical Objects with Generative AI and Robotic Assembly: Considering Fabrication Constraints, Sustainability, Time, Functionality, and Accessibility

Alexander Htet Kyaw·Se Hwan Jeon·Miana Smith·Neil Gershenfeld
View original source ↗Read source document ↗Export metadata ↓

Abstract

3D generative AI enables rapid and accessible creation of 3D models from text or image inputs. However, translating these outputs into physical objects remains a challenge due to the constraints in the physical world. Recent studies have focused on improving the capabilities of 3D generative AI to produce fabricable outputs, with 3D printing as the main fabrication method. However, this workshop paper calls for a broader perspective by considering how fabrication methods align with the capabilities of 3D generative AI. As a case study, we present a novel system using discrete robotic assembly and 3D generative AI to make physical objects. Through this work, we identified five key aspects to consider in a physical making process based on the capabilities of 3D generative AI. 1) Fabrication Constraints: Current text-to-3D models can generate a wide range of 3D designs, requiring fabrication methods that can adapt to the variability of generative AI outputs. 2) Time: While generative AI can generate 3D models in seconds, fabricating physical objects can take hours or even days. Faster production could enable a closer iterative design loop between humans and AI in the making process. 3) Sustainability: Although text-to-3D models can generate thousands of models in the digital world, extending this capability to the real world would be resource-intensive, unsustainable and irresponsible. 4) Functionality: Unlike digital outputs from 3D generative AI models, the fabrication method plays a crucial role in the usability of physical objects. 5) Accessibility: While generative AI simplifies 3D model creation, the need for fabrication equipment can limit participation, making AI-assisted creation less inclusive. These five key aspects provide a framework for assessing how well a physical making process aligns with the capabilities of 3D generative AI and values in the world.

Explore related subjects

cs.ROcs.HC

Keep this discovery

Explore connections, maps & timelines

BibTeXRIS

Alexander Htet Kyaw, Se Hwan Jeon, Miana Smith, Neil Gershenfeld. 2025-04-27. Making Physical Objects with Generative AI and Robotic Assembly: Considering Fabrication Constraints, Sustainability, Time, Functionality, and Accessibility. https://arxiv.org/abs/2504.19131

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

KEEP EXPLORING

Related papers

arXiv2026

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↗
arXiv2026

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↗
arXiv2026

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↗