Searcharxiv⌕ Search
Home/Archive/arXiv

arXiv · 2605.30569

Any-ttach: Quick End-effector Swapping Enables Manipulation Dexterity with Simplicity

Weizhe Ni·Jinzhou Li·Haoyu Li·Cody Andres Alessio-Bunnell·Wenjing Pan·Xianyi Cheng
View original source ↗Read source document ↗Export metadata ↓

Abstract

Robotic manipulation dexterity is often pursued by building increasingly complex high-DoF multifingered hands. While many robotic hands are designed to replicate human morphology, the functional role of human hands suggests a different perspective: much of their complexity may exist to enable tool use and tool making. This observation motivates Any-ttach, a tool-centric manipulation framework that treats quick end-effector swapping as a mechanism for dexterity with simplicity. Any-ttach combines a low-cost automatic swapping mechanism for an open-close robot interface, a handheld device for collecting human demonstrations, and a task planning framework that composes learned, parameterized, and planned tool-use skills. The system supports diverse tools and end-effector modules, including daily tools, articulated tools such as scissors, Fin Ray fingers, and a low-cost anthropomorphic hand, through the same shared interface. Our experiments show that Any-ttach improves tool-swapping reliability, increases demonstration efficiency, reduces tool-pose variability, and supports diverse tool-use skills. In two long-horizon tasks, making a sandwich and preparing a cucumber, Any-ttach executes six tool-use subskills through end-effector switching and execution monitoring. These results suggest that robots can expand manipulation capability not only through more complex end-effectors, but also through rapidly exchangeable tools and end-effector modules. More details and videos are available at https://any-ttach.github.io/.

Explore related subjects

cs.RO

Keep this discovery

BibTeXRIS

Weizhe Ni, Jinzhou Li, Haoyu Li, Cody Andres Alessio-Bunnell, Wenjing Pan, Xianyi Cheng. 2026-05-28. Any-ttach: Quick End-effector Swapping Enables Manipulation Dexterity with Simplicity. https://arxiv.org/abs/2605.30569

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↗