Planning Everyday Manipulation Tasks – Prediction-based Transformation of Structured Activity Descriptions



The field of autonomous robot manipulation experiences tremendous progress: the cost of robot platforms is decreasing substantially, sensor technology and perceptual capabilities are advancing rapidly, and we see an increasing sophistication of control mechanisms for manipulators. Researchers have also recently implemented robots that autonomously perform challenging manipulation tasks, such as making pancakes, folding clothes, baking cookies, and cutting salad. These developments lead us to the next big challenge: the investigation of control systems for robotic agents, such as robot co-workers and assistants that are capable of mastering human-scale everyday manipulation tasks. Robots mastering everyday manipulation tasks will have to perform tasks as general as “clean up”, “set the table”, and “put the bottle away/on the table”. Although such tasks are vaguely formulated the persons stating them have detailed expectations of how the robot should perform them. We believe that an essential planning capability of robotic agents mastering everyday activity will be their capability to reason about and predictively transform incomplete and ambiguous descriptions of various aspects of manipulation activities: the objects to be manipulated, the tools to be used, the locations where objects can be manipulated from, the motions and the grasps to be performed, etc. Vague descriptions of tasks and activities are not only a key challenge for robot planning but also an opportunity for more flexibility, robustness, generality, and robustness of robot control systems.


Robotics Planning Manipulation Tasks 


Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.


  1. Anderson, J. E. (1995): Constraint-Directed Improvisation for Everyday Activities. Ph. D. Dissertation, University of Manitoba, Winnipeg, Manitoba, Canada.Google Scholar
  2. Beetz, M., Klank, U., Kresse, I., Maldonado, A., Mösenlechner, L., Pangercic, D., Rühr, T. & Tenorth, M. (2011): Robotic Roommates Making Pancakes. In: 11th IEEERAS International Conference on Humanoid Robots.Google Scholar
  3. Bergen, B., Narayan, S. & Feldman, J. (2003): Embodied verbal semantics: Evidence from an imageverb matching task. In: Proceedings of the Twenty-Fifth Annual Conference of the Cognitive Science Society, pp. 139–144.Google Scholar
  4. Bollini, M., Tellex, S., Thompson, T., Roy, N. & Rus, D. (2012): Interpreting and executing recipes with a cooking robot. In: 13th International Symposium on Experimental Robotics.Google Scholar
  5. Chernova, S., DePalma, N., Morant, E. & Breazeal, C. (2011): Crowdsourcing human-robot interaction: Application from virtual to physical worlds. In: RO-MAN, 2011 IEEE. IEEE, pp. 21–26.Google Scholar
  6. Emeli, V. (2012): Robot learning through social media crowdsourcing. In: Intelligent Robots and Systems (IROS), 2012 IEEE/RSJ International Conference on. IEEE, pp. 2332–2337.Google Scholar
  7. Goldberg, K. & Kehoe, B. (2013): Cloud robotics and automation: A survey of related work. EECS Department, University of California, Berkeley, Tech. Rep. UCB/EECS –2013–5.Google Scholar
  8. Klapfer, R., Kunze, L. & Beetz, M. (2012): Pouring and mixing liquids — understanding the physical effects of everyday robot manipulation actions. In: Workshop on Human Reasoning and Automated Deduction.Google Scholar
  9. Kovacs, D. L. (2012): A multi-agent extension of pddl 3.1. In: WS-IPC 2012 19.Google Scholar
  10. Kunze, L., Dolha, M. E. & Beetz, M. (2011): Logic Programming with Simulation-based Temporal Projection for Everyday Robot Object Manipulation. In: 2011 IEEE/RSJ International Conference on Intelligent Robots and Systems (IROS).Google Scholar
  11. McDermott, D., Ghallab, M., Howe, A., Knoblock, C., Ram, A., Veloso, M., Weld, D. & Wilkins, D. (1998): Pddl ‒ the planning domain definition language.Google Scholar
  12. McDermott, D. (1992): Robot planning. In: AI magazine. Vol. 13, no. 2, p. 55.MathSciNetGoogle Scholar
  13. Morgenstern, L. (2001): Mid-sized axiomatizations of commonsense problems: A case study in egg cracking. In: Studia Logica. Vol. 67, no. 3, pp. 333–384.CrossRefMathSciNetzbMATHGoogle Scholar
  14. Okada, K., Ogura, T., Haneda, A., Fujimoto, J., Gravot, F. & Inaba, M. (2005): Humanoid motion generation system on hrp2-jsk for daily life environment. In: IEEE International Conference Mechatronics and Automation.Google Scholar
  15. Sorokin, A., Berenson, D., Srinivasa, S. S. & Hebert, M. (2010): People helping robots helping people: Crowdsourcing for grasping novel objects. In: Intelligent Robots and Systems (IROS), 2010 IEEE/RSJ International Conference on. IEEE. pp. 2117–2122.Google Scholar
  16. Younes, H. L. & Littman, M. L. (2004): Ppddl 1.0: The language for the probabilistic part of ipc –4. In: Proc. International Planning Competition.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Fachmedien Wiesbaden 2015

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Institute for Artificial IntelligenceUniversität BremenBremenDeutschland

Personalised recommendations