Plan Along the Way: Event-Triggered Foundation-Model Planning for TAMP Execution in Partially Observable Manipulation
arXiv:2608.28075v1 Announce Type: new Abstract: Manipulation in partially observable environments requires planning under incomplete scene information. In such settings, an initially valid plan may execute successfully yet remain insufficient for task completion. Existing foundation-model-guided task and motion planning (TAMP) systems can generate useful long-horizon task decompositions, subgoals, or constraints, but they often assume having access to a fully specified scene state or invoke mod
Overview
arXiv:2608.28075v1 Announce Type: new Abstract: Manipulation in partially observable environments requires planning under incomplete scene information. In such settings, an initially valid plan may execute successfully yet remain insufficient for task completion. Existing foundation-model-guided task and motion planning (TAMP) systems can generate useful long-horizon task decompositions, subgoals, or constraints, but they often assume having access to a fully specified scene state or invoke model-level replanning after a subgoal, refinement, or execution attempt fails. We present ROBUST TAMP, a modular LLM/VLM-guided planning framework for reactive TAMP where unseen task-relevant and non-target objects may become visible during execution. The framework restricts the foundation-model planner to the currently visible relational scene state, validates generated task-level actions against a strict executable interface, and routes the accepted actions to scene-specific execution adapters. Object discovery is treated as a distinct replanning event and, after a stable execution horizon, the system reconstructs the visible scene state and replans using completed-action history and structured replanning event context. Evaluations are performed on six RLBench/CoppeliaSim kitchen and grill variants involving hidden objects, non-target object discovery, articulated-container interaction, and temporal manipulation procedures. We compare text-only LLM and VLM planners of different sizes under the same validation, execution, monitoring, and replanning pipeline, reporting task success, partial goal completion, discovery- and failure-triggered replanning behavior, implicit non-target-object handling, and planner inference cost.
Source
Originally published at arxiv.org.
Related Articles
Source: https://arxiv.org/abs/2608.28075
