Search papers, labs, and topics across Lattice.
The paper introduces SPARK, a training-free neurosymbolic manipulation system that significantly improves performance on the LIBERO-PRO benchmark, achieving 43.7% success across various tasks. By focusing computational resources on perception and employing a novel planning approach that integrates typed behavior trees with composable primitives, SPARK effectively mitigates the costs associated with policy failures seen in previous agents like CaP-Agent0. The system demonstrates versatility by operating across multiple robot platforms while providing a robust framework for logging trajectories that can inform future training efforts.
SPARK outperforms traditional code-generation agents by more than doubling their success rates, showcasing a new paradigm in robotic manipulation that prioritizes perception over costly re-querying.
We present Sequential Planning via Anchored Robotic Keypoints, SPARK, a training-free neurosymbolic manipulation system that reaches 43.7% on six LIBERO-PRO position \&task cells, more than doubling CaP-Agent0 and Vision-Language-Action (VLA) baselines. CaP-Agent0, a multi-turn code-generation agent, achieves 18.2% by re-querying an LLM at every turn, but its restart-from-scratch solution proves costly against minor policy failures. Perception is the layer that fails most under position and task changes so SPARK spends its computation there. A single Gemini call composes the plan as a typed behavior tree (BT) of composable primitives, each already containing the low-level control (motion, grasping, depth geometry) a code-generation agent would otherwise regenerate on every trial. The rest of the budget goes to perception: a second Gemini call proposes three alternative text prompts per object, SAM3 evaluates each, and we keep the prompt$\to$label pair with the most confident detection and a recovery loop then retries a failed primitive against freshly detected objects, with no new LLM call. The alternative prompts add +27.7 points on the spatial suite and +10.0 on the object suite, with the recovery loop adding +5.0 overall. SPARK runs the same primitives on three robot families (UR10e, Franka FR3, bimanual Franka) across nine unique tasks at twenty trials each, averaging 68%. Since the detector, planner, and controller modules sit behind the typed plan, they swap independently without training, and each primitive's checkable post-condition traces a failure to the corresponding module or a kinematic limit. Every trial logs a verified, labeled trajectory, so a training-free planner that already beats VLAs can supply the data those policies need without teleoperation. Project page: https://cwru-aism.github.io/spark-page/
