CLEAR: Capability-Aware Latent Ordering for Adaptive Interaction with Movable Objects

Anonymous Authors / Under Review

TL;DR

CLEAR jointly selects objects, determines their interaction order, and generates motion references conditioned on robot morphology and scene geometry.

Same scene, different bodies

A humanoid pushes a box, a quadruped crosses steps, and a wheeled robot follows a slope to reach the same goal.
Different capabilities change the available routes and interactions.

A humanoid pushes a box, a quadruped crosses steps, and a wheeled robot follows a slope to reach the same goal. Robot morphology determines terrain traversability and feasible object interactions. Planning must account for these constraints and for how each interaction affects subsequent actions.

Method

Embodiment-aware interaction planning.

CLEAR plans how a robot can reach its goal by moving objects in the scene. It decides which objects to move, in what order, and how to move them, taking the robot’s capabilities and the effects of earlier interactions into account.

Observed inputs
Robot structure Morphology encoder
Object states Object encoder
Scene geometry Scene encoder
Affordance-Guided Encoding
Planning context HCapabilities and accessibility
OrderNet
Select and order ρObjects and interaction ranks
CausalFlowNet
Generate motion YₜDecode object references ξₖ
Feasibility check + MPC
Validate and execute Update the observation

Affordance-Guided Encoding builds a planning context that reflects the robot’s interaction capabilities and object reachability. Shared feature encoding and average pooling turn the link, joint, and actuator properties of embodiment into an embedding .

Conditioned on this embedding and local scene observations, the network predicts an affordance probability for each candidate object interaction or terrain transition. The binary label indicates interaction availability or transition feasibility.

When terrain limits movement, path search uses predicted transition probabilities to evaluate scene connectivity and determine which objects are reachable. Object features augmented with these interaction probabilities and reachability information are combined with and scene observations to form , the shared input to OrderNet and CausalFlowNet.

Embodiment-aware scene grounding.

Structure, object states, and scene geometry form a planning context that represents the robot’s capabilities and accessible interactions.

Explore grounding

(a) Embodiment-Aware Scene Grounding

Affordance-Guided Encoding combines morphology, object and scene features into the planning context . Predicted traversal and interaction feasibility augment the object features. Reachability accounts for the terrain transitions needed to approach an object.

Objects and scene

Object states

Anchors indicate object motion; outlines indicate target poses. Arrows denote interaction directions.

Object poses and scene geometry combine with the robot embodiment to define the planning context.

Kinematic visualizations of robot structure and object interaction.

Robot embodiment

Link and joint structure across robot embodiments.

Accessibility

Accessibility describes whether the robot can reach a feasible contact configuration around an object.

Capability

Capability describes the robot motions and contact actions available for executing an interaction.

(b) Latent Interaction Ordering

o₂o₃StartGoal

From , OrderNet predicts a selection probability and priority mean and standard deviation for each object . A sampled indicator determines participation. Sorting sampled scores from low to high gives the order .

Sampling admits alternative object sets and orders for the same query. Selection considers the complete sequence, including objects that become reachable after earlier interactions.

In this scene. blocks the first passage. Moving it creates access to . The interaction order is , while remains outside the route.

(c) Rank-Causal Generation

o₂o₃StartGoal

With fixed, CausalFlowNet integrates from Gaussian noise in the active coordinates of to . In , row stores coordinates for object . Fixed and padding coordinates remain unchanged. The selected rows are decoded in order into references . Flow time describes generation progress, not execution time.

All selected rows evolve over the same flow interval. Rank causal attention lets each row read its own and preceding ranks. Context tokens cannot read generated rows, preventing later interactions from influencing earlier ones through .

In this scene. relocates to clear the first passage. plans the motion of with access through that passage. Feasibility is checked after generation.

(d) Execution and Replanning

Decoded references are checked in order , accounting for the scene changes caused by earlier interactions. The planner selects a candidate that satisfies the goal with the fewest interactions among those accepted. A valid plan requiring no object interaction bypasses generation. MPC tracks the object references using updated state estimates. When enabled, replanning uses the updated scene to revise the remaining interactions.

CLEAR evaluates candidate commands through policy rollouts, retains high performing and behaviorally diverse candidates, and combines Cartesian tracking with joint command smoothing. The controller executes an initial segment and updates its plan using new observations.

Loading controller trajectories…

Spot + arm

0.0 s2×

Loading trajectories…

MPC w/ optimization (ours)
Ego RGB

MPC (naive)
Ego RGB

EEF motionObject motionObject target

Training

The full training objective

Full objective loss

300,000 training steps

CLEAR jointly learns object selection, interaction order, motion references, and embodiment-conditioned affordances.

Objective weights: λflow = 1, λKL = 0.001, λaff = 1, λavail = 0.

Loading training losses…

Training samples

Training samples for scene grounding and interaction planning.

(a) Grounding · Feasibility samples

Loading training samples…

Low-level policy training

G1 recorded motion replayed in four directions on stairs

Training protocol

Dashed lines indicate the first logged update.

Checkpoints span the training phases.

Experiment

2D Grid

Object selection and interaction ordering.

Autoregressive

Autoregressive in the chain scene

Goal not reached · 1 interaction

Gumbel–Sinkhorn

Gumbel–Sinkhorn in the chain scene

Goal not reached · 1 interaction

PolyNet

PolyNet in the chain scene

Goal not reached · 1 interaction

CLEAR-RO

CLEAR-RO in the chain scene

Goal not reached · 0 interactions

CLEAR-HO

CLEAR-HO in the chain scene

Goal not reached · 0 interactions

CLEAR (ours)

CLEAR (ours) in the chain scene

Goal reached · 3 interactions

Quantitative results

Table I · Mean ± sample SD (%) over five training seeds on 432 test scenes. Coverage@8 and Invalid@8 use the first eight proposals per scene.

MethodTask S/R ↑Min. S/R ↑Coverage@8 ↑Invalid@8 ↓
Autoregressive92.31 ± 0.6492.31 ± 0.6482.20 ± 0.217.49 ± 0.98
Gumbel–Sinkhorn91.81 ± 0.9679.77 ± 5.6672.20 ± 4.409.38 ± 1.03
PolyNet89.49 ± 2.7489.49 ± 2.7485.95 ± 0.4316.88 ± 5.18
CLEAR-RO34.12 ± 2.1934.12 ± 2.1961.93 ± 0.9264.33 ± 0.63
CLEAR-HO61.76 ± 1.7161.67 ± 1.6159.51 ± 0.1839.21 ± 0.43
CLEAR96.16 ± 0.6796.02 ± 0.5588.11 ± 0.326.43 ± 0.59
View Table I in the paper

CLEAR achieves the highest mean task and minimum-interaction success, with the lowest mean invalid proposal rate among these methods.

Scene and protocol

Five scene families isolate direct navigation, a single obstruction, interaction chains, branching alternatives, and irrelevant objects. Six planners are replayed on the same scene within each family. These evaluations execute the generated plan without a separate feasibility filter.

Blue: robot; green: goal; colored blocks: movable objects.

Ordered Manipulation

Interaction planning under sequential preconditions.

CLEAR (ours)

CLEAR (ours) recorded scene

Goal reached
5.2 s execution · 0 precondition violations

Behavior cloning

Behavior cloning recorded scene

Goal reached
7.45 s execution · 0 precondition violations

Behavior cloning with shared encoder

Behavior cloning with shared encoder recorded scene

Goal reached
5.2 s execution · 0 precondition violations

Classical planner

Classical planner recorded scene

Goal reached
5.55 s execution · 0 precondition violations

Without affordance

Without affordance recorded scene

Goal reached
5.2 s execution · 0 precondition violations

Without causal masking

Without causal masking recorded scene

Goal reached
18.9 s execution · 3 precondition violations

Quantitative results

Table II · Mean ± SD (%) over five training seeds for learned methods and three execution seeds for Classical Search.

MethodTask S/R ↑Valid S/R ↑Invalid E/R ↓
Classical Search83.80 ± 2.1783.80 ± 2.170.83 ± 0.72
BC90.25 ± 1.7887.50 ± 2.593.33 ± 2.72
BC-Grounding87.42 ± 1.8987.42 ± 1.890.67 ± 1.09
CLEAR w/o affordance89.67 ± 3.5085.33 ± 5.717.75 ± 5.29
CLEAR w/o rank mask91.42 ± 1.9790.33 ± 2.293.08 ± 3.20
CLEAR92.17 ± 1.0491.92 ± 1.401.28 ± 2.44
View Table II in the paper

CLEAR achieves the highest mean valid success rate among the evaluated methods (91.92%).

Scene and protocol

A UR5e arm manipulates a cube, two buttons, a drawer, and a sliding window. Button requirements determine when the drawer and window become available. The evaluation tests unseen combinations of those requirements. All methods share an MPC controller and replan after interactions.

The comparison evaluates classical search, behavior cloning, and ablations of grounding, affordance conditioning, and causal attention. Episode outcomes report goal completion and precondition violations.

Joint configurations and button states show the interaction sequence.

Maze Navigation

Planning across robot embodiments.

CLEAR (ours)

CLEAR (ours) recorded scene

Goal reached
122.5 s execution

CDGS

CDGS scene

No valid plan

GET encoder

GET encoder recorded scene

Goal reached
116.4 s execution

NAMO LLM

NAMO LLM recorded scene

No valid plan

NAMO sampling

NAMO sampling recorded scene

No valid plan

Without affordance

Without affordance recorded scene

Goal reached
123.1 s execution

Without embodiment

Without embodiment recorded scene

Goal not reached
85.4 s execution

Robot ID

Robot ID recorded scene

Goal reached
127.7 s execution

Specialist

Specialist recorded scene

Goal reached
128.6 s execution

Quantitative results

Table III · Means (%) over three training seeds for learned methods and three execution seeds for NAMO variants. Each method and body has 45 Standard and 30 High-Mass trials. Husky uses planning accuracy (P/A), other bodies use task success (S/R). Higher is better for each column. No high-level replanning.

MethodStandard G1 S/RStandard Spot S/RStandard Spot+Arm S/RStandard Husky P/AHigh-Mass G1 S/RHigh-Mass Spot S/RHigh-Mass Spot+Arm S/RHigh-Mass Husky P/A
NAMO-LLM64.453.313.355.626.726.70.020.0
NAMO w/o LLM62.244.413.346.740.020.00.013.3
CDGS42.260.04.473.30.036.76.783.3
CLEAR-Specialists97.893.393.395.673.370.093.3100.0
CLEAR-Robot-ID93.382.288.982.293.356.793.386.7
CLEAR + GET97.886.775.686.793.360.086.790.0
CLEAR-No-Affordance91.175.660.077.876.750.093.380.0
CLEAR-No-Embodiment55.653.382.233.36.730.083.310.0
CLEAR91.191.195.693.393.366.796.7100.0
View Table III in the paper

CLEAR achieves 95.6% task success with Spot + arm and 93.3% planning accuracy with Husky in the Standard setting.

Scene and protocol

The evaluation considers G1, Spot, Spot with an arm, and Husky in shared environments with terrain and movable obstacles. Standard scenes vary traversability and interaction requirements. High mass scenes include objects weighing 11.5 kg. Each embodiment uses a fixed controller across planning methods.

The sequences show high-mass interactions for G1 and Spot + arm, followed by terrain traversal for G1.

Candidates without a valid plan are shown in the initial scene.

Validation and replanning depend on the experimental protocol. Grid and Ordered Manipulation omit separate feasibility validation. Maze Navigation comparisons omit high-level replanning.

Long Horizon Planning

Replanning under changes in object placement and accessibility.

Scene A

CLEAR (ours)

CLEAR (ours) recorded scene

Goal reached
267.8 s execution

CLEAR without replanning

CLEAR without replanning recorded scene

Goal not reached
180.5 s execution

Scene B

CLEAR (ours)

CLEAR (ours) recorded scene

Goal reached
190.8 s execution

CLEAR without replanning

CLEAR without replanning recorded scene

Goal reached
202.2 s execution

Quantitative results

Table IV · Mean ± SD success rates (%) for G1 on 12 MuJoCo scenes with three execution seeds.

MethodNominal S/R ↑Placement S/R ↑Access S/R ↑
CLEAR-No-Replanning83.3 ± 4.881.9 ± 0.050.0 ± 14.4
CLEAR88.9 ± 4.887.2 ± 14.491.7 ± 8.3
View Table IV in the paper

Replanning has its largest measured benefit when disturbances change access to later interactions, from 50.0% to 91.7% mean success.

Scene and protocol

The experiment compares CLEAR with a variant that retains its initial plan. Both share the learned checkpoint, controller, and execution limits. The paper evaluates nominal execution, displaced target objects, and changes in access to later interactions. Low level feedback alone cannot revise the high level interaction sequence.

The paired replays show how the planner responds to external object relocations and updates the remaining interactions.

External object relocations perturb the planned interaction sequence.

Download