mlsanityData to 7 Oct 2026

Macro-Operator Generation and Predicate Selection for TAMP Operator Learning

arXiv 2608.23629 ↗First posted 23 Aug 2026cs.RO cs.AIcited by 0

Not on the map. Why?

Abstract (arXiv)

Creating symbolic operators by hand is one of the main bottlenecks in deploying Task and Motion Planning systems (TAMP). Recent works show that these operators can instead be learned directly from demonstration data. Existing methods, however, typically learn each action in isolation and cannot capture the recurring multi-step structure of manipulation tasks, so the search becomes intractable on long sequential tasks. A further inefficiency arises in the symbolic state: every provided predicate is evaluated at every search node, even when it never appears in any learned operator. We present a system that addresses both problems together. Its central component is the automatic generation of macro-operators, composite actions that compress a recurring sequence of individual actions into a single planning step. Our system discovers causally linked action pairs directly from the training data, where one action produces exactly the condition that the next one requires, and turns each pair into a new operator. Alongside this, our system prunes every predicate that no learned operator references, which shrinks the symbolic state evaluated at each search node. Together, these changes shorten the effective planning horizon, and the benefit they bring grows with the length of the task. Across four TAMP domains, our method reaches up to a 4.6x planning speedup compared to the baseline method, namely Learning Operators for TAMP. More importantly, it solves a long sequential task that the baseline cannot solve. Macro-operator discovery thus not only accelerates planning but, in certain domains, determines solvability in practice.

Key facts. No citing papers in the map yet (data through 7 Oct 2026). Builds on 17 of its 41 references that are in the map. First posted on arXiv 23 Aug 2026.

Builds on

17 of 41 references.

References · 17

  1. 2020Integrated Task and Motion Planningcited by 281
  2. 2018PDDLStream: Integrating Symbolic Planners and Blackbox Samplers via Optimistic Adaptive Planningcited by 147
  3. 2019Entity Abstraction in Visual Model-Based Reinforcement Learningcited by 110
  4. 2020Hierarchical Planning for Long-Horizon Manipulation with Geometric and Symbolic Scene Graphscited by 83
  5. 2021Learning Symbolic Operators for Task and Motion Planningcited by 57
  6. 2022Predicate Invention for Bilevel Planningcited by 49
  7. 2020Deep Visual Reasoning: Learning to Predict Action Sequences for Task and Motion Planning from an Initial Scene Imagecited by 45
  8. 2016FFRob: Leveraging Symbolic Planning for Efficient Task and Motion Planningcited by 34
  9. 2018Active model learning and diverse action sampling for task and motion planningcited by 28
  10. 2018Learning to guide task and motion planning using score-space representationcited by 27
  11. 2020SPOTTER: Extending Symbolic Planning Operators through Targeted Reinforcement Learningcited by 23
  12. 2018Learning Quickly to Plan Quickly Using Modular Meta-Learningcited by 15
5 more
  1. 2019Learning STRIPS Action Models with Classical Planningcited by 13
  2. 2018Learning sparse relational transition modelscited by 11
  3. 2024Automated Planning Domain Inference for Task and Motion Planningcited by 4
  4. 2023Discovering Predictive Relational Object Symbols with Symbolic Attentive Layerscited by 3
  5. 2024Symbolic Manipulation Planning with Discovered Object and Relational Predicatescited by 3

Built on by

Not cited yet.