Hierarchical Object-Oriented POMDP Planning for Object Rearrangement
Rajesh Mangannavar, Alan Fern, Prasad Tadepalli

TL;DR
This paper introduces a hierarchical, object-oriented POMDP planning framework for multi-object rearrangement in complex, partially observable multi-room environments, supported by a new benchmark dataset and demonstrating robust performance.
Contribution
It presents a novel hierarchical object-oriented POMDP approach and a comprehensive MultiRoomR benchmark for challenging multi-object rearrangement tasks.
Findings
Effective handling of complex multi-room scenarios
Robust performance with imperfect perception
Outperforms existing benchmarks
Abstract
We present an online planning framework and a new benchmark dataset for solving multi-object rearrangement problems in partially observable, multi-room environments. Current object rearrangement solutions, primarily based on Reinforcement Learning or hand-coded planning methods, often lack adaptability to diverse challenges. To address this limitation, we introduce a novel Hierarchical Object-Oriented Partially Observed Markov Decision Process (HOO-POMDP) planning approach. This approach comprises of (a) an object-oriented POMDP planner generating sub-goals, (b) a set of low-level policies for sub-goal achievement, and (c) an abstraction system converting the continuous low-level world into a representation suitable for abstract planning. To enable rigorous evaluation of rearrangement challenges, we introduce MultiRoomR, a comprehensive benchmark featuring diverse multi-room…
Peer Reviews
Decision·Submitted to ICLR 2026
(i) The paper focuses on the problem of multi-object rearrangement, and formulates it as a probabilistic sequential decision-making problem under partial observability. (ii) The paper provides a new benchmark for multi-object rearrangement in the form of multi-room environments.
(i) One key problem with the paper is that it makes claims that are not fully substantiated. For example, the authors mention that object rearrangement solutions are based on RL and hand-coded planning methods; it is not clear what the authors mean by "hand-coded planning methods", but there are many other ways of solving this problem. Also, existing probabilistic planners can handle large domains and uncertainty resulting from partial observability. (ii) The discussion of related work unfortu
The authors demonstrate an improvement over their selected baselines of FHC, VRR, and MSS. I found the inclusion of different ablations, such as having an oracle belief or a perfect object detector, helps validate their design choices. Their multi-room benchmark also highlights the limitations of the methods they chose to compare against.
My main concerns are as follows: * The object independence assumption seems to directly conflict with trying to improve performance on scenarios involving blocked goals or blocked paths. * Requiring a pre-task walkthrough to build a map of the static environment is a significant practical limitation. This makes the solution inapplicable to new environments and the methodologies' robustness to any change in the map, or if there were blocking objects during this phase of planning. * The error an
- This is an important problem that displays many of the characteristics of real-robot tasks. - The approach is practical and simple, and builds on a lot of recent work focused on exploiting structure in POMDPs to generate efficient solutions. - The method is sufficiently structured that I expect it would work on a real robot, with some engineering effort required obviously. - Using Markov low-level controllers to support a more abstract level that can then plan taking partial-observability int
- The paper is oddly structured. There's a Related Work section that occurs before the Background section, which makes no sense. How am I to understand the RW section when I haven't been precisely told what problem you are solving yet? Then the Background section is called Problem Formulation, though instead of a formulation (which is a precise mathematical description of the task), we are given some implementation details about AI2Thor. The paper and ideas have to stand on their own outside of
Videos
No videos yet. Explain this paper in a talk, walkthrough, or lecture? Add one.
Taxonomy
TopicsGenome Rearrangement Algorithms · Advanced Manufacturing and Logistics Optimization
MethodsSparse Evolutionary Training
