Papers › PolarNet: 3D Point Clouds for Language-Guided Robotic Manipulation
PolarNet: 3D Point Clouds for Language-Guided Robotic Manipulation
ShiZhe Chen, Ricardo Garcia, Cordelia Schmid, Ivan Laptev
The ability for robots to comprehend and execute manipulation tasks based on natural language instructions is a long-term goal in robotics. The dominant approaches for language-guided manipulation use 2D image representations, which face difficulties in combining multi-view cameras and inferring precise 3D positions and relationships. To address these limitations, we propose a 3D point cloud based policy called PolarNet for language-guided manipulation. It leverages carefully designed point cloud inputs, efficient point cloud encoders, and multimodal transformers to learn 3D point cloud representations and integrate them with language instructions for action prediction. PolarNet is shown to be effective and data efficient in a variety of experiments conducted on the RLBench benchmark. It outperforms state-of-the-art 2D and 3D approaches in both single-task and multi-task learning. It also achieves promising results on a real robot.
In Syntology Open this paper in Syntology's Atlas, the map of the papers in Syntology's graph and their citations.
For agents, Syntology's MCP tool lists every function and class Syntology harvested from this paper and whether it ran (how to connect): get_harvested_code_for_paper(arxiv_id="2309.15596")
Code
Syntology Ran 1 of 2 code samples harvested from 1 repository linked to this paper; 1 has no recorded run. Of those that ran: 1 ran with no contract checked.
By repository: official repository: 2 samples from 1 repository, 1 ran. The run record, sample by sample. “Ran” means executed on a synthesized input, not that the code is correct or reproduces the paper.
Repository list and official/mentioned flags are the archive's, frozen 2025-07-28. Reachability, where shown, is from one Syntology probe window (2026-09-16 to 2026-09-18); repositories not probed show nothing. GitHub stars are not tracked.
Code Syntology ran Syntology
2 samples harvested; 1 ran; 0 honoured the contract we drafted; 1 has no recorded run. Read from Syntology's graph 2026-09-24; that is when this build read the record, not when the samples ran.
Licence: 0 of the 2 samples are pointer only, meaning Syntology does not serve that copy's text. This page shows no code text for any sample; each one links to its file in the repository.
Harvested from vlc-robot/polarnet. “Ran” means the sample executed on a synthesized input. It does not mean the output is correct, and nothing here reproduces the paper's results. “Honoured” and “violated” refer to a contract Syntology drafted from the code itself; “our draft was wrong” and “fixture could not drive it” are failures of Syntology's instrument, not of the code.
Each sample ends with its code_sha256, Syntology's identity for that exact code. An agent fetches the stored sample with Syntology's MCP tool get_code(code_sha256="…") (how to connect); click an identity to copy that call.
Repository labels, per sample. official repository: The archive marks this repository official for the paper. named in the paper: The archive records that the paper mentions this repository; it is not marked official. community (archive-listed): In the archive's code links for this paper, not marked official and not recorded as mentioned in the paper. found in paper text by Syntology: Syntology found this repository in the paper's own text; whether it is the authors' implementation is not asserted. community: Not in the archive's code links for this paper; a community repository Syntology harvested. Samples from a repository marked official are listed first. Licence labels name the repository's licence as recorded at harvest. “Pointer only” means Syntology does not serve that copy's text, for one of four reasons: no licence file was found; the licence was not identified; the licence is recorded as permissive but that copy's record is not marked cleared; or the licence is outside the permissive list Syntology serves text under (MIT, Apache-2.0, BSD and similar). Some licences outside that list permit redistribution, such as WTFPL, and GPL-3.0 under its conditions; they are simply not on the list. Hover a licence label for the reason. File links open the file on GitHub at the default branch, which may have changed since the harvest.
838a8eb3bc05bb2f · report
41d28274f234df92 · report
Tasks
Results from the paper archive 2025-07-28
| Task | Dataset | Model | Metric | Value | Rank at snapshot | Leaderboard | Report |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Robot Manipulation | RLBench | PolarNet | Input Image Size | 128 | #12 of 18 | Archive leaderboard | report |
| Robot Manipulation | RLBench | PolarNet | Succ. Rate (10 tasks, 100 demos/task) | 89.8 | #12 of 18 | Archive leaderboard | report |
| Robot Manipulation | RLBench | PolarNet | Succ. Rate (18 tasks, 100 demo/task) | 46.4 | #12 of 18 | Archive leaderboard | report |
| Robot Manipulation | RLBench | PolarNet | Succ. Rate (74 tasks, 100 demos/task) | 60.3 | #12 of 18 | Archive leaderboard | report |
| Robot Manipulation | RLBench | PolarNet | Training Time (V100 x 8 x day) | 5 | #12 of 18 | Archive leaderboard | report |
| Robot Manipulation Generalization | GEMBench | PolarNet | Average Success Rate | 38.4 | #5 of 6 | Archive leaderboard | report |
| Robot Manipulation Generalization | GEMBench | PolarNet | Average Success Rate (L1) | 77.7±0.9 | #5 of 6 | Archive leaderboard | report |
| Robot Manipulation Generalization | GEMBench | PolarNet | Average Success Rate (L2) | 37.1±1.4 | #5 of 6 | Archive leaderboard | report |
| Robot Manipulation Generalization | GEMBench | PolarNet | Average Success Rate (L3) | 38.5±1.7 | #5 of 6 | Archive leaderboard | report |
| Robot Manipulation Generalization | GEMBench | PolarNet | Average Success Rate (L4) | 0.1±0.2 | #5 of 6 | Archive leaderboard | report |
Ranks are positions in the archive's leaderboards as they stood at the 2025-07-28 snapshot. Results published since then are not among these rows, so a rank here is not a current standing.
Methods
Report a problem or propose a change · a person checks every report against the paper or source before anything changes; decisions are listed on /corrections