I’m so tired of writing rebuttals to this kind of “lack of novelty” review: “This paper trivially combines A, B, and C, so the algorithmic novelty is limited.” Technically, most (if not all) robotics papers are convex combinations of existing ideas. I still deeply appreciate A B C papers—especially when they deliver: - New capabilities: the “trivial combination” unlocks behaviors we simply couldn’t achieve before - Sensible & organic design: A B C is clearly the right composition—not some arbitrary A′ B C′ - Nontrivial interactions: careful analysis of the dynamics, coupling, or failure modes between A, B, C - Rehabilitating old ideas: A was dismissed for years, but paired with modern B/C, it suddenly works—and teaches us why - System-level & "interface" insight: the contribution is not any single piece, but how the pieces talk to each other - Scaling laws or regimes: identifying when/why A B C works (and when it doesn’t) - Engineering clarity: making something actually work robustly in the real world is not “trivial” - New problem formulations: sometimes the real novelty is in the reformulation—only under this view does A B C make sense. Maybe worth keeping these in mind when reviewing the next A B C paper : )

super excited to announce our full-day workshop on Contact-Rich Control and Representation (CR2) at #ICRA2026, held on June 1st in Vienna, Austria! 🕸️ website: for all information, please check out: cr2-icra2026.github.io

"First line of defense would require arming them with guns." In a new CNET interview, Foundation Robotics CEO Sankaet Pathak makes his company's military ambitions clearer than ever. A significant moment in the humanoid robotics race.