Searcharxiv⌕ Search
Home/Archive/arXiv

arXiv · 2012.07121

Deliberative and Conceptual Inference in Service Robots

Luis A. Pineda·Noé Hernández·Arturo Rodríguez·Ricardo Cruz·Gibrán Fuentes
View original source ↗Read source document ↗Export metadata ↓

Abstract

Service robots need to reason to support people in daily life situations. Reasoning is an expensive resource that should be used on demand whenever the expectations of the robot do not match the situation of the world and the execution of the task is broken down; in such scenarios the robot must perform the common sense daily life inference cycle consisting on diagnosing what happened, deciding what to do about it, and inducing and executing a plan, recurring in such behavior until the service task can be resumed. Here we examine two strategies to implement this cycle: (1) a pipe-line strategy involving abduction, decision-making and planning, which we call deliberative inference and (2) the use of the knowledge and preferences stored in the robot's knowledge-base, which we call conceptual inference. The former involves an explicit definition of a problem space that is explored through heuristic search, and the latter is based on conceptual knowledge including the human user preferences, and its representation requires a non-monotonic knowledge-based system. We compare the strengths and limitations of both approaches. We also describe a service robot conceptual model and architecture capable of supporting the daily life inference cycle during the execution of a robotics service task. The model is centered in the declarative specification and interpretation of robot's communication and task structure. We also show the implementation of this framework in the fully autonomous robot Golem-III. The framework is illustrated with two demonstration scenarios.

Explore related subjects

cs.ROcs.AI

Keep this discovery

BibTeXRIS

Luis A. Pineda, Noé Hernández, Arturo Rodríguez, Ricardo Cruz, Gibrán Fuentes. 2020-12-13. Deliberative and Conceptual Inference in Service Robots. https://arxiv.org/abs/2012.07121

Cite the original work for its findings. Save a collection to share your selection of sources.

KEEP EXPLORING

Related papers

arXiv2026

IMLE-VLA: Fast Single-Step Action Generation for Vision-Language-Action Policies

Vision-language-action (VLA) policies leverage pretrained vision-language backbones to achieve strong cross-task generalization. A leading design couples this backbone with a dedicated continuous action head trained via diffusion or flow matching. However, such heads rely on iterative multi-step sampling, for example 10 Euler steps in $\pi_{0.5}$. This creates an inference bottleneck that produces stop-and-go movement in the robot and slower task completion. We introduce IMLE-VLA, which replaces the iterative action head with a single-step conditional generator trained via conditional Implicit Maximum Likelihood Estimation (cIMLE). The cIMLE objective promotes multimodal action coverage, avoiding the mode collapse of naive regression heads while eliminating multi-step sampling entirely. When IMLE-VLA is applied to $\pi_{0.5}$, it increases inference frequency 3.67x (55 Hz vs. 15 Hz), enabling up to 11x higher action throughput. On the 40-task LIBERO benchmark, IMLE-VLA achieves the highest average success rate (98.0%) among all baselines while leading in inference frequency. Under the test-time perturbations of LIBERO-plus, IMLE-VLA retains $\pi_{0.5}$'s robustness while other baselines degrade sharply, confirming that the cIMLE head preserves generalization. Real-world experiments on a Franka Emika Panda across four tasks demonstrate smoother motion (2.2x to 3.0x lower jerk) and faster task completion, with IMLE-VLA outperforming $\pi_{0.5}$ on every task and reducing average VLA inference time per episode by 3.9x to 6.6x. Videos and code are available at https://kianhk6.github.io/IMLE-VLA/

cs.RO↗
arXiv2026

ObstaDiff: Generalizable Diffusion Policy Learning via Obstacle-aware Representations

Imitation learning has achieved impressive results in robotic manipulation, yet most existing approaches assume clean backgrounds and lack explicit mechanisms for obstacle-aware motion generation. Extending such policies to cluttered, real-world scenes with unstructured obstacles remains a key generalization challenge. We present ObstaDiff, a decomposed diffusion-policy framework with a lightweight obstacle-aware visual encoder. ObstaDiff extracts a structured target-obstacle-background representation, enabling the downstream alignment policy to generate end-effector trajectories toward a target-centered bottleneck pose while reasoning about surrounding obstacles. We evaluate ObstaDiff on 61 real-robot greenhouse trials per method (366 executions in total). ObstaDiff achieves 75.41% average task success and 8.20% average obstacle collision rate, outperforming representative imitation-learning baselines and improving generalization in cluttered agricultural scenes.

cs.RO↗
arXiv2026

Testing Between the Test Cases: Proving End-to-End Steering in Conditions You Never Drove

AI-based automated vehicle testing is challenging because a model that passes every test condition can still fail in the real world. Formal verification offers a way to directly address this gap. On a simulated highway and an arterial road we trained two small end-to-end steering networks each in CARLA, one on clear conditions alone and one on clear, fog, night and low sun. All four models were driven against a 2.19 ft lane-departure budget. Without driving again, we used bound propagation, a formal method that reads the trained weights, to compute how far steering can drift at every disturbance strength between two captured images. One calculation covers more than a campaign could drive: on the arterial it spans 133 poses, where ten intensities each would be 10^133 combinations, in minutes on one GPU. Not only did formal verification find conditions that broke the clear-trained policy without simulation testing, it provided some preliminary evidence for potential failures between the test cases. Our overall conclusion is that formal verification is a viable complement to simulation, and could be adopted as a part of verification and validation for automated driving.

cs.RO↗