SearcharxivSearch

arXiv · 2110.04633

Credit Assignment Safety Learning from Human Demonstrations

Abstract

A critical need in assistive robotics, such as assistive wheelchairs for navigation, is a need to learn task intent and safety guarantees through user interactions in order to ensure safe task performance. For tasks where the objectives from the user are not easily defined, learning from user demonstrations has been a key step in enabling learning. However, most robot learning from demonstration (LfD) methods primarily rely on optimal demonstration in order to successfully learn a control policy, which can be challenging to acquire from novice users. Recent work does use suboptimal and failed demonstrations to learn about task intent; few focus on learning safety guarantees to prevent repeat failures experienced, essential for assistive robots. Furthermore, interactive human-robot learning aims to minimize effort from the human user to facilitate deployment in the real-world. As such, requiring users to label the unsafe states or keyframes from the demonstrations should not be a necessary requirement for learning. Here, we propose an algorithm to learn a safety value function from a set of suboptimal and failed demonstrations that is used to generate a real-time safety control filter. Importantly, we develop a credit assignment method that extracts the failure states from the failed demonstrations without requiring human labelling or prespecified knowledge of unsafe regions. Furthermore, we extend our formulation to allow for user-specific safety functions, by incorporating user-defined safety rankings from which we can generate safety level sets according to the users' preferences. By using both suboptimal and failed demonstrations and the developed credit assignment formulation, we enable learning a safety value function with minimal effort needed from the user, making it more feasible for widespread use in human-robot interactive learning tasks.

Explore related subjects

Keep this discovery

BibTeXRIS

Ahalya Prabhakar, Aude Billard. 2021-10-09. Credit Assignment Safety Learning from Human Demonstrations. https://arxiv.org/abs/2110.04633

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

KEEP EXPLORING

Related papers

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

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

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