SearcharxivSearch

arXiv · 2205.09795

SARI: Shared Autonomy across Repeated Interaction

Abstract

Assistive robot arms try to help their users perform everyday tasks. One way robots can provide this assistance is shared autonomy. Within shared autonomy, both the human and robot maintain control over the robot's motion: as the robot becomes confident it understands what the human wants, it intervenes to automate the task. But how does the robot know these tasks in the first place? State-of-the-art approaches to shared autonomy often rely on prior knowledge. For instance, the robot may need to know the human's potential goals beforehand. During long-term interaction these methods will inevitably break down -- sooner or later the human will attempt to perform a task that the robot does not expect. Accordingly, in this paper we formulate an alternate approach to shared autonomy that learns assistance from scratch. Our insight is that operators repeat important tasks on a daily basis (e.g., opening the fridge, making coffee). Instead of relying on prior knowledge, we therefore take advantage of these repeated interactions to learn assistive policies. We introduce SARI, an algorithm that recognizes the human's task, replicates similar demonstrations, and returns control when unsure. We then combine learning with control to demonstrate that the error of our approach is uniformly ultimately bounded. We perform simulations to support this error bound, compare our approach to imitation learning baselines, and explore its capacity to assist for an increasing number of tasks. Finally, we conduct three user studies with industry-standard methods and shared autonomy baselines, including a pilot test with a disabled user. Our results indicate that learning shared autonomy across repeated interactions matches existing approaches for known tasks and outperforms baselines on new tasks. See videos of our user studies here: https://youtu.be/3vE4omSvLvc

Explore related subjects

Keep this discovery

BibTeXRIS

Ananth Jonnavittula, Shaunak A. Mehta, Dylan P. Losey. 2022-05-19. SARI: Shared Autonomy across Repeated Interaction. https://arxiv.org/abs/2205.09795

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