SearcharxivSearch

arXiv · 2505.12072

L2D2: Robot Learning from 2D Drawings

Abstract

Robots should learn new tasks from humans. But how do humans convey what they want the robot to do? Existing methods largely rely on humans physically guiding the robot arm throughout their intended task. Unfortunately -- as we scale up the amount of data -- physical guidance becomes prohibitively burdensome. Not only do humans need to operate robot hardware but also modify the environment (e.g., moving and resetting objects) to provide multiple task examples. In this work we propose L2D2, a sketching interface and imitation learning algorithm where humans can provide demonstrations by drawing the task. L2D2 starts with a single image of the robot arm and its workspace. Using a tablet, users draw and label trajectories on this image to illustrate how the robot should act. To collect new and diverse demonstrations, we no longer need the human to physically reset the workspace; instead, L2D2 leverages vision-language segmentation to autonomously vary object locations and generate synthetic images for the human to draw upon. We recognize that drawing trajectories is not as information-rich as physically demonstrating the task. Drawings are 2-dimensional and do not capture how the robot's actions affect its environment. To address these fundamental challenges the next stage of L2D2 grounds the human's static, 2D drawings in our dynamic, 3D world by leveraging a small set of physical demonstrations. Our experiments and user study suggest that L2D2 enables humans to provide more demonstrations with less time and effort than traditional approaches, and users prefer drawings over physical manipulation. When compared to other drawing-based approaches, we find that L2D2 learns more performant robot policies, requires a smaller dataset, and can generalize to longer-horizon tasks. See our project website: https://collab.me.vt.edu/L2D2/

Explore related subjects

Keep this discovery

BibTeXRIS

Shaunak A. Mehta, Heramb Nemlekar, Hari Sumant, Dylan P. Losey. 2025-05-17. L2D2: Robot Learning from 2D Drawings. https://arxiv.org/abs/2505.12072

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