Toward a Natural Language Interface for Transferring Grasping Skills to Robots
Why this work is in the frame
A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
In this paper, we report on the findings of a human-robot interaction study that aims at developing a communication language for transferring grasping skills from a nontechnical user to a robot. Participants with different backgrounds and education levels were asked to command a five-degree-of-freedom human-scale robot arm to grasp five small everyday objects. They were allowed to use either commands from an existing command set or develop their own equivalent natural language instructions. The study revealed several important findings. First, individual participants were more inclined to use simple, familiar commands than more powerful ones. In most cases, once a set of instructions was found to accomplish the grasping task, few participants deviated from that set. In addition, we also found that the participant's background does appear to play a role during the interaction process. Overall, participants with less technical backgrounds require more time and more commands on average to complete a grasping task as compared to participants with more technical backgrounds.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it