Controlling Assistive Robots with Learned Latent Actions
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Assistive robotic arms enable users with physical disabilities to perform everyday tasks without relying on a caregiver. Unfortunately, the very dexterity that makes these arms useful also makes them challenging to teleoperate: the robot has more degrees-of-freedom than the human can directly coordinate with a handheld joystick. Our insight is that we can make assistive robots easier for humans to control by leveraging latent actions. Latent actions provide a lowdimensional embedding of high-dimensional robot behavior: for example, one latent dimension might guide the assistive arm along a pouring motion. In this paper, we design a teleoperation algorithm for assistive robots that learns latent actions from task demonstrations. We formulate the controllability, consistency, and scaling properties that user-friendly latent actions should have, and evaluate how different lowdimensional embeddings capture these properties. Finally, we conduct two user studies on a robotic arm to compare our latent action approach to both state-of-the-art shared autonomy baselines and a teleoperation strategy currently used by assistive arms. Participants completed assistive eating and cooking tasks more efficiently when leveraging our latent actions, and also subjectively reported that latent actions made the task easier to perform. The video accompanying this paper can be found at: https://youtu.be/wjnhrzugBj4.
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.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 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 itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".