Learning by Watching: Physical Imitation of Manipulation Skills from Human Videos
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Learning from visual data opens the potential to accrue a large range of manipulation behaviors by leveraging human demonstrations without specifying each of them mathe-matically, but rather through natural task specification. In this paper, we present Learning by Watching (LbW), an algorithmic framework for policy learning through imitation from a single video specifying the task. The key insights of our method are two-fold. First, since the human arms may not have the same morphology as robot arms, our framework learns unsupervised human to robot translation to overcome the morphology mis-match issue. Second, to capture the details in salient regions that are crucial for learning state representations, our model performs unsupervised keypoint detection on the translated robot videos. The detected keypoints form a structured representation that contains semantically meaningful information and can be used directly for computing reward and policy learning. We evaluate the effectiveness of our LbW framework on five robot manipulation tasks, including reaching, pushing, sliding, coffee making, and drawer closing. Extensive experimental evaluations demonstrate that our method performs favorably against the state-of-the-art approaches. More results and analysis are available at pair.toronto.edu/lbw-kp/.
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 | 0.001 | 0.005 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 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".