Seeing All the Angles: Learning Multiview Manipulation Policies for Contact-Rich Tasks from Demonstrations
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Learned visuomotor policies have shown considerable success as an alternative to traditional, hand-crafted frameworks for robotic manipulation. Surprisingly, an extension of these methods to the multiview domain is relatively unexplored. A successful multiview policy could be deployed on a mobile manipulation platform, allowing the robot to complete a task regardless of its view of the scene. In this work, we demonstrate that a multiview policy can be found through imitation learning by collecting data from a variety of viewpoints. We illustrate the general applicability of the method by learning to complete several challenging multi-stage and contact-rich tasks, from numerous viewpoints, both in a simulated environment and on a real mobile manipulation platform. Furthermore, we analyze our policies to determine the benefits of learning from multiview data compared to learning with data collected from a fixed perspective. We show that learning from multiview data results in little, if any, penalty to performance for a fixed-view task compared to learning with an equivalent amount of fixed-view data. Finally, we examine the visual features learned by the multiview and fixed-view policies. Our results indicate that multiview policies implicitly learn to identify spatially correlated features.
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 | 0.006 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 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".