Symbolic State Estimation with Predicates for Contact-Rich Manipulation Tasks
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Manipulation tasks often require a robot to adjust its sensorimotor skills based on the state it finds itself in. Taking peg-in-hole as an example: once the peg is aligned with the hole, the robot should push the peg downwards. While high level execution frameworks such as state machines and behavior trees are commonly used to formalize such decision-making problems, these frameworks require a mechanism to detect the high-level symbolic state. Handcrafting heuristics to identify symbolic states can be brittle, and using data-driven methods can produce noisy predictions, particularly when working with limited datasets, as is common in real-world robotic scenarios. This paper proposes a Bayesian state estimation method to predict symbolic states with predicate classifiers. This method requires little training data and allows fusing noisy observations from multiple sensor modalities. We evaluate our framework on a set of real-world peg-in-hole and connector-socket insertion tasks, demonstrating its ability to classify symbolic states and to generalize to unseen tasks, outperforming baseline methods. We also demonstrate the ability of our method to improve the robustness of manipulation policies on a real robot.
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 | 0.007 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 0.001 |
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".