It Takes Two: Learning to Plan for Human-Robot Cooperative Carrying
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Cooperative table-carrying is a complex task due to the continuous nature of the action and state-spaces, multimodality of strategies, and the need for instantaneous adaptation to other agents. In this work, we present a method for predicting realistic motion plans for cooperative human-robot teams on the task. Using a Variational Recurrent Neural Network (VRNN) to model the variation in the trajectory of a human-robot team across time, we are able to capture the distribution over the team's future states while leveraging information from interaction history. The key to our approach is leveraging human demonstration data to generate trajectories that synergize well with humans during test time in a receding horizon fashion. Comparison between a baseline, sampling-based planner RRT (Rapidly-exploring Random Trees) and the VRNN planner in centralized planning shows that the VRNN generates motion more similar to the distribution of human-human demonstrations than the RRT. Results in a human-in-the-loop user study show that the VRNN planner outperforms decentralized RRT on task-related metrics, and is significantly more likely to be perceived as human than the RRT planner. Finally, we demonstrate the VRNN planner on a real robot paired with a human teleoperating another 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 | 0.004 |
| 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 | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 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".