Multimodal and Force-Matched Imitation Learning With a See-Through Visuotactile Sensor
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Contact-rich tasks continue to present many challenges for robotic manipulation. In this work, we leverage a multimodal visuotactile sensor within the framework of imitation learning (IL) to perform contact-rich tasks that involve relative motion (e.g., slipping and sliding) between the end-effector and the manipulated object. We introduce two algorithmic contributions,tactile force matchingandlearned mode switching, as complimentary methods for improving IL. Tactile force matching enhances kinesthetic teaching by reading approximate forces during the demonstration and generating an adapted robot trajectory that recreates the recorded forces. Learned mode switching uses IL to couple visual and tactile sensor modes with the learned motion policy, simplifying the transition from reaching to contacting. We perform robotic manipulation experiments on four door-opening tasks with a variety of observation and algorithm configurations to study the utility of multimodal visuotactile sensing and our proposed improvements. Our results show that the inclusion of force matching raises average policy success rates by 62.5%, visuotactile mode switching by 30.3%, and visuotactile data as a policy input by 42.5%, emphasizing the value of see-through tactile sensing for IL, both for data collection to allow force matching, and for policy execution to enable accurate task feedback.
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 | 0.003 |
| 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 | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 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".