Local Linearity is All You Need (in Data-Driven Teleoperation)
Bibliographic record
Abstract
One of the critical aspects of assistive robotics is to provide a control system of a high-dimensional robot from a low-dimensional user input (i.e. a 2D joystick). Data-driven teleoperation seeks to provide an intuitive user interface called an action map to map the low dimensional input to robot velocities from human demonstrations. Action maps are machine learning models trained on robotic demonstration data to map user input directly to desired movements as opposed to aspects of robot pose ("move to cup or pour content" vs. "move along x- or y-axis"). Many works have investigated nonlinear action maps with multi-layer perceptrons, but recent work suggests that local-linear neural approximations provide better control of the system. However, local linear models assume actions exist on a linear subspace and may not capture nuanced motions in training data. In this work, we hypothesize that local-linear neural networks are effective because they make the action map odd w.r.t. the user input, enhancing the intuitiveness of the controller. Based on this assumption, we propose two nonlinear means of encoding odd behavior that do not constrain the action map to a local linear function. However, our analysis reveals that these models effectively behave like local linear models for relevant mappings between user joysticks and robot movements. We support this claim in simulation, and show on a realworld use case that there is no statistical benefit of using non-linear maps, according to the users experience. These negative results suggest that further investigation into model architectures beyond local linear models may offer diminishing returns for improving user experience in data-driven teleoperation systems.
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 distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 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; both teacher heads agree on what is shown here.
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".