PGA: Personalizing Grasping Agents with Single Human-Robot Interaction
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Language-Conditioned Robotic Grasping (LCRG) aims to develop robots that comprehend and grasp objects based on natural language instructions. While the ability to understand personal objects like my wallet facilitates more natural interaction with human users, current LCRG systems only allow generic language instructions, e.g., the black-colored wallet next to the laptop. To this end, we introduce a task scenario GraspMine alongside a novel dataset aimed at pinpointing and grasping personal objects given personal indicators via learning from a single human-robot interaction, rather than a large labeled dataset. Our proposed method, Personalized Grasping Agent (PGA), addresses GraspMine by leveraging the unlabeled image data of the user’s environment, called Reminiscence. Specifically, PGA acquires personal object information by a user presenting a personal object with its associated indicator, followed by PGA inspecting the object by rotating it. Based on the acquired information, PGA pseudo-labels objects in the Reminiscence by our proposed label propagation algorithm. Harnessing the information acquired from the interactions and the pseudo-labeled objects in the Reminiscence, PGA adapts the object grounding model to grasp personal objects. This results in significant efficiency while previous LCRG systems rely on resource-intensive human annotations—necessitating hundreds of labeled data to learn my wallet. Moreover, PGA outperforms baseline methods across all metrics and even shows comparable performance compared to the fully-supervised method, which learns from 9k annotated data samples. We further validate PGA’s real-world applicability by employing a physical robot to execute GrsapMine. Code and data are publicly available at https://github.com/JHKim-snu/PGA.
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) | 0.003 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Open science | 0.004 | 0.004 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.005 | 0.004 |
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".