Papers
Topics
Authors
Recent
Gemini 2.5 Flash
Gemini 2.5 Flash
41 tokens/sec
GPT-4o
59 tokens/sec
Gemini 2.5 Pro Pro
41 tokens/sec
o3 Pro
7 tokens/sec
GPT-4.1 Pro
50 tokens/sec
DeepSeek R1 via Azure Pro
28 tokens/sec
2000 character limit reached

GenCHiP: Generating Robot Policy Code for High-Precision and Contact-Rich Manipulation Tasks (2404.06645v1)

Published 9 Apr 2024 in cs.RO and cs.AI
GenCHiP: Generating Robot Policy Code for High-Precision and Contact-Rich Manipulation Tasks

Abstract: LLMs have been successful at generating robot policy code, but so far these results have been limited to high-level tasks that do not require precise movement. It is an open question how well such approaches work for tasks that require reasoning over contact forces and working within tight success tolerances. We find that, with the right action space, LLMs are capable of successfully generating policies for a variety of contact-rich and high-precision manipulation tasks, even under noisy conditions, such as perceptual errors or grasping inaccuracies. Specifically, we reparameterize the action space to include compliance with constraints on the interaction forces and stiffnesses involved in reaching a target pose. We validate this approach on subtasks derived from the Functional Manipulation Benchmark (FMB) and NIST Task Board Benchmarks. Exposing this action space alongside methods for estimating object poses improves policy generation with an LLM by greater than 3x and 4x when compared to non-compliant action spaces

Overview of GenCHiP: Generating Robot Policy Code for High-Precision and Contact-Rich Manipulation Tasks

The paper "GenCHiP: Generating Robot Policy Code for High-Precision and Contact-Rich Manipulation Tasks" presents an exploration of the capabilities of LLMs to generate robot policy code that can handle contact-rich and high-precision manipulation tasks. This capability is contrasted with previous applications of LLMs which have been concentrated on high-level tasks that involve less precision in movement. The paper leverages LLMs' capabilities by reparameterizing the action space to accommodate constraints on interaction forces and stiffness, thus enhancing the models' ability to reason over movements that require finer control. The research is driven by the challenge of how well LLMs perform in tasks demanding contact force reasoning and reaction to sensory noise, such as perceptual errors or grasp inaccuracies.

Research Focus and Methodology

The authors focus on enabling LLMs to generate robotic code that can adaptively handle precise and contact-intensive tasks by introducing a compliant action space, facilitating interactions with environmental constraints. Their approach is validated through trials on subtasks from the Functional Manipulation Benchmark (FMB) and the NIST Task Board Benchmarks. They expose this action space alongside methods for object pose estimation, yielding significant improvements in policy generation by more than threefold compared to non-compliant action spaces.

The research utilizes techniques from robotics and deep learning, such as variable impedance control, to guide robots in complex manipulation tasks. By providing a compliant action space, the paper allows LLMs to parameterize low-level control by modulating stiffness and applying constraints on the forces. This strategy encourages LLMs to generate motion patterns essential for job completion, such as in peg insertion or cable routing.

Key Insights and Results

The numerical results presented in the paper illustrate noticeable performance improvements over previous models that do not utilize compliant action spaces. The LLM-generated code is shown to vastly outperform a basic scripted baseline in various settings. For instance, in the Functional Manipulation Benchmark, the GenCHiP-equipped models demonstrated significant success in handling geometries of high precision and various object shapes. Furthermore, extending this research framework to industrial tasks demonstrated LLMs' scalability in tackling complex real-world problems.

Implications and Future Directions

This research provides compelling evidence of LLMs' potential to autonomously generate precise control code for robotics. It expands the theoretical implications of LLM adaptability to include domains traditionally dominated by task-specific control engineering. Practically, the paper suggests a pathway to automate complex calibration tasks in robotics, achieving remarkable results that rely on LLM-inherited world knowledge.

In terms of future development, this approach could be extended by further refining strategies for integrating perception and language-model-generated control, perhaps delving deeper into multi-modal data fusion and unsupervised learning in control environments. The promising results suggest future research could continue enhancing the robustness and generalization of robot policy code, including integrating with sophisticated sensory inputs and exploring broader classes of manipulation tasks.

In summary, this paper presents a well-argued examination of using LLMs for generating robotic control policies, underlining the potential and versatility of these models in executing and planning intricate tasks beyond general linguistic capabilities. The research outcomes reinforce the growing relevance of LLMs in complex task automation, which may eventually transform approaches to robotic learning and control.

Definition Search Book Streamline Icon: https://streamlinehq.com
References (49)
  1. “Code as Policies: Language Model Programs for Embodied Control” In arXiv preprint arXiv:2209.07753, 2022
  2. “Large Language Models as General Pattern Machines” In arXiv preprint, 2023
  3. “Language Models as Zero-Shot Planners: Extracting Actionable Knowledge for Embodied Agents” In arXiv preprint arXiv:2201.07207, 2022
  4. “Chatgpt for robotics: Design principles and model abilities” In arXiv preprint arXiv:2306.17582, 2023
  5. “Vima: General robot manipulation with multimodal prompts” In arXiv preprint arXiv:2210.03094, 2022
  6. Mohit Shridhar, Lucas Manuelli and Dieter Fox “Cliport: What and where pathways for robotic manipulation” In Conference on Robot Learning, 2022
  7. “Rt-1: Robotics transformer for real-world control at scale” In arXiv preprint arXiv:2212.06817, 2022
  8. “Rt-2: Vision-language-action models transfer web knowledge to robotic control” In arXiv preprint arXiv:2307.15818, 2023
  9. Mohit Shridhar, Lucas Manuelli and Dieter Fox “Perceiver-actor: A multi-task transformer for robotic manipulation” In Conference on Robot Learning, 2023
  10. “RT-H: Action Hierarchies Using Language”, 2024 arXiv:2403.01823 [cs.RO]
  11. “Efficient Online Learning of Contact Force Models for Connector Insertion” In arXiv preprint arXiv:2312.09190, 2023
  12. “FMB: A Functional Manipulation Benchmark for Generalizable Robotic Learning”, 2023
  13. “Research Challenges and Progress in Robotic Grasping and Manipulation Competitions” In IEEE Robotics and Automation Letters 7, 2021, pp. 874–881
  14. “Benchmarking Protocols for Evaluating Small Parts Robotic Assembly Systems” In IEEE Robotics and Automation Letters 5, 2020, pp. 883–889
  15. “Inner Monologue: Embodied Reasoning through Planning with Language Models” In arXiv preprint arXiv:2207.05608, 2022
  16. “Text2motion: From natural language instructions to feasible plans” In Autonomous Robots Springer, 2023
  17. “ProgPrompt: Generating Situated Robot Task Plans using Large Language Models” In 2023 IEEE International Conference on Robotics and Automation (ICRA), 2023
  18. “TidyBot: Personalized Robot Assistance with Large Language Models” In Autonomous Robots, 2023
  19. “Language-conditioned path planning” In Conference on Robot Learning, 2023, pp. 3384–3396 PMLR
  20. “Grounded Graph Decoding Improves Compositional Generalization in Question Answering” In ArXiv abs/2111.03642, 2021
  21. “VoxPoser: Composable 3D Value Maps for Robotic Manipulation with Language Models” In arXiv preprint arXiv:2307.05973, 2023
  22. “CALAMARI: Contact-Aware and Language conditioned spatial Action MApping for contact-RIch manipulation” In 7th Annual Conference on Robot Learning, 2023
  23. “Reinforcement Learning on Variable Impedance Controller for High-Precision Robotic Assembly” In 2019 International Conference on Robotics and Automation (ICRA), 2019 DOI: 10.1109/ICRA.2019.8793506
  24. “Offline Meta-Reinforcement Learning for Industrial Insertion” In 2022 International Conference on Robotics and Automation (ICRA), 2022
  25. “Factory: Fast contact for robotic assembly” In arXiv preprint arXiv:2205.03532, 2022
  26. “Robot learning towards smart robotic manufacturing: A review” In Robotics and Computer-Integrated Manufacturing 77 Elsevier, 2022, pp. 102360
  27. Oliver Kroemer, Scott Niekum and George Konidaris “A Review of Robot Learning for Manipulation: Challenges, Representations, and Algorithms” In J. Mach. Learn. Res. 22.1 JMLR.org, 2021
  28. Markku Suomalainen, Yiannis Karayiannidis and Ville Kyrki “A survey of robot manipulation in contact” In Robotics and Autonomous Systems 156 Elsevier, 2022, pp. 104224
  29. “A review on reinforcement learning for contact-rich robotic manipulation tasks” In Robotics and Computer-Integrated Manufacturing Elsevier, 2023
  30. “Vision-driven compliant manipulation for reliable, high-precision assembly tasks” In arXiv preprint arXiv:2106.14070, 2021
  31. “Residual Learning From Demonstration: Adapting DMPs for Contact-Rich Manipulation” In IEEE Robotics and Automation Letters, 2022
  32. “Symbolic State Estimation with Predicates for Contact-Rich Manipulation Tasks” In 2022 International Conference on Robotics and Automation (ICRA), 2022
  33. “Diffusion Policy: Visuomotor Policy Learning via Action Diffusion” In Proceedings of Robotics: Science and Systems (RSS), 2023
  34. “Deep Reinforcement Learning for Industrial Insertion Tasks with Visual Inputs and Natural Rewards” In 2020 IEEE/RSJ International Conference on Intelligent Robots and Systems (IROS), 2019, pp. 5548–5555
  35. “Zero-Shot Transfer of Haptics-based Object Insertion Policies” In International Conference on Robotics and Automation (ICRA), 2023
  36. “Variable compliance control for robotic peg-in-hole assembly: A deep-reinforcement-learning approach” In Applied Sciences 10.19 MDPI, 2020, pp. 6923
  37. Fares J Abu-Dakka and Matteo Saveriano “Variable impedance control and learning—a review” In Frontiers in Robotics and AI 7 Frontiers Media SA, 2020, pp. 590681
  38. “Large Language Models are Zero-Shot Reasoners” In ArXiv abs/2205.11916, 2022
  39. “Variable Impedance Control in End-Effector Space: An Action Space for Reinforcement Learning in Contact-Rich Tasks” In International Conference on Intelligent Robots and Systems (IROS), 2019
  40. “Learning variable impedance control” In The International Journal of Robotics Research SAGE Publications Sage UK: London, England, 2011
  41. “Faster R-CNN: Towards Real-Time Object Detection with Region Proposal Networks” In Advances in Neural Information Processing Systems (NIPS), 2015
  42. “Language to Rewards for Robotic Skill Synthesis” In Arxiv preprint arXiv:2306.08647, 2023
  43. OpenAI “GPT-4 Technical Report”, 2023
  44. “Chain of Thought Prompting Elicits Reasoning in Large Language Models” In ArXiv abs/2201.11903, 2022
  45. “Feature Pyramid Networks for Object Detection” In 2017 IEEE Conference on Computer Vision and Pattern Recognition (CVPR), 2016
  46. “What Can Transformers Learn In-Context? A Case Study of Simple Function Classes” In arXiv preprint, 2022
  47. “Attention is All you Need” In Advances in Neural Information Processing Systems 30 Curran Associates, Inc., 2017 URL: https://proceedings.neurips.cc/paper_files/paper/2017/file/3f5ee243547dee91fbd053c1c4a845aa-Paper.pdf
  48. “An Image is Worth One Word: Personalizing Text-to-Image Generation using Textual Inversion” In The Eleventh International Conference on Learning Representations, 2023 URL: https://openreview.net/forum?id=NAQvF08TcyG
  49. “Visual Instruction Tuning” In Thirty-seventh Conference on Neural Information Processing Systems, 2023 URL: https://openreview.net/forum?id=w0H2xGHlkw
User Edit Pencil Streamline Icon: https://streamlinehq.com
Authors (7)
  1. Kaylee Burns (14 papers)
  2. Ajinkya Jain (9 papers)
  3. Keegan Go (3 papers)
  4. Fei Xia (111 papers)
  5. Michael Stark (7 papers)
  6. Stefan Schaal (73 papers)
  7. Karol Hausman (56 papers)
Citations (3)