Tell Me Dave: Context-Sensitive Grounding of Natural Language to Manipulation Instructions
Open accessAbstract
We consider performing a sequence of mobile manipulation tasks with instructions given in natural language (NL).Given a new environment, even a simple task such as of boiling water would be performed quite differently depending on the presence, location and state of the objects.We start by collecting a dataset of task descriptions in free-form natural language and the corresponding grounded task-logs of the tasks performed in an online robot simulator.We then build a library of verbenvironment-instructions that represents the possible instructions for each verb in that environment-these may or may not be valid for a different environment and task context.We present a model that takes into account the variations in natural language, and ambiguities in grounding them to robotic instructions with appropriate environment context and task constraints.Our model also handles incomplete or noisy NL instructions.Our model is based on an energy function that encodes such properties in a form isomorphic to a conditional random field.In evaluation, we show that our model produces sequences that perform the task successfully in a simulator and also significantly outperforms the state-of-the-art.We also verify by executing our output instruction sequences on a PR2 robot.
The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.
Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
Statistics
Claims the paper makes
The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.
Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.
Self-check
Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.
The self-check needs the paper’s full text.
The citation lists haven’t been fetched yet
References 54 · Cited by 59
Research works printed but not linked: 33
- R. Alterovitz, S. Patil, and A. Derbakova. Rapidly-exploring roadmaps: Weighing exploration vs. refinement in optimal mo- tion planning. In ICRA, 2011.
- J. Barry, K. Hsiao, L. P. Kaelbling, and T. Lozano-Pérez. Manipulation with multiple action types. In Exp Robo., pages 531-545, 2013.
- J. Berant, A. Chou, R. Frostig, and P. Liang. Semantic parsing on freebase from question-answer pairs. In EMNLP, 2013.
- M. Bollini, J. Barry, and D. Rus. Bakebot: Baking cookies with the pr2. In The PR2 Workshop, IROS, 2011.
- D. L. Chen, J. Kim, and R. J. Mooney. Training a multilingual sportscaster: Using perceptual context to learn language. Jour- nal of Artificial Intelligence Research, 37(1):397-436, 2010.
- V. Chu, I. McMahon, L. Riano, C. McDonald, Q. He, J. Perez- Tejada, M. Arrigo, N. Fitter, J. Nappo, T. Darrell, et al. Using robotic exploratory procedures to learn the meaning of haptic adjectives. In IROS, 2013.
- F. Endres, J. Trinkle, and W. Burgard. Learning the dynamics of doors for robotic manipulation. In IROS, 2013.
- A. Farhadi, I. Endres, and D. Hoiem. Attribute-centric recog- nition for cross-category generalization. In CVPR, 2010.
- A. Farhadi, M. Hejrati, M. A. Sadeghi, P. Young, C. Rashtchian, J. Hockenmaier, and D. Forsyth. Every picture tells a story: Generating sentences from images. In ECCV, 2010.
- J. Fasola and M. Matarić. Using semantic fields to model dynamic spatial relations in a robot architecture for natural language instruction of service robots. In IROS, 2013.
- C. Finucane, G. Jing, and H. Kress-Gazit. Ltlmop: Experiment- ing with language, temporal logic and robot control. In IROS, 2010.
- S. Guadarrama, L. Riano, D. Golland, D. Gouhring, Y. Jia, D. Klein, P. Abbeel, and T. Darrell. Grounding spatial relations for human-robot interaction. In IROS, 2013.
- S. Höfer, T. Lang, and O. Brock. Extracting kinematic background knowledge from interactions using task-sensitive relational learning. In ICRA, 2014.
- Y. Jiang, M. Lim, C. Zheng, and A. Saxena. Learning to place new objects in a scene. IJRR, 31(9), 2012.
- Y. Jiang, H. Koppula, and A. Saxena. Hallucinated humans as the hidden context for labeling 3d scenes. In CVPR, 2013.
- L. P. Kaelbling and T. Lozano-Pérez. Hierarchical task and motion planning in the now. In ICRA, 2011.
- D. Klein and C. Manning. Accurate unlexicalized parsing. In ACL, 2003.
- H.S. Koppula, A. Anand, T. Joachims, and A. Saxena. Semantic labeling of 3d point clouds for indoor scenes. In NIPS, 2011.
- H. Kress-Gazit, G. Fainekos, and G. Pappas. From structured english to robot motion. In IROS, 2007.
- OB Kroemer, R. Detry, J. Piater, and J. Peters. Combining active learning and reactive control for robot grasping. RAS, 58 (9):1105-1116, 2010.
- J. Kulick, M. Toussaint, T. Lang, and M. Lopes. Active learning for teaching a robot grounded relational symbols. In IJCAI, 2013.
- L. Kunze, A. Haidu, and M. Beetz. Acquiring task models for imitation learning through games with a purpose. In IROS, 2013.
- S. Lemaignan, R. Ros, E. A. Sisbot, R. Alami, and M. Beetz. Grounding the interaction: Anchoring situated discourse in everyday human-robot interaction. IJSR, 4(2):181-199, 2012.
- H. Nguyen, M. Ciocarlie, J. Hsiao, and C. C. Kemp. Ros commander (rosco): Behavior creation for home robots. In ICRA, 2013.
- J. Nothman, M. Honnibal, B. Hachey, and J. Curran. Event linking: Grounding event reference in a news archive. In ACL, 2012.
- H. Poon. Grounded unsupervised semantic parsing. In ACL, 2013.
- V. Ramanathan, P. Liang, and L. Fei-Fei. Video event under- standing using natural language descriptions. In ICCV, 2013.
- N. Ratliff, M. Zucker, D. Bagnell, and S. Srinivasa. Chomp: Gradient optimization techniques for efficient motion planning. In ICRA, 2009.
- R. Ros, S. Lemaignan, E. A. Sisbot, R. Alami, J. Steinwender, K. Hamann, and F. Warneken. Which one? grounding the referent based on efficient human-robot interaction. In RO- MAN, pages 570-575, 2010.
- S. Srinivasa, D. Ferguson, C. Helfrich, D. Berenson, A. Col- let, R. Diankov, G. Gallagher, G. Hollinger, J. Kuffner, and M. Weghe. Herb: a home exploring robotic butler. Autonomous Robots, 28(1):5-20, 2010.
- J. Sung, B. Selman, and A. Saxena. Learning sequences of controllers for complex manipulation tasks. In IROS, 2014.
- S. Tellex, T. Kollar, S. Dickerson, M. R Walter, A. G.l Banerjee, S. J. Teller, and N. Roy. Understanding natural language commands for robotic navigation and mobile manipulation. In AAAI, 2011.
- H. Yu and J. Siskind. Grounded language learning from videos described with sentences. In ACL, 2013.
- Authors
- Kumar Misra, D., Sung, J., Lee, K., & Saxena, A.
- Affiliations
- Cornell University
- Cornell University (US)
- ORCID
- Saxena, Ashutosh
- Venue
- Robotics: Science and Systems X
- Published
- 2014-07-12
- OpenAlex
- W2296135247
- Cited by
- 59
- References
- 54
- Citations by year
- 2025: 1 · 2024: 1 · 2021: 1 · 2020: 2 · 2019: 3 · 2018: 9 · 2017: 12 · 2016: 14 · 2015: 11 · 2014: 5
- FWCI
- 19.40
- Type
- conference paper
- Language
- en
- Open access
- bronze
- doi.org
- Locations
- Robotics: Science and Systems (publishedVersion)
- Funders
- National Science Foundation
- Office of Naval Research (N00014)
- Topics
- Physical Sciences › Engineering › Control and Systems Engineering › Robot Manipulation and Learning
- Physical Sciences › Computer Science › Artificial Intelligence › Speech and dialogue systems
- Physical Sciences › Computer Science › Artificial Intelligence › Natural Language Processing Techniques
- Keywords
- natural language instructions, mobile manipulation, grounding, robot simulator, conditional random fields, energy function, PR2 robot
About these checks
Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.
Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.
Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.
What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›
Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review