paper_id
stringlengths
9
13
conference_year_track
stringclasses
139 values
reviewer_id
stringlengths
13
13
messages
listlengths
5
21
xtYuTyZY1FJ
CLeaR 2022 Conference
Reviewer_5P7m
[ { "content": "\nYou are an experienced academic paper reviewer. You will receive a conference paper in the field of computer science or AI. Please analyze the paper content carefully and output your review content.\nMore importantly, the author will further explain or refute the review comments you gave, and you need to further discuss with the author based on the author's response. \nThe purpose of this rebuttal and discussion is:\n- Clarification: During the review process, the reviewer (you) may not accurately understand the contribution or method of the paper due to unclear expression or misunderstanding of certain details. Through rebuttal, the author has the opportunity to clarify these misunderstandings and further illustrate the effectiveness of their innovations or methods.\n- Respond to criticisms and suggestions: The reviewer (you) may make criticisms or suggestions on the paper, and the author can use the discussion session to provide specific responses, explain why certain criticisms may not apply, or how to improve and optimize certain aspects of the paper.\nFinally, you and the author will work together to enhance the persuasiveness of the paper and improve the quality of the paper.\n", "role": "system" }, { "content": "Now your reviewer ID is assigned as Reviewer_5P7m, and the following are the paper you need to review:\n```<<xtYuTyZY1FJ>>```", "role": "user" }, { "content": "Review Content: Summary: This paper proposes Amortized Causal Discovery, a method for estimating causal relationships from time series data using neural networks, based on the idea of Granger causality.\nMain review: # Quality and clarity\nThere seem to be many important points that are not explained in this paper.\n- In this paper, although it says \"we learn to infer causal relations across samples with different underlying causal graphs but shared dynamics\" on page 1 and 3, it also says \"Edges are invariant to time\" on page 4. I have been confused when I read this paper because I first thought that the underlying causal mechanisms change over time. I still don't understand what each graph corresponds to.\n- Section 3 lacks the details about the method to identify latent confounders, so the method is not likely reproducible.\n- I don't understand why the authors' proposed method is robust even if there are hidden confounders. The details about the method and a theoretical explanation for it is needed.\n- I wonder if the previous methods compared in this paper generates causal graphs with cycles. If not, the authors need to provide an explanation about the details about how they compared their method with the previous methods.\n\n# Originality and significance\nThere is no novelty in the problem set addressed in this paper. This paper proposes a new method for an existing problem. However, it lacks the details of the method and the theoretical explanation to support the effectiveness of the method.\n- I wonder why the authors propose to learn a causal graph in the form of aggregated time series causal graphs (summary graphs). The graphs inferred by the method proposed by Hyvärinen et al. (2010) contains more detailed information about causal relationships. In my opinion, the causal graphs proposed in this paper are inferior to the graphs generated by the methods proposed in existing research in terms of the detail of the information. The authors need to clarify this point. The authors refer to (Peters et al., 2017) but I could not find any descriptions about summary graphs in the book.\nRating: 3 reject, not good enough\nConfidence: The reviewer is willing to defend the evaluation, but it is quite likely that the reviewer did not understand central parts of the paper\n", "role": "assistant" }, { "content": "Title: Reply to Reviewer 5P7m\nWe would like to thank the reviewer for their feedback. We will first clarify some aspects around ACD before tackling the individual points raised by the reviewer.\n\nTo better understand the motivation underlying ACD as well as the novelty in its problem set, we would like to outline an example application. Suppose we want to infer the synaptic connections (i.e. Granger causal relations) between neurons based on their spiking behaviour. With existing causal discovery methods, we would take one sample consisting of $N$ time-series which represent the spike trains of $N$ neurons, and train a model on this sample to infer the underlying causal graph. If we were to encounter another sample which represents the spike trains of a different set of neurons (e.g. because the electrode measuring the spiking activity was moved), previous approaches would have to fit an entirely new model to this new sample. In our paper, we point out that this is rather wasteful, since the two samples share information -- namely the underlying dynamics of how neurons influence one another -- which is lost with this approach. We propose to make use of this shared information by training a model across samples. In the example above, this would allow us to train a single model on the two samples to infer the different causal graphs that are underlying them, while improving the model performance by learning about the causal dynamics in a shared, i.e. amortized approach.\n\n**To the best of our knowledge, ACD is the first method that can take advantage of such shared dynamics and the first method to tackle this problem set.**\n\nTo reply to the points raised by the reviewer on “quality and clarity”:\n\n(1) In our paper, we assume that the underlying causal graph changes across samples, but stays constant throughout an individual sample (and thus throughout time). We leave it to future work to also consider the case in which the underlying causal graph changes across time as well. \n\n(2) Besides the description in section 3, we provide details on the implementation of our method to improve the robustness against hidden confounders in section 5.2, and explain further in Appendix C. Additionally, we will make our code available with the camera-ready version of our paper. If the reviewer has any further questions regarding the implementation we are happy to answer them here.\n\n(3) To explain why ACD is more robust against hidden confounding, we would like to reuse our example from above. In a recording of neural spike trains, it is nearly impossible to record all neurons that are causally influencing one another. As a result, hidden confounders -- for instance, neurons that are not part of the recording, but still influence the neurons we observe -- will always be present in this setting. As described above, previous approaches would retrain a new model for each new recording (i.e. sample) from a different neural sub-population. However, similarly to the dynamics that describe the way in which neurons causally influence one another, the hidden confounders will behave in a similar way across samples. By training a single model across samples, ACD can make use of this shared information and learn to become more robust against hidden confounders. \n\nWe want to point out that our paper is the first to show improved robustness in this setting empirically. We leave theoretical explorations to future work. \n\n(4) To the best of our knowledge, all compared methods (including ACD) are capable of inferring causal summary graphs with cycles.\n\nFinally, on “originality and significance”: the reviewer notes that the paper “lacks the details of the method and the theoretical explanation”. If the reviewer can give more details about what specifically is missing from the paper, we are happy to answer their questions here. In response to the specific point raised about summary graphs:\n\n(5) We agree that summary graphs contain less information than full-time graphs and that inferring the latter would therefore be more desirable. However, the aim in our paper is different: we want to demonstrate that we can use the information that is shared across samples with **different underlying causal graphs**. Our results show that this allows us to substantially outperform previous causal discovery methods for time-series, all of which also focus on summary graphs. As a result, we consider it an interesting path for future work to extend ACD (as well as previous nonlinear Granger causality approaches) to infer full-time graphs.\nThe referenced theorem 10.3 in Peters 2017 applies to summary graphs, specifically stating that edges in the summary graph can be inferred using Granger causal reasoning if no hidden confounders or instantaneous connections exist.\n\n", "role": "user" }, { "content": "I value the authors' response. It covers most of my concerns, and I am considering revising the rating.", "role": "assistant" } ]
xtYuTyZY1FJ
CLeaR 2022 Conference
Reviewer_U1gF
[ { "content": "\nYou are an experienced academic paper reviewer. You will receive a conference paper in the field of computer science or AI. Please analyze the paper content carefully and output your review content.\nMore importantly, the author will further explain or refute the review comments you gave, and you need to further discuss with the author based on the author's response. \nThe purpose of this rebuttal and discussion is:\n- Clarification: During the review process, the reviewer (you) may not accurately understand the contribution or method of the paper due to unclear expression or misunderstanding of certain details. Through rebuttal, the author has the opportunity to clarify these misunderstandings and further illustrate the effectiveness of their innovations or methods.\n- Respond to criticisms and suggestions: The reviewer (you) may make criticisms or suggestions on the paper, and the author can use the discussion session to provide specific responses, explain why certain criticisms may not apply, or how to improve and optimize certain aspects of the paper.\nFinally, you and the author will work together to enhance the persuasiveness of the paper and improve the quality of the paper.\n", "role": "system" }, { "content": "Now your reviewer ID is assigned as Reviewer_U1gF, and the following are the paper you need to review:\n```<<xtYuTyZY1FJ>>```", "role": "user" }, { "content": "Review Content: Summary: The main contribution of the paper is the proposal of a new \"framework\" to infer causal relations across samples with different underlying causal graphs, but with a shared dynamics. The paper does not present a specific and explicit algorithm, but a probabilistic implementation of the framework with a good theoretical background and an application to simulated data.\nMain review: Originality: \n\nThe paper provides something new, namely it faces the problem, probably not yet well-addressed in the existing literature, that causal discovery methods may infer a different causal graph for each sample when the data are time series. The nature of this problem should have been better justified, from a statistical theoretical point of view. For example, is this due to non-ergodicity or non-stationarity of the underlying stochastic process? The idea of \"amortization\" across different causal graphs through the \"encoding\" and \"decoding\" function is very original. At least, it is new to me. Related works are correctly discussed.\n\nSignificance: \n\nThe paper addresses surely an important problem, namely causal heterogeneity across samples, which are relevant to the CLeaR community. The proposed method significantly advances the state-of-the-art, although the relevance of this method depends very much on the assumption of \"shared dynamics\". It is difficult to assess whether this assumption holds or does not hold in empirical applications. (The authors present applications to simulated data only). The method proposed in the paper, if better motivated and justified, is likely to have some impact outside the CLeaR community, e.g. in neuroscience, finance, and perhaps economics. The paper hinges on the Granger causality framework, therefore it may be more interesting for fields of studies with high frequency data.\n\nTechnical quality: \n\nThe proposed approach is technically sound, but I expected more details about the encoder and decoder function. Minor point: in equation (2) the time index of the noise variable should probably be \"t+1\" instead of \"t\".\n\nClarity: \n\nThe paper is clearly written and well-organised. The motivation of the paper could be improved. It should be clarified under which conditions we get different graphs from different samples and which settings support the \"shared dynamics\" assumption. \n\nOverall assessment: nice contribution in terms of new method / framework, but the paper needs to be better motivated. It should be better clarified why it is interesting or even sound to consolidate causal discovery output over other samples.\nRating: 7 accept, but needs minor improvements\nConfidence: The reviewer is fairly confident that the evaluation is correct\n", "role": "assistant" }, { "content": "Title: Reply to Reviewer U1gF\nWe thank the reviewer for the helpful feedback. Here, we hope to clarify some of the questions around the strengths and weaknesses of our method.\n\n_The nature of this problem should have been better justified_: We are not totally sure of the type of justification the reviewer is seeking (some clarification would be helpful), however we will explicate some of the ideas here. We consider a two-level data generating process, where first a causal graph is sampled from some meta-distribution over causal graphs, and then a trajectory is sampled from that causal graph. To generate $S$ samples, we run this two-step process $S$ times. For instance, we can imagine that each sample represents the spike trains of $N$ neurons. The connectivity between the subpopulation of neurons underlying each sample is unique, and drawn from some broad distribution over possible connectivity graphs. Then, the neural spiking data is generated from that given connectivity graph. We hope this provides the justification the reviewer is seeking for our setup - if not, we welcome further inquiry on this topic.\n\n_The relevance of this method depends very much on the assumption of \"shared dynamics\"_: We agree that testing the assumptions which drive causal inference is an important research area for practical trustworthiness. However, we note that causal inference tends to be built on a whole host of unverifiable assumptions, such as ignorability, monotonicity or consistency; these assumptions are usually supported by domain knowledge rather than observed data. Further, we suggest that the assumption of shared dynamics is in line with our intuitions for a number of domains: for instance, many samples from a physical system will share the same laws of motion, even if their causal relationships differ.\n\n_​I expected more details about the encoder and decoder function_: In Appendix B.1.2 we provide more detailed information about the exact architecture we use for our encoder and decoder, and in Appendix C we give even more details about our implementations in the unobserved confounding settings. Our code will also be made available after the deadline. If the reviewer has any questions clarifying the role or structure of the encoder and decoder function we are happy to answer them here.\n\n_Minor point in equation (2)_: Thank you for pointing this out, we have made this change.\n", "role": "user" }, { "content": "I value the authors' response. The reply answers almost all of my questions. I stand by my favorable recommendation for this paper.", "role": "assistant" } ]
xzJWqJadOG
CLeaR 2022 Conference
Reviewer_ULh7
[ { "content": "\nYou are an experienced academic paper reviewer. You will receive a conference paper in the field of computer science or AI. Please analyze the paper content carefully and output your review content.\nMore importantly, the author will further explain or refute the review comments you gave, and you need to further discuss with the author based on the author's response. \nThe purpose of this rebuttal and discussion is:\n- Clarification: During the review process, the reviewer (you) may not accurately understand the contribution or method of the paper due to unclear expression or misunderstanding of certain details. Through rebuttal, the author has the opportunity to clarify these misunderstandings and further illustrate the effectiveness of their innovations or methods.\n- Respond to criticisms and suggestions: The reviewer (you) may make criticisms or suggestions on the paper, and the author can use the discussion session to provide specific responses, explain why certain criticisms may not apply, or how to improve and optimize certain aspects of the paper.\nFinally, you and the author will work together to enhance the persuasiveness of the paper and improve the quality of the paper.\n", "role": "system" }, { "content": "Now your reviewer ID is assigned as Reviewer_ULh7, and the following are the paper you need to review:\n```<<xzJWqJadOG>>```", "role": "user" }, { "content": "Review Content: Summary: The authors introduce a new type of learning problem called CMDPs, and they generalize UCBVI algorithms to CMDPs.\nMain review: Although I am far from an expert in this area, this appears to be a highly innovative paper.\n\nThe authors first introduce a new type of decision problem -- causal Markov decision problems CMDPs. A CMDP is a special case of a Markov decision problems (MDP), but reasonable performance in MDPs is typically achieved by assuming either (i) the state and action spaces are both finite and relatively small, OR (ii) the state and action space can be factored in a very particular way. The authors note that, in certain settings (like healthcare and digital marketing), neither of those assumptions is realistic. The authors then introduce CMDPs to model decision problems like those encountered in healthcare and marketing. They briefly argue that, in such situations, a different type of factorization condition is plausible if one assumes the underlying actions, state, and reward structures reflect some underlying causal structure. The authors then generalize UCBVI algorithms to CMDPs, prove a regret bound, and analyze the performance of their algorithms on simulated data. \n\nThe paper is clearly written and well-organized. Assuming the details of the arguments are correct, I think the only major weakness of the paper is that the authors do not apply their algorithms to real data from the healthcare and marketing settings the purportedly motivated this theoretical work. Perhaps the application is trivial, but as a non-expert, it's not immediately clear to me if the assumption used to derive the regret bounds is plausible in those settings. Nonetheless, considered as a theoretical paper, this seems strong to me.\nRating: 9 strong accept, excellent work\nConfidence: The reviewer is willing to defend the evaluation, but it is quite likely that the reviewer did not understand central parts of the paper\n", "role": "assistant" }, { "content": "Title: Response to Reviewer ULh7\nWe thank the reviewer for appreciating our paper! We are glad that you find our paper innovative, clear and theoretically strong. Our paper is motivated by real applications, but our main focus is on the theoretical side. Applying our method to real examples will require more work such as obtaining the domain causal knowledge and will be a good next step!\n", "role": "user" }, { "content": "I acknowledge the authors' response. Most of my concerns have been addressed. I still support my favorable recommendation for this manuscript.", "role": "assistant" } ]
xzJWqJadOG
CLeaR 2022 Conference
Reviewer_ex9n
[ { "content": "\nYou are an experienced academic paper reviewer. You will receive a conference paper in the field of computer science or AI. Please analyze the paper content carefully and output your review content.\nMore importantly, the author will further explain or refute the review comments you gave, and you need to further discuss with the author based on the author's response. \nThe purpose of this rebuttal and discussion is:\n- Clarification: During the review process, the reviewer (you) may not accurately understand the contribution or method of the paper due to unclear expression or misunderstanding of certain details. Through rebuttal, the author has the opportunity to clarify these misunderstandings and further illustrate the effectiveness of their innovations or methods.\n- Respond to criticisms and suggestions: The reviewer (you) may make criticisms or suggestions on the paper, and the author can use the discussion session to provide specific responses, explain why certain criticisms may not apply, or how to improve and optimize certain aspects of the paper.\nFinally, you and the author will work together to enhance the persuasiveness of the paper and improve the quality of the paper.\n", "role": "system" }, { "content": "Now your reviewer ID is assigned as Reviewer_ex9n, and the following are the paper you need to review:\n```<<xzJWqJadOG>>```", "role": "user" }, { "content": "Review Content: Summary: The authors introduce methods in reinforcement learning to deal with action and state spaces that have a large cardinality. For large action spaces, they propose Causal Markov Decision Processes (C-MDP), an extension of MDPs that incorporate a lower-dimensional set of variables Z that create a conditional independence between intervenable actions A and rewards R/states S. To deal with large state (and action) spaces they propose Causal Factored MDPs (CF-MDPs) that, like factored MDPs, have a factorizable state space. They propose C-UCBVI and CF-UCBVI algorithms and show that regret bounds for these cases are better than conventional bounds. \nMain review: Originality: The authors have used simple assumptions like conditional independence and factored representations to gain on regret bounds. They make comparisons to prior work in causal reinforcement learning [Zhang et al.]. The work is closely linked to causal DBNs [Blondel et al., International Journal of Data Science and Analytics 2017] and path dependent causal models [Srinivasan et al. UAI 2021]: these papers introduce the concept of interventions in time-dependent systems, whose evolution changes with actions/interventions along the way. They also address confounding and effects on a system’s evolution upon intervention. Citing these would be beneficial to the scholarship of this work.\n\nSignificance: The paper claims to introduce causal MDPs. It would be important to understand the authors’ view on two issues:\n(1) The usage of the word causality in this paper: The methodology in the paper does not seem to make use of counterfactual outcomes or the do-operator and the framework of causality. The main argument is that there is directionality in the dependence between A, Z and R/S. But does this extend beyond simple conditional independence, and is causality required for the arguments? Is it essential for nomenclature? \n(2) Unobserved Confounding: The authors state they do not deal with unobserved confounding in this paper. However, the main draw of causal methods is their ability to deal with confounding and bias. It is not clear why this strong assumption about lack of confounding was made in the paper.\n\nTechnical quality: The methods introduced are conceptually fairly straightforward. The bounds can be valuable if the settings of use obey the assumptions in the paper. The experiments are simple, and the paper could have benefitted from a real-data example to show the true power of the method, and validity of assumptions.\n\nClarity: The paper is clearly written and easy to follow. It would be prudent to highlight the trail of assumptions that lead to the final results as they are currently sprinkled all over the writing, making it hard to reconcile the claims in the abstract with the actual ability of the method to deal with large cardinality of A and S. For eg, an assumption is that the states all have the same structure. But this isn’t evident from the writing in the rest of the paper.\nThe examples can be better structured to convey ideas more effectively. The paper could have benefitted from an experiment that retains any of the motivating example scenarios introduced in the paper.\nRating: 6 marginally above the acceptance threshold\nConfidence: The reviewer is fairly confident that the evaluation is correct\n", "role": "assistant" }, { "content": "Title: Response to Reviewer ex9n\nWe thank the reviewer for your valuable comments! We address your concerns below:\n\n1. Originality: We thank the reviewer for pointing us to the two papers that have introduced the concept of interventions in time-dependent systems. We will cite them in our final version.\n\n2. Significance: \n\na) “The usage of the word causality in this paper…”: We follow the terminology from existing works’ on causal bandits ([1][2][3]), where the action set is also composed of interventions on variables of a causal graph but they focused on a bandit setup (while ours is MDP). In these works, including our causal MDPs, interventions are defined via do-operator (see page 5) and causal graphs are used to model the relations among the intervenable variables, reward, state and other related variables. Causality is used, since the domain is modeled as causal graphs and our actions are interventions. Similar to causal bandit works, our main methodology is to make use of the conditional independencies between A, Z and R/S to speed up the learning process. If the reviewer has strong objections to the title of our work, we are also willing to change our title to something like: efficient reinforcement learning algorithms with prior causal information etc. We are also willing to add more discussion on how exactly causality is used in the paper (viz. mostly in the modeling not in the methodology).\n\nb) About unobserved confounding (UC): We agree that the non-existence of UC assumption is strong in some sense. The reason why we made this assumption is that UCs can cause trouble for both non-stationary optimal policies for RL and causal model violation, which overall is a very complicated scenario outside of our current scope. We hope our work can be a nice starting point for future works when UCs exist. \n\n3. \"Technical quality: ......The experiments are simple......\": Our paper is motivated by real applications, but our main focus is on the theoretical side. Applying our method to real examples will require more work such as obtaining the domain causal knowledge and will be a good next step!\n\n4. Clarity: Thank you for helping us improve the writing. \n\na) We will make the experiment section more well-organized in our final version. \n\nb) “an assumption is that the states all have the same structure”: We do not need all states having the same structure. We set the states to have the same structure just for simplicity.\n\n[1] Lattimore et al. (2016) Causal Bandits: Learning Good Interventions via Causal Inference\n\n[2] Lu et al. (2020) Regret Analysis of Bandit Problems with Causal Background Knowledge\n\n[3] Nair et al. (2021) Budgeted and Non-budgeted Causal Bandits\n\n\n\n\n", "role": "user" }, { "content": "I acknowledge the authors' response. It resolves the majority of my concerns. I maintain my positive recommendation for this work.", "role": "assistant" } ]
xzJWqJadOG
CLeaR 2022 Conference
Reviewer_18wK
[ { "content": "\nYou are an experienced academic paper reviewer. You will receive a conference paper in the field of computer science or AI. Please analyze the paper content carefully and output your review content.\nMore importantly, the author will further explain or refute the review comments you gave, and you need to further discuss with the author based on the author's response. \nThe purpose of this rebuttal and discussion is:\n- Clarification: During the review process, the reviewer (you) may not accurately understand the contribution or method of the paper due to unclear expression or misunderstanding of certain details. Through rebuttal, the author has the opportunity to clarify these misunderstandings and further illustrate the effectiveness of their innovations or methods.\n- Respond to criticisms and suggestions: The reviewer (you) may make criticisms or suggestions on the paper, and the author can use the discussion session to provide specific responses, explain why certain criticisms may not apply, or how to improve and optimize certain aspects of the paper.\nFinally, you and the author will work together to enhance the persuasiveness of the paper and improve the quality of the paper.\n", "role": "system" }, { "content": "Now your reviewer ID is assigned as Reviewer_18wK, and the following are the paper you need to review:\n```<<xzJWqJadOG>>```", "role": "user" }, { "content": "Review Content: Summary: Official review of Reviewer 18wK\nMain review: The authors propose modifications to the existing UCB-type RL algorithms that rely on causal (actually more so probabilistic since they seem to have mainly utilized conditional independence) knowledge available a priori to achieve better regret than those that do not utilize such information. I liked the paper and the results make sense. But the proofs are missing and I cannot recommend acceptance without complete proofs. I would, however, be happy to change my score based on the authors' input to some clarification questions I have.\n\n\nMy detailed comments are as follows:\n-------------------------------------------\n\n\"Otherwise, one can simply restrict the intervention set to those only intervening over PaR ∪ PaS, then the problem is trivially reduced to a standard MDP problem.\" \nI believe a better way to handle this case is to present this as the solution first and then move onto the case when these cannot be intervened by - possibly by giving realistic examples of when that might happen - and then move onto the actual contribution. \n\nThe notion of \"graphs at each state\" is a bit confusing to me. Figure 1 does not really help clarify this. Is it possible to add an example graph that explicitly shows everything, time steps, states and graphs?\n\nCould you comment on the assumption of having access to p(z|s,a)? Drawing connections to classical RL papers that make the same assumption might help.\n\n\"P(s'|s,a)\" \nIn the factorization, the assumption S'\\indep A|S,Z is used. Could you explain, justify this assumption? Hard to see without an explicit graph. Similarly, please explain R(s,a).\n\nAlong the same lines as the above, it is very hard to parse how strong factored MDP and factored reward definitons/assumptions are without seeing a causal graph structure. \n\n\"We note that extending RL algorithms from known rewards to unknown stochastic rewards poses no real difficulty (Azar et al., 2017).\" \nCould you elaborate on this statement? What is the high-level methodology for that? What do we lose in that case?\n\nUnfortunately, I believe the authors have forgotten to add the appendix since Sections A and B are often cited but are not included in the pdf. Therefore, proofs are currently missing. \n\nIf I am understanding correctly, the proposed UCB-type algorithm changes exploration of S\\times A to exploration of S\\times Z since Z determines everything - being the parents of the quantities of interest. Then it is expected that when Z is much smaller, regret will be lower accordingly, which explains the form of regret in Theorem 4. Still, other terms also are different: for example we have S instead of \\sqrt{S}, why is that? In general, seeing the proof will definitely help. But I also think it would be good to comment on why these other dependencies are changing for your algorithm.\\\n\nCausal factored-UCBVI seems to be utilizing the additional knowledge that states can be factorized into singletons (this part is not very clear to me since the definition was hard to parse - a graph example there will help here too). Again the reduction in regret with this side information is expected.\n\nI think it will be good to make a clear point on exactly where causal knowledge is used. The fact that actions and their effects are the key to the RL settings makes me think that causality must have been used crucially but I was mostly able to identify the probabilistic information (conditional independence). Please point out exactly where ideas from causality is used. For example, what will fail if the given graph is not causal but only a Bayesian network? A walk-through over an example graph would be very helpful. \n\nI am not sure what the conclusion is in Section 6. Is a theorem missing here? \"Thus, we can easily extend linear MDP algorithms to\" Perhaps authors didn't add a result since maybe they think it is trivial but I think adding an explicit result (even with a citation) would make the paper self-contained.\n\nAFTER THE REBUTTAL\n\nI am increasing my score based on the proofs and the comments of authors. My main comment is to really clarify where causality is used in the method, i.e., it is only used at the observational level to derive independence statements and use them in the algorithm.\nRating: 6 marginally above the acceptance threshold\nConfidence: The reviewer is confident but not absolutely certain that the evaluation is correct\n", "role": "assistant" }, { "content": "Title: Response to Reviewer 18wK\nWe thank the reviewer for your valuable comments and we are glad you liked our paper. We address your questions below. \n\n1. “The proofs are missing.”: We did include our proofs in our supplement materials (see clear2022.pdf in the zip file). We will appreciate it if you can check out our proofs in the appendix (Sec. A and Sec. B). \n\n2. “a better way to handle this case is to present this as the solution first…”: Thank you for helping us improve the writing quality, we are willing to change this as you suggested.\n\n3. “The notion of “the graph at every state” is a bit confusing…”: At each state, we use two causal graphs to characterize the reward generation and state transition (as Figure 1). We use grey arrows between layers to summarize the causal relations among those variables. What we meant by “the graph at every state” is that the underlying causal relations (captured by grey arrows) can change under different states, while the identity of those variables is unchanged (o.w. we can always include all variables to the causal graph). We take the reward generation graph as an example. For a loyal customer, a 10% price increase may not change the purchase behavior much; however, a new customer may easily go for another brand. So the orange variables affect the green variable differently for people in different states. We will add time steps and current state to Figure 1.\n\n4. “Assumption of having p(z|s,a)”: Our work is an extension from causal bandits (e.g. [1][2][3]), where they focus on a bandit setup and do not have state variables. Their works assume knowledge of p(z|a) quantities are given. In our MDP setting, since state variables are also involved, we require access to p(z|s,a) instead of p(z|a). We will clarify this in our final version.\n\n5. About known reward v.s. unknown stochastic reward: We take the C-UCBVI algorithm as an example. For stochastic unknown reward, one can simply replace the reward term R(s,z) in line 11 (Alg. 2) to the corresponding empirical reward estimations. All other steps remain unchanged and the resulting regret bounds are of the same order as our current results.\n\n6. “other terms also are different: for example we have S instead of \\sqrt{S}...”: Initially we used the proof techniques in Azar et al. (2017) and tried to bound $(\\hat{P}-P^*)(\\hat{V}-V^*)$ using Bernstein inequalities. There is a term in its bound: $S\\sum_{i=1}^K\\sum_{j=1}^H\\sum_{\\mathbf{z}}P(\\mathbf{z}|s_{ij},a_{ij})\\times \\frac{1}{N_i(s_{ij},\\mathbf{z})}$ (1)\nDue to the probability terms in (1), we need concentration inequalities to bound (1) by $\\tilde{O}(S\\sqrt{T})$. Thus, $S$ is in the final regret. This is different from the non-causal setting, where the above term is $S\\sum_{i=1}^K\\sum_{j=1}^H\\frac{1}{N_i(s_{ij},a_{ij})} = O(S\\log T)$ and $S$ isn't in the final $\\tilde{O}(\\cdot)$ regret due to the $\\log T$ term. Since using Bernstein will still cause an $S$ in regret, we went for an easier approach to directly bound the transition model that also incurs $S$ in the regret bounds. See details in Sec. A and B in the appendix of clear2022.pdf (supplementary .zip file).\n\n7. Towards understanding factored MDPs: Factored MDPs have been widely studied previously (e.g. [4][5]). We add causal structures over them. We will clarify this.\n\n8. “it will be good to make a clear point on exactly where causal knowledge is used…...”: We follow the terminology from existing works’ on causal bandits ([1][2][3]), where the action set is also composed of interventions on variables of a causal graph but they focused on a bandit setup. In these works, including our causal MDPs, interventions are defined via do-operator and causal graphs are used to model the relations among the intervenable variables, reward, state and other related variables. Causality is used, since the domain is modeled using causal graphs and our actions are interventions. Similar to causal bandit works, our main methodology is to make use of the conditional independencies between A, Z and R/S to speed up the learning process. If the reviewer has strong objections to the title of our work, we are also willing to change our title to something like: efficient reinforcement learning algorithms with prior causal information etc. We are also willing to add more discussion on how exactly causality is used in the paper (viz. mostly in the modeling not in the methodology). \n\n9. “what the conclusion is in Section 6. Is a theorem missing here?”: No, there is no theorem in Sec. 6. We wanted to show that if we can model P(s’|s,z) and R(s,z) via linear functions, then existing linear MDP algorithm such as LSVI can be directly applied since we can then write P(s’|s,a) and R(s,a) via linear functions (two equations under Def. 6) and LSVI will work. We will add more explanations!\n\n[1] Lattimore et al. (2016) \n\n[2] Lu et al. (2020) \n\n[3] Nair et al. (2021) \n\n[4] Osband et al. (2014) \n\n[5] Xu et al. (2020) \n\nSee titles for above papers in our paper references. \n", "role": "user" }, { "content": "I value the authors' response. They've addressed nearly all of my concerns.", "role": "assistant" } ]
xzJWqJadOG
CLeaR 2022 Conference
Reviewer_qWfE
[ { "content": "\nYou are an experienced academic paper reviewer. You will receive a conference paper in the field of computer science or AI. Please analyze the paper content carefully and output your review content.\nMore importantly, the author will further explain or refute the review comments you gave, and you need to further discuss with the author based on the author's response. \nThe purpose of this rebuttal and discussion is:\n- Clarification: During the review process, the reviewer (you) may not accurately understand the contribution or method of the paper due to unclear expression or misunderstanding of certain details. Through rebuttal, the author has the opportunity to clarify these misunderstandings and further illustrate the effectiveness of their innovations or methods.\n- Respond to criticisms and suggestions: The reviewer (you) may make criticisms or suggestions on the paper, and the author can use the discussion session to provide specific responses, explain why certain criticisms may not apply, or how to improve and optimize certain aspects of the paper.\nFinally, you and the author will work together to enhance the persuasiveness of the paper and improve the quality of the paper.\n", "role": "system" }, { "content": "Now your reviewer ID is assigned as Reviewer_qWfE, and the following are the paper you need to review:\n```<<xzJWqJadOG>>```", "role": "user" }, { "content": "Review Content: Summary: This paper introduces causal MDPs, which uses causal structures over both state and reward graphs. The motivation is that in practice many problems have causal structures which can be exploited to reduce the complexity of the relationship between the interventions and the states or rewards. This is done by assuming that a set of variables Z exists, such that the interventions A affect the reward only through these variables (and similarly for the state transitions). This leads to improved bounds on a variety of MDP algorithms since the relevant distributions now scale with respect to Z, not A.\nMain review: Quality: Overall this is a work of good quality. The motivating idea is interesting, and the solution is explained well and conveyed to the reader with precision.\nClarity: The work is generally well presented. The problem is motivated well, and the reader is introduced to the necessary notation in advance of reading the theorems. Furthermore, the use of diagrams to illustrate the problem is appreciated.\nOriginality: I have encountered some work which attempts to fuse causal graphical models with MDPs (e.g. Path Dependent Structural Equation Models by Srinivasan et al. 2020), so I would not call this a completely novel take on the problem. However, to my knowledge I have not encountered an approach that seeks to exploit structure using the Z variables in the manner that this paper discusses.\nSignificance: The work appears to be moderately significant, although as I discuss in the cons, I am not completely convinced of its practical utility. \nPros: The authors provide novel bounds on the regret of the policy by exploiting the structure afforded by Z. The authors provide a causal UCB value iteration algorithm and extend this to the factored MDP setting. Provided we believe the setup of the problem, these results drastically improve performance and should prove useful to analysts in complex settings such as healthcare.\nCons: My main concerns are about the quantity Z. In figure 1 there are graphs with e.g. $R$, the parent variables $Z^R$, and the intervention variables $X^I$. What happens if there are edges $X^I \\to R$? \nWhilst I think that in many cases such an assumption is justifiable and indeed reasonable, this paper does not go far enough in checking the implications of making such an assumption. For instance, do promotional offers only affect purchase through exactly the three variables listed? How can we know if there aren’t other pathways, such as a person’s personal opinion about the brand (which might not be an observed quantity)?\nIt seems to me that this is a testable CI assumption that is being made here, and if it is violated then the factorizations in the second/third last equations of p. 6 are violated. As far as I can tell this is also assumed in the causal factor MDP, so all the presented algorithms hinge upon this testable assumption being true\nWhat method do you propose to check this? Will you also consider sensitivity analysis to the violation of this assumption? In practice, if there are mild violations, how biased are the results? What happens to the bounds of these algorithms if such edges exist? \nAnswers to some of these questions would help a potential analyst figure out if their parent variables Z are suitable for the task.\nRating: 7 accept, but needs minor improvements\nConfidence: The reviewer is confident but not absolutely certain that the evaluation is correct\n", "role": "assistant" }, { "content": "Title: Response to Reviewer qWfE\nWe thank the reviewer for your valuable comments and suggestions and we are glad you liked our paper. We address your questions below.\n\n1. “I have encountered some work which attempts to fuse causal graphical models with MDPs (e.g. Path Dependent Structural Equation Models by Srinivasan et al. 2020)”: Thank you for pointing us to this related paper, we will cite and discuss it. \n\n2. “What happens if there are edges X^I\\rightarrow R?”: In this scenario, then $X^I$ are parents of $R$. In the causal MDP paragraph on page 5, we said that parent variables cannot be intervened, because otherwise one can simply restrict the intervention set to those only intervening over the parent variables set (leading to a trivial reduction to a standard MDP problem, see footnote 2) and a standard algorithm would work.\n\n3. About the correctness of the causal graph (or testable conditional independencies assumption): We agree with the reviewer that the causal graph may not be correct or complete sometimes and it’s crucial to test the conditional independencies beforehand in that case. In this work, our main focus is on how to make use of side causal knowledge to speed up the learning process when the prior causal information is correct. For an end-to-end study where one tries to discover a set of Zs that can d-separate actions with R and actions with S, we recommend conducting conditional independence tests using observational data for subsets of variables that can potentially work as Zs. \n\n4. “Will you also consider sensitivity analysis to the violation of this assumption? In practice, if there are mild violations, how biased are the results? What happens to the bounds of these algorithms if such edges exist?”: Thanks for your suggestion, sensitivity analysis to the violation of conditional independence assumption is a meaningful next step. By defining a proper causal graph misspecification criterion, similar to other model misspecification analysis, we expect that the regret bound should be inflated by an additive factor of \\tilde{O}(\\eps T) given \\eps as the misspecification degree. \n", "role": "user" }, { "content": "I'm grateful for the authors' response. The response covers nearly all of the issues I raised. I will continue to recommend accepting this work.", "role": "assistant" } ]
-JwmfQC6IRt
CoRL 2021 Conference
Reviewer_i7Gj
[ { "content": "\nYou are an experienced academic paper reviewer. You will receive a conference paper in the field of computer science or AI. Please analyze the paper content carefully and output your review content.\nMore importantly, the author will further explain or refute the review comments you gave, and you need to further discuss with the author based on the author's response. \nThe purpose of this rebuttal and discussion is:\n- Clarification: During the review process, the reviewer (you) may not accurately understand the contribution or method of the paper due to unclear expression or misunderstanding of certain details. Through rebuttal, the author has the opportunity to clarify these misunderstandings and further illustrate the effectiveness of their innovations or methods.\n- Respond to criticisms and suggestions: The reviewer (you) may make criticisms or suggestions on the paper, and the author can use the discussion session to provide specific responses, explain why certain criticisms may not apply, or how to improve and optimize certain aspects of the paper.\nFinally, you and the author will work together to enhance the persuasiveness of the paper and improve the quality of the paper.\n", "role": "system" }, { "content": "Now your reviewer ID is assigned as Reviewer_i7Gj, and the following are the paper you need to review:\n```<<-JwmfQC6IRt>>```", "role": "user" }, { "content": "Review Content: summary: The authors propose an imitation learning method for long-horizon robot tasks that is train on task and motion planning (TAMP) data. They train a hierarchical policy, with a high-level policy that learns to predict abstract/symbolic actions and a low-level policy which has an attention component and generates low-level motions. The goal is to generate a sequence of actions that both (1) generates high-level symbolic plans, and (2) generates trajectories.\n\nTraining is done via a system inspired by Dagger where they run a task and motion planner in parallel alongside training. After training, they run plans and if they fail, collect additional training examples by invoking the expert TAMP system.\n\nTraining runs as a set of nodes: the \"task planning\" node runs something like FastForward to generate a sequence of high-level actions, a motion planning module which generates trajectories, and training. A motion planning node generates trajectories, a training node updates the model, and finally they perform structured exploration to collect more data (similar to Dagger) to do both. This is the big innovation the authors propose, which allows them to efficiently train this hierarchical policy on a variety of simulated tasks.\n\nThey perform experiments on 3 simulated domains, 2 of which are from RGB images.\nstrengths_and_weaknesses: Briefly:\n+ Important problem\n+ Reasonable performance on common benchmarks\n+ Approach for training seems reasonable, and the distributed training architecture seems novel and helpful for large tasks where simulation is an option\n- numerous obvious typos \n- state space often not clear to me \n+ Good comparisons to related work\n\nI think the chief novelty is their distributed training architecture. The authors propose a system which shows performance on a range of different environments. They also show results both on RGB images and on joint state vectors and on a variety of problems and environments.\n\nI have some concerns about how this system would scale, though. The authors performed some ablation experiments were performed; however, these weren't performed in the cases where the system was trained on RGB images.\n\nThe meaning of the object ablation experiments in RoboSuite seemed unclear to me; the authors should explain this in more detail and what it says. They do an analysis of different types of feedback, which is interesting. It seems as if tamp-feedback is not useful more than motion-feedback, which might imply the high-level task structure is too simple.\n\nsummary_of_recommendation: I think this paper tries to solve an important problem and brings some interesting ideas, and they get decent results, even if the results are not demonstrated in the real world and the generalization experiments they perform are overly limited. The ablation experiments focus on feedback types, not on holding out different goals.\n\nThe distributed training system seems like it could be very helpful, though, if it could be applied to training models that could generalize or adapt to real problems.\n\nUPDATE: after the author's response I think it's more practical and stronger results than I had initially thought. Updated.\nissues: \nMy big concern with this method is that it seems extremely data intensive and not very practical. The system as a whole seems to work on environments and tasks that have been seen; one of the big advantages of TAMP systems though is generalization to new problems. \n\nHow much data did your system end up needing? How many trajectories were collected? Some additional information would help determine how well it scales.\n\nAblation experiments holding out specific types of goals in RoboSuite would be very interesting and helpful.\n\nPlease make plots like Fig. 5 in color as well as using symbols; different shades of gray are very hard to parse.\n\nMinor:\nAbstract: let's --> lets\n3.1: A symbolic planner, such as Fast\u0002123 Fowardciteff, --> FastForward~\\cite{...}\nRating: 9 strong accept, excellent work\n", "role": "assistant" }, { "content": "Title: Response to Reviewer i7Gj\nThank you for your feedback. We have corrected the typos that you identified and switched to figures that use color to reference different data series. \n\nTo address the comment on generalization, we would like to highlight several of our experiments that assess generalization. The first is the non-stationary environment (l.219) where the policies were trained with stationary obstacles and then operated at test time with moving obstacles whose dynamics were defined by MPC for 6 ‘humans’ moving towards a target. These actors avoided collisions with each other, but not the robot. We had a 50% success rate with 3-object goals. In addition, we have run a set of new experiments that we are working to incorporate into the paper, while respecting the page limits. We summarize the results here. \n\nFirst, we ran an additional set of experiments in the 2D pick-place environment. We arranged the targets in a square at training time and tested on a larger square so that all targets were outside the region encountered during training. We ran experiments with 1, 2, and 4 objects and observed success rates of 99%, 97% and 39%, respectively. These correspond to a >99%, 98%, and 63% average reduction in the distance of each object to its target.\n\nSecond, we ran goal generalization experiments in the RoboSuite domain, as requested. We performed 4 different variants of this experiment: 1) we held out 3 object tuples of goals and trained on all other subsets; 2) we held out 3 object tuples of goals and trained on 1 and 2 object goals; 3) we held out the 4 object goal and trained on 1, 2, and 3 object goals; and 4) we repeated (3) where distractor objects were initialized at their respective goals. We observed the following results: 1) 56% success rate, 38% avg reduction in distance to goal; 2) 48% success rate, 34% avg reduction in distance to goal; 3) 49% success rate, 60% avg reduction in distance to goal; 4) 60% success rate, 67% avg reduction in distance to goal. \n\nWe believe that this shows two distinct ways our system can generalize to new goals at test time. Furthermore, we have also added experiments with dynamics generalization to our results in the RoboSuite domain. We used the framework’s existing domain randomization wrapper, which alters properties of the environment such as mass and inertia, solver parameters for contact forces, physical joint properties, position and orientation offsets, etc. With the default settings, the previously trained policies from our system had a success rate of 34%. When we disabled the randomization to position and orientation (but left all other settings at their default values), that success rate rose to 73%.\n\nWe apologize that we did not provide more information on the amount of data that our system used to train. We have updated the presentation of the result to include the performance of the RoboSuite policy as a function of the number of plans generated. Our success rate plateaued after solving 1900 problems to train the one object task, 1300 problems to train the 2 object task, 1200 problems to train the 4 object task and 1800 problems to train the noisy variant of the 4 object task. In the 2D pick-place experiments, our success rate plateaued after solving 1600 plans for the 5 object variant, 2200 plans for the 3 object RGB experiment, 4000 for the 2 object RGB experiment, and 6000 for the 1 object RGB experiment. The increase in the number of plans solved for simpler problems occurs because the simpler problems are easier to solve (so the planner has higher throughput) and provide less supervision per plan. \n\nWe also like to highlight that our results were all done on a single machine using 30 virtual cpus and 4 hours real time. We believe this is a substantial reduction on the compute cost required to train, e.g., vision-based policies for robot control. Furthermore, because the behaviors generated by our system are able to generalize across robot dynamics (even when not trained to do so), we believe that it will be possible to adapt these policies to real robots with minimal modifications.\n\nFinally, we would like to emphasize that, to our knowledge, our performance on RoboSuite and RoboDesk is state-of-the-art. We were unable to find policy learning approaches that scaled beyond 1 object for RoboSuite (either reinforcement learning or learning from demonstrations). The RoboDesk benchmark is too new to have published results, however, we would like to emphasize that we successfully trained a multi-task policy to control a simulated robot arm from pixels. The domain was designed, according to its release notes to “contain objects of different shapes and colors, whose initial positions are randomized to avoid naive memorization and require learning algorithms to generalize.”", "role": "user" }, { "content": "Title: Final response\nThanks for your updates, I do think they improve the paper.\n\n> we would like to emphasize that we successfully trained a multi-task policy to control a simulated robot arm from pixels.\n\nThis is actually not very clear from the paper! Please revise it in the final version to make your world state clear. It looked like it was object positions.\n\nI think that state-of-the-art performance on robodesk and robosuite is great. The authors could stand to improve clarity of model inputs and architecture especially. But I think this is a very interesting paper that has a bunch of great ideas in it, so I'll upgrade my review to a Strong Accept.", "role": "assistant" } ]
-JwmfQC6IRt
CoRL 2021 Conference
Reviewer_1SbR
[ { "content": "\nYou are an experienced academic paper reviewer. You will receive a conference paper in the field of computer science or AI. Please analyze the paper content carefully and output your review content.\nMore importantly, the author will further explain or refute the review comments you gave, and you need to further discuss with the author based on the author's response. \nThe purpose of this rebuttal and discussion is:\n- Clarification: During the review process, the reviewer (you) may not accurately understand the contribution or method of the paper due to unclear expression or misunderstanding of certain details. Through rebuttal, the author has the opportunity to clarify these misunderstandings and further illustrate the effectiveness of their innovations or methods.\n- Respond to criticisms and suggestions: The reviewer (you) may make criticisms or suggestions on the paper, and the author can use the discussion session to provide specific responses, explain why certain criticisms may not apply, or how to improve and optimize certain aspects of the paper.\nFinally, you and the author will work together to enhance the persuasiveness of the paper and improve the quality of the paper.\n", "role": "system" }, { "content": "Now your reviewer ID is assigned as Reviewer_1SbR, and the following are the paper you need to review:\n```<<-JwmfQC6IRt>>```", "role": "user" }, { "content": "Review Content: summary: This paper presents a framework for learning hierarchical long-horizon policies using a task and motion planner in the loop. The framework is based on a flexible TAMP algorithm, which uses an explicit interface between task planning and motion planning. Using this decoupled approach allows performing each part independently and in parallel. The task planner uses a Fast Forward algorithm to find sequences of actions, while motion planning is performed using numerical optimization.\n\nSince the output of the framework is a trained neural network policy, the TAMP plans are not necessarily carried out completely, rather they are used to generate datasets to train two policies (i.e., task and motion). These are in turn used to guide the search. \n\nHence the authors propose feedback mechanisms between the hierarchical policies and the TAMP algorithm which provide the training dataset for the policies. These feedback loops allow lowering the sample complexity of the framework. The proposed approach is thoroughly tested using three different benchmarks using ablation as way to highlight the important part of the framework.\n\nstrengths_and_weaknesses: The paper is well written and presents the ideas and results in clear way. The main strength of the paper is twofold.\n\n1)\tThe originality of the idea is very relevant and design choices are sound\n2)\tThe choice experiments are interested and show the potential of the framework\n\nEfficient motion policies for long-horizon manipulation tasks is clearly a very important milestone for robotics research. In this context very, few works combine learning and planning in an original way. As the authors point out most of the attempts use learning in the planning algorithms. In this work, the authors intertwine the two in such way that it minimizes sample complexity. For that using [15] seems very appropriate as it allows to decouple the task and motion planning problem.\n\nHaving experiments on three benchmarks allows to see, which parts of the framework are more important under which condition. For instance, considering feedback loops, the motion-feedback seems most important but sometimes task feedback can improve sample complexity in domains where the planner does not encounter the situations produced by the policy.\n\nWhile these are two strong points of the paper. They could be further improved by considering the following: The paper mainly lacks a theoretical situation of the problem. \n\nWhile it seems difficult to analyze theoretically this work, the framing of the research is not completely accurate. The title suggests that the authors are solely imitating the TAMP policies and that they use feedback to increase sample complexity. While that may be true in practice, it seems that a more accurate framing of the work is terms of Reinforcement Learning. The work can be viewed as a hierarchical version of Guided Policy Search (GPS). This way it should be possible to provide a better theoretical derivation and experimental analysis of the work.\n\nFor instance, taking inspiration from GPS, one could study the trade-off for generating policies that suddenly diverge from what the TAMP algorithm produces. This could be enforced in the motion optimization component using a cost function as done in GPS rather than only from rollout initialization. A dynamics model could be learned for the motion optimization, a KL constraint could be added in the supervised training phase etc. \n\nConcerning the theory, deriving the approach as some kind of descent algorithm would provide more clarity even if the implementation approximates it. \n\nFinally, concerning the experiments framing the problem as a model-based hierarchical RL algorithm naturally yields comparison to other hierarchical RL approaches such as HIRO, FuN etc. which are absent from the paper.\n\nsummary_of_recommendation: It is recommended to frame this work in the context of Model-based hierarchical Reinforcement Learning, instead of active imitation learning. This reframing implies comparing to SOTA HRL algorithms such as HIRO or FuN. \nissues: See above.\nRating: 9 strong accept, excellent work\n", "role": "assistant" }, { "content": "Title: Response to Reviewer 1SbR\nThank you for your comments. We agree that the paper would benefit from stronger theoretical guarantees, however our primary goal was to build a system that could effectively learn to execute long-horizon tasks from perceptual data. We agree about the close connection to GPS, in fact that is what initially inspired our approach. We have updated the paper to better convey this connection. While we agree that it would be nice to do a more faithful reproduction of GPS’s learned cost functions and KL constraints, early experiments showed that they performed poorly, which led to the version of the system that we presented. It would be interesting to revisit this with the current results in hand to develop an approach that more faithfully implements GPS. We have updated the future work section to suggest this to readers. \n\nWe also agree that this work should be considered in relation to model-based hierarchical reinforcement learning. We have run experiments in the 1 object 2D pick-place domain with the h-baselines implementation of HiRO, using TD3 as the underlying RL algorithms. We are continuing to experiment with different hyper-parameters, however we have not yet been able to find a configuration that consistently achieves the goal. Our experiments have used 30 processes with 6 hours of run time. We believe this illustrates the benefits of the explicit hierarchy encoded in the TAMP formalism. With feudal-style RL, the euclidean distances used to measure distance-to-goal are not great proxies for the actual value function. Small changes in the commanded goal can lead the robot to miss the object or to knock it further away from itself and its goal. With some careful reward design, we were able to improve the performance of PPO to 12%, but we have not been able to move beyond this. We have updated the paper to reflect this discussion. ", "role": "user" }, { "content": "Title: Comment to Rebutal\nThanks for taking into account the review. I think this improved the paper.", "role": "assistant" } ]
-JwmfQC6IRt
CoRL 2021 Conference
Reviewer_KfVB
[ { "content": "\nYou are an experienced academic paper reviewer. You will receive a conference paper in the field of computer science or AI. Please analyze the paper content carefully and output your review content.\nMore importantly, the author will further explain or refute the review comments you gave, and you need to further discuss with the author based on the author's response. \nThe purpose of this rebuttal and discussion is:\n- Clarification: During the review process, the reviewer (you) may not accurately understand the contribution or method of the paper due to unclear expression or misunderstanding of certain details. Through rebuttal, the author has the opportunity to clarify these misunderstandings and further illustrate the effectiveness of their innovations or methods.\n- Respond to criticisms and suggestions: The reviewer (you) may make criticisms or suggestions on the paper, and the author can use the discussion session to provide specific responses, explain why certain criticisms may not apply, or how to improve and optimize certain aspects of the paper.\nFinally, you and the author will work together to enhance the persuasiveness of the paper and improve the quality of the paper.\n", "role": "system" }, { "content": "Now your reviewer ID is assigned as Reviewer_KfVB, and the following are the paper you need to review:\n```<<-JwmfQC6IRt>>```", "role": "user" }, { "content": "Review Content: summary: The authors propose a distributed training scheme for task and motion planning problems. This relies on access to symbolic robotics oriented task planner and motion planner to generate oracle training data for feed-forward policies that output task plans as action schemas and generate motion plans by chaining action schemas through reactive low-level control policies. The authors demonstrate the following:\n\n1. Ammortizing planning by approximating TAMP solvers through hierarchical policy networks results in a high success rate for TAMP tasks.\n\n2. Active exploration of problems space where the policy fails, and then generating oracle feedback can produce better quality data for optimization, by only using TAMP planner resources where feed-forward policies fail\n\n3. Feedforward policies can speed up a planning based approach by generating better initial guesses.\nstrengths_and_weaknesses: **Strengths**\n\n- The idea of ammortizing planning through approximation is an elegant way of retaining the flexibility of iterative planning, and online repair by narrowing the exploration space using good quality feed-forward policies. The authors idea of a distributed framework appears to be a powerful method to achieve this.\n\n- The experiments are quite convincing towards the power of TAMP supervised feed-forward policies in comparison with RL-based or LfD-based policies. While this is to be expected as TAMP can provide a better training distribution, this work provides a convincing demonstration and a concrete modular implementation of this notion\n\n**Methodological comments**\n\n- The authors have restricted the action schemas to discrete outputs; the impact on problem domains that *require* continuous parameterizations in unclear. In theory, the action selection network can output both discrete and continuous parameterizations, but the case of continuous parameters might be more challenging to train\n\n- There are a lot of hand-engineered inputs provided to the problem (constraints, fluent descriptions etc.) that are not available to an RL-based baseline. While this is a representational advantage of using structured methods, this does place the burden of generating these on an automation engineer. \n\n- The authors' decision to create a separate policy network for each action schema can potentially cause issues with more number of objects, shared parameters to reduce the memory requirements for control policy architectures would be interesting to look at.\n\n- The authors do not demonstrate how the policy networks performance is impacted by length of planning horizon required to solve the test problems. Does performance deteriorate when longer policies and task plans are required?\n\n**Presentation comments**\n\n- What problems are picked by the exploration nodes? Are they picked from a procedural problem distribution, a dataset of problems? The main paper does not address the role of the exploration nodes at all\n\n- Task planners are limited by the size of the logical states, the authors should include the number of logical fluents for each problem domain. Further, the authors do not provide any elaboration of how the geometrical facts for non-feasible task plans are generated. \n\n- I would appreciate a longer discussion of how this work relates to prior approaches in learning to approximate TAMP solvers. I found this discussion quite superficial and focusing on the implementation details rather than the underlying aspects of TAMP solvers that are being learned by the models. In particular the approach by Driess et al. is closely related, and provides similar capabilities, but the authors' distributed approach can potentially provide faster scaling. The reader would appreciate a deeper comparison with prior work. The authors can potentially tighten the text in the results section or move some of it to the supplementary materials to provide a better framing of their approach. \nsummary_of_recommendation: I believe that the idea of decentralized learning for approximating a TAMP solver is novel, yet the idea of approximating the TAMP solver by itself is not. I believe that the authors should frame their contribution as such\n\nFurther, the larger ideas are quite clear in the paper, but there are a lot of implementation details that are not elaborated enough.\n\nI don't believe the work is purely incremental.\n\nTherefore overall I recommend a weak accept, and I urge the authors to make some changes\nissues: - Characterize the effect of planning horizon on the success rate. I would like to see how success rate deteriorates with longer required planning horizons\n\n- A deeper discussion on differences between prior work on approximating TAMP solvers and how your approach builds on or is novel in that context.\nRating: 7 accept, but needs minor improvements\n", "role": "assistant" }, { "content": "Title: Response to Reviewer KfVB\nThank you for your detailed comments. We have updated the future work section to address the methodological comments. We answer in detail below:\n\n- We expect the high-level policy to work well, if not better, with continuous outputs. We selected to run our experiments with discrete outputs to highlight the flexibility of the types of high-level state that we can incorporate into the hierarchy. \n\n- We agree that TAMP systems do require additional information beyond an RL formulation. However, we believe this is easier to manage than tuning hyper-parameters in RL. Consider, for example, our experiments applying HiRO, a hierarchical RL approach, to the 2D pick-place domain with one object. It is hard to identify a good goal space to use for this problem, and even more difficult to figure out how to generalize this to the problems with multiple objects. In comparison, we were able to adapt our system to a previously unreleased multi-task robot domain with high-dimensional observations with minimal modifications to our existing hierarchy and codebase.\n\n- We agree that it would be preferable to do parameter sharing for the control policies. We expect that these approaches would achieve similar performance and have added this to the future work section. In earlier experiments, we used a single control policy and observed similar results. We opted for the current implementation for code simplicity. We would like to point out, however, that the number of policies needed depends on the number of actions in the planning domain, which is independent of the number of objects in the domain. We have clarified this in the paper.\n\n- We did not directly explore the impact of plan length on the policy performance. In the course of running our new goal generalization experiments in RoboSuite, we did however vary the number of objects to move to their target locations. We found that the system had an average success rate of 80% with 1 object, 78% with 2 objects, 73% with 3 objects, and 60% with 4 objects when trained from problems with 1 to 3 objects. These correspond to average plan lengths of 60, 125, 230, and 260 environment transitions (we only check for success at intervals of 20 timesteps, hence the clean averages). We have updated the paper to include this in the results section.\n\nWe have updated the paper to address the presentation comments. Problems for the exploration node are sampled from the same problem distribution as the planning problems. We did not optimize the domain descriptions, as symbolic planning was fast in comparison to the other issues considered. As a result, the number of fluents (which is 87) is not representative of the domain size, as it, e.g., contains support for bimanual manipulation domains used in different applications of our approach. We have updated the domain descriptions to include information about the size of the domains.\n\nWe have also expanded on the comparison to previous work to discuss the difference between our approach and that proposed by Driess et al. The updated paragraph is included below for convenience:\n\nThe approach most similar to ours is that of Driess et al. They also train hierarchical policies to match TAMP output. They show that their system is able to integrate geometric and high-level reasoning for a reaching task that, depending on the position of the target, potentially requires the use of tools. The primary difference is that their approach predicts the feasibility of a given action sequence, based on the initial state, while we predict actions and controls given the current state. This means that they need to search over candidate high-level action sequences at test time. In our system, this search is handled by the task planning node during training (and bypassed entirely at test time). The other large difference is that they represent their control policies with learned energy functions that are minimized online. Task transitions occur when this system reaches an equilibrium state. In contrast, we learn policies that directly choose when to transition between tasks.\n", "role": "user" }, { "content": "Thanks to the authors for their clarification. The response addresses most of my concerns. I maintain my positive recommendation for this work.", "role": "assistant" } ]
-QJ__aPUTN2
CoRL 2021 Conference
Reviewer_1smN
[ { "content": "\nYou are an experienced academic paper reviewer. You will receive a conference paper in the field of computer science or AI. Please analyze the paper content carefully and output your review content.\nMore importantly, the author will further explain or refute the review comments you gave, and you need to further discuss with the author based on the author's response. \nThe purpose of this rebuttal and discussion is:\n- Clarification: During the review process, the reviewer (you) may not accurately understand the contribution or method of the paper due to unclear expression or misunderstanding of certain details. Through rebuttal, the author has the opportunity to clarify these misunderstandings and further illustrate the effectiveness of their innovations or methods.\n- Respond to criticisms and suggestions: The reviewer (you) may make criticisms or suggestions on the paper, and the author can use the discussion session to provide specific responses, explain why certain criticisms may not apply, or how to improve and optimize certain aspects of the paper.\nFinally, you and the author will work together to enhance the persuasiveness of the paper and improve the quality of the paper.\n", "role": "system" }, { "content": "Now your reviewer ID is assigned as Reviewer_1smN, and the following are the paper you need to review:\n```<<-QJ__aPUTN2>>```", "role": "user" }, { "content": "Review Content: summary: The main contributions of this paper could be concluded as following:\n(1) Proposed a transformer-based model to build mapping from natural language instructions to real scenes with pixel-wise Q values and masks which are compatible with both supervised learning and reinforcement learning methods.\n(2) Apply the proposed transformer-based model on multi-step rearrangement tasks and compare it with a baseline model:Unet-based VGP model in metrics of block acc and IES\n(3) Give out a dataset based on Bisk dataset mentioned in paper with both real and simulated samples to for training model for multi-step rearrangement task in more realistic scenes\n\nstrengths_and_weaknesses: Strengths:\n1.\tInnovatively proposed the method to mapping input image with natural language instructions with pixel-wise Q-value and masks which is feasible in practice and useful\n2.\tThe proposed model was validated that it can converge fast with much fewer samples than traditional transformer model in training phase.\n3.\tDesign a complete experiment setting to compare propose model with baseline in aspects of training efficiency, genralization toward different taks types et al.\nWeakness:\n1.\tThe mapping lack explainability, a theoritical explaination or citiation should be presented to clear the reasonability of propose mapping method\n2.\tData ablation experiments should be more comprehensive. Fisrt, generalizability should be taken into consideration, a different dataset could be used to validate the propose model can still improve fast or not. Second, robustness should be validated. For example, add some noisy into train set.\n3.\tThe released dataset need to validated in several aspects such as data type balance,reasonablity of insturctions and size\n\nsummary_of_recommendation: I recommend this paper for its contributions on proposing a transformer-based model to solve multi-step rearrangement task in realisitc simulated environment as it provides an innoative and feasible method to map natrual language instructions to input scene images and the experiments shows that it could be more effective and efficient in training than most transformer-based models.\nissues: 1.\tExplainability of propose pixel-wise mapping method\n2.\tA more comprehensive validation of effiency of propose transformed method\nRating: 7 accept, but needs minor improvements\n", "role": "assistant" }, { "content": "Title: Clarification RE explainability and robustness and Authors’ initial Review Response\nFirstly, thank you for your detailed and thoughtful review. To best respond to the concerns you pointed out, we wanted to ensure that we understand them correctly. \nSpecifically, in point 4, you mention the mapping lacks explainability. If it is not too much of an imposition, could we ask you to perhaps elaborate on this? By mapping, I assume you're referring to the mapping between images and Transformer-produced segmentation masks, rather than the mapping between inputs and Q-values. Is that correct? With respect to a theoretical explanation or citation, would that be an explanation clarifying how the mapping between language and segmentation masks can be used to explain model behavior, or a citation to that effect? \n\nWith regards to point 5 (generalizability), I would like to start by pointing out that we do in fact validate our method on two datasets, the first being the colored blocks domain, and the second one being the Bisk dataset. In the first domain, we apply our method to both simulated and real images. Could you provide additional details on what kind of dataset, beyond the ones explored here, would assuage your concerns about the method's generalizability? \nIn addition, as mentioned in Section 4.1, in the simulated colored blocks domain we do in fact add Gaussian noise during train time as a data augmentation step. Does this serve to address your suggestion to add noise to the train set? What result here would convince you of the method's robustness to noise? \nThank you for your insightful comments. We first refer you to our metareview response, which addresses several very important concerns you raise, specifically 2 and 3, and we respond to the remaining concerns below.\n\nCould you please examine our updated revision pdf with key changes in blue? We would really appreciate it!\n\n---\n> “1. The mapping lack explainability, a theoritical explaination or citiation should be presented to clear the reasonability of propose mapping method”\n\nWe appreciate your concern, but we do not make any major claims about the explainability of our method, noting only that a user can interpret, i.e. read a chart like fig.1, and visually infer if an action like a grasp is reasonable or not at that location. This is consistent with Hundt et al[9], Zeng et al[23], among others.\n\nCould you elaborate on the concern regarding theoretical explanation so we might better address it?\n\n---\n> “2. Data ablation experiments should be more comprehensive. Fisrt, generalizability should be taken into consideration, a different dataset could be used to validate the propose model can still improve fast or not. Second, robustness should be validated. For example, add some noisy into train set.”\n\nThank you for noting your concerns, we have addressed this item in our metareview reply, so we would appreciate it if you could look there.\n\n---\n> “3. The released dataset need to validated in several aspects such as data type balance,reasonablity of insturctions and size”\n\nThank you for this suggestion. We have added a table with details in Appendix C2. \n\nThanks again for your feedback and taking the time to review our submission.\n", "role": "user" }, { "content": "Title: Thanks for the response.\nThanks for the response. The response answers some of my concerns, and I will keep my original rating. ", "role": "assistant" } ]
-QJ__aPUTN2
CoRL 2021 Conference
Reviewer_h8PP
[ { "content": "\nYou are an experienced academic paper reviewer. You will receive a conference paper in the field of computer science or AI. Please analyze the paper content carefully and output your review content.\nMore importantly, the author will further explain or refute the review comments you gave, and you need to further discuss with the author based on the author's response. \nThe purpose of this rebuttal and discussion is:\n- Clarification: During the review process, the reviewer (you) may not accurately understand the contribution or method of the paper due to unclear expression or misunderstanding of certain details. Through rebuttal, the author has the opportunity to clarify these misunderstandings and further illustrate the effectiveness of their innovations or methods.\n- Respond to criticisms and suggestions: The reviewer (you) may make criticisms or suggestions on the paper, and the author can use the discussion session to provide specific responses, explain why certain criticisms may not apply, or how to improve and optimize certain aspects of the paper.\nFinally, you and the author will work together to enhance the persuasiveness of the paper and improve the quality of the paper.\n", "role": "system" }, { "content": "Now your reviewer ID is assigned as Reviewer_h8PP, and the following are the paper you need to review:\n```<<-QJ__aPUTN2>>```", "role": "user" }, { "content": "Review Content: summary: This work leverages recent vision models to perform natural language guided block stacking. They use synthetic language and a real crowdsourced resource (filtered for physical viability). Limited experiments (due to covid) are performed on a physical manipulator. The task requires understanding spatial language expressions for both identifying the referent and target location.\nstrengths_and_weaknesses: **Strengths**\n1. Novel model architecture for the task with good comparison baselines\n2. Analysis of simple stacking and rows in both synthetic and real images.\n3. Curation of the Bisk et al. dataset for robotic tasks and evaluation on this real language setting\n4. Manipulation performed with simulated UR-5\n5. Basic manipulation demonstration of simplest setting on physical manipulator\n\n**Weaknesses**\n1. Insufficient analysis of the difficulties of real language (e.g. behavior in abstract language settings)\n2. Limited physical manipulator experiments which also means limited analysis of the causes for the model's transfer errors to the real setting.\nsummary_of_recommendation: The authors present and demonstrate the utility of novel models for language guided control/actions based on recent advances. They do basic comparisons against language and task complexity and include experiments both on simulated and real control platforms. \nissues: The primary limitation of the current work is limited error analysis which makes it difficult to diagnose what the next steps are for the research community and ideally more physical experiments (though this is not a limitation that can be expected to be addressed in the current climate.)\nRating: 7 accept, but needs minor improvements\n", "role": "assistant" }, { "content": "Title: Authors’ initial h8PP Review Response, Thank you.\nThank you for your insightful comments. Your suggestions, such as including additional error analysis, have served to improve our submission. \n\nCould you please examine our updated revision pdf with key changes in blue? We would really appreciate it!\n\n---\n> 1. “Insufficient analysis of the difficulties of real language (e.g. behavior in abstract language settings)” \n\nThank you for pointing this out. We have added a qualitative analysis of errors to the supplementary materials. These errors deal primarily with abstract linguistic settings, as well as complex phenomena such as ellipsis and coreference. The analysis can be found in our revised submission, where we have highlighted it in blue. \n\n---\n> 2. “Limited physical manipulator experiments which also means limited analysis of the causes for the model's transfer errors to the real setting [...] though this is not a limitation that can be expected to be addressed in the current climate”\n\nWe agree with this point, and would have done more extensive real robot experiments without the barriers imposed by COVID-19. Nonetheless, we have worked to ground our experiments as realistically as is feasible via the real data we have available.\n\nThanks again for your consideration and for reviewing our submission.\n", "role": "user" }, { "content": "Thank you for the detailed response from the authors. It adequately addresses the points I raised. I continue to recommend this work positively.", "role": "assistant" } ]
-QJ__aPUTN2
CoRL 2021 Conference
Reviewer_gQ8o
[ { "content": "\nYou are an experienced academic paper reviewer. You will receive a conference paper in the field of computer science or AI. Please analyze the paper content carefully and output your review content.\nMore importantly, the author will further explain or refute the review comments you gave, and you need to further discuss with the author based on the author's response. \nThe purpose of this rebuttal and discussion is:\n- Clarification: During the review process, the reviewer (you) may not accurately understand the contribution or method of the paper due to unclear expression or misunderstanding of certain details. Through rebuttal, the author has the opportunity to clarify these misunderstandings and further illustrate the effectiveness of their innovations or methods.\n- Respond to criticisms and suggestions: The reviewer (you) may make criticisms or suggestions on the paper, and the author can use the discussion session to provide specific responses, explain why certain criticisms may not apply, or how to improve and optimize certain aspects of the paper.\nFinally, you and the author will work together to enhance the persuasiveness of the paper and improve the quality of the paper.\n", "role": "system" }, { "content": "Now your reviewer ID is assigned as Reviewer_gQ8o, and the following are the paper you need to review:\n```<<-QJ__aPUTN2>>```", "role": "user" }, { "content": "Review Content: summary: This paper proposes using natural language instructions for multi-step rearrangement tasks, by mapping images and instructions to masks over pick or place locations. The model is factorized into 2 components — a pretrained SPOT-Q model independent of language, and a language-conditioned model proposed by the authors. The predictions from these two components are combined to obtain the final action.\nstrengths_and_weaknesses: Strengths:\n- Experiments are conducted both with synthetic and real images, as well as templated and crowd-sourced language. The results show that the proposed method outperforms previous methods on both visual goal prediction and on task completion metrics.\n- The factorized model is interesting, and allows reusing pretrained models, thereby reducing data requirements.\n\nWeaknesses:\n- The authors discuss the advantages of using a factorized model, but do not discuss the limitations. For example, language might have more information than \"where to act\", like \"put the red block *gently* on the blue block\".\n- Some analysis of how the performance changes as the no. of steps in the task is increased could be informative.\n- It seems like the natural language experiments (based on the dataset from Bisk et al) involve moving only a single block. If this is true, it doesn't represent the \"multi-step\" rearrangement setting being addressed in the paper, and needs to be made explicit.\n- The experiments on compositionality aren't particularly informative — it seems pretty intuitive that the model will learn concepts like \"red block\" and \"blue block\" independently. A more interesting question is — can the model learn to compose different object attributes? E.g. if it is only shown \"small red blocks\" and \"large blue blocks\" during training, can it generalize to \"large red blocks\"?\n- The experiments with the physically feasible subset are not convincing — (1) are the differences statistically significant?, (2) could the difference be because the physically feasible dataset is smaller in size?\nsummary_of_recommendation: The proposed approach is sound, and the experimental results show that it improves over existing methods, but some additional experiments could make the paper better.\nissues: - More convincing analysis of physically feasible subset.\n- Clarify whether the natural language setting is single-step or multi-step.\nRating: 7 accept, but needs minor improvements\n", "role": "assistant" }, { "content": "Title: Authors’ initial gQ80 Review Response, Thank you.\nThank you for your thoughtful review and astute suggestions. We have addressed a number of them in the revised version we have uploaded, where key changes are marked with blue text. \n\nCould you please examine our updated revision pdf, with key changes in blue? We would really appreciate it!\n\n---\n\n> 1. “The authors discuss the advantages of using a factorized model, but do not discuss the limitations. For example, language might have more information than \"where to act\", like \"put the red block gently on the blue block\".”\n\nThis is an astute point, and we have added this potential limitation to the end of Section 1.\n\n---\n\n> 2. “Some analysis of how the performance changes as the no. of steps in the task is increased could be informative.”\n\nThis analysis would certainly be interesting, unfortunately, it is not feasible due to limitations in the data available for comparison, as well as the remaining time and resources available. The final task performance can only be measured on the simulated colored blocks tasks, where all tasks have the same number of steps to success. Since these experiments build on previous work and data using 4-step block stacking and row-making without NLP, their viability for significant contributions to the community is already well-established. While the Bisk data does vary in task length, its design lacks clear success conditions; so we do not measure final task performance, only per-action performance, averaged across steps. Thus, comparing performance across the number of steps in a task is infeasible. \n\n---\n\n> 3. “It seems like the natural language experiments (based on the dataset from Bisk et al) involve moving only a single block. If this is true, it doesn't represent the \"multi-step\" rearrangement setting being addressed in the paper, and needs to be made explicit.”\n\nThanks for this suggestion. We have added a clarification that the instructions are given per step, in addition to the note in section 2 that we follow Bisk et al. in formalizing multi-step tasks as Problem-Solution sequences, where multi-step tasks are broken into sequences of states paired with instructions on how to transition between states.\nThe experiments on natural language data are meant to validate that the proposed masking method is viable for natural language data on multi-step tasks, as we show in Experiment 1, with a simplifying assumption that tasks should be factorized into steps. We have added a clarification to this effect to section 5.2. \n\n---\n\n> 4. “The experiments on compositionality aren't particularly informative — it seems pretty intuitive that the model will learn concepts like \"red block\" and \"blue block\" independently. A more interesting question is — can the model learn to compose different object attributes? E.g. if it is only shown \"small red blocks\" and \"large blue blocks\" during training, can it generalize to \"large red blocks\"?”\n\nThank you for bringing up this concern, our experiments investigate if the model is learning “red” and “block” independently, as compared to learning “red block” and “blue block” independently. To prevent confounding compositionality with sparsity, we analyze the compositionality of the learned model using single adjective-object pairings, as is standard in linguistic practice, cf. [e]. \nTo ensure we are understanding your suggestion correctly, could you please provide more details on why adding additional adjectives would make the analysis more interesting? Could you please also elaborate on why you think it is intuitive that the model would learn to compose color terms with blocks, rather than simply memorizing all block combinations? \n---\n\n> 5. “The experiments with the physically feasible subset are not convincing — (1) are the differences statistically significant?, (2) could the difference be because the physically feasible dataset is smaller in size?”\n\nThanks for pointing this out. We have added statistical testing (in blue) to this table which indicates that the results are statistically significant, and not due to the smaller size of the dataset. More details on the filtered subset of the dataset have been added to Appendix C2. \n\n[e] Partee, Barbara. \"Compositionality and coercion in semantics: The dynamics of adjective meaning.\" Cognitive foundations of interpretation 2007 (2007): 145-161.\n", "role": "user" }, { "content": "Title: Clarification on compositionality\nThanks for addressing most of the comments.\n\nRegarding compositionality: From what I understand, I don't think the current experiments investigate whether the model is learning \"red\" and \"block\" independently — isn't the model always getting instructions of the form \"move/stack the __ block next to/on the __ block\"? If so, the word \"block\" is essentially redundant, since it's invariant. It seems for the compositionality experiments, the training data doesn't contain one pair of objects, like red block and blue block, and is then tested on that pair. So, the experiments show whether the model is learning \"red block\" and \"blue block\" as independent concepts or not.\nOne way to think about additional adjectives is what are we trying to test compositionality on? If it is just linguistic phrases, then the current experiments are okay. But another possibility is compositionality in language grounding. Since this paper involves language grounding (as opposed to ref [e]), the more interesting compositionality question in my opinion is — if it is shown \"small red blocks\", does it learn to *ground* the meaning of the words \"small\" and \"red\" independently?", "role": "assistant" }, { "content": "Title: Clarification on compositionality \nThank you for this astute observation -- you are correct in pointing out that since “block” occurs without syntactic variation, the compositionality is not between the adjective and noun, but rather at the level of the instruction, with the meaning of “red” remaining invariant across contexts like “stack the red block on the blue block” and “stack the green block on the red block”. We have uploaded a revision (lines 185-196) clarifying that the model is learning to interpret colors separately (i.e. interpreting the meaning of the utterance compositionally) rather than interpreting each instruction type as an unrelated atom. If we consider the input as an abstracted ternary function `place(color_a, on, color_b)` we are able to generalize from, for example, `place(red, on, blue)` and `place(blue, on, green)` to `place(red, on, green)` even though `place(red, on, green)`, and `place(green, on, red)` have not been seen at train time. \nWe agree that showing that the model can ground “small” and “red” independently and compositionally would be interesting. While our current experiments show that the model learns to ground color terms separately, we currently can only speculate on whether it would be able to learn to separate additional modifiers into concepts. Unfortunately our dataset does not contain different block sizes, and so in light of the resources and time available to us we must leave this item to future work. \n\nYour framing of the distinction between linguistic and grounded compositionality brings up an interesting point: our current framework in fact unifies grounded and linguistic compositionality in our domain. The linguistic interpretation of compositionality (as in [e]) typically centers around a symbolic meaning representation of an utterance (e.g. lambda calculus). In our system, the pair of masks produced by the model from an input utterance can themselves be seen as (albeit domain-limited) meaning representations, while also being an explicit mapping grounding the color terms in the utterance to a visual input. In other words, when our model produces a grasp mask around a red block from the input “place the red block on the blue block”, it is simultaneously producing a representation of what the input means and grounding the color adjectives directly to the input. Based on the fact that the model is able to generalize to unseen color pairs, the output reflects compositional reasoning over the input utterance, both when viewed as a meaning representation and a grounded mapping. \n\nThanks for your continued interest and engagement on this point, it has made for an exciting and enriching review process. \n", "role": "user" }, { "content": "I am pleased to have had the opportunity to discuss the points above with the author, which has significantly improved the quality of this work.", "role": "assistant" } ]
-QJ__aPUTN2
CoRL 2021 Conference
Reviewer_kWqo
[ { "content": "\nYou are an experienced academic paper reviewer. You will receive a conference paper in the field of computer science or AI. Please analyze the paper content carefully and output your review content.\nMore importantly, the author will further explain or refute the review comments you gave, and you need to further discuss with the author based on the author's response. \nThe purpose of this rebuttal and discussion is:\n- Clarification: During the review process, the reviewer (you) may not accurately understand the contribution or method of the paper due to unclear expression or misunderstanding of certain details. Through rebuttal, the author has the opportunity to clarify these misunderstandings and further illustrate the effectiveness of their innovations or methods.\n- Respond to criticisms and suggestions: The reviewer (you) may make criticisms or suggestions on the paper, and the author can use the discussion session to provide specific responses, explain why certain criticisms may not apply, or how to improve and optimize certain aspects of the paper.\nFinally, you and the author will work together to enhance the persuasiveness of the paper and improve the quality of the paper.\n", "role": "system" }, { "content": "Now your reviewer ID is assigned as Reviewer_kWqo, and the following are the paper you need to review:\n```<<-QJ__aPUTN2>>```", "role": "user" }, { "content": "Review Content: summary: \nThis paper addresses the problem of learning to perform block rearrangement tasks described by natural language instructions. To this end, the paper proposes a framework that decouples the problem into two sub-problems: where to act and how to act. Specifically, it proposes a Transformer-based model to map images and language instructions to masks over grasp and or place locations. Then, a pre-trained policy performs actions according to its Q function that provides pixel-wise Q values and predicted masks. The experiments show the proposed framework can reliably solve the task. Ablation studies verify design choices such as language models (GloVe and BERT), the encoder architecture (UNet and Transformer), etc. I believe this work studies a promising research direction (i.e. language instruction guided agents) and proposes a reasonable framework to address the problem. Yet, I am concerned with the narrow scope of the problem and the limited novelty and technical contributions.\nstrengths_and_weaknesses: \n## Paper strengths and contributions\n\n**Motivation**\n- Leveraging natural language descriptions to instruct robots is easy and natural especially for non-expert users and flexible.\n- Employing natural language instructions for learning a multi-task policy allows leveraging semantic similarity across tasks, which potentially allows generalizing to unseen tasks.\n- Decoupling learning where to act and how to act could potentially be more sample efficient compared to learning an RL policy from scratch purely from reward signals. Also, such as framework is more interpretable since we can tell if it fails to predict correct locations to apply actions or it just cannot precisely perform actions.\n\n**Technical contributions**\n- Predicting segmentation maps indicating where to grasp or place seems effective\n- Employing a Transformer to process natural language instruction yields better performance compared to UNet.\n\n**Ablation study**\nAblation studies justify some of the design choices:\n- UNet vs. Transformer: the results show that employing a Transformer model yields better performance compared to an UNet baseline.\n- GloVe vs. BERT: the BERT-based Transformer has slightly higher block accuracy and performs well when trained from states.\n\n**Experimental results**\nThe experimental results show that: \n- The proposed Transformer-based visual goal prediction (VGP) model can predict segmentation maps for grasping and placing reasonably well in terms of block accuracy and idealized error score (IES).\n- The proposed framework achieves a higher task completion percentage with a lower average number of actions per trial.\n- The proposed framework can learn from thousands of simulated training images and successfully be fine-tuned with around 2k real images to achieve reasonable performance (with an IES around 0.7).\n- The proposed framework can deal with unseen color pairs.\n\n## Paper weaknesses and questions\n\n**Novelty**\nThe novelty, from both the views of theoretical analysis aspect and empirical contribution perspective, is not clear or not explicitly mentioned. Therefore, I do not find enough novelty from any aspects while the efforts put in for setting up and evaluating the proposed system are highly appreciated. To me, this seems more like a system paper than a learning paper.\n\n**Two-stage pipeline**\nThis paper proposes to decouple the block rearrangement problem into where to act and how to act. While I do recognize the advantage of this decoupling scheme, there are still some issues:\n- Error propagation: errors produced in each stage can accumulate and lead to undesired behaviors.\n- The intermediate representations: intermediate representations (such as segmentation maps in this case) need to be chosen beforehand and the chosen one may not be the best for the entire system. The justification suggesting that a segmentation map is a good representation for this task is missing from this paper. Some other choices, such as object detection boxes, could have been evaluated.\n\n**Limited problem scope**\nWhile the proposed framework and ideas are applicable to many problem families, the only task considered in this paper is block rearrangement. I encourage the authors to apply the proposed framework to other domains to increase the significance of this work.\n\n**Related work**\nIt would make the related work section more comprehensive by including some prior works that explore using formal languages (i.e. programs) as a task representation, including\n- Modular multitask reinforcement learning with policy sketches\n- Zero-Shot Task Generalization with Multi-Task Deep Reinforcement Learning\n- Programmable agents\n- Program Synthesis Guided Reinforcement Learning\n- Program Guided Agent \n- Hierarchical Program-Triggered Reinforcement Learning Agents For Automated Driving\n- Reinforcement Learning of Implicit and Explicit Control Flow in Instructions\n\n**RL only baseline**\nIt is not fair to compare the proposed framework against the RL-only baseline this way since the RL-only baseline does not leverage the segmentation map supervision and does not learn from other tasks like \"SPOT-Q\". Some fairer comparisons could be: (1) learning the RL policy with an auxiliary task of predicting segmentation maps, (2) learning a multi-task RL policy to solve the block rearrangement tasks with multiple configurations.\n\n**Unseen color pairs**\nWhile the ability to generalize to unseen color pairs (e.g. stack the red block on the blue block) is evaluated in this paper, the evaluation setup is very limited. It limits the number of unseen color pairs to only 1 but all other 55 combinations are seen. I would say holding out at least 10-20% makes more sense.\n\n**Grid downscaleing factor**\nInstead of predicting segmentation maps with the same size as the input images, this work proposes to downscale it. However, the downscaling factor would depend on the size of the object of interest and therefore it is not flexible.\nsummary_of_recommendation: \nI believe this work studies a promising research direction (i.e. language instruction guided agents) and proposes a reasonable framework to address the problem. Yet, I am concerned with the narrow scope of the problem and the limited novelty and technical contributions.\nissues: \nDescribed in the strengths and weaknesses section.\nRating: 4 possibly reject, but has redeeming facets\n", "role": "assistant" }, { "content": "Title: Authors’ initial kWqo Review Response, Thank you.\nThank you for your review and comments, especially the point regarding compositionality, which we have drawn on to conduct additional experiments that have strengthened our analysis. \nCould you please examine our updated revision pdf, with key changes in blue? We would really appreciate it!\n\n---\n\n> 1. “Novelty The novelty, from both the views of theoretical analysis aspect and empirical contribution perspective, is not clear or not explicitly mentioned. Therefore, I do not find enough novelty from any aspects while the efforts put in for setting up and evaluating the proposed system are highly appreciated. To me, this seems more like a system paper than a learning paper.”\n\nWe would like to point to the contributions of our work indicated by other reviewers:\n- Novels model for language guided control/actions (reviewer h8PP)\n- Filtered Bisk dataset (reviewer 1smN)\n- Ability to reuse pre-trained models (reviewer gQ8o) \n\nIn addition to these, we would like to note that this work, to our knowledge, is the first to examine the highly cited Vision Transformer (ViT)[f] methods in conjunction with language instructions for guided multi-step manipulation. Furthermore, two of the three datasets (real and simulated block manipulation with language instructions) are novel, and the third (the physically feasible subset of the Bisk data) represents a novel reframing of an existing dataset. Finally, translating the Bisk dataset into a simulated environment is itself a novel contribution. \n\n---\n\n> 2. “Two-stage pipeline This paper proposes to decouple the block rearrangement problem into where to act and how to act. While I do recognize the advantage of this decoupling scheme, there are still some issues:”\n> “Error propagation: errors produced in each stage can accumulate and lead to undesired behaviors.”\n\nWe wholeheartedly agree with this point, and address it in section 5.1. As we mention in the metareviewer response, we experimented with a fully end-to-end model, which failed to converge. If such a model worked, it would be a way of reducing error propagation. \n\n---\n\n> 3. “The intermediate representations: intermediate representations (such as segmentation maps in this case) need to be chosen beforehand and the chosen one may not be the best for the entire system. The justification suggesting that a segmentation map is a good representation for this task is missing from this paper. Some other choices, such as object detection boxes, could have been evaluated.”\n\t\nThank you for this point, our introduction now refers to the basic concept of masking regions containing objects that was explored in Hundt et. al.[9], and our related work now notes their experimental justification. Other work backing similar practices includes [a,b,c,d].\nThe rectangular nature of bounding boxes would hamper their utility in any future work aiming to manipulate irregular, non-rectangular, or deformable objects, such as a small sack of objects, since the bounding box region would have lower precision than the segmentation map.\n\n---\n\n> “Limited problem scope While the proposed framework and ideas are applicable to many problem families, the only task considered in this paper is block rearrangement. I encourage the authors to apply the proposed framework to other domains to increase the significance of this work.”\n\nThe current scope of the work, i.e. manipulation experiments on real and simulated colored blocks with templatically generated language, and masking experiments on state and image representations of complex scenes with natural language, is informed jointly by related work in block manipulation, access to block-based datasets, and the constraints of our physical environment. It is our hope here to lay the groundwork for future work, which will explore expanding our method to additional settings, including a more diverse set of objects to manipulate. \n\n---\n\n> 4. “Related work It would make the related work section more comprehensive by including some prior works that explore using formal languages (i.e. programs) as a task representation”\n\nThank you for suggesting these references, we have added the two papers that we could determine have been published. \n\n---\n\n> 5. “RL only baseline It is not fair to compare the proposed framework against the RL-only baseline this way since the RL-only baseline does not leverage the segmentation map supervision and does not learn from other tasks like SQTP. Some fairer comparisons could be: (1) learning the RL policy with an auxiliary task of predicting segmentation maps, (2) learning a multi-task RL policy to solve the block rearrangement tasks with multiple configurations.”\n\nTo ensure we understand the suggestion correctly: is this in reference to the RL-only baseline in Table 2? Could you provide a link to SQTP -- we are not familiar with the acronym. \n\n---\n\n(Response continued below)\n\n> 6. “Unseen color pairs While the ability to generalize to unseen color pairs (e.g. stack the red block on the blue block) is evaluated in this paper, the evaluation setup is very limited. It limits the number of unseen color pairs to only 1 but all other 55 combinations are seen. I would say holding out at least 10-20% makes more sense.”\n\nThank you very much for this suggestion. We have updated the experiments in section 5. Specifically, instead of holding out one color pair at a time, for stacking, we hold out 6 pairs at time. This represents roughly 26% of the possible 23 color pairings. The results still reflect the model’s ability to reason compositionally. For row-making, we kept the experiments as-is, since there are only 4 colors used there, meaning only 6 possible color combinations. \n\n---\n\n> 7. “Grid downscaleing factor Instead of predicting segmentation maps with the same size as the input images, this work proposes to downscale it. However, the downscaling factor would depend on the size of the object of interest and therefore it is not flexible.” \n\nAs you indicate, ViT does operate over image patches, assigning each patch a label. However, the size of the segmentation map is the same as the size of the image, and the patch size is a hyperparameter which can be tuned, as we show in Section 5.2 as well as Appendix C5. Furthermore, the results in Section 5.2 indicate that the best patch size is often very small (2x2 pixels). While this does down-scale the image slightly, when combined with pixel-wise Q-values the result is often sufficiently precise for manipulation (cf. Section 5.1), and this is consistent with other approaches including the FCN in the RL model[9] underlying our method. \n\nThanks again for your detailed response and for reviewing our submission.\n\n[a] Misra, Dipendra, John Langford, and Yoav Artzi. \"Mapping Instructions and Visual Observations to Actions with Reinforcement Learning.\" Proceedings of the 2017 Conference on Empirical Methods in Natural Language Processing. 2017.\n[b] . Blukis, Valts, et al. \"Following high-level navigation instructions on a simulated quadcopter with imitation learning.\" arXiv preprint arXiv:1806.00047 (2018).\n[c] Blukis, Valts, Ross A. Knepper, and Yoav Artzi. \"Few-shot Object Grounding and Mapping for Natural Language Robot Instruction Following.\" arXiv preprint arXiv:2011.07384 (2020).\n[d] Blukis, Valts, et al. \"Learning to Map Natural Language Instructions to Physical Quadcopter Control Using Simulated Flight.\" Proceedings of the Conference on Robot Learning (CoRL). 2019.\n[f] Dosovitskiy, Alexey, et al. “An Image Is Worth 16x16 Words: Transformers for Image Recognition at Scale.” ICLR 2021: The Ninth International Conference on Learning Representations, 2021.", "role": "user" }, { "content": "Title: Re: Continued Response \nI appreciate the detailed response from the authors.\n\n**Novelty**: I agree that, to the best of my knowledge, applying Vision Transformer is novel. For the real-world robot datasets and tasks, I am not sure if they would be available/applicable to the research community. For the simulated environment, do you plan to publicly release it?\n\n**Two-stage pipeline**: I actually do not see the change in section 5.1 addressing this.\n\n**Intermediate representations**: This paper also does not experiment with tasks that require manipulating irregular, non-rectangular, or deformable objects. While this is conceptually convincing, there are no empirical results supporting this statement. Therefore, I still believe comparing against methods that use representations such as object detection boxes would make this work more convincing.\n\n**Related work**: Five papers are published.\n- Modular multitask reinforcement learning with policy sketches: ICML2016\n- Zero-Shot Task Generalization with Multi-Task Deep Reinforcement Learning: ICML2017\n- Program Guided Agent: ICLR2020\n- Hierarchical Program-Triggered Reinforcement Learning Agents For Automated Driving: IEEE Transactions on Intelligent Transportation Systems\n- Reinforcement Learning of Implicit and Explicit Control Flow in Instructions: ICML 2021 (this work was arxived before the corl submission deadline but got published at ICML after the corl deadline so it makes sense that the authors do not consider it)\n\n**RL Baselines**: Sorry, I meant SPOT-Q. I am suggesting two RL baselines be included in the comparison. \n\n- Baseline 1: a model that learns to (1) predict segmentation maps with supervised learning loss using the same data used to train the proposed model, and (2) produce actions to maximize rewards. Compared to the naive RL baseline, this baseline leverages the supervision of segmentation maps, making it fairer.\n- Baseline 2: a multi-task RL policy that learns to solve the block rearrangement tasks with multiple configurations, similar to the training of SPOT-Q. Compared to the naive RL baseline, this baseline leverages the prior knowledge about other tasks like SPOT-Q, making it fairer. \n\n**Unseen color pairs**: holding out 6 pairs makes more sense. I wonder how holding out more portion of pairs actually increase the block accuracy from 81.6\\% to 84.8\\%? Can the authors comment on this?\n\n**Grid downscaling factor**: I understand that this is a hyperparameter. I am mainly concerned about not being able to learn and perform inference on varying size objects, which is a fundamental limitation of ViT itself I guess. \n", "role": "assistant" }, { "content": "Title: Re: Re: Continued Response\nWe appreciate your continued engagement on this paper. Please find our responses in-line below. \n\n\n-----\n> “Novelty: I agree that, to the best of my knowledge, applying Vision Transformer is novel. For the real-world robot datasets and tasks, I am not sure if they would be available/applicable to the research community. For the simulated environment, do you plan to publicly release it?”\n\nWe plan to publicly release all datasets, tasks, and code to the community. This includes code for the simulated environment. Essentially, everything necessary to reproduce our results except for physical hardware.\n\n-----\n> “Two-stage pipeline: I actually do not see the change in section 5.1 addressing this.” \n\nOur apologies for the lack of clarity here; section 5.1 lines 308-310 of the latest version addresses error propagation by noting that, when applied to multi-step tasks, small errors in our method compound over timesteps, leading to lower task completion scores. \n\n-----\n> “Related work: Five papers are published.\n\nThank you for referring us to these papers and their publication venues, we have added all of the published references to the related works section. \n\n-----\n> “RL Baselines: Sorry, I meant SPOT-Q. I am suggesting two RL baselines be included in the comparison.\n\nThanks for the additional details. We absolutely would have pursued one of these two baselines if we saw a feasible path in the context of our low-sample domain, as we did with the requested leave-additional-colors-out experiment. However, we will detail concrete related evidence below, indicating that both baselines would at this time be either infeasible, or ineffective. We would very much appreciate your consideration of this evidence, and of an alternative “perfect-masking” experiment below the “Intermediate Representations” reply, which we hope can provide a pathway towards addressing your concerns.\n\n> Baseline 1: a model that learns to (1) predict segmentation maps with supervised learning loss using the same data used to train the proposed model, and (2) produce actions to maximize rewards. Compared to the naive RL baseline, this baseline leverages the supervision of segmentation maps, making it fairer.\n\nThank you for providing more details on this first baseline. Provided we have understood this description correctly, baseline 1 case 1 and 2 would have a segmentation at every pixel. As we understand it, such an approach is equivalent to [Zeng et al[32]’s](https://arxiv.org/pdf/1803.09956.pdf) decluttering experiments on grasping-only, and pushing and grasping. In this decluttering task they evaluate if a grasp, push, or no action (labels 0, 1, 2) will work at each pixel, which can be roughly thought of as an equivalent to a red, green, or blue block (labels 0, 1, 2). The authors’ RL method clears 100% of tables decluttered completely; the segmentation based grasp-only method degrades to 90% trial completion; and the push, grasp, failed-action method (P+G Reactive) degrades to 54.5% trial completion. The RL method by Hundt et. al.[9] that we build upon runs this same experiment, outperforming all methods in Zeng et. al.[32] by achieving 100% table clearance in fewer actions. Since a segmentation baseline approach has already been established to be ineffective for a simpler object-only case in our domain, without colors, and since a failed segmentation also cannot be updated at test time, we did not include such a baseline. Utterances, by contrast, can be updated at live test time without training thanks to the human “on the loop”, as our real robot demo attests.\nWe have revised the Related Work section “Q-learning for Multi-Step Tasks” to refer to these experiments. \n \n\n> Baseline 2: a multi-task RL policy that learns to solve the block rearrangement tasks with multiple configurations, similar to the training of SPOT-Q. Compared to the naive RL baseline, this baseline leverages the prior knowledge about other tasks like SPOT-Q, making it fairer.” \n\nThank you for the additional details about this second baseline. The underlying RL methods we are evaluating are not multi-task capable methods, so an experiment of this kind would itself constitute a significant amount of new work. Such baselines will also have an extremely low chance of convergence in our low-data regime with ~20,000 action and hundreds or low thousands of images, for the following reasons. First, we have obtained negative results with an end-to-end RL solution we implemented, as we mentioned previously; second, relevant experiments such as Hundt et. al.[9] Table 1 row 1, which evaluates a standard discounted Q-Learning reward, did not converge, and extending to multi-task would have a similar effect; and third, some of the latest large-scale multi-task RL research such as MT-Opt (https://arxiv.org/pdf/2104.08212.pdf) utilizes millions of time steps, years of data, and significantly more hardware to converge than we have available. \n\n-----\n\n(continued response below)\n> “Intermediate representations: This paper also does not experiment with tasks that require manipulating irregular, non-rectangular, or deformable objects. While this is conceptually convincing, there are no empirical results supporting this statement. Therefore, I still believe comparing against methods that use representations such as object detection boxes would make this work more convincing.” \n\nWe agree that experiments with such objects would be interesting, and would like to address those in future work. In practice, the masks produced by the model, as visualized in Fig. 1, are contiguous rectangles made of contiguous patches, and so we feel that measuring the performance of object detection boxes may be less informative in our domain and data regime. We also refer back to our RL baseline 1 response above, which describes existing experiments from prior work that serve an equivalent purpose.\n\nWe have given more thought to possible additional experiments to better examine the gap between RL performance and masking performance. Our proposal is to conduct an upper-bound perfect-masking experiment that generates an exact color-specific mask to guide the RL model to the correct object region by reading the internal simulator state. We can definitively say a perfect-masking baseline will have higher performance than our proposed method, would better ground the results found in Table 2, and we can commit to including such an experiment for the camera-ready deadline. \n\nWould conducting a perfect-masking upper-bound experiment and adding that result to Table 2 by the camera-ready deadline suffice?\n\n-----\n> “Unseen color pairs: holding out 6 pairs makes more sense. I wonder how holding out more portion of pairs actually increase the block accuracy from 81.6% to 84.8%? Can the authors comment on this?” \n\nIn this case, the improvement may be due to different model selection and evaluation, since model selection for the compositionality experiments is done with a compositional held-out dev set. Given more held-out pairs, it is possible that the increased size of the dev set yielded more stable estimates of test-set performance, resulting in higher performance. \n\n-----\n> “Grid downscaling factor: I understand that this is a hyperparameter. I am mainly concerned about not being able to learn and perform inference on varying size objects, which is a fundamental limitation of ViT itself I guess.” \n\nThanks for clarifying this concern. ViT can handle objects of varying sizes: the paper introducing ViT (ref. [a]) classifies differently-sized objects, and where ViT has been applied to semantic segmentation (refs. [b], [c]) it is also able to model objects of varying sizes\nTransformers applied to image patches operate in the same fashion as their original word sequence application in natural language processing. In either case, the sequence is broken into tokens (patches for images, words for sentences) and then has an attention mechanism that compares the tokens quadratically against each other token. Part of the strength of the transformer is in its ability to model flexible-length sequences (as an LSTM might). Similarly, our architecture deals with varying size objects by breaking an image into patches, then the attention mechanism runs nonlinear dense transformations on those patch units, then produces a per-token classifier output. In our case, the output patches are reshaped into a mask, but there is no limit to the size of the shapes masked -- it could cover the whole image, or none of it, without any modification to the architecture. \n\n\nThanks again for your detailed replies and your engaging interactive review.\n\nReferences\n-------\n[a] Dosovitskiy, Alexey, et al. \"An Image is Worth 16x16 Words: Transformers for Image Recognition at Scale.\" International Conference on Learning Representations. 2020.\n\n[b] Strudel, Robin, et al. \"Segmenter: Transformer for Semantic Segmentation.\" arXiv preprint arXiv:2105.05633 (2021).\n\n[c] Zheng, Sixiao, et al. \"Rethinking semantic segmentation from a sequence-to-sequence perspective with transformers.\" Proceedings of the IEEE/CVF Conference on Computer Vision and Pattern Recognition. 2021.\n", "role": "user" }, { "content": "Title: Re: Continued response\n**Novelty & two-stage pipeline & related work & grid downscaling factor**: noted and thanks.\n\n**RL baseline 1**: thanks for the additional explanations. While I do understand how the authors' perspective, I still feel that empirical results conducted in this exact setup are required to fully convince me. After all, this A>B and B>C so A>C statement is, while conceptually appealing, not always valid when it comes to learning systems.\n\n**RL baseline 2**: I am not sure how this is not possible to learn a policy conditioning on different combinations to what block to manipulate, especially in simulation. Without this baseline, it is very difficult to judge if the performance gap between the proposed method and the RL baseline should be attributed to the claim factorization (learning how to act and learning where to act) or to employing the pre-trained SPOT-Q model. \n\n**Intermediate representations**: I still firmly believe experimenting with different intermediate representations such as object bounding boxes is required to justify the effectiveness of using segmentation maps.\n\n**Perfect-masking upper-bound experiment**: this sounds like a reasonable experiment to do. However, the performance gap between this method and the proposed method would be important to justify how well the proposed method works. Without seeing the actual result, it would be difficult for me to take this into consideration.\n\n**Unseen color pairs**: \"Given more held-out pairs, it is possible that the increased size of the dev set yielded more stable estimates of test-set performance, resulting in higher performance\" sounds very strange to me. It should yield more stable estimates but should not yield higher performance. I can't help but start questioning the reliability of this experiment. \n\nI truly appreciate the authors' responses and the scientific rigor that they have demonstrated in the rebuttal. Yet, it seems that it is nearly impossible to resolve some of my concerns with empirical results given the little time left for the rebuttal period. I will try my best to evaluate this work based on where we stand now. I have no further questions at this point.", "role": "assistant" } ]
0CE82_hBPzA
CoRL 2021 Conference
Reviewer_mbiM
[ { "content": "\nYou are an experienced academic paper reviewer. You will receive a conference paper in the field of computer science or AI. Please analyze the paper content carefully and output your review content.\nMore importantly, the author will further explain or refute the review comments you gave, and you need to further discuss with the author based on the author's response. \nThe purpose of this rebuttal and discussion is:\n- Clarification: During the review process, the reviewer (you) may not accurately understand the contribution or method of the paper due to unclear expression or misunderstanding of certain details. Through rebuttal, the author has the opportunity to clarify these misunderstandings and further illustrate the effectiveness of their innovations or methods.\n- Respond to criticisms and suggestions: The reviewer (you) may make criticisms or suggestions on the paper, and the author can use the discussion session to provide specific responses, explain why certain criticisms may not apply, or how to improve and optimize certain aspects of the paper.\nFinally, you and the author will work together to enhance the persuasiveness of the paper and improve the quality of the paper.\n", "role": "system" }, { "content": "Now your reviewer ID is assigned as Reviewer_mbiM, and the following are the paper you need to review:\n```<<0CE82_hBPzA>>```", "role": "user" }, { "content": "Review Content: summary: The present work considers the eye-in-hand camera calibration problem, i.e. the problem of estimating the relative pose between a camera's coordinate frame mounted on an end-effector and the end-effector's coordinate frame. The authors evaluate three different learning-based models and compare them against numerous classical baselines. All training is done on synthetic data and evaluated on a real-world platform. The work reports on the surprising finding that direct regression exhibits the best performance.\nstrengths_and_weaknesses: __Strengths__\n\n- _Motivation:_ The problem considered in this work is highly relevant and well-motivated. It may be worth discussing why non deep-learning methods should fail here.\n- _Results_: The results compared to state-of-the-art seem convincing.\n- _Video:_ While the video would benefit from some narration and some more details, it still gives a nice first (teaser-style) overview.\n\n__Weaknesses__\n\n- _Literature:_ Numerous general and several specific related works are missing (e.g. _\"Fast Eye-in-Hand 3-D Scanner-Robot Calibration for Low Stitching Errors\"_). Some of the works consider even non-overlapping views, e.g. for a depth camera (e.g. _\"Recursive Bayesian Calibration of Depth Sensors with Non-Overlapping Views\"_). While I understand, that it is impossible to discuss all of the related work in the calibration space, CoRL does not impose limitations on reference pages and thus, the related work discussion could be much more extensive at least with regards to closely related works.\n- _Ablation:_ The work is missing several potential ablations. For example, the use of different orientation representations might impact performance. Similarly, it is not clear whether hyperparameter tuning was performed and to what extent. The work seems to suggest that this was not the case.\n- _Baselines:_ Why using OpenCV's baselines is meaningful, I am not sure if they provide the most recent results and I wonder if newer works already outperform these baselines.\nsummary_of_recommendation: Overall, I believe this work to be interesting and worthy of publication. The method is useful for numerous real-world problems and opens up a relevant research direction of using deep-learning in eye-in-hand calibration. The work could benefit from providing more ablations to better understand the surprising phenomena of successful direct regression but all in all I tend to support its publication.\nissues: __General__\n\n- It is claimed (in. l.42) that _\"this calibration can be estimated directly from the camera’s image itself, without requiring any external apparatus, as long as the image can observe part of the end-effector, such as the gripper’s fingers.\"_ Do I understand correctly that this ends up memorizing a specific end-effector and would not generalize to using a different end-effector without retraining?\n- The fact that geometric approaches perform worse is surprising to me as well. I wonder whether this is architecture related and experimenting with different types of architectures would have resulted in a better performance. The work mentions the sensitivity to outliers as a potential reason. Maybe using alignment methods that are robust to outliers (such as the methods developed Luca Carlone's group) could help?\n- How were the classical geometric methods integrated into the learning pipeline? Did you use differentiable variants of these methods?\n\n__Appendix__\n\n- It might be easier understandable to present the network architecture parameters in a table as, e.g., on p.2 of [this supplementary](https://www.robots.ox.ac.uk/~namhoon/doc/DESIRE-supp.pdf).\n\n__Code__\n\n- The instructions in the code repository seem to be (at least slightly) incorrect or incomplete. E.g. they say to execute `python direct_regression_model.py` but the file `direct_regression_model.py` does not exist. I assume you meant `example_direct_regression_model.py`? \n- Consider using [this codebase template](https://github.com/paperswithcode/releasing-research-code) for code publishing.\nRating: 9 strong accept, excellent work\n", "role": "assistant" }, { "content": "Title: Answer to Reviewer mbiM\nWe thank the reviewer for their time and insightful comments and suggestions. We have now uploaded a new version of the paper with changes appearing in blue. Below are specific answers to the points raised.\n\n> Motivation: The problem considered in this work is highly relevant and well-motivated. It may be worth discussing why non deep-learning methods should fail here.\n\nWe thank the reviewer for the suggestion. Non-deep learning methods should fail since they require a dedicated external calibration object and re-calibrating every time the camera's position changes. This makes them unsuitable for non-experts as well as impractical, since re-calibration needs to be performed every time the camera position changes due to (1) re-mounting, (2) wear and tear, and (3) collisions between the camera and the environment. Deep learning methods on the other hand have the potential to be trained only once, and to re-calibrate a camera online from a single image every time its position changes for any of the aforementioned reasons. We have now updated the Introduction of our paper in lines 35-41 to reflect this change. \n\n> Literature: Numerous general and several specific related works are missing (e.g. \"Fast Eye-in-Hand 3-D Scanner-Robot Calibration for Low Stitching Errors\"). Some of the works consider even non-overlapping views, e.g. for a depth camera (e.g. \"Recursive Bayesian Calibration of Depth Sensors with Non-Overlapping Views\"). While I understand, that it is impossible to discuss all of the related work in the calibration space, CoRL does not impose limitations on reference pages and thus, the related work discussion could be much more extensive at least with regards to closely related works.\n\nWe appreciate the suggestion and have updated the related work section (lines 80-85) with several other related papers, including the recommended.\n\n> Ablation: The work is missing several potential ablations. For example, the use of different orientation representations might impact performance.\n\nWe thank the reviewer for the constructive criticism of our work. Whilst these may be interesting experiments, we believe they would distract from the main focus of our paper, which is to investigate how structurally different deep-learning-based approaches (end-to-end, deep-learning-enabled sparse and dense correspondences) would perform in this task as well as identifying any potential pitfalls they may have. Regarding the orientation representation, we have followed the suggestions presented in [1], which we believe presents a convincing account of how neural networks respond to different orientation representations. \n\n> Similarly, it is not clear whether hyperparameter tuning was performed and to what extent. The work seems to suggest that this was not the case.\n\nWe would like to clarify our point in the paper about the tuning of our different proposed methods. We have spent a significant amount of time tuning all our methods to the best of our ability, including architecture and training hyperparameter searches, while attempting to spend roughly equal amounts of time and resources tuning them. If larger and larger searches were to be carried out, it may be possible that the performance of any method could increase. However, we do not expect this to alter their relative performance and the results and conclusions we presented in the paper in any significant way. Instead, we believe we have identified the most important limitations for each method in our task setting, which we describe in the Analysis section of our paper.\n\n> Baselines: Why using OpenCV's baselines is meaningful, I am not sure if they provide the most recent results and I wonder if newer works already outperform these baselines.\n\nOpenCV implemented methods that correspond to the standard references in terms of eye-in-hand calibration (Dainiilidis [2], Tsai and Lenz [3], Harod and Doraika [4], Park and Martin [5]). To the best of our knowledge, all public eye-in-hand calibration implementations for RGB cameras at the very least use one of these methods as their backbone. For instance, [6], [7], [8], [9] and [10] implement or rely on one or more of these methods. We could not find any public implementations of more recent methods, but we also believe the ones we tested are the most meaningful since they are the most widely used. Finally, OpenCV was simply chosen as a reliable implementation of these baselines. \n\n\n> It is claimed (in. l.42) that \"this calibration can be estimated directly from the camera’s image itself, without requiring any external apparatus, as long as the image can observe part of the end-effector, such as the gripper’s fingers.\" Do I understand correctly that this ends up memorizing a specific end-effector and would not generalize to using a different end-effector without retraining?\n\nYes, the presented methods are considering a single end-effector, and changing the end-effector would require re-training. However, for that single end-effector, these can be used to automatically calibrate a camera online from a single image without needing an external calibration object and time-consuming data collection. Moreover, it is quite typical for robot learning methods to be trained on a single robot, and the method can easily be re-trained on each new hardware. In our case, this can be done in a couple of hours, simply by having a model of the gripper. The question of generalising robot learning approaches to different robots (in our case, grippers) without re-training is an open research problem, and may be an interesting avenue for future work.\n\n\n> The fact that geometric approaches perform worse is surprising to me as well. I wonder whether this is architecture related and experimenting with different types of architectures would have resulted in a better performance. \n\nWe also considered this, and as such, when designing our architectures, we experimented with several alternatives for both geometric models. This includes residual layers, parametric and non-parametric upsampling, different activation functions, regularisation methods, network depth, and input resolutions. For the sparse correspondence model, we have also experimented with various ways of dealing with the fact that not all keypoints are present in all images. The architectures we present in our paper correspond to the best designs from all those considered, and we believe that the reasons these methods performed worse than the direct regression model are the fundamental and theoretical issues we identified in the analysis section of our paper, not the specific network architectures used. \n\n\n\n\n\n> The work mentions the sensitivity to outliers as a potential reason. Maybe using alignment methods that are robust to outliers (such as the methods developed Luca Carlone's group) could help?\n\nWe believe that such methods would not necessarily help further, since the poor performance of the keypoint-based method is not due to a large amount of noise on a minority of outlier keypoints, but instead on how sensitive the method is to a small amount of noise on the entirety of the keypoints. In our controlled noise experiments, we found that RANSAC was able to root out outlier keypoints that have a large amount of noise. However, when small amounts of noise was added to all keypoints, pose estimation performance with PnP deteriorated very quickly. This is shown in the Analysis section of our paper.\n\n> How were the classical geometric methods integrated into the learning pipeline? Did you use differentiable variants of these methods?\n\nWe have used a non-differentiable variant of ICP and RANSAC + PnP. For this reason, these methods were not part of the learning pipelines. The learned methods were trained to obtain the inputs required by the geometric methods. Integrating differentiable variants of these methods is an interesting avenue for future work that would enable the learned methods to be trained end-to-end. In this work, we focussed on exploring how the most typical approaches one would consider when using deep learning on this task perform and what pitfalls they would have.\n\n\n> It might be easier understandable to present the network architecture parameters in a table as, e.g., on p.2 of this supplementary.\n\nWe appreciate the suggestion and have incorporated this change in our supplementary material.\n\n> The instructions in the code repository seem to be (at least slightly) incorrect or incomplete. E.g. they say to execute python direct_regression_model.py but the file direct_regression_model.py does not exist. I assume you meant example_direct_regression_model.py? Consider using this codebase template for code publishing.\n\nWe thank the reviewer for pointing this out. We have now corrected our submitted code.\n\n\n\n\n\nReferences \n\n[1] Zhou, Y., Barnes, C., Lu, J., Yang, J. and Li, H., 2019. On the continuity of rotation representations in neural networks. In Proceedings of the IEEE/CVF Conference on Computer Vision and Pattern Recognition (pp. 5745-5753).\n\n[2] Daniilidis, K., 1999. Hand-eye calibration using dual quaternions. The International Journal of Robotics Research, 18(3), pp.286-298.\n\n[3] Tsai, R.Y. and Lenz, R.K., 1989. A new technique for fully autonomous and efficient 3 D robotics hand/eye calibration. IEEE Transactions on robotics and automation, 5(3), pp.345-358.\n\n[4] Horaud, R. and Dornaika, F., 1995. Hand-eye calibration. The international journal of robotics research, 14(3), pp.195-210.\n\n[5] Park, F.C. and Martin, B.J., 1994. Robot sensor calibration: solving AX= XB on the Euclidean group. IEEE Transactions on Robotics and Automation, 10(5), pp.717-721.\n\n[6] Furrer, F., Fehr, M., Novkovic, T., Sommer, H., Gilitschenski, I. and Siegwart, R., 2018. Evaluation of combined time-offset estimation and hand-eye calibration on robotic datasets. In Field and Service Robotics (pp. 145-159). Springer, Cham. Available at: https://github.com/ethz-asl/hand_eye_calibration [Accessed 30 Aug. 2021].\n\n[7] GitHub. 2021. GitHub - ros-planning/moveit_tutorials: A sphinx-based centralized documentation repo for MoveIt. [online] Available at: <https://github.com/ros-planning/moveit_tutorials> [Accessed 30 August 2021].\n\n[8] GitHub. 2021. GitHub - IFL-CAMP/easy_handeye: Automated, hardware-independent Hand-Eye Calibration. [online] Available at: <https://github.com/IFL-CAMP/easy_handeye> [Accessed 30 August 2021].\n\n[9] GitHub. 2021. GitHub - jhu-lcsr/handeye_calib_camodocal: Easy to use and accurate hand eye calibration which has been working reliably for years (2016-present) with kinect, kinectv2, rgbd cameras, optical trackers, and several robots including the ur5 and kuka iiwa.. [online] Available at: <https://github.com/jhu-lcsr/handeye_calib_camodocal> [Accessed 30 August 2021].\n\n[10] GitHub. 2021. GitHub - crigroup/handeye: ROS package for calibrating sensors to a known reference frame.. [online] Available at: <https://github.com/crigroup/handeye> [Accessed 30 August 2021].\n\n‌\n‌\n\n\n\n", "role": "user" }, { "content": "Title: Your Answers\nThank you for answering all my questions in detail. I still believe that the work is worthy of publication and will slightly increase my recommendation as several of my concerns have been addressed.", "role": "assistant" } ]
0CE82_hBPzA
CoRL 2021 Conference
Reviewer_VdxP
[ { "content": "\nYou are an experienced academic paper reviewer. You will receive a conference paper in the field of computer science or AI. Please analyze the paper content carefully and output your review content.\nMore importantly, the author will further explain or refute the review comments you gave, and you need to further discuss with the author based on the author's response. \nThe purpose of this rebuttal and discussion is:\n- Clarification: During the review process, the reviewer (you) may not accurately understand the contribution or method of the paper due to unclear expression or misunderstanding of certain details. Through rebuttal, the author has the opportunity to clarify these misunderstandings and further illustrate the effectiveness of their innovations or methods.\n- Respond to criticisms and suggestions: The reviewer (you) may make criticisms or suggestions on the paper, and the author can use the discussion session to provide specific responses, explain why certain criticisms may not apply, or how to improve and optimize certain aspects of the paper.\nFinally, you and the author will work together to enhance the persuasiveness of the paper and improve the quality of the paper.\n", "role": "system" }, { "content": "Now your reviewer ID is assigned as Reviewer_VdxP, and the following are the paper you need to review:\n```<<0CE82_hBPzA>>```", "role": "user" }, { "content": "Review Content: summary: The paper evaluates different methods for eye-in-hand calibration for the special case that a major part of the gripper is visible. Three alternative deep learning approaches are trained on synthetic data to solve this problem from a single RGB image: (1) Direct regression of the camera to end-effector pose (2) Depth prediction and ICP refinement with the gripper model (3) 2D Keypoint Detection + PnP + RANSAC. Also some classical baselines that detect a single April Tag from different robot poses are compared. In their experiments the direct regression method merged over some frames wins and the reason is found to be noise in the pose predictions of the gripper or marker.\nstrengths_and_weaknesses: Strengths:\n\n- The problem of single-image eye-in-hand calibration without external markers has not been tackled much, yet (maybe because the assumption that the gripper is always visible is too strong?)\n- The approach compares several standard learning approaches that estimate the pose of the gripper in the camera frame and surprisingly shows that some are more accurate than external marker detections\n- The simulation experiments on how the different calibration methods react to different types of noise are interesting\n- The problem that current depth-sensors are often unable to sense at very close proximity is identified and therefore RGB is used \n- It allows online calibration\n\nWeaknesses:\n\n- The resolution of the RGB sensor is not mentioned even though it has quite some impact on calibration results\n- A single April Tag is not really adequate to get a precise calibration. In my experience calibration boards, e.g. the Charuco board lead to higher accuracies than reported in the paper with classical methods\n- There is only one robotic experiment using a single camera-robot combination. More evidence is needed that this method consistently works well\n- The paper mentions the Render & Compare approach from Labbe et al. but even though it is SoTA for hand-eye calibration, it is not tried here (I expect this to work better than directly regressing the pose).\n- The assumption that the gripper is always in view is quite strong. In this case we could also just attach a marker to the gripper.\n- For the constrained and un-occluded pose space of the gripper I would also expect classical edge matching techniques to work well\n- The approach of pushing keypoints that are out of the image to the image border is questionable \n- Creating the synthetic training data might be more tedious than doing the external calibration\n- The achieved standard deviation of >1cm does not seem good enough to me \nsummary_of_recommendation: While the tackled problem could be interesting, the proposed evaluation is insufficient to draw any conclusions. The baselines and proposed approaches seem a bit too weak. I would recommend the authors to extend and resubmit their study to more setups, different markers and the render&compare approach or maybe some classical edge matching. For me the approach is also too dependent to have a sufficient part of the gripper in the image but in some specific cases it might make sense.\nissues: - Figure 4 top doesn't show green/blue lines\nl325 \"sythetic\"\nRating: 7 accept, but needs minor improvements\n", "role": "assistant" }, { "content": "Title: Answer to Reviewer VdxP\nWe thank the reviewer for their thorough feedback and constructive criticism. We have uploaded a new version of our paper and supplementary material, with changes highlighted in blue. Please find our answers below to the specific concerns raised.\n\n> The resolution of the RGB sensor is not mentioned even though it has quite some impact on calibration results\n\nThe resolution of the RGB sensor was 480x848. We have used this resolution for the classical methods and downsampled it to 144x256 for the learning-based methods. We have now updated our paper with this information in lines 199-201.\n\n> A single April Tag is not really adequate to get a precise calibration. In my experience calibration boards, e.g. the Charuco board lead to higher accuracies than reported in the paper with classical methods\n\nDuring this project, we spent significant time and effort exploring three different calibration objects: April Tags, ArUco Tags and ChArUco boards. We have also experimented with various implementations of calibration object pose estimation algorithms. Overall, we have found that the AprilTag3 library used to estimate the pose of a large April Tag performed best.\n\n\n> There is only one robotic experiment using a single camera-robot combination. More evidence is needed that this method consistently works well.\n\nWe have now included an experiment in our supplementary material to test our best performing method (Direct Regression Model) on three additional grippers in simulation (see section 4.3, lines 155-166, of our supplementary material). These new grippers consist of a two-finger RG2 gripper, a three-finger Jaco Hand gripper and a Baxter suction gripper. In all three, our results are consistent with the results reported in our paper, which indicates there is nothing particular about the gripper tested in the paper and that the method would work consistently well on different hardware.\n\n\n\n\n> The paper mentions the Render and Compare approach from Labbe et al. but even though it is SoTA for hand-eye calibration, it is not tried here (I expect this to work better than directly regressing the pose).\n\nLabbé et al. have used a render-and-compare approach to solve the eye-to-hand calibration problem, which is different from our eye-in-hand problem, although it is still related. As their method is not directly applicable to our problem setting, over the past two weeks, we have adapted it to the eye-in-hand calibration problem and used it as a refinement to our Direct Regression Method. After working on this full time for two weeks, we have at best managed to match the results reported in our paper. \n\nWe hypothesise that this is because render and compare is not as well suited for eye-in-hand calibration as for eye-to-hand calibration and pose estimation because the object (end-effector) is very close to the camera in the former. First, this causes small changes in the end-effector pose to create very large changes in the appearance of the gripper in the image. Render and compare methods rely on iterative local improvements to the pose in order to be effective, so this effect may hurt their ability to converge. Second, parts of the gripper can be outside of the image plane, making it harder to distinguish between the effects of translation and rotation because it is impossible to observe the entire object's movements. Since detecting a disentangled difference in the rotation, translation and scaling of an object of interest in two input images is a predicate of the success of render and compare methods, we expect them to work worse in this setting.\n\nFinally, we would like to argue about our choice not to use render and compare in the first place. Our paper is to the best of our knowledge the first attempt to apply deep learning to the problem of eye-in-hand calibration. We were interested in studying how fundamentally different ways to use deep learning to tackle this issue would respond to the task, and what the potential pitfalls of each may be. In this sense, a render and compare approach is not fundamentally different from simply a direct regression. Both are end-to-end deep learning methods that regress a rigid transformation. As such, we instead chose to compare a standard end-to-end approach (direct regression model), with a sparse 2D feature extraction and 2D-3D correspondence based approach (sparse correspondence model), and a dense image prediction with 3D registration-based approach (dense correspondence model).\n\n\n> The assumption that the gripper is always in view is quite strong. In this case we could also just attach a marker to the gripper.\n\n\nWe believe that for an eye-in-hand setup, it is not uncommon to have the gripper in view to allow for precise manipulation, as in [1], [2], [3] and [4].\n\nMoreover, getting part of the gripper in view when mounting a camera to the wrist naturally occurs for most mounting angles and reasonable camera fields of view. Forcing the gripper to be out of frame would probably result in less functional camera angles. We also believe that attaching a marker to the gripper would not always be practical. Most grippers have very small flat surfaces on which to attach a marker, if any. For these, the viewing angle would also typically be quite extreme in our setting. Given this, it is not obvious that a precise marker pose can be obtained in practice from simply attaching it to a gripper. Moreover, even if it were possible to do so, this would return the marker pose in the camera frame. To get the camera calibration, the marker pose relative to the end-effector would still need to be obtained, and it is not obvious how this could be achieved.\n\n> For the constrained and un-occluded pose space of the gripper I would also expect classical edge matching techniques to work well\n\nWe acknowledge that it may be possible to hand engineer other solutions for our setting. In early experiments, we attempted a similar idea that relied on an affordance segmentation matching algorithm. Precisely, we used the segmentation masks of the gripper and of the gripper’s model rendered at a pose proposal to obtain a cost function based on the Intersection over Union of the two. We then used this cost function and the cross entropy method in order to optimise the gripper pose. Overall, we found that it did not produce any convincing results, as we found the optimisation could find solutions that would decrease the cost we defined but not necessarily get to the correct extrinsics calibration at the end. As such, we ended up dropping this as a potential avenue for further investigation.\n\n\n\n> The approach of pushing keypoints that are out of the image to the image border is questionable\n\nThis is an interesting point. However, we would like to point out that simultaneously predicting which keypoints are visible in an image and their location is still an unsolved research problem. In early experiments, we attempted to use regressed confidences to determine whether a keypoint is present in an image. These confidences were obtained from our encoder, by finding the maximum of the pre-spatial-soft-argmax features, and passing it through a sigmoid activation, similarly to [1]. However, we have found that this did not perform any better than simply pushing non-present keypoints to the border of an image. As such, we opted to use the latter.\n\n\n> Creating the synthetic training data might be more tedious than doing the external calibration\n\nCreating the synthetic training data does require an initial time overhead. However, once this is done, the approaches we study can readily re-calibrate the camera online from a single image. As such, every time the camera pose changes, due to (1) re-mounting, (2) wear and tear, and (3) collisions between the camera and the environment, the re-calibration is “instant”. In contrast, classical methods doing the external calibration would need to obtain a calibration object, and re-gather data to re-calibrate every time one of the above cases occurs. As such, we believe that in the long run a deep learning-based approach would be more efficient, with the time investment occurring only once. \n\n\nMoreover, we would also like to emphasize that another advantage of our proposed methods over classical external calibration approaches is making the functionality more suitable for non-experts. That is because the dataset collection can be done in the factory/lab a-priori, and in deployment, they do not rely on an external calibration object or data gathering, which makes them more practical for unstructured environments and non-expert users.\n\n\nFinally, We have now included an estimate of how long it took for our dataset to generate (around 30 minutes) and our methods to train (of the order of a few hours, depending on the model) in Section 4 (lines 92-95) of our supplementary material.\n\n> The achieved standard deviation of >1cm does not seem good enough to me\n\nWhen obtaining results for the classical methods, we experimented with various calibration objects, calibration object pose estimation algorithms, image resolutions, and implementations of the classical baselines. The results presented in our paper correspond to the best performance we managed to achieve with automatic data collection and no human intervention during calibration. Further, our results appear consistent with other works with similar experiments such as [5] or [6] that report RMSE errors > 1cm. Despite this, we acknowledge that the calibration accuracy could have been improved further by manually inspecting the tag detection accuracy on each of the automatically gathered images, only keeping the subset that seems the be the best, or manually annotating the positions of the April Tags by identifying the positions of each corner. This would be extremely tedious and time-consuming and would require a human to be present for each calibration, whilst our investigation focuses on minimising human intervention with automated calibration procedures.\n\n> Figure 4 top doesn't show green/blue lines l325 \"sythetic\"\n\nWe thank the reviewer for the comment and have updated this in the new version of our paper.\n\n\n\n\nReferences \n\n[1] Puang, E.Y., Tee, K.P. and Jing, W., 2020. KOVIS: Keypoint-based Visual Servoing with Zero-Shot Sim-to-Real Transfer for Robotics Manipulation. In 2020 IEEE/RSJ International Conference on Intelligent Robots and Systems (IROS) (pp. 7527-7533). IEEE.\n\n[2] Young, S., Gandhi, D., Tulsiani, S., Gupta, A., Abbeel, P. and Pinto, L., 2020. Visual imitation made easy. arXiv preprint arXiv:2008.04899.\n\n[3] Song, S., Zeng, A., Lee, J. and Funkhouser, T., 2020. Grasping in the wild: Learning 6dof closed-loop grasping from low-cost demonstrations. IEEE Robotics and Automation Letters, 5(3), pp.4978-4985.\n\n[4] Triyonoputro, J.C., Wan, W. and Harada, K., 2019, November. Quickly inserting pegs into uncertain holes using multi-view images and deep network trained on synthetic data. In 2019 IEEE/RSJ International Conference on Intelligent Robots and Systems (IROS) (pp. 5792-5799). IEEE.\n\n[5] Tsai, R.Y. and Lenz, R.K., 1989. A new technique for fully autonomous and efficient 3 D robotics hand/eye calibration. IEEE Transactions on robotics and automation, 5(3), pp.345-358.\n\n[6] Furrer, F., Fehr, M., Novkovic, T., Sommer, H., Gilitschenski, I. and Siegwart, R., 2018. Evaluation of combined time-offset estimation and hand-eye calibration on robotic datasets. In Field and Service Robotics (pp. 145-159). Springer, Cham. \n\n\n\n", "role": "user" }, { "content": "Title: Thanks for your detailed answers\n> We have now included an experiment in our supplementary material to test our best performing method (Direct Regression Model) on three additional grippers in simulation (see section 4.3, lines 155-166, of our supplementary material).\n\nAppreciated.\n\n> In this sense, a render and compare approach is not fundamentally different from simply a direct regression. Both are end-to-end deep learning methods that regress a rigid transformation.\n\nI do not fully agree. A direct regression is a one-shot method predicting a global pose. The render-compare approach only requires estimating relative poses and it can be iteratively applied to refine the pose. It is true that the gripper is not fully visible in the image which might cause some troubles, but the render&compare approach also works very well for object pose estimation with notable occlusions (see \"Benchmark for Object Pose Estimation (BOP)\" winner CosyPose). The initialization could be some canonical gripper orientation instead of using the direct regression result. It would have been nice to have these results included, but of course in the short rebuttal period it is hard to sufficiently tune the approach. \n\nIn my opinion, it is not clear whether the classical and DL approaches have been properly tuned and it is questionable whether >1cm stdv is sufficient for many practical applications. However, especially with the added evidence from other (simulated) grippers, the paper is still a good starting point for learning-based hand-eye calibration by testing some standard DL-based approaches. So I would also be okay with an acceptance.", "role": "assistant" } ]
0CE82_hBPzA
CoRL 2021 Conference
Reviewer_SvQJ
[ { "content": "\nYou are an experienced academic paper reviewer. You will receive a conference paper in the field of computer science or AI. Please analyze the paper content carefully and output your review content.\nMore importantly, the author will further explain or refute the review comments you gave, and you need to further discuss with the author based on the author's response. \nThe purpose of this rebuttal and discussion is:\n- Clarification: During the review process, the reviewer (you) may not accurately understand the contribution or method of the paper due to unclear expression or misunderstanding of certain details. Through rebuttal, the author has the opportunity to clarify these misunderstandings and further illustrate the effectiveness of their innovations or methods.\n- Respond to criticisms and suggestions: The reviewer (you) may make criticisms or suggestions on the paper, and the author can use the discussion session to provide specific responses, explain why certain criticisms may not apply, or how to improve and optimize certain aspects of the paper.\nFinally, you and the author will work together to enhance the persuasiveness of the paper and improve the quality of the paper.\n", "role": "system" }, { "content": "Now your reviewer ID is assigned as Reviewer_SvQJ, and the following are the paper you need to review:\n```<<0CE82_hBPzA>>```", "role": "user" }, { "content": "Review Content: summary: Eye-in-hand calibration estimates the pose of a camera rigidly mounted to some part of a robot, w.r.t. robot base. This paper explores 3 learning-based approaches for eye-in-hand calibration from a single RGB image. All training is done with synthetic images. Experiments compare the proposed approaches with each other and with traditional external marker-based optimization approaches, both in simulation and sim2real.\nstrengths_and_weaknesses: # Strengths\n- paper is well written and addresses a well-motivated problem\n- experiments are thorough, and metrics are clearly described\n- Figure 2 is particularly helpful to understand the paper\n\n# Clarification\n- Does the sparse correspondence model also output the identity of keypoints in addition to their location? If now, how are 2D-3D correspondences decided?\n\n# Weaknesses\n- It makes intuitive sense that the direct regression model works best among the 3 proposals in the regime of small viewpoint changes. The sparse correspondence system could have been better designed by taking inspiration from parallel literature in keypoint matching. For example, researchers are having much more success with detecting and matching keypoints between a pair of images, rather than directly regressing keypoints. The problem can be cast as detecting and matching keypoints from query image to an image taken from a canonical known pose with good visibility. Many references can be found in Section 2 of \"COTR: Correspondence Transformer for Matching Across Images\" (that particular paper is quite new, so I don't expect the authors of this paper to have used it, I am just providing it for is Related Works section.)\n- A simulation-only analysis of the performance of these methods on different grippers would have verified whether the conclusions drawn here apply to all grippers, or just the Sawyer gripper.\nsummary_of_recommendation: I am in favour of accepting this paper because it introduces and thoroughly examines the idea of learning eye-in-hand calibration. However, I am a little skeptical of the conclusion regarding direct regression being significantly better than sparse correspondence **when** the sparse correspondence pipeline is more carefully designed (see above for a suggestion on how to do that).\nissues: - Sim-only experiments with some other gripper designs would make this paper stronger, but it is not necessary just for acceptance, in my opinion\n- I do not expect the sparse correspondence pipeline suggestion to be followed up in this paper. That can be explored in another paper\nRating: 7 accept, but needs minor improvements\n", "role": "assistant" }, { "content": "Title: Answer to Reviewer SvQJ \nWe thank the reviewer for their insightful comments regarding our paper. We have now uploaded a revised version of our paper and supplementary material with changes appearing in blue. Please find specific answers to the points raised below:\n\n> Does the sparse correspondence model also output the identity of keypoints in addition to their location? If now, how are 2D-3D correspondences decided?\n\nDuring training, the labels are generated such that each entry always corresponds to a specific keypoint. As such, from the network predictions is possible to associate each channel of the network's output with a specific 3D keypoint. We have now clarified this point in line 151 of the updated version of our paper.\n\n> It makes intuitive sense that the direct regression model works best among the 3 proposals in the regime of small viewpoint changes. The sparse correspondence system could have been better designed by taking inspiration from parallel literature in keypoint matching. For example, researchers are having much more success with detecting and matching keypoints between a pair of images, rather than directly regressing keypoints. The problem can be cast as detecting and matching keypoints from query image to an image taken from a canonical known pose with good visibility. Many references can be found in Section 2 of \"COTR: Correspondence Transformer for Matching Across Images\" (that particular paper is quite new, so I don't expect the authors of this paper to have used it, I am just providing it for is Related Works section.)\n\nWe thank the reviewer for their insight and appreciate the suggestion. Indeed, it seems that casting the problem as a correspondence matching problem has the potential to yield better results, as well as naturally solving the issue of missing keypoints from the image plane. It will also be interesting to investigate how such a method might respond to a sim-to-real setting where the query image is taken from a different domain (simulation) than the target image (real world). As such, we value this as a great avenue for future work.\n\n\n> A simulation-only analysis of the performance of these methods on different grippers would have verified whether the conclusions drawn here apply to all grippers, or just the Sawyer gripper. [...] Sim-only experiments with some other gripper designs would make this paper stronger, but it is not necessary just for acceptance, in my opinion\n\nWe thank the reviewer for their constructive suggestion. We have now included this experiment in section 4.3, lines 155-166, of our supplementary material, where we test the performance of our best performing method on three additional grippers in simulation. These new grippers consist of a two-finger RG2 gripper, a three-finger Jaco Hand gripper and a Baxter suction gripper. In all three, our results are consistent with the results reported in our paper, which indicates there is nothing particular about the gripper tested in the paper and that the method would work consistently well on different hardware.\n\n\n", "role": "user" }, { "content": "Title: post-rebuttal\nThank you for your response. I will keep my weak accept rating.", "role": "assistant" } ]
0CE82_hBPzA
CoRL 2021 Conference
Reviewer_NfZb
[ { "content": "\nYou are an experienced academic paper reviewer. You will receive a conference paper in the field of computer science or AI. Please analyze the paper content carefully and output your review content.\nMore importantly, the author will further explain or refute the review comments you gave, and you need to further discuss with the author based on the author's response. \nThe purpose of this rebuttal and discussion is:\n- Clarification: During the review process, the reviewer (you) may not accurately understand the contribution or method of the paper due to unclear expression or misunderstanding of certain details. Through rebuttal, the author has the opportunity to clarify these misunderstandings and further illustrate the effectiveness of their innovations or methods.\n- Respond to criticisms and suggestions: The reviewer (you) may make criticisms or suggestions on the paper, and the author can use the discussion session to provide specific responses, explain why certain criticisms may not apply, or how to improve and optimize certain aspects of the paper.\nFinally, you and the author will work together to enhance the persuasiveness of the paper and improve the quality of the paper.\n", "role": "system" }, { "content": "Now your reviewer ID is assigned as Reviewer_NfZb, and the following are the paper you need to review:\n```<<0CE82_hBPzA>>```", "role": "user" }, { "content": "Review Content: summary: The paper analyzes three methods of performing eye-in-hand calibration: 1) directly training a neural network to regress to the camera pose, 2) using a neural network to generate sparse keypoints and use Perspective-n-Points + RANSAC, and 3) using a neural network to generate dense correspondences and use ICP. Surprisingly, the authors found that direct regression, which achieves estimation error of 13.4mm and 4.4 degrees, significantly outperformed the other methods that have more informative geometric priors built in. The paper proceeds to analyze why this is the case and offers corresponding explanations – matching sparse keypoints seems too sensitive to noise, and predicted dense correspondences are unrealistically smooth, owing to neural networks’ interpolation bias.\nstrengths_and_weaknesses: Strengths:\n-\tThe paper conducts a well-focused study.\n-\tThe paper offers surprising and practical insights.\n-\tThe paper is clearly written.\n-\tImplementation and experiments seem well executed.\n\nWeaknesses:\n-\tWhile the authors acknowledge that doing “excessive hyperparameter tuning” for the geometric methods may make the comparison unfair, I would still encourage the authors to try to tune their hyperparameters to see what their performance ceilings are.\n-\tSpecifically, the authors may want to tune not just the network hyperparameters, but the ones for RANSAC and ICP.\n-\tThe authors should discuss how much time it takes to generate the data and train the network. \n- The authors should visualize more specific failure cases for each of the method to better illustrate their differences. This can be done in the supplementary materials.\n-\tSpacing and font of texts in Figure 2 could be improved.\n\nsummary_of_recommendation: My recommendation of weak accept is due to the clean and focused insight the paper provides, even though it does not introduce new algorithmic advances (e.g. proposing ways to mitigate the issues found in the correspondence-based approaches).\nissues: Please see strengths and weaknesses.\nRating: 7 accept, but needs minor improvements\n", "role": "assistant" }, { "content": "Title: Answer to Reviewer NfZb\nWe appreciate the feedback from the reviewer and have answered the points raised below. We have also now updated our paper and supplementary material, with changes reflected in blue.\n\n> While the authors acknowledge that doing “excessive hyperparameter tuning” for the geometric methods may make the comparison unfair, I would still encourage the authors to try to tune their hyperparameters to see what their performance ceilings are. Specifically, the authors may want to tune not just the network hyperparameters, but the ones for RANSAC and ICP\n\nWe want to clarify that we have spent a significant amount of time tuning all of our methods to the best of our ability—this including tuning network architectures, training hyperparameters and the parameters of the RANSAC and ICP algorithms. To be specific, for RANSAC, we have tuned the number of iterations and the inlier threshold. For the ICP algorithm, we have tuned the number of ICP iterations, the error metric, the data association method, and the outlier rejection algorithm used. Overall, we believe that the most significant issues with these methods are as described in the Analysis section of our paper, rather than the need for additional hyperparameter tuning.\n\n> The authors should discuss how much time it takes to generate the data and train the network.\n\nOnce the simulation environment and deep learning training code have been set up, generating the data for all models took approximately 30 minutes, while training a single deep learning model took up to a few hours depending on the method. We have now added a brief discussion about this in section 4, lines 92-96 of our supplementary material.\n\n> The authors should visualize more specific failure cases for each of the method to better illustrate their differences. This can be done in the supplementary materials\n\nWe acknowledge that we do not showcase particular failure case examples in our paper and appreciate the constructive criticism. In practice, we found that they did not bring much insight into our discussion, and as such, we opted to discuss the underlying weakness of the different methods in the Analysis section of our paper instead. \n\n\n> Spacing and font of texts in Figure 2 could be improved.\n\nWe appreciate the advice which we have accounted for in the updated version of Figure two in the revised paper.\n", "role": "user" }, { "content": "Title: Rebuttal Response\nI would like to thank the authors for their clarifications in the response. My recommendation of weak accept remains unchanged.", "role": "assistant" } ]
0QJeE5hkyFZ
CoRL 2021 Conference
Reviewer_fiDj
[ { "content": "\nYou are an experienced academic paper reviewer. You will receive a conference paper in the field of computer science or AI. Please analyze the paper content carefully and output your review content.\nMore importantly, the author will further explain or refute the review comments you gave, and you need to further discuss with the author based on the author's response. \nThe purpose of this rebuttal and discussion is:\n- Clarification: During the review process, the reviewer (you) may not accurately understand the contribution or method of the paper due to unclear expression or misunderstanding of certain details. Through rebuttal, the author has the opportunity to clarify these misunderstandings and further illustrate the effectiveness of their innovations or methods.\n- Respond to criticisms and suggestions: The reviewer (you) may make criticisms or suggestions on the paper, and the author can use the discussion session to provide specific responses, explain why certain criticisms may not apply, or how to improve and optimize certain aspects of the paper.\nFinally, you and the author will work together to enhance the persuasiveness of the paper and improve the quality of the paper.\n", "role": "system" }, { "content": "Now your reviewer ID is assigned as Reviewer_fiDj, and the following are the paper you need to review:\n```<<0QJeE5hkyFZ>>```", "role": "user" }, { "content": "Review Content: summary: The paper proposes a human like, alternative strategy to unfolding cloth: using 2 robot arms to grab the cloth and then fling it (apply a high velocity oscillation). Flinging policies are trained in simulation. Three different categories of cloth are considered. A flinging action primitive is hand designed and a simple but effective action parameterization is used that can overcome some difficulties of dual arm setups. Top down images are captured and fed to a value network, which predicts spatial action maps. The best action parameters are chosen, and the primitive is executed. The methods are compared in simulation against pick & place and pick & drag baselines and show improved efficiency (fewer steps), performance on large cloths, and generalization to unseen cloths. The methods are also compared in real against a pick & place baseline and show improved performance. \nstrengths_and_weaknesses: The paper tackles an increasingly popular problem in deformable object manipulation. The method is unique, intuitive, and simple (no state estimation) and seems to perform significantly better than baselines in terms of efficiency, performance, and generalization on complex cloth initializations. Training is done primarily in simulation with fine tuning in the real world. Results are evaluated in both simulation and the real world. The paper is very well written and the video is extremely clear and well illustrated.\n\nAs the authors imply in the limitations section, the dynamic flinging strategy and associated findings may be less transferrable to folding cloth than existing pick & place baselines. There are also a few questions. What were the failure cases were in terms of generalization? Which cloths and t-shirts did it fail on and how/why? Please discuss this more. How does performance compare against baselines when the initial state is only lightly or moderately crumpled? Maybe an optimal strategy for unfolding is an initial flinging followed by pick & place. More questions are listed in Issues below.\nsummary_of_recommendation: This is a really nice paper on an interesting problem. It provides an unfolding strategy that is clearly the right choice for highly crumpled initial states and demonstrates its effectiveness over benchmarks in simulation and real world. The visuals, video, and clarity also serve as an example for other research work in the field.\nissues: How were the parameters for the dynamic primitive selected? What was that process like? More insight there would be useful.\nIs lifting to 0.30 m sufficiently generalizable to long cloth?\nHow do you know when the cloth is taut during the stretching stage?\nWhy is learning a velocity unhelpful? When would you expect it to be helpful?\nI was confused by how the width and angle of the picking actions are represented or selected from the action value maps. Please clarify this.\nAll the videos are at 5x speed. Please provide videos at 1x as well.\nWere there any notable challenges in sim2real? Would be great to discuss this.\nRating: 9 strong accept, excellent work\n", "role": "assistant" }, { "content": "Title: Response to Reviewer fiDj\nWe thank reviewer fiDj for their thorough feedback and clarifying questions. We are encouraged that they recognize our approach's uniqueness, intuitiveness, and simplicity while achieving strong performance over baselines on challenging cloth unfolding tasks. We’ve added the extra information to the paper and addressed their questions below.\n\n### Quasi-static v.s. dynamic manipulation for cloth unfolding\n\n> How does performance compare against baselines when the initial state is only lightly or moderately crumpled?\n\nOur Fig. 4 shows that dynamic actions can also handle easy cloth initial configurations (starting from high coverages), thus superseding the unfolding abilities of the quasi-static baselines.\n\n> The dynamic flinging strategy and associated findings may be less transferrable to folding cloth than existing pick & place baselines.\n\nWhile quasi-static cloth folding from arbitrarily crumpled initial cloth configurations may take a large number of interactions, we expect that a naive addition of Flingbot for an initial unfolding stage to a quasi-static cloth folding system from unfolded cloth configurations should already have better performance and efficiency.\nFuture work could explore a combined quasi-static, dynamic action space to exploit dynamic action's effectiveness when appropriate and quasi-static action's flexibility otherwise.\n\n\n### Fling parameters design and Sim2Real\n\n> Were there any notable challenges in sim2real? Is lifting to 0.30 m sufficiently generalizable to long cloth?\n\nTo our surprise, the real-world flinging setup system could robustly unfold the cloth using a wide range of fling heights, fling speeds, and fling distance for all cloth types, if given a good grasp (e.g.: dual-arm corner/edge grasp with cloth stretched).\nIn contrast, the simulated system exhibits high sensitivity to small changes in these fling parameters.\nThis sim2real gap was bridged in our work by tuning the simulated fling parameters such that flings from good grasps in simulation would also lead to high coverages like in the real system.\nCrucially, this gap underscores the importance of real world results for cloth manipulation as well as motivates future work on fast and accurate cloth simulation engines.\n\nAnother large sim2real problem was poor collision handling in simulation.\nThere were cloth configurations that the real world system experienced but was not observed in simulation, such as cloth twisting.\nWhile Nvidia Flex is decent at preventing self penetration, it does so at the cost of unrealistic collision handling.\nQualitatively, this unrealistic collision handling means cloths untwist themselves when twisted (or are in any other state with high self-collision).\nAnother case where this self-unfolding behavior was observed was for shirts due to the two layers of the shirts colliding with each other.\nWe hypothesize that poor collision handling is the main reason why performance for the simulated shirt benchmark is higher across the board for all approaches, despite being unseen cloth types.\n\n\n> How were the parameters for the dynamic primitive selected?\n\nTo achieve the highest speed at the end effector while respecting the torque limit of each joint, the primitive must move upper joints (i.e.: wrist) more than the lower joints (i.e., base). We also found that adding a blending radius between each target joint configuration gave a much smoother flinging trajectory and cloth swinging, as opposed to a jerky cloth motion without blending radius.\nIn designing our motion primitive, we optimized fling dynamics parameters (waypoints, velocities, acceleration) to maximize coverage assuming a dual arm grasp on a normal rectangular cloth in a stretched state. Automatically discovering dynamic motion primitives, such as flinging, and simultaneously learning their parameters is an important and interesting direction for future work.\n\n> Why is learning a velocity unhelpful? When would you expect it to be helpful?\n\nWe hypothesize that light and thin cloths, whose air resistive forces to momentum during flinging ratio is significantly higher than the cloths tested, would require a higher fling speed. Therefore, fling speed learning may be helpful when cloths in the task dataset contain a wider variance in density and thickness. We also hypothesize that a successful fling speed prediction approach may require extra information about the cloths’ physical parameters that could not be obtained through visual observation alone, which would be out of scope for this work.\n\n\n> I was confused by how the width and angle of the picking actions are represented or selected from the action value maps.\n\nThe grasp width and grasp angle are represented by the rotation and scaling of the input image observations, respectively.\nFor instance, if we want to evaluate the action value of more rotations, we would rotate the input image to those rotations and add the rotated images to the batch to evaluate.\nEven though the grasp width and grasp rotation are constant in pixel space (grasp width is always 8 pixels wide, with rotation of 0 degrees), the grasp width and grasp rotation in the world frame change depending on how the image is transformed.\n\n> What were the failure cases were in terms of generalization? Which cloths and t-shirts did it fail on and how/why?\n\nWe have visualized some shirt failure cases in the updated supplementary materials. The self-discovered dual-arm corner and edge grasp for flinging which is effective for rectangular cloths fail on shirts in two main ways. First, if the sleeves of the shirt get stuck in the shirt’s collar, FlingBot will be unable to pull the sleeves out. This failure case motivates future work on combining quasi-static and dynamic actions for cloth manipulation. Second, dual arm grasps where one grasp is on the outer surface and another grasp is on the inner surface of the shirt usually flings to low coverages. While this failure case is expected to the differences between rectangular cloths and shirts (presence of holes, inner/outer surfaces, etc.), FlingBot’s performance on shirts still suggested generalizable cloth manipulation abilities.\n\n> How do you know when the cloth is taut during the stretching stage?\n\nTo mitigate the reliance on specialized and expensive force sensors, we chose to implement stretched cloth detection by segmenting the cloth from the front camera RGBD view of the workspace, then checking whether the top edge of the cloth mask is flat, as outlined in L214-215.\nWe have added these clarifying details to the updated paper.\n", "role": "user" }, { "content": "Thank you for the authors' feedback. It resolves the majority of my concerns. I continue to recommend this work positively.", "role": "assistant" } ]
0QJeE5hkyFZ
CoRL 2021 Conference
Reviewer_X3S4
[ { "content": "\nYou are an experienced academic paper reviewer. You will receive a conference paper in the field of computer science or AI. Please analyze the paper content carefully and output your review content.\nMore importantly, the author will further explain or refute the review comments you gave, and you need to further discuss with the author based on the author's response. \nThe purpose of this rebuttal and discussion is:\n- Clarification: During the review process, the reviewer (you) may not accurately understand the contribution or method of the paper due to unclear expression or misunderstanding of certain details. Through rebuttal, the author has the opportunity to clarify these misunderstandings and further illustrate the effectiveness of their innovations or methods.\n- Respond to criticisms and suggestions: The reviewer (you) may make criticisms or suggestions on the paper, and the author can use the discussion session to provide specific responses, explain why certain criticisms may not apply, or how to improve and optimize certain aspects of the paper.\nFinally, you and the author will work together to enhance the persuasiveness of the paper and improve the quality of the paper.\n", "role": "system" }, { "content": "Now your reviewer ID is assigned as Reviewer_X3S4, and the following are the paper you need to review:\n```<<0QJeE5hkyFZ>>```", "role": "user" }, { "content": "Review Content: summary: The paper proposes FlingBot, an approach to cloth unfolding using dynamic flinging motions. The key idea of the approach is to grasp a crumpled object with two hands, lift the object and fling it such that it can be placed on the support surface in an unfolded state. This process is repeated several times until the object cannot be unfolded further.\n\nThe paper decomposes the problem as follows: (i) a hand-crafted dynamic motion primitive for flinging motions. (ii) a task-specific representation of a bimanual grasp point for flinging. (iii) A learned value network for predicting effective bimanual grasp points for flinging. (iv) A self-supervised learning curriculum for learning the grasp value network in simulation and fine-tune it in real.\n\nThe paper shows that the learned dynamic flinging skill results in a more successful, efficient and generalizable unfolding capability then previous pick & place policies for the same task.\n\nstrengths_and_weaknesses: ## Strengths\n\nThe paper is very enjoyable to read, and makes an important contribution to the problem of deformable object manipulation in general, and cloth unfolding in particular. It strikes an excellent balance between leveraging general techniques such as reinforcement learning and sim2real and combining them with task-specific motor primitives and representations to solve the task at hand efficiently.\n\nThe proposed approach is rigorously evaluated, both in sim and in real, and sensible ablations and baselines are considered.\n\nThe figures are beautifully crafted and enable the reader to immediately grasp the key ideas of the approach (Fig 1-3) and how it performs (Fig 5).\n\n\n\n## Weaknesses\n\nThe paper writing, in particular Sections 1-3 could be more to the point. Some key concepts such as \"delta coverage\" are used throughout the text but only defined in Section 4.1. Furthermore, the paper states that the real world pipeline suffers from failure cases, but it is not quantified how often these occur, e.g. how many episodes had to be discarded because of a grasping failure. That raises concerns about the practical applicability of the method, and the paper should add a section on how these issues can be mitigated practically.\n\nFurthermore, it would be interesting to add visual ablation studies to understand when the value network breaks down.\nsummary_of_recommendation: The paper makes an important contribution to CoRL, both for the concrete task of cloth unfolding and for deformable object manipulation in general. The paper offers a good mix of careful task-specific engineering that enables solving the cloth unfolding task effectively, and a set of general techniques such as self-supervised learning in simulation. To me, this paper constitutes the most impressive account of both simulated and real-world cloth manipulation to date.\n\nissues: ### Writing\n\n- \"Delta coverage\" is used throughout the text but only defined in Section 4.1. Define it explicitly when introduced for the first time (see next bullet point)\n- L52-L56: This explanation is a bit hard to understand when read for the first time. What is a \"value map of the same dimension\"? What does it mean for a flinging action to be parametrized by a pixel? What is delta coverage? I would recommend to rewrite this paragraph by explaining the approach's idea in simpler terms, and explicitly define all technical terms.\n- L75-77 I find that sentence hard to parse. What is the minimally convincing argument? Do the authors mean that demonstrating superior performance on the cloth unfolding task would be a convincing argument? Please reformulate\n- L80 Nitpick: The meaning of this sentence is devoid, as the simplicity of an objective generally bears no relationship to the simplicity of the problem.\n- L104 State explicitly in which way the task considered here is more challenging (-> more crumpled initial state)\n- L123 I don't follow why the network must learn friction effects, please elaborate\n- L169-172 I found this section a bit difficult to follow. I would suggest to make explicit references to Fig 3c-e and guide the reader\n- L184 It would be helpful to repeat here that training occurs in sim (I was surprised by \"task is sampled\")\n\n\n### Real world failure cases\n\n- State explicitly how many episodes had to be discarded because of grasping failures\n- Elaborate on how the real world grasp failures could be mitigated in future work\n\n### Technical questions\n\n- Why is the observation so aggressively scaled down to 64x64? I'm wondering how much \"crumpling\" remains visible in such a downscaled image\n- L208 How do you determine \"qualitative match\"? What is the reason that the simulator behaves so differently/requires half the fling speed. What would happen if the fling speed would not match? Experimental results on the robustness to fling speed in sim would be interesting (if you have some)\n\n### Value network ablation studies\n\nIt would be interesting to understand what the value network learns, and in particular how it generalizes. Is it actually paying attention to the item shape or the crumples? Or a mix? If it would only look at shape, it would probably never stop on the T-Shirt task as it has never seen irregularly shapes items during training. Are there irregularly shaped items that would break the network?\n\nI would propose (maybe for an extended journal version of this paper) to systematically feed different item shapes and crumpling states to the network and study the responses of the value network, e.g. whether there are cases where it would infinitely manipulate unfolded cloth, or where it does not notice crumples.\nRating: 7 accept, but needs minor improvements\n", "role": "assistant" }, { "content": "Title: Response to Reviewer X3S4\nWe thank reviewer X3S4 for their thorough feedback on the writing. We are encouraged that reviewer X3S4 thought our results are the most impressive account of simulated and real world cloth manipulation and our evaluation approach was rigorous. We have incorporated the reviewer’s suggested changes into the paper and address their clarifying questions below.\n\n### Failure cases in real world and possible mitigations \n\nMost failure cases in our real world experiment were due to failed grasps (where the policy specified a grasp point on the cloth but the grippers failed to pinch grasp the cloth). Cloth grasping failure is a common problem when working with real world cloth manipulation.\nFor instance, Ganapathi et al [1] also observed that “the most frequent failure mode is an unsuccessful grasp of the fabric which is compounded for tasks that require more actions”.\nHowever, we believe this issue can be mitigated by using specialized gripper hardware (like [1,2]) or incorporating grasp success estimation. We have summarized cloth grasping techniques and added them to the discussion in the updated supplementary material.\n\n[1] Ganapathi, Aditya, et al. \"Learning Dense Visual Correspondences in Simulation to Smooth and Fold Real Fabrics.\"\n[2] Seita, Daniel, et al. \"Deep imitation learning of sequential fabric smoothing from an algorithmic supervisor.\" 2020 IEEE/RSJ International Conference on Intelligent Robots and Systems (IROS). IEEE, 2020.\n\n\n> Why is the observation so aggressively scaled down to 64x64? How much \"crumpling\" remains visible in such a downscaled image?\n\nWe are interested in cloth unfolding from challenging cloth configurations that have small initial coverage, for which no prior work achieves a similar level of generality, efficiency, and performance as FlingBot. Intuitively, doing this requires mostly information about coarse grain cloth shapes as opposed to detailed surface wrinkles, and FlingBot’s performance verifies this intuition. In addition, this resolution allows for a larger visual receptive field for the same model architecture, while making training less computationally intensive.\n\n> Fling parameters design and Sim2Real \n\nIn designing our motion primitive, we optimized fling dynamics parameters (waypoints, velocities, acceleration) to maximize coverage assuming a good grasp (e.g.: a dual arm grasp on a normal rectangular cloth in a stretched state).\nWe observed that the real world flinging setup system could robustly unfold the cloth using a wide range of fling heights, fling speeds, and fling distance for all cloth types from a good grasp, while the simulated system was highly sensitive to such parameters.\nThis sim2real gap was bridged in our work by tuning the simulated fling parameters such that flings from good grasps in simulation would also lead to high coverages like in the real system.\nCrucially, this gap underscores the importance of real world results for cloth manipulation as well as motivates future work on fast and accurate cloth simulation engines.\n", "role": "user" }, { "content": "Title: Reply to authors\nThank you for the helpful clarifications and for taking into account the feedback for updating the paper.\n\nI have reviewed the new version of the paper and t addressed the majority of my comments were addressed. My only concern is that the I still could not find a note of the number of episodes that were discarded due to grasp failures in the main paper. While I understand that the focus of this paper lies on introducing dynamic motion primitives for the cloth unfolding tasks, the experimental results should be made fully transparent. I would ask the authors to add this information to the main paper (or point me to the line in the paper in case I have overlooked it).", "role": "assistant" }, { "content": "Title: Response to Reviewer X3S4\nGrasping failures, where the policy specified a grasp point on the cloth but the grippers failed to execute a successful pinch grasp, constituted all of our real-world pipeline failure cases.\nOur real world system automatically detects grasp failures after the dual arm lifts the cloths up using frontal RGBD view.\nThe average grasp success rate is 78.0%, 45.0%, and 75.8% for normal rectangular, large rectangular, and shirts respectively.\nWe discard the episodes with a failed grasp, resulting in 281 invalid episodes (184 normal rect, 71 large rects, and 26 shirt).\nWe used a bath towel for our large rectangular cloths, which is significantly thicker and stiffer than the tea towel and T-shirt we used for normal rect and shirts.\nTherefore, pinch grasps with large cloths failed significantly more.\n[Here](https://drive.google.com/file/d/1zc0VaBV4EEvhCoQvMXmNdoTrNnqDvAwh/view?usp=sharing) is an anonymized link to visualize all grasp failures.\nWe will add this information to the final version of the supplementary material.", "role": "user" }, { "content": "Title: Thanks\nThank you!", "role": "assistant" } ]
0QJeE5hkyFZ
CoRL 2021 Conference
Reviewer_LQc9
[ { "content": "\nYou are an experienced academic paper reviewer. You will receive a conference paper in the field of computer science or AI. Please analyze the paper content carefully and output your review content.\nMore importantly, the author will further explain or refute the review comments you gave, and you need to further discuss with the author based on the author's response. \nThe purpose of this rebuttal and discussion is:\n- Clarification: During the review process, the reviewer (you) may not accurately understand the contribution or method of the paper due to unclear expression or misunderstanding of certain details. Through rebuttal, the author has the opportunity to clarify these misunderstandings and further illustrate the effectiveness of their innovations or methods.\n- Respond to criticisms and suggestions: The reviewer (you) may make criticisms or suggestions on the paper, and the author can use the discussion session to provide specific responses, explain why certain criticisms may not apply, or how to improve and optimize certain aspects of the paper.\nFinally, you and the author will work together to enhance the persuasiveness of the paper and improve the quality of the paper.\n", "role": "system" }, { "content": "Now your reviewer ID is assigned as Reviewer_LQc9, and the following are the paper you need to review:\n```<<0QJeE5hkyFZ>>```", "role": "user" }, { "content": "Review Content: summary: This work demonstrates the impressive effectiveness of dynamic fling motion for cloth unfolding. The parametrization combined with spatial action maps makes it easy and safe to learn dual-arm grasps. The system is trained in a self-supervised fashion, using delta coverage of the cloth as supervision signal. Experiments in simulation and real environments show its efficiency over the pick&place strategy, increased reach range, and generalization to unseen cloth type.\n\nstrengths_and_weaknesses: Strengths\n\n- The effectiveness of the dynamic fling motion for cloth unfolding is impressive, novel, and beneficial for downstream cloth manipulation.\n- The parametrization combined with spatial action maps shows an easy but effective way for learning dual-arm grasps.\n- It is appreciated to evaluate the system in both simulated and real experiments thoroughly.\n- The paper is well written and enjoyable to read.\n\nWeaknesses\n- For sim2real, the authors mentioned mixing sim & real data. It will be very helpful to illustrate how important it is? Since 150 real data points are not much compared to the data in simulation, does it improve a lot or marginally?\n- For introducing the spatial action maps, on Page 4, line 169-172. The long sentence makes it difficult to interpret quickly, especially for scaling. Figure 3c&d makes it clearer. Rephrasing the paragraph or adding references & descriptions to the figure can improve the readability of the method.\n\nsummary_of_recommendation: Unfolding a piece of cloth can remove its self-occlusion, which can benefit downstream cloth manipulation tasks. The paper demonstrates the impressive effectiveness of dynamic fling motion for cloth unfolding. The learning diagram is easy but effective for dual-arm manipulation. The experiments are conducted in both simulated and real environments thoroughly.\n\nissues: Issues as stated in the weakness section:\n\n- For sim2real, the authors mentioned mixing sim & real data. It will be very helpful to illustrate how important it is? Since 150 real data points are not much compared to the data in simulation, does it improve a lot or marginally?\n- For introducing the spatial action maps, on Page 4, line 169-172. The long sentence makes it difficult to interpret quickly, especially for scaling. Figure 3c&d makes it clearer. Rephrasing the paragraph or adding references & descriptions to the figure can improve the readability of the method.\nRating: 9 strong accept, excellent work\n", "role": "assistant" }, { "content": "Title: Response to Reviewer LQc9\nWe thank reviewer LQc9 for their thoughtful feedback. We are glad the reviewer acknowledged our approach’s simplicity, effectiveness, and novelty. We are encouraged that they also found our evaluation in both sim and the paper well written and enjoyable to read. We address reviewer LQc9’s concerns below.\n\n> Since 150 real data points are not much compared to the data in simulation, does [mixing sim & real data] improve a lot or marginally?\n\nThe average final coverage of normal cloths in the data collection stage (before the model begins finetuning on real world data) was 69.8%, which means finetuning gave a 12.1% improvement. We have updated the paper to include this information.\n\n\n> For introducing the spatial action maps, on Page 4, line 169-172. The long sentence makes it difficult to interpret quickly, especially for scaling. Figure 3c&d makes it clearer. Rephrasing the paragraph or adding references & descriptions to the figure can improve the readability of the method.\n\nWe have made the suggested changes to the writing, thank you for the suggestions. \n", "role": "user" }, { "content": "Title: Reply to author\nThank you for the response! That helps a lot to show the effectiveness of the finetuned real data, and provide baselines for future works! I would suggest \"strong accept\"!", "role": "assistant" } ]
0QJeE5hkyFZ
CoRL 2021 Conference
Reviewer_BAzn
[ { "content": "\nYou are an experienced academic paper reviewer. You will receive a conference paper in the field of computer science or AI. Please analyze the paper content carefully and output your review content.\nMore importantly, the author will further explain or refute the review comments you gave, and you need to further discuss with the author based on the author's response. \nThe purpose of this rebuttal and discussion is:\n- Clarification: During the review process, the reviewer (you) may not accurately understand the contribution or method of the paper due to unclear expression or misunderstanding of certain details. Through rebuttal, the author has the opportunity to clarify these misunderstandings and further illustrate the effectiveness of their innovations or methods.\n- Respond to criticisms and suggestions: The reviewer (you) may make criticisms or suggestions on the paper, and the author can use the discussion session to provide specific responses, explain why certain criticisms may not apply, or how to improve and optimize certain aspects of the paper.\nFinally, you and the author will work together to enhance the persuasiveness of the paper and improve the quality of the paper.\n", "role": "system" }, { "content": "Now your reviewer ID is assigned as Reviewer_BAzn, and the following are the paper you need to review:\n```<<0QJeE5hkyFZ>>```", "role": "user" }, { "content": "Review Content: summary: This paper proposes to use dynamic flinging actions with a dual-arm robot for the task of cloth unfolding instead of quasi-static actions. It uses a self-supervised framework based on spatial action maps with the novel parameterization of a fling action primitive. The system takes an image of the scene as input and outputs a value map that provides the parameters for the primitive. The experiments demonstrate that this primitive has better performance than pick and place actions and can be transferred to a real robot; they also demonstrate generalization to different types of cloth.\n\nstrengths_and_weaknesses: Strengths:\n- The proposed parameterization for the dual-arm picking actions is novel and very reasonable.\n- The use of the dynamic action is well-motivated in the introduction.\n- The method is evaluated on real robot experiments which demonstrate clear improvement over the baselines.\n- The self-supervision pipeline is well-constructed to be able to generalize to unseen articles of clothing and does not rely on specific keypoints on the clothes.\n- The supplementary video is very helpful.\n\nLimitations:\n- The scope/impact of the main novelty (fling motion) is a bit limited to the specific task of unfolding.\n- The paper shows the benefit of the fling action primitive which consists of the stretch motion and a fling motion. How much benefit comes from flinging vs stretching? For example, what if the primitive were pick-stretch-drag instead of pick-stretch-fling? Additional ablations on this primitive would strengthen the argument of “the effectiveness of dynamic actions”.\n- To better demonstrate the generalizability as well as the failure cases of the method, it would be great to test on more types of shirts or other types of clothes in the real world experiment.\n- There are a number of details that are unclear - see below.\n\nOther comments and questions:\n- The paper suggests that fling speed prediction does not provide significant performance gain. There might be several reasons for that: (1) The training method could be improved. What if a self-supervised method is used instead of DDPG? For example, the fling speed can be discretized into N bins and the predicted value map can have N channels. (2) The benefit of the fling speed might be more obvious when tested over a wider variety of clothes. A piece of silk might require a very different fling speed compared to a heavy towel. (3) Maybe the fling speed should be correlated with the mass of the cloth which might be difficult to learn from the image.\n- How many different cloths are used for the real-world training? How many real-world actions are performed for this data collection? \n- Some other figures from the supplementary video can be added to the supplementary text to allow the reader to better understand the method, e.g. cross-over constraint, grasping parameterization; many key parts of the paper were only understood after I saw the supplementary video.\n \nMinor points:\n- Fig. 3 is not mentioned in the main text. It could probably be mentioned in Section 3.4 or at the beginning of Section 3.\n- Line 213-215 “ The stretching subroutine in our primitive is implemented by pulling the arms’ end effectors apart until the top of the grasped cloth is no longer bent” - how is this computed and implemented? Details should be added to the appendix.\n- Line 264: It would be great to have a brief description of the difference between “pick and place” and “pick and drag”.\n- Lines 122-123: “Quasi-static actions, such as pick & place, rely on strategically chosen pick and place points and friction between the cloth and ground to stretch the cloth out. This means these systems must learn complex grasp point selection policies capable of reasoning about the effects of friction on cloth unfolding.” This is not obvious to me - why is friction reasoning important for policies that use pick and place primitives? Is there a reference to support this claim? It doesn’t seem like past work that uses pick and place primitives explicitly reasons about friction.\n- Line 151 says that L,R are in R^3 and then line 153-154 says that they are in R^2; this is somewhat confusing. What happened to the extra dimension? Was some assumption made here that isn’t explicitly stated?\n- Line 162: “ To constrain L to be on the left of R, we can constrain θ ∈[−90◦,90◦]” - a visualization (such as the one in the supplementary video) would be helpful here; this can be added to the supplementary text.\n- Line 180-181: “we crop the image such that the cloth takes up at most two-thirds of the image width and height before further scaling it by the 8 scale factors above.” The scale factors are [1.00, 2.75]; this is confusing: if the image is first scaled to take up 2/3 of an image and is later scaled by 2.75, it will then take up 1.83 of the image, e.g. larger than the image size.\n- Figure 5 visualization - what do the green and red points each indicate? \n- For the top left image in Figure 5, it looks like the red point is not on the cloth. Shouldn’t this episode get discarded because only one pick point is on the cloth? (Line 337: “When there is a grasp failure in an episode, we discard the episode.”)\n- Line 191: “The policy interacts with the cloth until it reaches 10 timesteps or predicts grasps on the floor.” - don’t you mean on the table?\n- It is unclear how Flex and Blender are linked; do you import the cloth configuration from Flex into blender for each step in training?\n- “Both primitives incur additional overheads of 2.5s for preparing the transformed observation batch” - this seems very slow for just resizing and rotating images. Is something else going on here?\n- “2.9s for a routine which checks whether the cloth is stuck to the gripper after the gripper is opened.” - how does this work? Details can be added to the appendix.\n\nsummary_of_recommendation: The paper investigated the use of dynamic flinging motion for the cloth unfolding task based on a self-supervised pipeline with spatial action map. The experiments demonstrated the effectiveness of the proposed method and its applicability to the real robot. However, the main contribution of dynamic action is limited to the specific task. Also, it would be great if more experiments can be provided to support the generalizability and the effectiveness of the dynamic action.\n\n# Post-rebuttal Update\nI appreciate the clarifications and the additional experiments, such as stretch & drag, which further demonstrates the effectiveness of the fling motion. I would like to keep my current rating. One minor suggestion is to add a section to the Appendix to describe Figure 3 (instead of just adding the figure without any references to it).\nissues: - Ablation of pick-stretch-drag instead of pick-stretch-fling\n- Test on more types of shirts or other types of clothes in the real world experiment\n- Clarify missing details of the method and experiments\nRating: 9 strong accept, excellent work\n", "role": "assistant" }, { "content": "Title: Response to Review BAzn\nWe thank reviewer BAzn for their thorough feedback. We are encouraged that the reviewer recognized our action parameterization’s novelty. We are also glad they found the supplementary video helpful. We have incorporated their suggestions into the updated paper and visualized failure cases in the supplementary material.\n\n**Ablation on stretching subroutine with quasi-static stretch & drag baseline**:\nWe thank the reviewer for the thoughtful suggestion and have added a Stretch & Drag baseline to the list of baselines (Table 1 & Fig. 4). We observed this Stretch & Drag baseline achieved an average final coverage of X% on large cloths (X% worse than FlingBot), verifying our claim that dynamic actions lead to an **effective increase in reach range**. Additionally, Fig. 4 shows that this baseline took significantly more interaction steps to reach the same coverage as FlingBot for normal rectangular cloths and shirts. This result verifies our claim that dynamic actions enable more **efficient** cloth unfolding.\n\n\n> The scope/impact of the main novelty (fling motion) is a bit limited to the specific task of unfolding.\n\nWe want to highlight that cloth unfolding is a crucial first step in **many** cloth manipulation pipelines. Future work could explore a combined quasi-static, dynamic action space to exploit dynamic action's effectiveness when appropriate and quasi-static action's flexibility otherwise. For instance, while quasi-static cloth folding from arbitrarily crumpled initial cloth configurations may take a large number of interactions, we expect that a naive addition of Flingbot for initial unfolding to a quasi-static cloth folding system from unfolded cloth configurations should already have better performance and efficiency.\n\n\n>How many different cloths are used for the real-world training? How many real-world actions are performed for this data collection?\n\nWe used one normal rect cloth for real world fine tuning data collection, and the real world fine tuning dataset contained 257 points.\n\n**Fling speed variant training method, task cloth physical parameters, and observation space**:\nWe appreciate the reviewer’s suggestions for the fling speed variant training method and have similar hypotheses about its lack of advantage over FlingBot. We chose DDPG for being a state-of-the-art off-policy algorithm for continuous action spaces. While cloth physical properties such as mass and stiffness should inform the optimal fling speed, this information is not available from visual observations and is therefore out-of-scope. Leveraging information from other sensors is an interesting future direction.\n\n> For the top left image in Figure 5, it looks like the red point is not on the cloth. Shouldn’t this episode get discarded because only one pick point is on the cloth?\n\nA grasp failure is when the policy predicts a grasp point on the cloth but the real world system fails to execute the pinch grasp. When the policy only predicts one grasp point on the cloth, the system continues with the fling while holding onto the cloth with only one arm.\n\n> It is unclear how Flex and Blender are linked; do you import the cloth configuration from Flex into blender for each step in training?\n\nYes, we found that launching a Blender subprocess to render and return the observation was around 1 second, which is negligible compare to the amount of time taken to simulate a fling action/ pick & place/ pick & drag action.\n\n> “Both primitives incur additional overheads of 2.5s for preparing the transformed observation batch” - this seems very slow for just resizing and rotating images\n\nWe use 12 rotations and 8 scale factors, resulting in 96 transformed images per input observation (256x256) in total.\n", "role": "user" }, { "content": "Title: Reply to author\nThank you for your helpful reply! \n\n> We used one normal rect cloth for real world fine tuning data collection, and the real world fine tuning dataset contained 257 points.\n\nThank you for the clarification. I would recommend to add this information to the paper somewhere.", "role": "assistant" }, { "content": "Title: Rely to Reviewer BAzn\n> I would recommend to add this information to the paper somewhere.\n\nThank you for the suggestion. We have updated the paper with this information (L332).", "role": "user" }, { "content": "Title: Post-rebuttal update\nI appreciate the clarifications and the additional experiments, such as stretch & drag, which further demonstrates the effectiveness of the fling motion. I would like to keep my current rating. One minor suggestion is to add a section to the Appendix to describe Figure 3 (instead of just adding the figure without any references to it).", "role": "assistant" }, { "content": "Title: Response to Reviewer BAzn\nThank you for the suggestion. Section 3.4. was updated during the rebuttal period to reference the stages of Fig. 3.", "role": "user" }, { "content": "I am very happy to have the above discussion with the author, which has added considerable value to this work.", "role": "assistant" } ]
0WDtVJVwBcf
CoRL 2021 Conference
Reviewer_Uy2q
[ { "content": "\nYou are an experienced academic paper reviewer. You will receive a conference paper in the field of computer science or AI. Please analyze the paper content carefully and output your review content.\nMore importantly, the author will further explain or refute the review comments you gave, and you need to further discuss with the author based on the author's response. \nThe purpose of this rebuttal and discussion is:\n- Clarification: During the review process, the reviewer (you) may not accurately understand the contribution or method of the paper due to unclear expression or misunderstanding of certain details. Through rebuttal, the author has the opportunity to clarify these misunderstandings and further illustrate the effectiveness of their innovations or methods.\n- Respond to criticisms and suggestions: The reviewer (you) may make criticisms or suggestions on the paper, and the author can use the discussion session to provide specific responses, explain why certain criticisms may not apply, or how to improve and optimize certain aspects of the paper.\nFinally, you and the author will work together to enhance the persuasiveness of the paper and improve the quality of the paper.\n", "role": "system" }, { "content": "Now your reviewer ID is assigned as Reviewer_Uy2q, and the following are the paper you need to review:\n```<<0WDtVJVwBcf>>```", "role": "user" }, { "content": "Review Content: summary: This paper presents an approach for learning *backchannelling behaviors* for companion robots, an important aspect for cueing and signaling in multi-party interaction in general. Concretely, this paper presents a learned approach for deciding when to *nod* based on visual and speech/acoustic context from a human in conversation.\n\nCritical to the proposed approach is intelligent application of data augmentation; obtaining backchanneling (nodding paired with videos of partner’s head pose, speech) data at scale is hard, and as such, naively training models results in robots with behaviors that are either overfit to speakers from the training set (and thus fail to generalize) or total collapse. By selectively masking and warping the input features (visual head poses, audio features) not only can we enrich the dataset, but we can learn better, more generalizable backchanneling behaviors.\n\nThe proposed model is simple, but effective (quite elegant!). Trained on data collected from 12 speakers primed with a diverse array of prompts, the resulting “virtual robot” experiment shows that not only is data augmentation critical to strong backchanneling performance (both qualitatively and quantitatively), but also out performs a strong, rule-based baseline. \n\nA possible flaw in this work is the lack of deployment on a real robot, instead doing all experimentation with a virtual robot in a web interface; due to the COVID-19 pandemic, I think this is fair, and makes a lot of sense. I appreciate that the paper presents a clear path for deploying and evaluating with actual physical robots, and I am convinced the results will hold.\n\nstrengths_and_weaknesses: In terms of strengths, the problem is well-motivated, the proposed solution is elegant, the “key insight” (data augmentation) is also motivated, and proven to be necessary, and in general, the proposed system works convincingly from both a qualitative and quantitative perspective.\n\nAs a weakness; it does seem that backchanneling is just a smaller component of a larger HRI system (e.g., for human-robot dialogue, or assistive robotics). I understand the need to evaluate this specific behavior alone (and from the prior work cited, it seems that this is an established problem), but I do wonder if things change in the context of a broader system (e.g., is nodding really that important when a robot is equipped with the ability to provide dense feedback in terms of actual physical motion, or speech).\nsummary_of_recommendation: The proposed method is well-motivated, well-constructed, and the evaluation is strong. It’s clear that data augmentation is important for getting generalizable behavior from small backchanneling datasets, and that the proposed approach is a good step in solving this task.\nissues: [90 - 92] “Although data augmentation… it has not yet been applied to human-robot interaction” isn’t quite correct; several papers on human-robot interaction (e.g. learning from corrections, language instructions, etc.) all use data augmentation. Would temper this claim.\nRating: 7 accept, but needs minor improvements\n", "role": "assistant" }, { "content": "Title: Thank you for reviewing our paper\nThank you for your feedback. We really appreciate your attention to detail and time spent on our submission.\n\nWe appreciate your kind words about our proposed method and evaluation.\n\nWe also greatly appreciate your suggestions for improvement and in our revision we have addressed your feedback in the following ways:\n- In our revision we have corrected the scope of our claim to just “robot backchanneling”.\n- We agree that evaluation of this behavior in the context of a broader HRI system is an important direction for future work. We have updated the discussion (Section 6) to mention this point.\n", "role": "user" }, { "content": "Title: Post-Rebuttal Update\nThanks to the authors for the responses. I'm happy to keep my score at a Weak Accept.", "role": "assistant" } ]
0WDtVJVwBcf
CoRL 2021 Conference
Reviewer_kruZ
[ { "content": "\nYou are an experienced academic paper reviewer. You will receive a conference paper in the field of computer science or AI. Please analyze the paper content carefully and output your review content.\nMore importantly, the author will further explain or refute the review comments you gave, and you need to further discuss with the author based on the author's response. \nThe purpose of this rebuttal and discussion is:\n- Clarification: During the review process, the reviewer (you) may not accurately understand the contribution or method of the paper due to unclear expression or misunderstanding of certain details. Through rebuttal, the author has the opportunity to clarify these misunderstandings and further illustrate the effectiveness of their innovations or methods.\n- Respond to criticisms and suggestions: The reviewer (you) may make criticisms or suggestions on the paper, and the author can use the discussion session to provide specific responses, explain why certain criticisms may not apply, or how to improve and optimize certain aspects of the paper.\nFinally, you and the author will work together to enhance the persuasiveness of the paper and improve the quality of the paper.\n", "role": "system" }, { "content": "Now your reviewer ID is assigned as Reviewer_kruZ, and the following are the paper you need to review:\n```<<0WDtVJVwBcf>>```", "role": "user" }, { "content": "Review Content: summary: - This work attempts to learn a policy of when a robot should nod, given the prosody and head orientation of a speaker\n- The problem is of relevance because backchanneling is a crucial mechanism for maintaining the flow of conversation, and robots that are deployed as social agents will need such a capability\n- The authors collect a dataset of conversations, and given annotations of when listeners nod, they train an LSTM on speech and head orientation data\n- In order to combat the low generalizability of prior models to new speakers and provide sufficient data to train the model, the authors use data augmentation techniques such as random shifts and masks to prevent overfitting\n- The authors's results show that the LSTM trained with data augmentation outperforms other baselines\n\nstrengths_and_weaknesses: **Strengths**\n\n- The authors's motivation, formulation of the problem, and approach are straightforward and easy to follow\n- The results in the paper are promising\n\n**Scope for Improvement**\n\nThe biggest scope for improvement in this work lies in the presentation of the results:\n\n- The Likert data could be better presented (show significance results in the plots!) and better analyzed (one should aggregate multiple items into a combined \"scale\"). For an excellent primer on how to approach Likert metrics, please see Schrum et al., HRI'20\n- What was the loss function that was used for training the models? Additionally, was the loss used for early stopping (recommended) or accuracy (not recommended)? Clarification on this matter would be great\n- (this is speculation) The F1 and accuracy scores are not that high (despite the promising results). Given the qualitative evaluation presented by the authors, might it be worthwhile to report an Intersection over Union-like metric instead (as is commonly used in computer vision)? If the authors wish to be truly rigorous, they can provide a correlation of the F1 metric with the IoU metric\n\nsummary_of_recommendation: Although the paper has weaknesses in its presentation of the results, they can be addressed by following some of the suggestions presented above. I am therefore, weakly in favour of accepting the paper into the technical program.\n\nPost-Rebuttal Update:\nI thank the authors for updating their paper and I find that it is more ready than before for publication. I am in favour of including this in the technical program.\nissues: Barring the last point in the scope for improvement, I would like to see a better Likert analysis and some more clarification on the LSTM training.\nRating: 7 accept, but needs minor improvements\n", "role": "assistant" }, { "content": "Title: Thank you for reviewing our paper\nThank you for your feedback. We really appreciate your attention to detail and time spent on our submission. \n\nWe are glad that you found our motivation, formulation, and approach easy to follow; and we appreciate that you found the results in the paper to be promising.\n\nWe also greatly appreciate your suggestions for improvement and in our revision we have addressed your feedback in the following ways:\n\n- We have updated the plots in Figure 6 to show significance results and the Likert items are now aggregated into two scales based on an exploratory factor analysis. We thank the reviewer for the helpful pointer to Schrum et al., HRI'20\n- Cross-entropy loss was used to train the models and we monitored the loss to perform early stopping. This information is now included in our revision (Section 4.2)\n- Although the F1 scores and accuracy for this task are lower than one might expect, they are in the same range as past works (for example [15] and [19]). The reason backchanneling tasks have lower F1 scores and accuracies is because of how we define ground truth. In our corpus (and most past works) we define the ground truth as times when the human listener nodded. But just because the human listener didn’t backchannel doesn’t necessarily mean that it was a bad time to backchannel. In Ward et al. the authors analyze the performance of their predictive rule and conclude that 44% of the incorrect predictions were cases where a backchannel could naturally have appeared. Although IoU is another valid measure of performance, it will also exhibit this problem because it’s also based on how we define our ground truth. Therefore, we continue to rely on F1-score because it is an accepted metric in prior works.\n", "role": "user" }, { "content": "I value the authors' response. It satisfactorily addresses most of my concerns.", "role": "assistant" } ]
0WDtVJVwBcf
CoRL 2021 Conference
Reviewer_uPNX
[ { "content": "\nYou are an experienced academic paper reviewer. You will receive a conference paper in the field of computer science or AI. Please analyze the paper content carefully and output your review content.\nMore importantly, the author will further explain or refute the review comments you gave, and you need to further discuss with the author based on the author's response. \nThe purpose of this rebuttal and discussion is:\n- Clarification: During the review process, the reviewer (you) may not accurately understand the contribution or method of the paper due to unclear expression or misunderstanding of certain details. Through rebuttal, the author has the opportunity to clarify these misunderstandings and further illustrate the effectiveness of their innovations or methods.\n- Respond to criticisms and suggestions: The reviewer (you) may make criticisms or suggestions on the paper, and the author can use the discussion session to provide specific responses, explain why certain criticisms may not apply, or how to improve and optimize certain aspects of the paper.\nFinally, you and the author will work together to enhance the persuasiveness of the paper and improve the quality of the paper.\n", "role": "system" }, { "content": "Now your reviewer ID is assigned as Reviewer_uPNX, and the following are the paper you need to review:\n```<<0WDtVJVwBcf>>```", "role": "user" }, { "content": "Review Content: summary: This paper is concerned with ways of generating backchanneling behaviors for robots (social cues like nodding appropriately placed in the midst of a conversation with a human). Data-driven methods tend to overfit to the (scarce) training set and cannot adapt appropriately to new speakers, so the paper presents a data augmentation method for the input speech and visual features that improves backchanneling behaviors without collecting additional data. The data augmentation schema warps and masks portions of each human speaker’s input features.\n\nThe work diligently collected their own dataset of unscripted but structured 2-person conversations, and used both audio and visual features for training a model that predicts when the agent should or shouldn’t nod. The paper evaluates the data augmentation strategy on this dataset with positive results, and later conducts a user study with a virtual robot that nods whenever the trained model specified it should do so. \nstrengths_and_weaknesses: I thought the data collection and experimental analysis were really well done, with thorough evaluation and discussion. Additionally, the writing was clear and enjoyable, and the work was well placed within existing literature.\n\nOverall, I liked the paper but there are a few sticking points that concern me/could improve this work. First, the paper discusses backchanneling behaviors as a whole but in reality only nodding is explored. I think the results would be stronger if they showcased a range of backchanneling behaviors (smiling or “hmm”s as well); otherwise, the work essentially boils down to a nodding predictor, which is not novel enough, in my opinion.\n\nSecondly, while Section 4 compares LSTM with and without data augmentation, I was surprised to see that the same comparison didn’t exist in the user study. Since the main contribution of the paper seems to be using data augmentation to improve backchanneling, it seems natural that the study should focus on the effect of data augmentation, and not the effect of different types of predictors.\n\nLastly, unless I am interpreting Fig. 6 wrong, the study results don’t show a significant difference between the learned and the rule based model. I would have liked to see more discussion for why this is the case, especially since the forced choice questions in Fig. 7 indicate a significant difference.\n\nsummary_of_recommendation: Although (mostly) diligently done, the experiments in the paper are limited and I am reluctant to accept the paper without experiments on more backchanneling behaviors. Moreover, I am not convinced that the data augmentation method presented has a significant impact on people’s perception of the robot in conversation.\n\nUPDATE AFTER-REBUTTAL: I thank the authors for their response. I have updated my score to a weak accept.\nissues: To improve the submission, I would suggest adding another couple backchanneling behaviors, reframing the paper to only focus on nodding, or making a strong argument for why the experiments presented are expected to generalize to other backchanneling behaviors. I also think rerunning the study to compare LSTMs with and without data augmentation would more directly study whether the proposed data augmentation is effective.\nRating: 7 accept, but needs minor improvements\n", "role": "assistant" }, { "content": "Title: Thank you for reviewing our paper\nThank you for your feedback. We really appreciate your attention to detail and time spent on our submission.\n\nWe appreciate your kind words about our data collection, experimental analysis, evaluation, and discussion. We are very glad that you found the writing clear and enjoyable.\n\nWe also greatly appreciate your suggestions for improvement and in our revision we have addressed your feedback in the following ways:\n\n- We started with nodding because it is a well established problem studied in prior works (for example [15] and [20]) and because of its utility and prevalence in human-human conversations. We believe the techniques we present should generalize well to other backchanneling behaviors because we focus on augmenting the input features which should be beneficial to other downstream classifiers. In our revision we have added our rationale for focusing on nodding (Section 3), we have included more citations of prior research highlighting the importance and utility of nodding specifically (Section 3), and we have added our argument that the techniques should generalize well to other behaviors (Section 6).\n- We considered including multiple versions of the LSTM model in the user study, but we were concerned that having too many conditions would overload the participants and degrade the quality of their survey responses. Because none of the prior works had conducted user studies for any learned LSTM models, we needed to include non-learned models to compare to the state-of-the-art. Therefore, we compared the subjective experience of our best learned LSTM model to the subjective experience of the state-of-the-art non-learned baselines. We then also added a model that draws randomly from distributions fit to the dataset, to compare to a trivial baseline. \n- You are correct that the responses to the Likert items only show a significant difference between learned and random. This could indicate that the differences are too small to appear on the scales but still large enough to result in a clear preference or it could indicate that it was difficult for participants to express on a scale the differences they noticed when interacting with the virtual robot. We have updated our revision to include this additional discussion in Section 5.1.1\n", "role": "user" }, { "content": "I acknowledge the authors' response. It resolves the majority of my concerns.", "role": "assistant" } ]
0f7gUXVAcE9
CoRL 2021 Conference
Reviewer_QM46
[ { "content": "\nYou are an experienced academic paper reviewer. You will receive a conference paper in the field of computer science or AI. Please analyze the paper content carefully and output your review content.\nMore importantly, the author will further explain or refute the review comments you gave, and you need to further discuss with the author based on the author's response. \nThe purpose of this rebuttal and discussion is:\n- Clarification: During the review process, the reviewer (you) may not accurately understand the contribution or method of the paper due to unclear expression or misunderstanding of certain details. Through rebuttal, the author has the opportunity to clarify these misunderstandings and further illustrate the effectiveness of their innovations or methods.\n- Respond to criticisms and suggestions: The reviewer (you) may make criticisms or suggestions on the paper, and the author can use the discussion session to provide specific responses, explain why certain criticisms may not apply, or how to improve and optimize certain aspects of the paper.\nFinally, you and the author will work together to enhance the persuasiveness of the paper and improve the quality of the paper.\n", "role": "system" }, { "content": "Now your reviewer ID is assigned as Reviewer_QM46, and the following are the paper you need to review:\n```<<0f7gUXVAcE9>>```", "role": "user" }, { "content": "Review Content: summary: The paper presents a refinement method for instance masks in cluttered environments. The method uses the relationship between overlapping objects in a cluttered scene to improve the instance segmentation of each individual object. The presented algorithm combines a graph neural network and combinatorial optimization to find an ideal set of interacting instance masks.\nstrengths_and_weaknesses: + Well written\n+ Good improvement over multiple baseline algorithms (general)\n- Unlikely reproducible\n- Somewhat arbitrary\n\nThe paper is generally well written and easy to follow. The presented algorithm is interesting, and yields a good improvement over multiple baselines.\n\nWhile the paper does a good job explaining things that are contained in it, it lacks some details that would make both experiments and method reproducible. Are the authors open to releasing code and data upon a potential acceptance?\nSome of the details that were unclear from the current submission: What data-augmentation is used when training the different SO-Nets? \n * How are 'training' samples constructed? Do they take into account potentially wrong initial segments of baseline detectors?\n * How many of the baselines use the same input modalities (RGB-D) as the presented method? How many use just RGB or D? Might some of the gains come from these additional modalities?\n * Could RICE work from scratch? Why does it need a baseline detector?\nEven with the additional details in the supplement, it would be hard to reproduce without code, which greatly diminishes the value of the submission.\n\nFinally, the method is at times a bit arbitrary. There are many design choices that are simply states, and neither motivated or ablated. For example:\n * SplitNet could as well just predict a binary mask instead of its boundary that needs to be sampled and optimized. I understand that there is some ambiguity in the prediction (both the binary mask and its complement are valid answers), but this can easily be broken using either a single positive example, a hand-coded ordering (left is mask 1, right is mask 2), or even a Hungarian loss. It would be nice to know that the presented boundary prediction is in deed somewhat optimal. This is especially important since most of the presented method replies in a good split (and most other components either hurt or do not significantly improve the performance, see supplement).\n* In a similar spirit, the AddNet relies on a proposal constructed from a connected component, why not use an RPN?\n\nsummary_of_recommendation: The paper starts with an interesting idea, but does not provide sufficient evidence to show the efficacy of the method.\nissues: See issues above.\n\nIn addition, it would be nice to have a more detailed comparison of SplitNet and the entire pipeline, as the performance if split alone is almost the same as the complete combinatorial optimization.\nRating: 4 possibly reject, but has redeeming facets\n", "role": "assistant" }, { "content": "Title: Response to Reviewer QM46\nWe thank the reviewer for constructive feedback.\n\n> Are the authors open to releasing code and data upon a potential acceptance? \n\nOur code/data/models (including code for training the models) are prepped and ready for release. We plan on releasing it when the paper is accepted for publication.\n\n> How are 'training' samples constructed? Do they take into account potentially wrong initial segments of baseline detectors?\n\nThank you for pointing out the lack in detail. As mentioned in L48-L51 in the Supplement, we train SGS-Net by randomly splitting/merging/adding/deleting masks in the same fashion as detailed in Xie et al. [7]. In more detail, we take an initial segmentation (this can be predicted from something such as UOIS-Net from Xie et al. [7], or it could be the ground truth label), perturb it with random splitting/merging/adding/deleting as per [7], then compute the ground truth score .8F + [email protected] (L191 in the main paper) of this perturbed segmentation w.r.t. the ground truth label. SGS-Net is trained to regress to this score. \n\nFor SplitNet, given an initial segmentation, we randomly choose neighboring masks to merge, and SplitNet is trained with BCE loss to predict the ground truth split boundary. \n\nFor DeleteNet, given an initial segmentation, we randomly add masks in the same fashion as Xie et al. [7], and train DeleteNet with BCE loss to predict binary score of deleting the falsely added masks. We will expand these details in a revised supplement.\n\n> How many of the baselines use the same input modalities (RGB-D) as the presented method? How many use just RGB or D? Might some of the gains come from these additional modalities?\n\nAll baselines use RGB-D as input. RICE, which also consumes RGB-D, does not gain any performance due to additionally sensed modalities. We will clarify this in a revision.\n\n> Could RICE work from scratch? Why does it need a baseline detector? Even with the additional details in the supplement, it would be hard to reproduce without code, which greatly diminishes the value of the submission.\n\nAs it is structured, RICE requires an initial segmentation in order to work. While we have fed it strong baseline detectors (Mask R-CNN, PointGroup, UOIS-Net, and UCN), it is feasible to supply it with the output of a traditional segmentation method such as GraphCuts. As mentioned, our code/data/models will be made publicly available upon publication in order to improve the reproducibility of our work.\n\n> SplitNet could as well just predict a binary mask instead of its boundary that needs to be sampled and optimized... It would be nice to know that the presented boundary prediction is in deed somewhat optimal.\n\nThe main reason why the SplitNet output of boundary probabilities (that need to be sampled and optimized) is better than the binary mask is that a predicted binary mask may result in non-connected components. A binary mask can result in an arbitrary topology, which can be confusing for splitting a single mask into two connected components. Instead, our method provides a sampled path through the mask which will split the mask into two pieces. As the reviewer (QM46) mentioned, there is also ambiguity with predicting mask 1 vs mask 2 (e.g. setting the left mask to be mask 1 introduces a bias in the labels), which is not the case when predicting the split boundary. Lastly, sampling from the predicted split boundary adds more uncertainty to RICE, and we show this is useful in identifying and understanding cluttered scenes.\n\n> In a similar spirit, the AddNet relies on a proposal constructed from a connected component, why not use an RPN?\n\nWhile we could have ablated this design choice, the main focus of this paper is the introduction of SO-Nets, SGS-Nets, and the entire framework (RICE). Thus, we decided to focus our experiments on understanding the framework and why it works. Additionally, adding was not as crucial as splitting, so we chose a simple method of adding masks and did not focus our efforts on this less important design choice.\n\n> In addition, it would be nice to have a more detailed comparison of SplitNet and the entire pipeline, as the performance if split alone is almost the same as the complete combinatorial optimization.\n\nIn the Section 6.2 of the Supplement, we provide a detailed analysis of RICE when only using 1 type of sampling operation (e.g. split only, merge only, add/delete only). Table 1 in the Supplement indeed shows that the split operation is very important to achieving the performance of the entire framework of RICE. This is in part because the initial segmentation methods (Mask R-CNN, PointGroup, UOIS-Net, UCN) tend to segment the objects together, which is a typical failure method in heavy clutter. Missing detections is relatively rare. They thereby benefit more from splits. Split only can be compared with Merge only, and the Supplement text (L86 - L103) discusses this experiment. \n\n", "role": "user" }, { "content": "I'm grateful for the authors' response. It covers most of my concerns, and I may raise the score accordingly.", "role": "assistant" } ]
0f7gUXVAcE9
CoRL 2021 Conference
Reviewer_5yWX
[ { "content": "\nYou are an experienced academic paper reviewer. You will receive a conference paper in the field of computer science or AI. Please analyze the paper content carefully and output your review content.\nMore importantly, the author will further explain or refute the review comments you gave, and you need to further discuss with the author based on the author's response. \nThe purpose of this rebuttal and discussion is:\n- Clarification: During the review process, the reviewer (you) may not accurately understand the contribution or method of the paper due to unclear expression or misunderstanding of certain details. Through rebuttal, the author has the opportunity to clarify these misunderstandings and further illustrate the effectiveness of their innovations or methods.\n- Respond to criticisms and suggestions: The reviewer (you) may make criticisms or suggestions on the paper, and the author can use the discussion session to provide specific responses, explain why certain criticisms may not apply, or how to improve and optimize certain aspects of the paper.\nFinally, you and the author will work together to enhance the persuasiveness of the paper and improve the quality of the paper.\n", "role": "system" }, { "content": "Now your reviewer ID is assigned as Reviewer_5yWX, and the following are the paper you need to review:\n```<<0f7gUXVAcE9>>```", "role": "user" }, { "content": "Review Content: summary: In this paper, the authors propose a neural-network-based method to refine segmentation masks provided by different models. In particular, their goal consists in improving unknown object segmentation masks in cluttered environments, where classical methods fail.The idea consists in (1) representing masks as graphs and use a GNN that produces variations of input masks, and (2) use an additional DNN to evaluate such variations and select them. The set of variations is generated iteratively through sampling and using CEM.\nstrengths_and_weaknesses: PROS:\n* The paper is well structured and well written\n* The idea is interesting and easy to apply, as it does not have particular requirements\n* The proposed method can be applied (post-training) to several architectures to improve their results\n* Although the approach is stochastic, the sampling statistic is is low and predictions are stable\n* Experimental evaluation on 4 architectures, 2 of which are recent and task-optimized\n* Experimental evaluation includes a use-case showing the utility of the method\n\nCONS:\n* std-dev is studied in the sampling procedure, but it is unclear on how many trial it is computed\n* The paper does not report how many training runs have been performed: if results are average results, then std-dev is lacking\n* The approach makes use of some hyper-parameters (e.g., branching factor, vicinity threshold, max node budget): there is no analysis on how those affect the results\n\n\n\nsummary_of_recommendation: The paper is well written and well structured. The proposed approach is interesting, easily applicable, and well supported by\nexperimental evaluations. This said, the document could be further improved by performing in-depth analysis of hyper-parameters\nas well as better studying the average/std-dev of the training performance.\nissues: * Section 3.2 is difficult to understand as it is currently placed. It would be better placed after 3.4\n* Why not using IOU as a metric? For example, https://arxiv.org/pdf/2103.06796.pdf uses it.\n* The paper does not report how many training runs have been performed: if results are average results, then std-dev is lacking\n* How do the hyper-parameters affect the performance?\nRating: 7 accept, but needs minor improvements\n", "role": "assistant" }, { "content": "Title: Response to Reviewer 5yWX\nWe thank the reviewer for the helpful notes. \n\n> std-dev is studied in the sampling procedure, but it is unclear on how many trial it is computed\n\nAs mentioned in L223, each experiment is run 5 times. Averages and standard deviations are reported from these trials.\n\n> Section 3.2 is difficult to understand as it is currently placed. It would be better placed after 3.4\n\nWe are open to re-arrange accordingly if the consensus is that reordering helps making the paper easier to follow. Additionally, we provide pseudocode for the entire framework in Algorithm 2 in the Supplement to supply the reader with a clearer understanding of RICE.\n\n> Why not using IOU as a metric?\n\nIoU is a valid metric for this task. However, it is similar (highly correlated) to the overlap F measure reported in Table 1 and Figure 5, thus it is somewhat redundant and we decided not to report it. Calculating IoU would require a Hungarian matching of predicted and ground truth masks, which the overlap F measure also computes.\n\n> The paper does not report how many training runs have been performed\n\nWe did not report multiple training runs. This is standard in the deep learning literature. While we are using a stochastic optimization algorithm (Adam) to optimize our networks, different training runs with random initializations lead to very similar results.\n\n> How do the hyper-parameters affect the performance?\n\nWe studied the effect of the major design choices such as the inclusion of SO-Nets and SGS-Net, modality tuning, and the sampling operations. Most other hyperparameters do not affect performance, but instead are chosen due to limitations in GPU memory. For example, branching factors and max node budgets are chosen to prevent the method from running into Out-Of-Memory errors on the GPU. \n", "role": "user" }, { "content": "I'm grateful for the authors' response. It resolves the majority of my concerns. I stand by my favorable recommendation for this paper.", "role": "assistant" } ]
0f7gUXVAcE9
CoRL 2021 Conference
Reviewer_1fhJ
[ { "content": "\nYou are an experienced academic paper reviewer. You will receive a conference paper in the field of computer science or AI. Please analyze the paper content carefully and output your review content.\nMore importantly, the author will further explain or refute the review comments you gave, and you need to further discuss with the author based on the author's response. \nThe purpose of this rebuttal and discussion is:\n- Clarification: During the review process, the reviewer (you) may not accurately understand the contribution or method of the paper due to unclear expression or misunderstanding of certain details. Through rebuttal, the author has the opportunity to clarify these misunderstandings and further illustrate the effectiveness of their innovations or methods.\n- Respond to criticisms and suggestions: The reviewer (you) may make criticisms or suggestions on the paper, and the author can use the discussion session to provide specific responses, explain why certain criticisms may not apply, or how to improve and optimize certain aspects of the paper.\nFinally, you and the author will work together to enhance the persuasiveness of the paper and improve the quality of the paper.\n", "role": "system" }, { "content": "Now your reviewer ID is assigned as Reviewer_1fhJ, and the following are the paper you need to review:\n```<<0f7gUXVAcE9>>```", "role": "user" }, { "content": "Review Content: summary: The authors propose a GNN-based refinement method for unknown instance segmentation based on RGB-D data. Therefore, they build a graph by connecting segments that are close in pixel space. Then they perform an informed perturbation of that graph by splitting, merging, adding and/or deleting segments and finally rank the resulting graphs using another GNN. It is shown that the method can successfully improve results of recent unknown instance segmentation methods. The approach is applied to object singulation where it helps a robot to only singulate the objects with uncertain contours. \nstrengths_and_weaknesses: Strengths:\n\n- A refinement of unknown segmentation masks by taking the whole scene into account had been missing in the field and the GNN-based approach is an expensive but convincing attempt. \n- The details how the network learns to predict splits, merges, adds and deletes are interesting\n- The ablations (also in the detailed appendix) show the impact of individual components\n- The method improves upon different baseline methods in the RGB-D domain on OCID and OSD\n- Previously used performance metrics are corrected to be independent to object size. \n- The approach is demonstrated on a robotic system\n- The paper is clearly written and seems relatively honest wrt. limitations\n\nWeaknesses (of the approach, paper issues will be listed below):\n\n- The large number of networks and forward passes due to the sampling operations make this method quite slow and memory-intensive to use in robotic applications (10-15s/frame). However, the authors and readers are aware of that and it is a good proof of concept. \n- The networks are completely agnostic to the approach that generated the initial masks. On the one hand, this is beneficial because the refinement can be easily used for different initial methods. On the other hand, it leads to a lot of redundancy, as you need a new feature extractor that learns what an object is. Also using the feature representation of UCN probably contains richer information than just a binary mask and the representation could be directly refined end-to-end by the GNN scores.\n- In the robotic experiments it seems like the network is able to merge/split/delete existing masks but has more troubles in adding completely new segments or completing undersegmented masks by adding+merging. This limitation could be made more clear, especially by showing separate results for adding and deleting in Table 1 of the appendix. The problem is probably the generation of candidate masks. I would be curious if an oversegmentation through low thresholds in the initial methods and subsequently only merging/splitting/deleting wouldn't lead to better results.\n- The approach is trained on non-photorealistic data (perhaps for better comparison) and then needs to be manually adapted to work better with real data. There might be a more elegant solution, maybe by directly training on more realistic data. \n- It would be interesting how the method deals with many similar objects\nsummary_of_recommendation: If my issues are resolved I recommend a strong accept. The paper presents an original idea on a relevant problem which has not been studied enough. The experiments are thorough and it is shown how the approach could benefit a robotic system.\nissues: - \"smart perturbations\" are used throughout the paper. I would rather say \"informed perturbations\" or \"learned perturbations\".\n- l275 \"numerical relevance\" should be defined as it is otherwise unclear and hard to find in the reference\n- Table 2: Is the worst ranking really a good comparison?\n- Figure 7: It is annoying to scroll up and down to get the description of the figure, which is actually in section 4.6. It would be great if you could move the descriptive part in the caption.\n\nSince code release was not announced:\n- l97: padding is not specified \n- l108: threshold is not specified\nRating: 9 strong accept, excellent work\n", "role": "assistant" }, { "content": "Title: Response to Reviewer 1fhJ\nWe thank the reviewer for the detailed, helpful comments. \n\n> The large number of networks and forward passes due to the sampling operations make this method quite slow and memory-intensive to use in robotic applications (10-15s/frame). However, the authors and readers are aware of that and it is a good proof of concept.\n\nBringing this framework closer to real-time is an avenue of further research.\n\n> The networks are completely agnostic to the approach that generated the initial masks. On the one hand, this is beneficial because the refinement can be easily used for different initial methods. On the other hand, it leads to a lot of redundancy, as you need a new feature extractor that learns what an object is. Also using the feature representation of UCN probably contains richer information than just a binary mask and the representation could be directly refined end-to-end by the GNN scores.\n\nThis is a great point. Using a feature extractor based on UCN could potentially give more information compared to a binary mask, especially because UCN was trained in tabletop settings as well. However, our pre-trained feature extractor is ResNet50+FPN trained on COCO, which provides RICE with features trained on a photorealistic dataset. UCN is trained on non-photorealistic synthetic data; it works quite well in the real world (when consuming RGB-D), but it is unclear how well the RGB-only features will transfer to real-world settings. Combining both feature representations could be interesting, but even more computationally expensive. Exploring this is an interesting avenue of future work.\n\n> In the robotic experiments it seems like the network is able to merge/split/delete existing masks but has more troubles in adding completely new segments or completing undersegmented masks by adding+merging. This limitation could be made more clear, especially by showing separate results for adding and deleting in Table 1 of the appendix. The problem is probably the generation of candidate masks. I would be curious if an oversegmentation through low thresholds in the initial methods and subsequently only merging/splitting/deleting wouldn't lead to better results.\n\nWhile this is true, it is also the case that the need to complete undersegmented masks (even adding masks) is relatively rare given the initial segmentation methods (Mask R-CNN, PointGroup, UOIS-Net, UCN). This is briefly discussed in L98-99 of the Supplement. Columns 4 and 5 of Figure 7 (main paper) show examples where combinations such as adding+splitting and splitting+merging are used to fix the scene. Using an oversegmentation with RICE is an interesting exploration of future work, although this would generate many nodes and potentially cause the GPU to run out of memory. We will make this more clear in the Supplement.\n\n> The approach is trained on non-photorealistic data (perhaps for better comparison) and then needs to be manually adapted to work better with real data. There might be a more elegant solution, maybe by directly training on more realistic data.\n\nWe completely agree. However, obtaining annotated data for specific settings such as tabletop settings is currently resource intensive and costly which is not possible for academic labs.\n\n> \"smart perturbations\" are used throughout the paper. I would rather say \"informed perturbations\" or \"learned perturbations\".\n\nThank you for the better word choice. We will make this change in a revision.\n\n> L275 \"numerical relevance\" should be defined as it is otherwise unclear and hard to find in the reference\n\n“Numerical relevance” is essentially a ranking (e.g. 1 to 5, with 5 being the best). We will clarify this in a revision.\n\n> Table 2: Is the worst ranking really a good comparison?\n\nIt simply gives a base of which to ground the nDCG numbers to. Essentially, it says that 0.844 is the worst while 1.0 is the best. Then the numbers in Table 2 can be better understood.\n\n> Figure 7: It is annoying to scroll up and down to get the description of the figure, which is actually in section 4.6. It would be great if you could move the descriptive part in the caption.\n\nThank you for pointing this out. We will fix this in a revision.\n\n> Since code release was not announced: L97: padding is not specified. L108: threshold is not specified.\n\nOur code/data/models (including code for training the models) are prepped and ready for release. We plan on releasing the code when the paper is accepted for publication. These details can be found in the code.\n", "role": "user" }, { "content": "Title: Thank you for the clarifications\nMy only remaining question is really how the deleting and adding operations individually influence the performance. I understand that they are conceptually very similar, but it would still be interesting for the reader.", "role": "assistant" }, { "content": "Title: Response to Reviewer 1fhJ\nAhh, thank you for clarifying your question. We will run the experiment and edit Table 1 in the Supplement accordingly. ", "role": "user" }, { "content": "I am pleased to have had the opportunity to discuss the points above with the author, which has definitely improved the overall quality of the paper.", "role": "assistant" } ]
0f7gUXVAcE9
CoRL 2021 Conference
Reviewer_cMBw
[ { "content": "\nYou are an experienced academic paper reviewer. You will receive a conference paper in the field of computer science or AI. Please analyze the paper content carefully and output your review content.\nMore importantly, the author will further explain or refute the review comments you gave, and you need to further discuss with the author based on the author's response. \nThe purpose of this rebuttal and discussion is:\n- Clarification: During the review process, the reviewer (you) may not accurately understand the contribution or method of the paper due to unclear expression or misunderstanding of certain details. Through rebuttal, the author has the opportunity to clarify these misunderstandings and further illustrate the effectiveness of their innovations or methods.\n- Respond to criticisms and suggestions: The reviewer (you) may make criticisms or suggestions on the paper, and the author can use the discussion session to provide specific responses, explain why certain criticisms may not apply, or how to improve and optimize certain aspects of the paper.\nFinally, you and the author will work together to enhance the persuasiveness of the paper and improve the quality of the paper.\n", "role": "system" }, { "content": "Now your reviewer ID is assigned as Reviewer_cMBw, and the following are the paper you need to review:\n```<<0f7gUXVAcE9>>```", "role": "user" }, { "content": "Review Content: summary: This paper proposes an approach for image segmentation using graph-based representation and several deep neural networks trained to perturb and score different image segmentations. I like the framework architecture in general, and the results look very promising. But I'm a bit suspicious that this paper is more suited for a computer vision venue than for a robotics one. However, I'm going to give the authors the benefit of the doubt and vote for acceptance.\nstrengths_and_weaknesses: Strengths:\n- The approach seems straightforward to re-produce.\n- The paper is well-written and organized.\n\nWeaknesses:\n- As mentioned by the authors, the framework is pretty computation-heavy at the moment.\n- The robotics experiment is very simplistic and it uses an out-of-the-box grasping method (probably developed by the authors in their previous work).\nsummary_of_recommendation: The robotic experiments seem very simplistic to me. But the segmentation approach is very interesting and the results look good, and since this can have lots of applications in robotics, I vote for acceptance.\nissues: - In Line 98, h and w are not defined.\nRating: 7 accept, but needs minor improvements\n", "role": "assistant" }, { "content": "Title: Response to Reviewer cMBw\nWe thank the reviewer for the comments.\n\n> I'm a bit suspicious that this paper is more suited for a computer vision venue than for a robotics one.\n\nWhile the proposed framework uses vision and ML techniques to improve on the problem of unseen object instance segmentation, the method is directly motivated by robot requirements. The settings we operate in are meant for manipulation, not in-the-wild computer vision. Our method exploits the structure of cluttered manipulable objects (via GNNs), which are common to robot manipulation environments, and not necessarily in in-the-wild computer vision settings. Thus, our results are directly applicable to robots, and we believe this work is more relevant and suitable for a robotics venue. \n\n> As mentioned by the authors, the framework is pretty computation-heavy at the moment.\n\nBringing this framework closer to real-time is an avenue of further research.\n\n> The robotics experiment is very simplistic and it uses an out-of-the-box grasping method.\n\nThe main contribution of this work is the introduction of the framework for improving instance segmentations. Thus, most of the experimental section focuses on that. The robot experiment is a proof of concept that shows how the uncertainty estimates can be used to efficiently singulate and understand objects. There are many potential robotics applications that can build off both the instance segmentation (e.g. [1,2,3,4]) and the uncertainty estimates, and we hope that the community will build off of our advances to solve such tasks. \n\n> In Line 98, h and w are not defined.\n\nIn L54 in the Supplement, we detail the implementation details of this. h and w are set to 64.\n", "role": "user" }, { "content": "Thanks to the authors for their clarification. The response covers nearly all of the issues I raised. I keep my recommendation for this paper to be accepted.", "role": "assistant" } ]
1GNV9SW95eJ
CoRL 2021 Conference
Reviewer_PXsM
[ { "content": "\nYou are an experienced academic paper reviewer. You will receive a conference paper in the field of computer science or AI. Please analyze the paper content carefully and output your review content.\nMore importantly, the author will further explain or refute the review comments you gave, and you need to further discuss with the author based on the author's response. \nThe purpose of this rebuttal and discussion is:\n- Clarification: During the review process, the reviewer (you) may not accurately understand the contribution or method of the paper due to unclear expression or misunderstanding of certain details. Through rebuttal, the author has the opportunity to clarify these misunderstandings and further illustrate the effectiveness of their innovations or methods.\n- Respond to criticisms and suggestions: The reviewer (you) may make criticisms or suggestions on the paper, and the author can use the discussion session to provide specific responses, explain why certain criticisms may not apply, or how to improve and optimize certain aspects of the paper.\nFinally, you and the author will work together to enhance the persuasiveness of the paper and improve the quality of the paper.\n", "role": "system" }, { "content": "Now your reviewer ID is assigned as Reviewer_PXsM, and the following are the paper you need to review:\n```<<1GNV9SW95eJ>>```", "role": "user" }, { "content": "Review Content: summary: This paper presents a theoretical analysis and practical implementation of a learning framework that combines H-step lookahead policies with a learned model and a learned terminal value function using a model-free off-policy algorithm. This method, called Learning Off-Policy with Online Planning (LOOP), reduces the computational cost of the trajectory optimization by updating the value function through using a model-free off-policy algorithm. In addition, the authors propose a modified trajectory optimization method called Actor Regularized Control to address the Actor Divergence issue (different policies used for data collection and to learn the value function). Moreover, the authors show the LOOP framework can be applied to enhance performance in offline RL and safe RL tasks. Finally, the method is tested on different simulated tasks, where it is shown to provide performance improvements for online RL, offline reinforcement learning and safe RL when compared with state-of-the-art methods. \nstrengths_and_weaknesses: Strengths\n- The paper is well written and clear to understand. The authors do a good job introducing the state of the art methods related with their work and how their work differentiates from others. The authors also present in a clear and structured way each of the different contributions of the paper and they provide a detailed analysis of the extensive testing of their framework and comparison with other methods. \n- A theoretical analysis is presented to provide a solid foundation for the method and back up the experimental results.\n- It is interesting to see how this framework can be adapted not only for online RL, but also for offline RL and safe RL, which makes it versatile and appealing for its application in robotic tasks.\n\nWeaknesses\n- Despite the fact that a model-free off-policy algorithm is used to compute the Value function, including the H-step lookahead policy may still increase the computational cost of the algorithm as the action is selected though trajectory optimization by rolling out the dynamic model to find an action sequence with the highest return.\n\nsummary_of_recommendation: I would recommend the authors to include a section to discuss the application of its framework to high-dimensional complex robotics tasks e.g. humanoid and what could be the potential issues or advantages. Though they have shown their method performs as good or better than baselines available for comparison, it would be interesting to see its application in 3d complex environments and potential real robotics applications. \n\nissues: There are no issues to be addressed for this paper.\nRating: 9 strong accept, excellent work\n", "role": "assistant" }, { "content": "Title: Response to Reviewer PXsM\nThank you for the detailed review of our paper and encouraging comments about the approach and results. We address your two questions below. Please let us know if further clarification is needed.\n\n> Despite the fact that a model-free off-policy algorithm is used to compute the Value function, including the H-step lookahead policy may still increase the computational cost of the algorithm as the action is selected through trajectory optimization by rolling out the dynamic model to find an action sequence with the highest return.\n\nThe underlying off-policy algorithm (SAC) can run policy inference at ~1400 Hz in our experiments. LOOP does have a higher computation cost due to the additional optimization in the H-step lookahead and is able to run at ~20Hz on our 1 GPU machine, which is a reasonable speed for many real robot applications. We speed up this additional trajectory optimization by warm-starting with the solutions from the previous timestep (usually referred to as \"amortization\"). We would also like to highlight that the H-step lookahead can afford us other benefits like safety and interpretability, which perhaps makes it worth the additional computation.\n\n> I would recommend the authors to include a section to discuss the application of its framework to high-dimensional complex robotics tasks e.g. humanoid and what could be the potential issues or advantages. Though they have shown their method performs as good or better than baselines available for comparison, it would be interesting to see its application in 3d complex environments and potential real robotics applications.\n\nFollowing the suggestion, we ran the method on the Humanoid environment to further test our method in an environment with a high-dimensional state and action space, and we add the additional results in the paper to Appendix D.1 and Figure 8. As shown, LOOP-SAC shows a significant improvement over SAC, which is consistent with our results on other environments. We will try to run the other baselines for this environment for the final version of the paper. Note that we are using a TruncatedHumanoid environment following previous papers [1][2][3] (references listed below).\n\nOn the topic of applying LOOP to high-dimensional problems, we would like to highlight that LOOP works well on the PenGoal environment which has an observation space of 45-dim and action space of 24-dim (similar to TruncatedHumanoid which has an observation space of 45-dim and action space of 17-dim). As shown in Figure 3, LOOP-SAC significantly outperforms the other methods on the PenGoal environment.\nIn general, with a higher dimensional observation space, LOOP might need a higher capacity dynamics model; with a high-dimensional action space, there could be increasing computational cost in trajectory optimization. Nonetheless, our experiments still show LOOP-SAC outperforming SAC in both of these environments (TruncatedHumanoid and PenGoal).\n\nReferences:\n\n [1] : [When to Trust Your Model: Model-Based Policy Optimization](https://arxiv.org/abs/1906.08253)\n\n [2]: [Trust the Model When It Is Confident: Masked Model-based Actor-Critic](https://arxiv.org/abs/2010.04893)\n\n [3]: [Model-based Policy Optimization with Unsupervised Model Adaptation](https://arxiv.org/abs/2010.09546)\n", "role": "user" }, { "content": "Thank you for the authors' feedback. It resolves the majority of my concerns. I still support my favorable recommendation for this manuscript.", "role": "assistant" } ]
1GNV9SW95eJ
CoRL 2021 Conference
Reviewer_Sv1h
[ { "content": "\nYou are an experienced academic paper reviewer. You will receive a conference paper in the field of computer science or AI. Please analyze the paper content carefully and output your review content.\nMore importantly, the author will further explain or refute the review comments you gave, and you need to further discuss with the author based on the author's response. \nThe purpose of this rebuttal and discussion is:\n- Clarification: During the review process, the reviewer (you) may not accurately understand the contribution or method of the paper due to unclear expression or misunderstanding of certain details. Through rebuttal, the author has the opportunity to clarify these misunderstandings and further illustrate the effectiveness of their innovations or methods.\n- Respond to criticisms and suggestions: The reviewer (you) may make criticisms or suggestions on the paper, and the author can use the discussion session to provide specific responses, explain why certain criticisms may not apply, or how to improve and optimize certain aspects of the paper.\nFinally, you and the author will work together to enhance the persuasiveness of the paper and improve the quality of the paper.\n", "role": "system" }, { "content": "Now your reviewer ID is assigned as Reviewer_Sv1h, and the following are the paper you need to review:\n```<<1GNV9SW95eJ>>```", "role": "user" }, { "content": "Review Content: summary: This paper proposes a novel approach to reinforcement learning with planning. \nThe idea is to learn a model of the dynamics and \n\n1. Use a planning algorithm to find the optimal sequence of actions in the H-horizon.\n2. Use at the last step of the horizon an approximation of $V^*$, so to make the planning algorithm aware of the value beyond the horizon.\n3. The value function is learned with an off-policy reinforcement learning algorithm\n4. Since the policy of the trajectory planner differs from the policy induced by the off-policy RL, the authors propose to integrate in the planner a penalization term for actions that are far from the policy of the reinforcement learning counterpart.\n\nIn particular, the authors propose bounds on the return of the policy induced by the planner by both taking into consideration the error from the model and from the value function.\n\nThe authors propose both a version of their algorithm for offline RL and for constrained MDP.\n\n\nstrengths_and_weaknesses: __Strenghts__\n\nThe idea of integrating the value function into the planner to extend the horizon is not new [1, 2]. The merits of the paper are, in my opinion,\n\n- the theoretical analysis \n- the introduction of the ARC (the Actor Regularized Control). \n- the usage of the algorithm in both offline RL and constrained MDP.\n\nI think that the paper is well written and follows a good argumentation of the proposed method.\n\nWhen I read the paper, I immediately thought that the RL algorithm should only evaluate the policy, rather than improve it, (e.g., should evaluate $V^\\pi$ instead of $V^*$). Doing that should avoid the problem that you mention of having a policy in the RL algorithm that differs from the policy of the planner. I saw in the experiment that you actually did that with LOOP-SARSA. I see that LOOP-SARSA does not obtain a good performance (I think that this is due to the fact that it does not \"bootstrap\" the optimal value function). It would be nice still to insert a more detailed explanation of why you choose to estimate $V^*$ instead of $V^\\pi$ (theoretically, the improvement is still guaranteed by the fact that the planner seeks optimal actions - this is the same principle driving behind SARSA).\n\nThe idea of keeping the trajectory close to the one generated by the RL agent does make sense too, otherwise, there is a distribution mismatch. \n\nI think that the empirical section is well made, there are enough comparisons with related algorithms.\n\n\n__Weakness__\n\nThe bound (eq 5) assumes that the planner is picking optimal actions. In reality, this is not the case. Therefore, the authors should insert a term that describes the situation where the planner plans a suboptimal trajectory.\n\nI would insert the discussion on whether to use policy evaluation (estimate $V^\\pi$) or policy improvement (estimate $V^*$). What are the pros and cons of the two approaches?\n\n\n\n__typo__\n\nin line 195 the inline math has an extra parenthesis.\n\nUpdate\n==\n\nI appreciated the authors including my suggestion in the paper. After reading the other reviews, I am willing to keep my score unchanged. \n\n\n__References__\n\n[1] https://ieeexplore.ieee.org/stamp/stamp.jsp?tp=&arnumber=6614995\n[2] https://arxiv.org/pdf/2102.11122.pdf\nsummary_of_recommendation: I do not think that the idea presented in the paper is very novel (planning + RL is not novel, (value-function to extend the horizon is not novel), (regularizing the actor is also not a novel concept)...\nStill, the paper is well written, and all the choices are, in my opinion, fair and logical. Also, each contribution of the paper might be small but summed all together it makes a fair level of originality.\n\nThe authors did a good job in comparing their algorithm with related work.\nTherefore, I advocate for the paper's acceptance.\nissues: - I would like to see Theorem 1 with also an assumption on suboptimal trajectory planners.\n- I would like a discussion on the difference between providing $V^*$ instead of $V^\\pi$ to the planner.\nRating: 9 strong accept, excellent work\n", "role": "assistant" }, { "content": "Title: Response to Reviewer Sv1h\nThank you for the detailed review and summarization of our paper and encouraging comments about the approach and results. The review brings up some interesting points which we discuss below. Please let us know if further clarification is needed.\n> When I read the paper, I immediately thought that the RL algorithm should only evaluate the policy, rather than improve it, (e.g., should evaluate v_pi instead of v*). Doing that should avoid the problem that you mention of having a policy in the RL algorithm that differs from the policy of the planner. I saw in the experiment that you actually did that with LOOP-SARSA. I see that LOOP-SARSA does not obtain a good performance (I think that this is due to the fact that it does not \"bootstrap\" the optimal value function). It would be nice still to insert a more detailed explanation of why you choose to estimate v* instead of v_pi (theoretically, the improvement is still guaranteed by the fact that the planner seeks optimal actions - this is the same principle driving behind SARSA).\n\nTo clarify, LOOP-SARSA is evaluating the \"replay buffer policy\" instead of the H-step lookahead policy because we are using off-policy data (where the original SARSA is an on-policy algorithm). This is probably why it doesn't work well. Unfortunately, on-policy LOOP-SARSA would be too slow, due to the need for collecting on-policy data. POLO is actually exactly evaluating $V^\\pi$. However, POLO requires running trajectory optimization during the value function update, which is computationally expensive. In contrast to these methods, LOOP uses an off-policy algorithm to learn $V^*$, as the reviewer noted. We found that this approach has good performance and it is significantly more computationally efficient than POLO. An interesting direction of future work could be to try to combine LOOP with an efficient off-policy evaluation algorithm to estimate $V^\\pi$.\n\n> The bound (eq 5) assumes that the planner is picking optimal actions. In reality, this is not the case. Therefore, the authors should insert a term that describes the situation where the planner plans a suboptimal trajectory.\n\nThank you for the suggestion! We have modified Theorem 1 to reflect this suboptimality. We observe that H-step lookahead scales linearly with the H-step optimization suboptimality.\n\n> in line 195 the inline math has an extra parenthesis.\n\nThank you for pointing this out. We have fixed the typo in the new version of the paper.", "role": "user" }, { "content": "Title: Thank you for your response\nDear authors, \n\nthanks for considering my suggestion in Theorem 1, and for your rebuttal. \nI have read also the other reviews, and I will keep my score as it is.\n\nBest regards. ", "role": "assistant" } ]
1GNV9SW95eJ
CoRL 2021 Conference
Reviewer_ztVy
[ { "content": "\nYou are an experienced academic paper reviewer. You will receive a conference paper in the field of computer science or AI. Please analyze the paper content carefully and output your review content.\nMore importantly, the author will further explain or refute the review comments you gave, and you need to further discuss with the author based on the author's response. \nThe purpose of this rebuttal and discussion is:\n- Clarification: During the review process, the reviewer (you) may not accurately understand the contribution or method of the paper due to unclear expression or misunderstanding of certain details. Through rebuttal, the author has the opportunity to clarify these misunderstandings and further illustrate the effectiveness of their innovations or methods.\n- Respond to criticisms and suggestions: The reviewer (you) may make criticisms or suggestions on the paper, and the author can use the discussion session to provide specific responses, explain why certain criticisms may not apply, or how to improve and optimize certain aspects of the paper.\nFinally, you and the author will work together to enhance the persuasiveness of the paper and improve the quality of the paper.\n", "role": "system" }, { "content": "Now your reviewer ID is assigned as Reviewer_ztVy, and the following are the paper you need to review:\n```<<1GNV9SW95eJ>>```", "role": "user" }, { "content": "Review Content: summary: The paper presents an RL approach that combines model-based and model-free learning and improves upon previous H-step lookahead methods. In particular, H-step lookahead methods employ a model to perform trajectory optimization for H steps and then use a learned value function to estimate terminate values of the trajectories, which enables infinite-horizon optimization. The paper first performs a theoretical analysis of the induced errors of model-based and value learning parts and concludes that there is an advantage of combining them, especially in low data regimes. After that, the paper identifies the problem of “actor divergence”, which is present in previous methods. In particular, as the behavior policy used to collect the data differs from the parameterized actor used to optimize the value function, it can lead to bootstrapping errors. The paper proposes to introduce a KL-divergence constraint on the behavior policy optimization that constraints it against the actor policy and in this way reduces the actor divergence. Finally, the paper introduces ensemble-based uncertainty estimation for incorporating pessimism when learning from offline data, and points out the ability to incorporate safety constraints when performing model-based trajectory optimization. The method is evaluated in multiple simulated MuJoCo tasks, such as OpenAI Gym tasks for Online RL evaluations, D4RL for Offline RL, and OpenAI Safe Gym for Safe RL evaluations. It is shown to outperform multiple baselines and reduce the actor divergence problem.\nstrengths_and_weaknesses: Strengths:\n- H-step lookahead methods are an elegant way to combine advantages of model-based and model-free learning. The paper presents an important improvement for this family of methods. \n- Theoretical error analysis is a good way to demonstrate advantages of H-step lookahead methods.\n- The paper is well-written and easy to understand and follow.\n- The method is shown to outperform a range of baselines in both online and offline problems in simulation, as well as work with simulated safety-critical tasks.\n\nWeaknesses:\n- Although mentioning POLO in the related work, experiments do not include this method as a baseline. It would be useful to see comparisons to this method as it is close to the presented approach and would help to evaluate the advantage of reducing the actor divergence.\n- It would be interesting to see an ablation of adding the pessimistic term to optimization to better understand its impact.\n- It is not completely clear how a suboptimal actor would affect the behavior policy in case the actor optimization does not work well. It would be interesting to see a discussion on this aspect of the algorithm.\n\n-- Post rebuttal --\nThanks for clarifications and additional experiments, I have increased my score.\n\nsummary_of_recommendation: The paper improves upon previous works on H-step lookahead methods and provides a range of experiments and theoretical derivations. Some improvements could be made through additional experiments and discussions.\nissues: Please refer to \"Strengths And Weaknesses\" for a detailed list of issues.\nRating: 9 strong accept, excellent work\n", "role": "assistant" }, { "content": "Title: Response to Reviewer ztVy\nThank you for the detailed review of our paper and encouraging comments about the approach and results. We address your questions below. Please let us know if further clarification is needed.\n\n> Although mentioning POLO in the related work, experiments do not include this method as a baseline. It would be useful to see comparisons to this method as it is close to the presented approach and would help to evaluate the advantage of reducing the actor divergence.\n\nAccording to the suggestion, we add the curves of POLO for Claw-v1 and HalfCheetah-v2 in Figure 9 of Appendix D.2. The author's implementation of POLO is unavailable so we tried our best to implement it. To have a fair comparison with LOOP, we keep the hyperparameters as close to LOOP as possible and use a learned model; since the code for POLO is not available, we are unsure what hyperparameters were used in the original experiments. The performance of POLO is pretty low compared to LOOP, potentially due to the limited computation of MPPI used for the value function update. Potentially the performance of POLO would be better with much larger computational resources than what we have available.\n\nWe would also like to highlight the difference in computational efficiency in LOOP and POLO. POLO requires an additional trajectory optimization procedure for value function computation, which is very computationally expensive. In contrast, LOOP learns a parameterized policy and value function to make the value function computation significantly faster. In addition, normally for online planning, we can warmstart from the results from the previous time step (\"amortization\"); LOOP and PETS [3] take advantage of this optimization. In contrast, POLO cannot take advantage of this amortization during optimization for the value computation because it samples states IID from the replay buffer. Our implementation of POLO (after reasonable optimizations) takes ~84 hours for 100k steps of HalfCheetah on a single NVIDIA 1080 GPU whereas LOOP takes ~7 hours (12x less computation) while taking ~1/5 the memory consumption of POLO.\n\n> It would be interesting to see an ablation of adding the pessimistic term to optimization to better understand its impact.\n\nFirst, we would like to clarify that the pessimistic term is not itself one of our contributions; this pessimistic term was used in previous works in model-based offline RL like [1], [2] (references below) which learn a policy given the data in an uncertainty-penalized MDP. Nonetheless, we add an ablation in Table 6, Appendix D.4 for the pessimistic term in the Offline RL experiments. We observe that pessimistic term is useful for Offline RL to prevent incorrect extrapolation. \n\n> It is not completely clear how a suboptimal actor would affect the behavior policy in case the actor optimization does not work well. It would be interesting to see a discussion on this aspect of the algorithm.\n\nThat is a great point. Theorem 1 implicitly subsumes the error resulting from a suboptimal parameterized actor as value errors. Our analysis shows that the H-step lookahead policy is more robust to value errors compared to the original suboptimal actor.\n\nReferences:\n\n[1]: [MOPO: Model-based Offline Policy Optimization](https://arxiv.org/abs/2005.13239)\n\n[2]: [MOReL : Model-Based Offline Reinforcement Learning](https://arxiv.org/abs/2005.05951)\n\n[3]: [Deep Reinforcement Learning in a Handful of Trials using Probabilistic Dynamics Models](https://arxiv.org/abs/1805.12114)\n\n", "role": "user" }, { "content": "Title: Thank you!\nThanks for clarifications and additional experiments, I have increased my score.", "role": "assistant" } ]
1mDC24WX8Yh
CoRL 2021 Conference
Reviewer_gcAq
[ { "content": "\nYou are an experienced academic paper reviewer. You will receive a conference paper in the field of computer science or AI. Please analyze the paper content carefully and output your review content.\nMore importantly, the author will further explain or refute the review comments you gave, and you need to further discuss with the author based on the author's response. \nThe purpose of this rebuttal and discussion is:\n- Clarification: During the review process, the reviewer (you) may not accurately understand the contribution or method of the paper due to unclear expression or misunderstanding of certain details. Through rebuttal, the author has the opportunity to clarify these misunderstandings and further illustrate the effectiveness of their innovations or methods.\n- Respond to criticisms and suggestions: The reviewer (you) may make criticisms or suggestions on the paper, and the author can use the discussion session to provide specific responses, explain why certain criticisms may not apply, or how to improve and optimize certain aspects of the paper.\nFinally, you and the author will work together to enhance the persuasiveness of the paper and improve the quality of the paper.\n", "role": "system" }, { "content": "Now your reviewer ID is assigned as Reviewer_gcAq, and the following are the paper you need to review:\n```<<1mDC24WX8Yh>>```", "role": "user" }, { "content": "Review Content: summary: The paper develops a learning paradigm to obtain non sheared tactile images from shear contact.\nstrengths_and_weaknesses: The paper is attempting to solve an interesting problem which benefits the domain of visuotactile sensors for tactile perception. The illustrations in figures bring clarity to the approach. There are some concerns with the paper in its current form which are listed below:\n\n1. One major concern with the approach is that it’s not clear to me whether the approach works on unseen objects. Also, it was not clear whether the learned model is object dependent. Conducting experiments on unseen objects would help bring clarity.\n\n2. Does the model generalize across sensors or do we need to train per sensor?\n\n3. Additionally, the paper mentions an appendix but it was not submitted. \n\n\nsummary_of_recommendation: I would like to know whether the model generalizes before I can make a better recommendation.\nissues: Addressing the below issues will improve the paper:\n\n1. It’s not clear whether the model was trained separately for each object or if a single model was trained across objects.\n\n2. Running experiments on unseen objects.\nRating: 7 accept, but needs minor improvements\n", "role": "assistant" }, { "content": "Title: Response to Reviewer-gcAq\nThank you for your insightful comments on the manuscript and for your appreciation that our paper is ‘attempting to solve an interesting problem which benefits the domain of visuotactile sensors’. We recognize your concerns and have revised the paper to address them.\n\nComment: One major concern with the approach is that it’s not clear to me whether the approach works on unseen objects. Also, it was not clear whether the learned model is object dependent. Conducting experiments on unseen objects would help bring clarity.\n\nResponse: We agree completely, and a similar point has been raised by multiple reviewers and the Area Chair. We repeat below the response we gave to the Area Chair:\n\nTo address the concern regarding the generalization of the model to novel shapes, we have updated figure 4 in the manuscript with 4 complex shapes not encountered in training (including two acrylic shapes with distinct frictional properties to the 3D-printed shapes). \nPlease also note that the training data from the original three shapes was collected at a single location (Figure 1 (c), red circle; see caption and text lines 133). Therefore, some generalization had already been demonstrated as 2 shapes (the clover and teardrop) were non-uniform. This has been clarified further in the text in lines 117-119. \n\n\nComment: Does the model generalize across sensors or do we need to train per sensor?\n\nResponse: This question can be interpreted in two ways (a) generalize across sensors of the same design e.g. two TacTips with small differences due to hand fabrication; and (b) generalize across distinct sensor designs e.g. a TacTip and GelSight. \n\nOn (a), all data, for all shapes including the 4 new complex shapes, for 2d servoing and full object reconstructions (second and third row, figure 4) were collected using a newly-fabricated sensor rather than the one used for training. The final assembly of sensors is done by hand that introduces variability in the response in other otherwise same sensors, which has been mentioned in the text in lines 111 - 113, section 3.1.\n\nOn (b), we do not have access to other tactile sensors so cannot test this directly. The methods should apply to other optical tactile sensors but we would expect a new model would need training, as the unshearing relates to the frictional and elastic properties of the sensor which will differ across sensor types. This has been clarified in the lines 294-297, section 5. \n\nComment: Additionally, the paper mentions an appendix but it was not submitted.\n\nResponse: The appendix is attached directly to the end of the paper. We think the confusion likely stemmed from the fact that the appendix was not submitted as a separate document at the time of manuscript submission.\n\nComment: It’s not clear whether the model was trained separately for each object or if a single model was trained across objects.\n\nResponse: The same single model was trained across all objects. This has been clarified in the text in the lines 405-406, Appendix B.", "role": "user" }, { "content": "Title: Thanks (updated rating)\nThanks for the clarifications. I have updated the scores to reflect the rebuttal.", "role": "assistant" } ]
1mDC24WX8Yh
CoRL 2021 Conference
Reviewer_JxBB
[ { "content": "\nYou are an experienced academic paper reviewer. You will receive a conference paper in the field of computer science or AI. Please analyze the paper content carefully and output your review content.\nMore importantly, the author will further explain or refute the review comments you gave, and you need to further discuss with the author based on the author's response. \nThe purpose of this rebuttal and discussion is:\n- Clarification: During the review process, the reviewer (you) may not accurately understand the contribution or method of the paper due to unclear expression or misunderstanding of certain details. Through rebuttal, the author has the opportunity to clarify these misunderstandings and further illustrate the effectiveness of their innovations or methods.\n- Respond to criticisms and suggestions: The reviewer (you) may make criticisms or suggestions on the paper, and the author can use the discussion session to provide specific responses, explain why certain criticisms may not apply, or how to improve and optimize certain aspects of the paper.\nFinally, you and the author will work together to enhance the persuasiveness of the paper and improve the quality of the paper.\n", "role": "system" }, { "content": "Now your reviewer ID is assigned as Reviewer_JxBB, and the following are the paper you need to review:\n```<<1mDC24WX8Yh>>```", "role": "user" }, { "content": "Review Content: summary: The paper proposes a supervised learning method to remove artifacts from optical-tactile signals for robot manipulation tasks. Specifically, the artifacts in question are caused by sensor distortion in the presence of motion-induced shear. In the approach, the model is trained on tactile images collected from un-sheared contact with a few distinct canonical shapes. \nstrengths_and_weaknesses: Strengths:\n- The paper is generally well written and easy to follow\n- Experiments are detailed and the approach is clearly defined.\n- Results seem promising.\n\nWeaknesses\n- The scope of the paper strikes me as fairly narrow, both in experiment and comparison to existing methods.\n- Why does the approach not consider task-specific training, such as predicting local surface geometry directly for surface mapping (as opposed to an intermediate un-sheared representation) ? It would be nice to highlight the benefits of this approach when compared to approaches which model local contact geometry, such as the following (I have no affiliation):\n- Bauza, Maria, et al. \"Tactile object pose estimation from the first touch with geometric contact rendering.\" arXiv preprint arXiv:2012.05205 (2020).\n- There seems to be a lack of baselines in the approach. How might this compare to using an analytical model, for instance? \n- The scope of the experiments seem quite narrow. Only three shapes were investigated, and all were made from the same material. To demonstrate that the method is indeed learning a meaningful representation (as opposed to over-fitting to data), it would be useful to use test objects and motions which were not observed in training. \n- There does not seem to be any discussion of rotational vs translational shear. I would think that the former would be more challenging to disentangle than the latter, but this should be discussed and investigated.\n- A description and picture of the TacTip sensor would be very helpful to the reader.\n\nsummary_of_recommendation: A significant contribution to the community would require broadening the scope of the paper, clearly demonstrating the generality of the approach comparison to existing state-of-the-art methods.\nissues: Please address the points listed above.\nRating: 4 possibly reject, but has redeeming facets\n", "role": "assistant" }, { "content": "Title: Response to Reviewer-JxBB\nThank you for taking the time to provide thorough comments on our manuscript. We can see you recognize some positives in terms of the clarity and promising results but have concerns e.g around the scope. In response, we have significantly extended the paper to address these concerns. \n\nComment: The scope of the paper strikes me as fairly narrow, both in experiment and comparison to existing methods\n\nResponse: A similar point has been raised by multiple reviewers and the Area Chair. In response, the paper has now been extended in multiple ways:\n\n(1) To demonstrate further generalization of the model to novel shapes, we have updated figure 4 in the manuscript with 4 complex shapes not encountered in training (including two acrylic shapes with distinct frictional properties to the 3D-printed shapes). \nThat said, the training data from the original three shapes was collected at a single location (Figure 1, red circle; see caption and text line 133). Therefore, some generalization had already been demonstrated as 2 shapes (the clover and teardrop) were non-uniform. This has been clarified further in the text in lines 117-119. \n\n(2) We have now extended results to include full object reconstruction for all 7 shapes in figure 4, in addition to local contact reconstruction results for training shapes (test data) and full servo results also for all 7 shapes. The contour following results along with full object reconstruction jointly demonstrate the generalizability and effectiveness of our approach to remove shear from novel contacts. In addition, they also demonstrate the motivation behind our approach to unshear the raw sensor response, later used for multiple downstream tasks obviating the need to learn unshearing of tactile data repeatedly for each downstream task, making it computationally and data efficient. This has been further clarified in the text in section 4.4.\n\n(3) In addition, a qualitative comparison between our approach of pose prediction for smooth servoing over planar objects to the ones pursued by Refs [5, 6, 7] that learn to directly predict object pose from sheared images (by learning to ignore motion-induced shear) shows that both approaches allow successful smooth servoing across a wide array of object shapes. However, our approach has several advantages in: (a) being computationally and data efficient by only requiring the ‘unshearing’ of the tactile data to be learnt once; (b) the models for downstream tasks can then be learnt more easily on unsheared data (as we demonstrated on pose) or in some cases no model need to be learnt at all (as in our contact surface reconstruction using a Voronoi tessellation); and (c) is more easily extensible to including other downstream variables of interest like indentation depth. This has been mentioned in the text in the lines 34-43 in section 1.\n\nIn terms of a baseline for contact surface reconstruction and full object reconstruction, it seems more direct to compare with the actual object shape itself, which we have done in figure 4. There are various other approaches in the literature for object reconstruction dating back to original work in the 1980s (e.g. Allen, IJRR 1988); however, these approaches tend to be tactile sensor specific, which does not facilitate a direct comparison, and is somewhat tangential to the focus of the paper on removing shear. \nComment: Why does the approach not consider task-specific training, such as predicting local surface geometry directly for surface mapping (as opposed to an intermediate un-sheared representation)? \n\nThis comment has some overlap with the point raised by the Area Chair on our overall perspective; our full response is given there, but we summarize our view of the main advantages of a disentanglement approach of: (a) being computationally and data efficient by only requiring the ‘unshearing’ of the tactile data to be learnt once; (b) the models can then be learnt more easily on unsheared data (as we demonstrated on pose) or in some cases no model need to be learnt at all (as in our contact surface reconstruction using a Voronoi tessellation); and (c) is more easily extensible to including other downstream variables of interest. \n\nAlso, our method for surface geometry reconstruction directly uses a Voronoi tessellation of the tactile data, which has benefits in not having to train a model. As shown in Figure 4, this method would not work unless the tactile data has been preprocessed to remove shear. \n\nComment: It would be nice to highlight the benefits of this approach when compared to approaches which model local contact geometry, such as the following (I have no affiliation):\nBauza, Maria, et al. \"Tactile object pose estimation from the first touch with geometric contact rendering.\" arXiv preprint arXiv:2012.05205 (2020).\n\nResponse: This is a good paper but its aims and methods are distinct from the present study: its aims are to infer the global pose of a known object using an object model and tactile contacts. Our paper is tackling a distinct problem of estimating local geometric features of an object free of any shear affects due to the contact. There is some overlap in the new results in the revised manuscript on reconstructing the object shape from the contact (Figure 4), which also gives pose information about the object; however, we are making no prior assumptions about object shape, and as reviewed in Luo et al, Mechatronics 2017, there has been a fair amount of research on object pose estimation whereas to the best of our knowledge there has been no previous work on disentanglement approaches for shear removal in tactile sensing.\nThe paper makes a nice reference to related work in the field, and so we have cited it in the discussion. \n\nComment: The scope of the experiments seem quite narrow. Only three shapes were investigated, and all were made from the same material. To demonstrate that the method is indeed learning a meaningful representation (as opposed to over-fitting to data), it would be useful to use test objects and motions which were not observed in training.\n\nResponse: We agree completely and have significantly extended our experimental work to include more variety of shapes and different materials, as described in response (1) above to your first comment.\n\nComment: There does not seem to be any discussion of rotational vs translational shear. I would think that the former would be more challenging to disentangle than the latter, but this should be discussed and investigated.\n\nResponse: For simplicity, we considered only translational shear in training. However, the servo control experiments for object shape reconstruction necessarily introduce rotational shear because the sensor rotates while in contact with the object. That the methods still work well for servo control and reconstruction, as shown by the results in figure 4, is evidence that some unshearing carries over from translational to rotational shear, which is a finding we have now emphasized in the lines 298-304, section 5. \n\nWe expect the current methods would extend straightforwardly to training also with rotational shear, given these findings. However, we would not expect much improvement on the current task using planar objects as the performance is already very good. In our view, including rotational shear would be most appropriately covered in extensions of this work to 3d objects, which is a natural direction to take this work in the future.\n\nComment: A description and picture of the TacTip sensor would be very helpful to the reader.\n\nResponse: We have added a picture of TacTip along with an internal view of the sensing surface with exposed internal markers in figure 1 (a) & (b). Also, the details on the sensor operation are provided in the lines 103-114, section 3.1.", "role": "user" }, { "content": "Title: Reply to Authors' response.\nI appreciate the efforts made to address each of my questions and including modifications to the manuscript. I think the quality of the paper has improved as a result, and will be increasing my score. ", "role": "assistant" } ]
1mDC24WX8Yh
CoRL 2021 Conference
Reviewer_oHk8
[ { "content": "\nYou are an experienced academic paper reviewer. You will receive a conference paper in the field of computer science or AI. Please analyze the paper content carefully and output your review content.\nMore importantly, the author will further explain or refute the review comments you gave, and you need to further discuss with the author based on the author's response. \nThe purpose of this rebuttal and discussion is:\n- Clarification: During the review process, the reviewer (you) may not accurately understand the contribution or method of the paper due to unclear expression or misunderstanding of certain details. Through rebuttal, the author has the opportunity to clarify these misunderstandings and further illustrate the effectiveness of their innovations or methods.\n- Respond to criticisms and suggestions: The reviewer (you) may make criticisms or suggestions on the paper, and the author can use the discussion session to provide specific responses, explain why certain criticisms may not apply, or how to improve and optimize certain aspects of the paper.\nFinally, you and the author will work together to enhance the persuasiveness of the paper and improve the quality of the paper.\n", "role": "system" }, { "content": "Now your reviewer ID is assigned as Reviewer_oHk8, and the following are the paper you need to review:\n```<<1mDC24WX8Yh>>```", "role": "user" }, { "content": "Review Content: summary: The paper presents a method for handling the motion-dependent shear effect in tactile sensors. In particular, as objects can move under soft tactile sensors, tactile signal is distorted or sheared, which leads to difficulties in employing the resulting tactile signal, for example when performing object pose estimation. The paper proposes to learn “unshearing” deep neural network models that can map from sheared tactile images to canonical non-sheared images. Two architectures are proposed: entangled architecture that directly learns to reconstruct the canonical image from the sheared one, and a disentangled architecture that decomposes the intermediate representation into canonical and shear-specific parts that are trained to reconstruct the canonical and the original sheared tactile images respectively. Finally, the unsheared images are used to estimate object poses using a pose-model trained on the canonical non-sheared images. The paper collects a paired dataset of sheared and canonical tactile data to train the unshearing models. The resulting models are evaluated on three objects and TacTip biomimetic tactile sensor. They are shown to produce unsheared tactile images with a high similarity to the canonical ones and successfully reconstruct the original geometry of the objects, as well as significantly improve object pose prediction, with the disentangled model having a higher performance than the entangled one. Pose prediction is also used to perform servo control of robot following contours of the objects.\nstrengths_and_weaknesses: Strengths:\n- Reducing the shearing effect of tactile sensors is important for real-world application of tactile signals.\n- Disentangling reconstruction into sheared and non-sheared parts is an elegant way to improve unshearing performance.\n- The paper is well-written and easy to understand and follow.\n- The method is shown to work on a real TacTip biomimetic tactile sensor and produce a high level of reconstruction accuracy.\n\nWeaknesses:\n- Although the dataset is split into training and test parts, all the data still comes from the same three objects. It would be useful to see performance of the method on some novel objects to better understand the generalization capability of the method.\n- Right now, the PoseNet is trained on canonical images and evaluated on sheared/unsheared images. It would be interesting to see results of training the PoseNet directly on the sheared images if such a pairing is possible. This would help to better understand the advantage of reconstructing the unsheared image for pose prediction. \n- It would be interesting to see more details on the robotic control system used to perform the contour following experiments.\nsummary_of_recommendation: The paper shows that it is possible to unshear tactile sensor signals, which is important for many real-world robotic applications. The paper could benefit from some additional experiments to demonstrate the generalization capabilities of the method.\nissues: Please refer to \"Strengths And Weaknesses\" for a detailed list of issues.\nRating: 7 accept, but needs minor improvements\n", "role": "assistant" }, { "content": "Title: Response to Reviewer-oHk8\nThank you for your insightful comments. We are pleased to see your recognition that ‘this problem is important for real-world application of tactile signals’ and that ‘disentangling reconstruction into sheared and non-sheared parts is an elegant way’ to address this problem. We have revised the manuscript in response to the weaknesses you have identified, specifically around ‘additional experiments to demonstrate the generalization capabilities of the method.’\n\nComment: Although the dataset is split into training and test parts, all the data still comes from the same three objects. It would be useful to see performance of the method on some novel objects to better understand the generalization capability of the method.\n\nResponse: A similar point has been raised by multiple reviewers and the Area Chair, and we have fully taken this on board in the revised manuscript. In particular, to demonstrate further generalizability of the model to novel shapes, we have updated figure 4 in the manuscript with 4 complex shapes not encountered in training (including two acrylic shapes with distinct frictional properties to the 3D-printed shapes). \n\nPlease also note the training data from the original three shapes was collected at a single location (Figure 1, red circle; see caption and text line 133). Therefore, some generalization had already been demonstrated as 2 shapes (the clover and teardrop) were non-uniform. This has been clarified further in the text in lines 117-119. section 3.1. \n\nComment: Right now, the PoseNet is trained on canonical images and evaluated on sheared/unsheared images. It would be interesting to see results of training the PoseNet directly on the sheared images if such a pairing is possible. This would help to better understand the advantage of reconstructing the unsheared image for pose prediction.\n\nResponse: PoseNet can indeed be trained to predict object pose directly from sheared images, an approach pursued by Refs [5, 6, 7]. A qualitative comparison reveals that both approaches, ours and task-specify approach pursued by Refs [5, 6, 7], enable successful smooth servo control over a wide array of planar objects. Our approach, however, provide several advantages over the task-specific approach. These have been discussed before as response to comments by Area Chair; our full response is there, but we summarize our view of the main advantages of our approach of: (a) being computationally and data efficient requiring the ‘unshearing’ of tactile data to be learned once instead of relearning for each downstream task like object pose and contact reconstruction for full object reconstruction; (b) the models can then be learnt more easily on unsheared data (as we demonstrated on pose) or in some cases no model need to be learnt at all (as in our contact surface reconstruction using a Voronoi tessellation); and (c) is more easily extensible to including other downstream variables of interest like indentation depth. \n\nComment: It would be interesting to see more details on the robotic control system used to perform the contour following experiments.\n\nResponse: We have now included the details on the control system used for servo experiments in Appendix C.", "role": "user" }, { "content": "Title: Thanks\nThanks for addressing my comments and including additional experiments. I have updated my rating.", "role": "assistant" } ]
1mDC24WX8Yh
CoRL 2021 Conference
Reviewer_xr1d
[ { "content": "\nYou are an experienced academic paper reviewer. You will receive a conference paper in the field of computer science or AI. Please analyze the paper content carefully and output your review content.\nMore importantly, the author will further explain or refute the review comments you gave, and you need to further discuss with the author based on the author's response. \nThe purpose of this rebuttal and discussion is:\n- Clarification: During the review process, the reviewer (you) may not accurately understand the contribution or method of the paper due to unclear expression or misunderstanding of certain details. Through rebuttal, the author has the opportunity to clarify these misunderstandings and further illustrate the effectiveness of their innovations or methods.\n- Respond to criticisms and suggestions: The reviewer (you) may make criticisms or suggestions on the paper, and the author can use the discussion session to provide specific responses, explain why certain criticisms may not apply, or how to improve and optimize certain aspects of the paper.\nFinally, you and the author will work together to enhance the persuasiveness of the paper and improve the quality of the paper.\n", "role": "system" }, { "content": "Now your reviewer ID is assigned as Reviewer_xr1d, and the following are the paper you need to review:\n```<<1mDC24WX8Yh>>```", "role": "user" }, { "content": "Review Content: summary: This work proposed to disentangle the contact geometry from shear, which can benefit sliding motion and manipulation for soft tactile sensors. The authors proposed the encoder-decoder network trained from paired supervised data. The system is evaluated to reconstruct unsheared canonical images, local shape reconstruction. It is further applied for contour following with sliding motion.\n\nstrengths_and_weaknesses: Strengths:\n- The disengagement of the contact geometry and shear is meaningful, and can benefit future applications with shear-related tactile and manipulation tasks.\n- The author proposed a network and automatic data collection framework to tackle the problem, using paired supervised data.\n- The disentangled results are evaluated for contour following.\n\nWeaknesses:\n- The comparison between Entangled and Disentangled UnshearNet seems unfair. The Disentangled UnshearNet clearly has more supervision, in the autoencoder fashion to reconstruct the raw image. A fair comparison could be also adding raw input reconstruction to the Entangled network. By current comparison, it is unclear whether the improvement is from the additional supervision or the disentangled network flow.\n- Additionally, there seems to be no clear evidence that the embedding of the Disentangled network is disentangled into “Pose Code” and “Shear Code”. What if the “Pose Code” contains both “deformation” and “shear” information, and “Shear Code” contains minor/part of shear information? It seems that the network flow doesn’t have the supervision to force the embedding to be disentangled, since the “Pose Code” is used for both geometry and raw input reconstruction. And there is no validation of what the “Shear Code” learns. One experiment would be using the “Pose Code” and “Shear Code” to predict the motion that induced the shear. It can also be added as the supervision to the network to force “Shear Code” alone to learn the motion. \n- For 3.2.2 Pose-labelled data, the data collection procedure seems very similar to the one for canonical data. Is there a reason for collecting a separate dataset?\n\nsummary_of_recommendation: Overall, the paper demonstrated an important problem of entangled shear for contact geometry. The framework with the supervised paired data solved the problem well. But the technical part of the network structure requires more experiments to support its claim of disentanglement of “Pose Code” and “Shear Code” for the Disentangled UnshearNet.\n\nissues: Quote from the weaknesses:\n- The comparison between Entangled and Disentangled UnshearNet seems unfair. The Disentangled UnshearNet clearly has more supervision, in the autoencoder fashion to reconstruct the raw image. A fair comparison could be also adding raw input reconstruction to the Entangled network. By current comparison, it is unclear whether the improvement is from the additional supervision or the disentangled network flow.\n- Additionally, there seems to be no clear evidence that the embedding of the Disentangled network is disentangled into “Pose Code” and “Shear Code”. What if the “Pose Code” contains both “deformation” and “shear” information, and “Shear Code” contains minor/part of shear information? It seems that the network flow doesn’t have the supervision to force the embedding to be disentangled, since the “Pose Code” is used for both geometry and raw input reconstruction. And there is no validation of what the “Shear Code” learns. One experiment would be using the “Pose Code” and “Shear Code” to predict the motion that induced the shear. It can also be added as the supervision to the network to force “Shear Code” alone to learn the motion. \n- For 3.2.2 Pose-labelled data, the data collection procedure seems very similar to the one for canonical data. Is there a reason for collecting a separate dataset?\nRating: 7 accept, but needs minor improvements\n", "role": "assistant" }, { "content": "Title: Response to Reviewer-xr1d\nThank you for your insightful comments on the manuscript, and recognizing that the problem we are addressing for ‘disengagement of the contact geometry and shear is meaningful, and can benefit future applications with shear-related tactile and manipulation tasks.’ We respond to your comments below.\n\nComment: The comparison between Entangled and Disentangled UnshearNet seems unfair. The Disentangled UnshearNet clearly has more supervision, in the autoencoder fashion to reconstruct the raw image. A fair comparison could be also adding raw input reconstruction to the Entangled network. By current comparison, it is unclear whether the improvement is from the additional supervision or the disentangled network flow.\n\nResponse: The ‘extra supervision’ used in Disentangled UnshearNet in the form of input (sheared) reconstruction has been used to enforce separation of latent representations. As discussed in response to the next comment, this network architectural choice successfully disentangles latent representations as desired. A baseline approach used to compare the performance of proposed disentangled approach would be one that does not disentangle – like the Entangled UnshearNet approach we have used as baseline. In our view, it would not give a better baseline to add input reconstruction to this approach, but we have tried your suggestion out of curiosity and so we can give a full response to your comment: we retrained the Entangled UnshearNet with input reconstruction as suggested. Overall, we observed no significant improvement evaluated via SSIM metrics between generated unsheared images PC and ground truth unsheared images C -- 90.61 (with input reconstruction) vs 90.35 (original, without input reconstruction). This shows that the reported improvement is due to disentanglement and not due to extra supervision in Disentangled UnshearNet.\n\nComment: Additionally, there seems to be no clear evidence that the embedding of the Disentangled network is disentangled into “Pose Code” and “Shear Code”. What if the “Pose Code” contains both “deformation” and “shear” information, and “Shear Code” contains minor/part of shear information? It seems that the network flow doesn’t have the supervision to force the embedding to be disentangled, since the “Pose Code” is used for both geometry and raw input reconstruction. And there is no validation of what the “Shear Code” learns. One experiment would be using the “Pose Code” and “Shear Code” to predict the motion that induced the shear. It can also be added as the supervision to the network to force “Shear Code” alone to learn the motion.\n\nResponse: This is a good point that we have taken completely on board to include two new tests that the disentanglement is working as we claimed:\n\n1) We did an ablation study to verify the separation of latent representations in the Disentangled UnshearNet into pose and shear codes respectively. To do this, we passed the ‘Shear Code’ to the unsheared reconstruction decoder (DC) instead of the ‘Pose Code’. As expected, this led to a severe degradation in performance with MSE error between the ground truth images C (tap) and unsheared images PC increasing to 0.22, an order of magnitude higher than original of 0.023. Similarly, the SSIM index dropped to only 2% on use of 'Shear Code' to reconstruct PC instead of the original 93% when 'Pose Code' was used.\n\n2) In the similar fashion, we investigated the impact of replacing the ‘Shear Code’ with ‘Pose Code’ to reconstruct the sheared input S. If the network fails to disentangle the latent representation, with ‘Pose Code’ encoding the majority of information regarding both contact geometry and motion-induced shear, then the test metrics (SSIM and MSE error) should remain unchanged. However, the MSE error between S and the sheared output PS increased to 0.1, which is 50 times the original of 0.002 when both 'Pose and Shear Codes' were used to reconstruct PS. The SSIM index showed a similar trend, with the similarity dropping from 99.5% to only 11%. This shows that the ‘Shear Code’ is indeed encoding relevant information required for successful reconstruction of sheared input S. \n\nThe above results demonstrate that the Disentangled UnshearNet successfully disentangles the latent representations as desired. The results of both of these new studies have been included in the manuscript in Appendix D.\nComment: For 3.2.2 Pose-labelled data, the data collection procedure seems very similar to the one for canonical data. Is there a reason for collecting a separate dataset?\n\nResponse: The Pose-labelled data was collected to train PoseNet instead of reusing the previously collected pose data to train Entangled and Disentangled UnshearNet. This was done to ensure that the trained UnshearNet models work despite potential dataset shifts -- due to a host of factors including drift in sensor characteristics over time or with continued use due to wear and tear and any other potentially uncontrolled experimental factors -- and not overfit to training dataset. This has been clarified in the text in the lines 161-164, section 3.2.2.", "role": "user" }, { "content": "Title: Reply to author\nThank you for the response!\nAppreciate the authors for the ablation studies. These experiments make it more convincing for the disentanglement of \"pose\" and \"shear\", and show the effectiveness of the proposed network. I've updated my rating.", "role": "assistant" } ]
1yj7yMTtna
CoRL 2021 Conference
Reviewer_Mhfu
[ { "content": "\nYou are an experienced academic paper reviewer. You will receive a conference paper in the field of computer science or AI. Please analyze the paper content carefully and output your review content.\nMore importantly, the author will further explain or refute the review comments you gave, and you need to further discuss with the author based on the author's response. \nThe purpose of this rebuttal and discussion is:\n- Clarification: During the review process, the reviewer (you) may not accurately understand the contribution or method of the paper due to unclear expression or misunderstanding of certain details. Through rebuttal, the author has the opportunity to clarify these misunderstandings and further illustrate the effectiveness of their innovations or methods.\n- Respond to criticisms and suggestions: The reviewer (you) may make criticisms or suggestions on the paper, and the author can use the discussion session to provide specific responses, explain why certain criticisms may not apply, or how to improve and optimize certain aspects of the paper.\nFinally, you and the author will work together to enhance the persuasiveness of the paper and improve the quality of the paper.\n", "role": "system" }, { "content": "Now your reviewer ID is assigned as Reviewer_Mhfu, and the following are the paper you need to review:\n```<<1yj7yMTtna>>```", "role": "user" }, { "content": "Review Content: summary: The paper describes the framework to produce walking gaits from on board proprioceptive sensors of an off-the-shelf small humanoid robot, by using Distributional Maximum a posteriori Policy Optimization (DMPO) and processing of visual data directly to policy generation. \n\nThe paper highlights that the reinforcement learning training is executed on the robot in real time with visual input data processed through frames with 3-block Resnet networks for the policy and critic networks. \n\nThe experiments show that the robot learns to walk while avoiding collision with the walls, and can benefit from sharing the learning experience with another robot. \n\nstrengths_and_weaknesses: Strengths:\nThe inclusion of proprioceptive sensing provides another venue for the learning of gaits and navigation for humanoid robots.\nThe policy training was realized in real time, so the robot had to be provided with a standing up strategy that allowed it to keep training.\nIt is stated how the vision system improves on the ground truth pose when walls are added, providing evidence of the importance of the vision system.\n\nWeaknesses:\nThe paper lacks a theoretical formulation to support the generality of their learning method. Could the experiments be scaled for more complex bipedal robots?\nThere is little detail about the weights of the reward function or the reinforcement learning action space. \n\nsummary_of_recommendation: The paper requires to be written with a proper formulation of the reinforcement learning algorithm that can be generalized to more complex or different bipedal systems. Also, there are many missing details on the construction and training of the neural networks and their action on the robot. \n\nissues: More mathematical background is required for the formulation and justification of the proposed reinforcement learning method. The idea of using a vision system for the walking gait is relevant, as well as a discussion about the scalability of the method.\nRating: 4 possibly reject, but has redeeming facets\n", "role": "assistant" }, { "content": "Title: Response to reviewer Mhfu\nWe thank the reviewer for their time and insightful feedback.\n\n**Theoretical background**\n\n_The reviewer asks for more theoretical background regarding the RL agent and how this supports the generality of its application._\n\nAs detailed in section 3.3 of the paper, the agent is DMPO [Hoffman 2020] and theoretical details about the agent are available in references [Abdolmaleki 2018] and [Bellemare 2017]. A link to an open-source code for DMPO is on page 4 of the paper. DMPO is a state-of-the-art RL agent that has proven to be applicable to a wide array of continuous state-action space problems and high dimensional action spaces in simulation tasks [Hoffman 2020]. \n\nWe have further emphasized these points in the paper and will add a short overview of the DMPO framework to the appendix. \n\nWe would also like to highlight that the contribution of the present paper is not the algorithm per se, but rather that DMPO can successfully solve a continuous and high-dimensional *real* robotic task, in a distributed and autonomous learning environment.\n\n**Complexity of the robot**\n\n_The reviewer asks whether the algorithm would be applicable to more complex legged robots._\n\nAlthough the robot that we consider in this paper is small in stature, it already has considerable complexity. The robot has 20 degrees of freedom (c.f. 12 DoF for ANYbotics’ ANYmal and 28 DoF for Boston Dynamics’ Atlas). In addition, its actuators and sensors are comparatively low specification and have large delays, which adds further complexity to the control problem. Therefore we believe that our algorithm does scale to other highly complex robots. We thank the reviewer for raising this question, and have added short commentary on this matter to the manuscript.\n\n**Details on the network, training, and rewards**\n\n_The reviewer asks for details on the construction and training of the neural networks._\n\nFigure 2 in the paper provides all network architecture details, and we list all training hyperparameters in Table 2 of the supplementary material. A derivation of the reward is available in Section 4 of the supplementary material together with the weighting of the different reward terms.\n\n**Summary**\n\nWe thank the reviewer for their review and hope that we have been able to answer their questions. We would kindly ask them to let us know if any further details are required in order for them to consider increasing their rating.\n", "role": "user" }, { "content": "Thanks to the authors for their thoughtful response. It answers most of my concerns, and I may raise the score accordingly.", "role": "assistant" } ]
1yj7yMTtna
CoRL 2021 Conference
Reviewer_n7gp
[ { "content": "\nYou are an experienced academic paper reviewer. You will receive a conference paper in the field of computer science or AI. Please analyze the paper content carefully and output your review content.\nMore importantly, the author will further explain or refute the review comments you gave, and you need to further discuss with the author based on the author's response. \nThe purpose of this rebuttal and discussion is:\n- Clarification: During the review process, the reviewer (you) may not accurately understand the contribution or method of the paper due to unclear expression or misunderstanding of certain details. Through rebuttal, the author has the opportunity to clarify these misunderstandings and further illustrate the effectiveness of their innovations or methods.\n- Respond to criticisms and suggestions: The reviewer (you) may make criticisms or suggestions on the paper, and the author can use the discussion session to provide specific responses, explain why certain criticisms may not apply, or how to improve and optimize certain aspects of the paper.\nFinally, you and the author will work together to enhance the persuasiveness of the paper and improve the quality of the paper.\n", "role": "system" }, { "content": "Now your reviewer ID is assigned as Reviewer_n7gp, and the following are the paper you need to review:\n```<<1yj7yMTtna>>```", "role": "user" }, { "content": "Review Content: summary: The paper presents a case study of learning locomotion skills on a small table-top size robot, Darwin OP3. The key achievements include 1) deploying DMPO, a data-efficient off-policy deep RL algorithm, on real robots, 2) training a policy from two robots in different geographic locations, and 3) training a visual policy out of real-world experience. As far as I know, these have not been achieved for real-world robot learning. The authors have demonstrated that the proposed on-robot learning system can train an effective locomotion policy on a small humanoid robot.\nstrengths_and_weaknesses: + The paper demonstrates a practical case study of learning bipedal locomotion from real-world experience.\n+ The paper achieves some state-of-the-art results, such as learning bipedal locomotion, multi-robot learning, or learning visual policies from real-world experience.\n- The techniques in the paper are not too novel (because this is a case study).\n\nsummary_of_recommendation: This is a case study paper that investigates the scenario of deploying deep RL algorithms to on-robot learning environments. In summary, the presented experiments are quite interesting and can serve as a good data point for other researchers. However, we have to admit that the paper does not contain much technical novelty.\n\nThe most impressive result is visual navigation. Although it is hard to say that the robot learns a precise visual navigation skill: rather, the robot seems to estimate the distance to the goal from RGB images and tries to avoid the collision. But I can imagine that visual inputs would also suffer from the sim-to-real gap. It will be great if the authors can highlight the sim-to-real gap a little bit more by comparing simulation-generated images and real observations. It might be pretty obvious, but better to be explicit about it.\n\nAnother interesting contribution is to learn a locomotion skill based on proprioceptive observation. I am a little bit surprised (in both good and bad ways) that it works for real bipedal locomotion. It might be a little bit better if the authors can discuss this issue more. Why can we assume non-slip conditions? I guess locomotion of many small bipedal robots accompanies foot slips. Would it be possible to measure the accuracy of this reward function design by comparing it against the groundtruth mocap data?\n\nI also want to see more discussion about the resetting. Human interventions are also needed when the robot is out of bound (happens very often when the policy is matured) or stuck at the corner. Did you also conduct manual resets in this case? I would suggest the authors describe their approaches. \n\nSimulation results are not presented in the supplemental video. It might be good to include a couple of simulation results as well.\n\nissues: I made most of the suggestions above: please refer to the comments.\nRating: 7 accept, but needs minor improvements\n", "role": "assistant" }, { "content": "Title: Response to reviewer n7gp\nWe thank the reviewer for their interest in our work and their insightful feedback.\n\n**Case study or theoretical advance?**\n\nWe agree with the reviewer that this is indeed a case study. As such the proposed work brings together different state-of-the-art methods in order to tackle the problem of learning bipedal locomotion directly on real hardware. In particular we show that it is possible to learn vision-guided locomotion, from scratch, with minimal instrumentation and intervention, something that has not been achieved before. We believe this is an important demonstration since it pushes the boundaries of what was thought possible with deep RL, and also outlines an angle of attack on the problem of learning dynamic robot behaviour in the wild.\n\n**Sim-to-real gap**\n\n_The reviewer asks us to highlight the visual sim-to-real gap._\n\nThis is indeed an important point, thank you for pointing this out. As also explained in the response to reviewer tDwM we only use simulation for ablations and to coarsely optimize some hyperparameters of our architecture. We do not make an attempt e.g. to match the visual appearance of the simulation environment to the real world. The resulting visual sim2real gap should be clear by comparing the Fig. 3 (simulation environment) with Fig. 1 (real world setup) but is made worse by differences in the camera resolution, varying lighting conditions and motion blur. We will emphasize this more in the manuscript, by including a side-by-side comparison of first person observations of the robot in simulation and the real world.\n\n**No-slip assumption**\n\n_The reviewer is surprised that the no-slip assumption can be employed._\n\nThis issue is discussed in [Hafner 2020], where their main finding is that even when slippage is present, the signal that the reward provides is strong enough to motivate forward locomotion. We can confirm this finding in the present work. Our experience is also that while slippage causes noisy reward, the agent will still achieve forward locomotion when averaging across the collected experience.\n\n**Resets**\n\n_The reviewer asks for more details on the effectiveness of the resets._\n\nThe combination of (1) foam walls and (2) the stand-up controller was very effective in minimizing human intervention. We never had to manually move the robot as the foam walls would prevent it from leaving the workspace and the stand up controller provided by the vendor was always able to initialize the robot to an upright pose. In case a reset would fail, the robot would just try again and complete the stand up reset after at most 2 or 3 tries. Regarding collisions with walls, this would often make the robot fall, which would naturally lead to a randomisation of the initial position for the next episode. Also, as the agent matures, it learns to stay away from the walls. We have added comments on these points to the paper.\n\n**Simulation videos**\n\n_The reviewer asks whether we can include simulation videos._\n\nWe have added videos showing the simulation results. These correspond to the trajectories visualized in Figure 3 of the supplementary material.\n\n**Summary**\n\nWe hope to have answered the reviewer's concern and thank them again for the helpful review.\n", "role": "user" }, { "content": "I appreciate the authors' efforts in addressing my concerns. The authors have answered almost all of my concerns. I stand by my favorable recommendation for this paper.", "role": "assistant" } ]
1yj7yMTtna
CoRL 2021 Conference
Reviewer_tDwM
[ { "content": "\nYou are an experienced academic paper reviewer. You will receive a conference paper in the field of computer science or AI. Please analyze the paper content carefully and output your review content.\nMore importantly, the author will further explain or refute the review comments you gave, and you need to further discuss with the author based on the author's response. \nThe purpose of this rebuttal and discussion is:\n- Clarification: During the review process, the reviewer (you) may not accurately understand the contribution or method of the paper due to unclear expression or misunderstanding of certain details. Through rebuttal, the author has the opportunity to clarify these misunderstandings and further illustrate the effectiveness of their innovations or methods.\n- Respond to criticisms and suggestions: The reviewer (you) may make criticisms or suggestions on the paper, and the author can use the discussion session to provide specific responses, explain why certain criticisms may not apply, or how to improve and optimize certain aspects of the paper.\nFinally, you and the author will work together to enhance the persuasiveness of the paper and improve the quality of the paper.\n", "role": "system" }, { "content": "Now your reviewer ID is assigned as Reviewer_tDwM, and the following are the paper you need to review:\n```<<1yj7yMTtna>>```", "role": "user" }, { "content": "Review Content: summary: This paper presents a system to train bipedal robot policies directly on hardware, with only on robot sensors, including an RGB camera. Result demonstrates that it is possible to train bipedal policies from scratch on hardware, including learning behaviors such as wall avoidance.\nstrengths_and_weaknesses: Pro:\n\n1. Learning bipedal locomotion policies on hardware, with RGB camera as sensors.\n\nCon:\n\n1. A manually defined reset controller is still needed. To truly \"learn from scratch\", it feels like this reset controller should also be learned. And it is not clear how this reset controller should be constructed for larger legged robot. For example, generating a stand up controller for a large quadruped is not trivial (e.h, Learning agile and dynamic motor skills for legged robots, by Hwangbo et al), not to mention a large biped.\n\n2. It feels like using simulation to tune some of the hyper-parameters is still necessary. (Please correct me if I am wrong).\nsummary_of_recommendation: While this paper presents an approach to learn a policy directly on real bipedal robots (and maybe the first one to do so), one could raise the question whether \"learning from scratch\" is actually true.\n\nFirst, a reset mechanism (in this case, a manually constructed controller) is still needed. And given the complexity of the policy structure, it seems like a simulation is still needed to tune hyperparameters before deploying it on the robot, so the claim that \"largely lift the assumption of the availability of a simulation model\" is not completely true. This raises the question, since we already need a simulation anyway, why not warm start from a policy trained in simulation instead of wasting additional efforts by training from scratch?\n\nThat being said, it is still interesting to see a policy can be learned on hardware directly within reasonable amount of time. Allow training on hardware is definitely valuable (wether it is training from scratch or warm starting), and this paper presents a system to do that. And using a simple RGB camera is enough for learning wall avoidance is also a nice contribution.\nissues: 1. It will be interesting to know how much hyperparameter tuning is necessary in simulation before deploying the system on the real robot. e.g, the reward weights, the history length of the observation. It is not clear to me that I can arbitrary choose these parameters (within reasonble ranges) and the system will still work well on the real robot (or simulation). The supplementary material provides ablation on the resnet module, which seems to indicate tuning in simulation is a necessary first step.\nRating: 7 accept, but needs minor improvements\n", "role": "assistant" }, { "content": "Title: Response to reviewer tDwM\nWe thank the reviewer for their time and their critical and constructive comments.\n\n**Requirement for resets**\n\n_The reviewer questions how relying on a manual stand-up controller affects the applicability of the method._\n\nWe fully agree that the stand up behaviour should be learned and this is and will be part of both ongoing and future work. Robot resets do indeed represent a significant challenge for real world robotics RL. In the present work we approach the issue by using an onboard stand-up controller. Given that a significant percentage of robots come with such a stand-up controller, we believe that this is a reasonable temporary simplification. In particular, the present work shows how to address challenges around observations, reward computation, and data efficiency and confirms this with real world experiments. We have added a comment on this matter to the paper.\n\n**Hyperparameter tuning in simulation**\n\n_The reviewer raises concerns around the requirement of a simulator for hyperparameter tuning._\n\nIt is true that a simulated environment is useful for hyperparameter tuning. However, our experience with DMPO suggests that the default hyperparameters work well across many environments (see e.g. [Hoffman 2020]) and only a small-scale hyperparameter tuning is needed in new environments. Thus, tuning only requires an easy-to-obtain simulator which implements the reward function but does not need to accurately model physics. The same applies to tuning the vision architecture: It is conceivable to tune the vision architecture in a completely different environment which does not even contain the robot -- it just needs to capture the expected diversity of visual inputs. This is emphasized by Fig. 3, for instance, which shows the simulation environments that we use for tuning the vision architecture and which are visually very different from the environment in which the robot is eventually deployed in the real world.\n\n**Warm starts**\n\n_The reviewer asks whether warm starts could be used._\n\nWe emphasise that we use an off-the-shelf rigid body dynamics simulator to merely develop a reward function, estimate sample efficiency, and tune the learning algorithm. We believe that the knowledge gained regarding these points transfers to other robots of similar morphologies, and thus the requirement of a simulation model can be lifted when applying our method to other bipedal robots. We also verified that even blind policies trained with a heuristic domain randomisation in sim did not transfer well to the real robot, and we concluded that we would need to invest considerable amount of time into improving the simulation (sophisticated graphics, motion blur, better contact and delay models) as well as into tuning the domain randomisation strategy to make progress with sim2real. Ultimately, we think that sim2real transfer could be useful for pretraining but due to the complexity of the real world we doubt that reinforcement learning directly on the hardware can ever be taken out of the equation, especially in more complex environments. Therefore, it is important to understand how to implement learning directly on the hardware and that is what we chose to study in this paper.\n\n**Summary**\n\nWe hope we have clarified the reviewer's concerns regarding resets and the role of simulation. Please let us know if there are any points you would like us to expand on further.\n", "role": "user" }, { "content": "Title: response to rebuttal\n\"Given that a significant percentage of robots come with such a stand-up controller, we believe that this is a reasonable temporary simplification\"\n\nBy that logic, a significant percentage of robots come with a walking controller as well, why does this paper bother to learn walking at all? To be clear, I am not against learning walking, as indicated by my initial rating of this paper, my argument is just following the logic of the authors' rebuttal. And the authors' rebuttal doesn't address my concern that this paper is not learning a controller \"from scratch\", as claimed in the paper.\n\n\"tuning\"\n\nA lot of things need to be tuned here. I believe the claim that hyperparameters for the learning algorithms, architecture need minimal tuning, but what about the reward function? I have no problem with the claims that no accurate simulation model is needed, but still your simulation needs to be approximately close to your robot to tune your reward function, etc. Unless the authors are able to show that keeping everthing the same, this framework can work for other robots, even in simulation.\n\n\"it is important to understand how to implement learning directly on the hardware and that is what we chose to study in this paper\"\n\nI am not disputing the merit of implementing learning directly on the hardware, as indicated by my original rating. I am just disputing the merit of learning from scratch on hardware (with emphasis on \"scratch\" here). Currently the paper is neither completely \"learning from scratch\" nor utilizing some form of warm starting. To show benefits of learning from scratch, I will suggest using warm starting and show that warm starting actually lower the final performance on hardware (similar to alphazero is better than alphago because it doesn't wam start with imitating human players).\n\n", "role": "assistant" }, { "content": "Title: Response to comments\nThank you for your fast reply. Please find below our response to your three comments.\n\n### Re. learning from scratch:\nThank you for pointing this out. We agree that the term “from scratch” is not well defined. We removed it from the paper and now we only refer to our method as learning directly on hardware. Our use of “from scratch” is consistent with prior work where it was used to describe model-free reinforcement learning on hardware even if it required scripted resets or other prior knowledge (see e.g. [1, 2]), but you are right that it is better to avoid such ambiguous wording. We hope that this addresses your concerns.\n\n[1] Haarnoja et al., 2018, Learning to walk via deep reinforcement learning\n\n[2] Riedmiller et al., 2018, Learning by playing-solving sparse reward tasks from scratch\n\n### Re. tuning and simulation:\nThe walking component of the reward is based on kinematics and has no free parameters. It was applied to other robot morphologies in Hafner et al. 2020. The two reward hyperparameters are the relative weights of the upright and “don’t turn” rewards, and we agree that simulation is needed for tuning these. However, we stress that essentially any simulation which respects rigid body dynamics and has an approximate contact model is sufficient (the contact dynamics don’t need to match the real system, e.g. we made no attempt to match the friction in simulation). Such approximate rigid body simulators are widely available so we believe it is reasonable to use them for visualization and basic tuning.\n\n### Re. warm-starting:\nWe apologize if our previous response has caused confusion. We did not mean to dispute the value of warmstarting.\n\nAlthough we do think that minimizing the prior knowledge that a learning system requires is a goal that we should strive for, we do not claim that our current approach achieves this goal, nor do we claim that it is the right objective in every situation. Indeed, warmstarting from a simulation is a direction that we are actively investigating.\n\nThe goal of the present paper is to study how to achieve efficient learning directly on hardware with as little instrumentation of the environment as possible. This question is orthogonal to the question of whether and how learning on the hardware can be accelerated via warm-starting. Considering that warmstarting comes with its own algorithmic complications we believe that it makes methodologically sense to investigate this question separately using an algorithm with fewer knobs. Hence the focus of the present paper.\n", "role": "user" }, { "content": "Title: keep score unchange\nThe authors' response addresses most of my concerns and I am keeping my (positive) rating unchanged.", "role": "assistant" } ]
2NcPgLa7yqD
CoRL 2021 Conference
Reviewer_3URa
[ { "content": "\nYou are an experienced academic paper reviewer. You will receive a conference paper in the field of computer science or AI. Please analyze the paper content carefully and output your review content.\nMore importantly, the author will further explain or refute the review comments you gave, and you need to further discuss with the author based on the author's response. \nThe purpose of this rebuttal and discussion is:\n- Clarification: During the review process, the reviewer (you) may not accurately understand the contribution or method of the paper due to unclear expression or misunderstanding of certain details. Through rebuttal, the author has the opportunity to clarify these misunderstandings and further illustrate the effectiveness of their innovations or methods.\n- Respond to criticisms and suggestions: The reviewer (you) may make criticisms or suggestions on the paper, and the author can use the discussion session to provide specific responses, explain why certain criticisms may not apply, or how to improve and optimize certain aspects of the paper.\nFinally, you and the author will work together to enhance the persuasiveness of the paper and improve the quality of the paper.\n", "role": "system" }, { "content": "Now your reviewer ID is assigned as Reviewer_3URa, and the following are the paper you need to review:\n```<<2NcPgLa7yqD>>```", "role": "user" }, { "content": "Review Content: summary: The paper proposes an approach for simulating optical tactile sensors using depth imaging and approximation with rigid body dynamics. Subsequently, real2sim image translation is utilized to enable policy transfer from simulation to reality. The approach is validated on a suite of tactile RL environments such as edge/surface following and object rolling/pushing/balancing.\nstrengths_and_weaknesses: Strengths: the paper proposes a novel and practical approach to bridging the sim2real gap when using optical tactile sensors. The idea of using image translation appears straightforward and useful. The evaluation is thorough, and the source code is provided. The proposed method can be applied to a whole family of optical tactile sensors, making it interesting to a broader community. The suit of tasks proposed in the paper can serve as a basis for future tactile control benchmarks.\n\nWeaknesses: writing can be improved\ni) Provide a succinct and self-contained description of the complete approach, e.g., via a diagram or an algorithm box. One can reconstruct roughly what the algorithm is but it would help the reader to see it at once and formulated in a concrete manner.\nii) In general, sections seem hanging independently and there is a lack of cohesive narrative in the paper. It reads a bit like a lab report. Adding some connecting sentences and an overarching narrative would improve the flow.\nsummary_of_recommendation: The idea of simulating tactile features using depth images and rigid body dynamics with subsequent image translation is proposed and evaluated. Tactile non-prehensile manipulation tasks are used to evaluate the method. The idea is good and the evaluation is well-executed. The results suggest that the method is viable. Limitations and directions for future work are discussed in detail. This paper may serve as the basis for further investigations into simulation and control based on optical tactile sensors.\nissues: See weaknesses above\nRating: 9 strong accept, excellent work\n", "role": "assistant" }, { "content": "Title: Response to Reviewer-3URa\nWe thank the reviewer for their advice and endorsement of the paper. \n\n**Strengths:**\n\nThank you - we agree that the approach is both novel and practical. Also, we intend that the proposed tasks could serve as a benchmark for tactile robotics in general and would be happy to share code/CAD/other materials to help facilitate other groups use this as a platform for comparison. \n\n**Weaknesses:** \n\nIn response to point “i) Provide a succinct and self-contained description of the complete approach, e.g., via a diagram” we have re-made Figure 1 to give an overview of the full approach. We hope that this will give the reader an initial overview and therefore improve clarity across the paper. \n\nIn response to “ii) In general, sections seem hanging independently and there is a lack of cohesive narrative in the paper,” we have made additional effort to improve readability throughout the work, in particular for section 5 as encouraged by reviewer 3Knc, and to the related work section encouraged by the AC. Due to us being at the limits of allowed space, and that most reviewers found the paper generally clear, changes outside of these sections have been relatively minor. ", "role": "user" }, { "content": "I appreciate the authors' efforts in addressing my concerns. It adequately addresses the points I raised. I uphold my recommendation to accept this paper.", "role": "assistant" } ]
2NcPgLa7yqD
CoRL 2021 Conference
Reviewer_7RPs
[ { "content": "\nYou are an experienced academic paper reviewer. You will receive a conference paper in the field of computer science or AI. Please analyze the paper content carefully and output your review content.\nMore importantly, the author will further explain or refute the review comments you gave, and you need to further discuss with the author based on the author's response. \nThe purpose of this rebuttal and discussion is:\n- Clarification: During the review process, the reviewer (you) may not accurately understand the contribution or method of the paper due to unclear expression or misunderstanding of certain details. Through rebuttal, the author has the opportunity to clarify these misunderstandings and further illustrate the effectiveness of their innovations or methods.\n- Respond to criticisms and suggestions: The reviewer (you) may make criticisms or suggestions on the paper, and the author can use the discussion session to provide specific responses, explain why certain criticisms may not apply, or how to improve and optimize certain aspects of the paper.\nFinally, you and the author will work together to enhance the persuasiveness of the paper and improve the quality of the paper.\n", "role": "system" }, { "content": "Now your reviewer ID is assigned as Reviewer_7RPs, and the following are the paper you need to review:\n```<<2NcPgLa7yqD>>```", "role": "user" }, { "content": "Review Content: summary: This paper proposes an efficient method to simulate tactile images and show that RL policies trained within the simulation can transfer to real-world settings with an learned image-to-image translation module that approximately turns real-world image into simulated image. The results are demonstrated on several tasks defined by the authors.\n\nstrengths_and_weaknesses: **Strengths**: \n- The paper is well-written and organized. Each section has very clear paragraphs that summarize both the motivations and design decisions.\n- The sim-to-real results are encouraging. As collecting tactile images can be very time-consuming in the real world, successful sim-to-real results can encourage more people to explore this direction.\n- The released simulation and benchmark can be very useful for the community.\n\n**Weaknesses**: \n- (Nitpicking) no major novelty is proposed. Image-to-image translation for sim2real has been explored in more complicated domains (e.g., vision), so showing that the same technique works for tactile is generally less surprising.\n\nsummary_of_recommendation: I recommend accepting the paper because to the best of my knowledge, this is the first paper that presents results on successful sim-to-real tactile-based policy with *domain adaptation*. Additionally, the paper is well-written and the experiments show real-world results.\n\nissues: - May authors clarify what does blue represent in Figure 6? It’s not shown in the legend.\nRating: 7 accept, but needs minor improvements\n", "role": "assistant" }, { "content": "Title: Response to Reviewer-7RPs\nWe thank the reviewer for their time spent reviewing and constructive comments. \n\n**Strengths:** \n\nThank you for recognizing these contributions of our work. \n\n**Weaknesses:**\n\nAs discussed in response to the AC, there is novelty in modifying an approach from the computer vision community to apply to tasks using tactile sensing, as we appreciate you recognize. For a full response on novelty, we refer to the answer we gave the AC above on ‘Originality’ \n\nIn our view, there is novelty in the full approach that includes simulating a tactile sensor, creating a suite of tasks to demonstrate performance, performing matching dataset collection, validating that the approach works and highlighting areas where tactile data may have advantages when compared with vision. We hope that this will be of value to the community. \n\n**Issues:**\n\nClarification on Blue in Figure 6: The blue-red gradient is just used to help visualize the 3d shape of the spherical surface. The error bars indicate the colour of each quiver plot which corresponds to the amount of error between the ground truth and sensor position/orientation. For clarity, we have amended the figure to have a colourless representation of 3d shape. ", "role": "user" }, { "content": "Thanks to the authors for their clarification. It satisfactorily addresses the major issues I had. I remain supportive of my positive recommendation for this paper.", "role": "assistant" } ]
2NcPgLa7yqD
CoRL 2021 Conference
Reviewer_3knc
[ { "content": "\nYou are an experienced academic paper reviewer. You will receive a conference paper in the field of computer science or AI. Please analyze the paper content carefully and output your review content.\nMore importantly, the author will further explain or refute the review comments you gave, and you need to further discuss with the author based on the author's response. \nThe purpose of this rebuttal and discussion is:\n- Clarification: During the review process, the reviewer (you) may not accurately understand the contribution or method of the paper due to unclear expression or misunderstanding of certain details. Through rebuttal, the author has the opportunity to clarify these misunderstandings and further illustrate the effectiveness of their innovations or methods.\n- Respond to criticisms and suggestions: The reviewer (you) may make criticisms or suggestions on the paper, and the author can use the discussion session to provide specific responses, explain why certain criticisms may not apply, or how to improve and optimize certain aspects of the paper.\nFinally, you and the author will work together to enhance the persuasiveness of the paper and improve the quality of the paper.\n", "role": "system" }, { "content": "Now your reviewer ID is assigned as Reviewer_3knc, and the following are the paper you need to review:\n```<<2NcPgLa7yqD>>```", "role": "user" }, { "content": "Review Content: summary: In this work, the authors propose a method for successful sim-to-real transfer of manipulation policies utilizing tactile perception for a common type of optical tactile sensors. More specifically the authors present: \n- A simple and fast simulation method for tactile sensors, where contact geometry is represented as depth images;\n- Data driven algorithm to translate current state of a real tactile sensor to state of tactile sensors in simulation.\n- Successful results of learning various manipulation policies utilizing tactile perception in simulation.\n- Successful zero-shot sim-to-real transferability of the learned policies in majority of tasks.\n\nstrengths_and_weaknesses: Strengths:\n- The paper is well organized. It is interesting to read and simple to follow.\n- The paper tackles problems on the intersection of two important topics: tactile perception and sim-to-real transfer. \n- The paper proposes a method that can find practical applications in various real world settings. Successful results strongly support the applicability of the approach.\n\nWeaknesses:\n- It seems that the method would work well with just certain types (albeit a quite popular set) of tactile sensors. It will likely fail with more complex sensors, such as BioTac. Overall, it is important to demonstrate what specific sensors it can and cannot work to see the limitations of the approach. \n- The method requires a separate procedure to learn real-to-sim mapping of the sensory data models. It is a bit hard to grasp from the description in the paper how complicated is the setup for such data collection? \n- As far as I understood, the paper does not strongly demonstrate sim-to-real generalization toward strong variation of the tasks themselves. Can it follow new contours and edge shapes? Push various types of objects? Roll other objects (at least various sizes). It does seem like the simulated scene of the setup should match parameters of the actual experiment, which may, in some cases, limit applicability of the approach.\n\nsummary_of_recommendation: Despite moderate scientific contribution and not overwhelming scope, this is a well written and interesting work that can find its applications. I am recommending “weak accept”.\nissues: The authors mentioned a possible cause of oscillations and several potential solutions to eliminate action range clipping in the policies. It would be interesting to have an investigation of these effects, as well as more extensive investigation of generalization capabilities of the approach.\nRating: 7 accept, but needs minor improvements\n", "role": "assistant" }, { "content": "Title: Response to Reviewer-3knc\nWe thank the reviewer for their constructive comments and recognition of its value. \n\n**Strengths:**\n\nWe are pleased to hear you find the work interesting and recognize the applicability of the approach. \n\n**Weaknesses:** \n\nApplicability to alternate sensors: \n\nThe simulation was intended to be notably different from the real sensor (depth-based vs marker-based). This had two advantages 1) it allowed for a simple method of simulation and 2) it demonstrated that the domain adaption approach could be used to bridge a large sim2real gap in the tactile domain. We believe that this increases its viability across a range of tactile sensors. We also believe that the type of simulated tactile images most closely relate to optical tactile sensors, including the Soft-Bubble sensor (Kuppuswamy et al 2020), those of Gelsight-type, and marker-based optical tactile sensors such as the TacTip used here. \n\nIn principle, we see no reason why the proposed data-driven domain adaption approach would not work for electromechanical tactile sensors such as the BioTac. That said, there are key differences from optical tactile sensors – for example, the BioTac is multimodal with 19 electrodes giving its spatial resolution, whereas optical tactile sensors are typically unimodal with spatial resolution over thousands to millions of pixels, much of which is likely redundant for many tasks. To not overclaim, we have limited statements made in the work to optical tactile sensors, which we believe is justified by the difference between simulated and real tactile data. We hope that our work would also transfer to sensors such as the BioTac, which labs with access to that technology could explore. \n\nComplexities of Data Collection:\n\nWe have added some information to section 5.1 to clarify how difficult the data collection stage was. We use a static environment comprised of 3d printed components to represent the tactile stimulus a sensor is likely to receive when evaluated in an environment. The 3d printed components can also be easily loaded into simulation for collecting the corresponding simulated images. For each task, the environment can be broken down into relatively simple stimuli such as flat surfaces, straight edges and spherical probes. As noted in the paper, care is required to ensure shear invariance and was necessary for strong evaluation performance. In terms of time taken for data collection: on the real robot, collection of 5000 tactile images for training took between 3 and 5 hours dependent on the procedure; in simulation this took <100 seconds. \n\nDemonstrating sim-to-real generalization: \n\nWe have clarified this further in the text. For most tasks, we do find some generalization: \n\n- Edge following is trained in an environment with straight edges and right-angle corners but when evaluated can navigate rounded edges and sharp internal/external angles both in sim and real. \n\n- Surface following shows generalisation across surface texture and frictional properties that are present in reality but not modelled in sim. The undulating stimulus and 3d-printed stimuli have quite different frictional properties, which will affect sensor shear. \n\n- Object rolling is trained across bearings of size 5mm to 10mm at varying depths. This is shown to extend to a range of 2mm to 8mm during evaluation both on real hardware and in sim. \n\n- Object pushing is trained only with a cube object but evaluated with several different shapes. This shows some generalisation across rounded vs flat contacts, small changes in mass and varying frictional properties. As noted in the paper this was the most sensitive environment. \n\nOne of the reasons for choosing end-to-end learning via RL as a pipeline in this project is for its ability to scale and generalise. Future work could make full use of large-scale data available in simulation, and in principle learn far more general policies. \n\n**Issues:**\n\nOscillations and potential solutions: \n\nAs this problem is common across many applications of RL (Bohez et al. [32]) and was not a major issue for the present work, we view it as an orthogonal direction of research and not necessary to explore within the scope of the present work. ", "role": "user" }, { "content": "Thank you for the detailed response from the authors. The authors have answered almost all of my concerns. I continue to recommend this work for acceptance.", "role": "assistant" } ]
2NcPgLa7yqD
CoRL 2021 Conference
Reviewer_Cj9a
[ { "content": "\nYou are an experienced academic paper reviewer. You will receive a conference paper in the field of computer science or AI. Please analyze the paper content carefully and output your review content.\nMore importantly, the author will further explain or refute the review comments you gave, and you need to further discuss with the author based on the author's response. \nThe purpose of this rebuttal and discussion is:\n- Clarification: During the review process, the reviewer (you) may not accurately understand the contribution or method of the paper due to unclear expression or misunderstanding of certain details. Through rebuttal, the author has the opportunity to clarify these misunderstandings and further illustrate the effectiveness of their innovations or methods.\n- Respond to criticisms and suggestions: The reviewer (you) may make criticisms or suggestions on the paper, and the author can use the discussion session to provide specific responses, explain why certain criticisms may not apply, or how to improve and optimize certain aspects of the paper.\nFinally, you and the author will work together to enhance the persuasiveness of the paper and improve the quality of the paper.\n", "role": "system" }, { "content": "Now your reviewer ID is assigned as Reviewer_Cj9a, and the following are the paper you need to review:\n```<<2NcPgLa7yqD>>```", "role": "user" }, { "content": "Review Content: summary: This paper applies sim2real RL policies for several real-world robotic tasks that benefit from tactile sensing. The authors show that PPO can successfully solve the tactile tasks in simulation. To bridge the sim2real gap for policy transfer, the authors apply real2sim using GAN, which transforms complex marker arrays to simulated contact depth. Evaluation is done in both simulation and real environments. The authors plan to open-source the tactile simulator and environment for TacTip, which can benefit future research. \nstrengths_and_weaknesses: Strengths:\n\n- The paper is clear and easy to follow.\n- It is novel to apply GAN to bridge the real2sim gap for tactile signals. The authors put extra consideration to disentangle the influence of shear force for better real2sim.\n- It is appreciated for evaluating the RL policy for both simulated and real environments and comparing the performance of different modalities in simulation.\n- Supplementary video demonstrates well the performance of the system in simulation & real environments.\n- The codes are planned for open-sourcing.\n\nWeaknesses:\n\n- For the proposed tasks, feeding a low-dimensional contact state (like contact center position and major contact orientation) combined with simple PID controllers seems to be sufficient enough to solve the tasks. The whole pipeline of RL and GAN seems to be solving simplified problems. \n- Among the tasks, the pushing task is the most challenging and interesting one, since it has to deal with objects with unknown dynamics. But there is no clear evidence that the proposed method is better than any baseline or intelligent/robust to uncertainties in the real world scenario. It is suggested to add some disturbance to study how robust the system is.\n\nsummary_of_recommendation: The authors put good effort to push towards benchmark and sim2real policy transfer for tactile robotic tasks. It’s novel to apply GAN for tactile signals to bridge the real2sim gap, and the framework can potentially benefit many future works. Evaluations on simulation and real-world are appreciated. It can be further improved with some more challenging tasks, comparing the system with baseline control policies in the real world, and studying how intelligent/robust the system is under disturbances.\n\nissues: As stated in the Weaknesses:\n- For the proposed tasks, feeding a low-dimensional contact state (like contact center position and major contact orientation) combined with simple PID controllers seems to be sufficient enough to solve the tasks. The whole pipeline of RL and GAN seems to be solving simplified problems. \n- Among the tasks, the pushing task is the most challenging and interesting one, since it has to deal with objects with unknown dynamics. But there is no clear evidence that the proposed method is better than any baseline or intelligent/robust to uncertainties in the real world scenario. It is suggested to add some disturbance to study how robust the system is.\nRating: 9 strong accept, excellent work\n", "role": "assistant" }, { "content": "Title: Response to Reviewer-Cj9a\nWe thank the reviewer for their endorsement and insightful comments. \n\n**Strengths:**\n\nThank you for recognizing the value of these contributions of this work. \n\n**Weaknesses:**\n\nPipeline of RL and GAN seems to be solving simplified problems: \n\nIn this work we chose to use RL for its general applicability and potential to scale with observation and task complexity. Additionally, we found other advantages to the choice of RL such as having a single general method that can be applied across several tasks with minimal change simplifying implementation and learning from scratch inputting less bias into the system. \n\nIn our opinion, it made sense to verify that an approach will work initially on relatively simple problems (in comparison with e.g. dexterous manipulation). With that said, each task does contain some complexities and we wouldn’t describe them as simple. \n\nSufficiency of low-dimensional contact state: \n\nThis is an interesting point, we agree that a low dimensional contact state will be able to solve some of these tasks, particularly in simulation. With this approach, there remains the issue of transferring to the real domain, which will likely require either a) a method to predict contact position/force/normal through calibration with a force torque sensor or b) a method to predict the contact state given by simulation. For method b) an approach similar to what we presented here could be applicable, although modified to work with lower dimensional data in place of images. As more information is captured with contact geometry (which implicitly contains contact location and force), we deemed it more practical to directly learn this mapping. \n\nDisturbance study on pushing task: \n\nWe agree that of tasks evaluated on the real robot the pushing task was the most challenging. As mentioned in the paper the results were sensitive to initial conditions, we additionally mention perturbations in the revised version. Additionally, we give some suggestions of future methods that could improve robustness to perturbations and sensitivity to initial conditions (“Future work could improve robustness by learning under additional dynamics randomisation, introduction of random force perturbations or by better matching the physical properties of the real objects.”). ", "role": "user" }, { "content": "Title: Post-Rebuttal Comment\nI thank the authors for their response.\nThe responses make sense. Looking forward to future works for extending the method for various complex manipulation tasks!", "role": "assistant" } ]
2WivNtnaFzx
CoRL 2021 Conference
Reviewer_z3Gb
[ { "content": "\nYou are an experienced academic paper reviewer. You will receive a conference paper in the field of computer science or AI. Please analyze the paper content carefully and output your review content.\nMore importantly, the author will further explain or refute the review comments you gave, and you need to further discuss with the author based on the author's response. \nThe purpose of this rebuttal and discussion is:\n- Clarification: During the review process, the reviewer (you) may not accurately understand the contribution or method of the paper due to unclear expression or misunderstanding of certain details. Through rebuttal, the author has the opportunity to clarify these misunderstandings and further illustrate the effectiveness of their innovations or methods.\n- Respond to criticisms and suggestions: The reviewer (you) may make criticisms or suggestions on the paper, and the author can use the discussion session to provide specific responses, explain why certain criticisms may not apply, or how to improve and optimize certain aspects of the paper.\nFinally, you and the author will work together to enhance the persuasiveness of the paper and improve the quality of the paper.\n", "role": "system" }, { "content": "Now your reviewer ID is assigned as Reviewer_z3Gb, and the following are the paper you need to review:\n```<<2WivNtnaFzx>>```", "role": "user" }, { "content": "Review Content: summary: This paper proposes a perception model, SimNet, that leverages learned stereo matching to predict keypoints, oriented bounding boxes, and segmentation while only using low-quality simulation data during training. The authors perform extensive experiments in both indoor and outdoor environments and show that the proposed method can achieve better performance compared to monocular, depth-only, or RGB-D input.\n\nstrengths_and_weaknesses: **Strengths**: \n- The motivation is clear and sound.\n- The technical presentation is clear.\n- The experiments on the real world data of different domains show that the proposed method is versatile.\n\n**Weaknesses**: \n- To me, the major contribution of the paper is unclear. \n - The authors didn’t explain why they had to design Stereo Cost Volume Networks (SCVN, Section 3.1). Is it a better learned stereo matcher compared to existing works listed in Section 2.3? Can authors replace it with an existing work? If so, does the performance of other heads (e.g., keypoints, segmentation) change?\n - How important is the disparity auxiliary loss (line 169-174)? The authors didn’t ablate SimNet to show its importance. In the supplementary material, Table 5 seems to indicate that incorporating this loss doesn’t improve other baselines much.\n - The second contribution indicates “the first network to enable single-shot prediction of 3D oriented bounding boxes of unknown objects”. Are there two-stage approaches? If so, how do SimNet’s accuracy, runtime, and memory consumption compare to them?\n - Line 71 “(iii) stereo vision experiments on simulated and real home scenes with annotations for oriented bounding boxes, segmentation masks, depth images, and keypoints” -> I don’t think running experiments on these known tasks itself is a contribution.\n\n- Experiments:\n - Line 72 indicates that one of the contribution is “(iv) experiments on the KITTI stereo vision benchmark dataset that suggest that the network transfers significantly better than standard domain randomization and naive stereo concatenation” -> How does it compare to other state-of-the-arts (SOTAs) for 2D car detection that also report results on the same benchmark? Additionally, reporting results on other tasks will help readers understand the potentials and limitations of SimNet. As SimNet can perform segmentation and disparity prediction too, can authors show results on those tasks and compare to published methods on KITTI?\n - As SimNet is a multi-task framework, do these tasks help each other? I think the authors can ablate the tasks used to train SimNet to inform readers whether multi-task learning helps or hurts the performance in this case.\n - Line 108 the authors mentioned that the approach is comparable to Xie et al. [6], can you show the compared performance on segmentation?\n\nsummary_of_recommendation: I recommend rejecting the paper because 1) the ambiguous contribution of the paper and 2) the lack of experiments (see my comments above). I think authors need to perform a series of ablation studies to justify the design of the pipeline. Additionally, comparing SimNet to published works on famous benchmarks (e.g., KITTI) for tasks such as segmentation and disparity is important for readers to understand how mature SimNet is. Lastly, an ablation study on the number of downstream tasks to train on is important for readers to understand how it affects the peroformance.\n\nissues: **Major**:\n- Show results to justify why designing SCVN is necessary. For example, does it perform better than published learned stereo matchers for disparity prediction? Does it lead to better downstream tasks performances compared to published learned stereo matchers?\n- Show ablation study of the disparity auxiliary loss (line 169-174).\n- If there are two-stage approaches that predict “3D oriented bounding boxes of unknown objects” compare SimNet’s accuracy, runtime, and memory consumption to them.\n- Show disparity prediction and segmentation results on KITTI. Compare the results to other published learning-based methods for readers to understand how does SimNet compared to others.\n- Study whether the multi-task nature of SimNet helps/hurts the performance.\n- Compare the segmentation results to Xie et al. [6].\n\n**Minor**:\n- Line 264, Figure 6 only exists in the supplementary material but authors didn’t mention it.\n- Line 247, “different, real homes” -> “different real homes”.\n- In Figure 4 & 5, both the depth and the disparity are too small for readers to scrutinize. I think showing less examples while explicitly pointing out why SimNet is better would help readers a lot.\nRating: 4 possibly reject, but has redeeming facets\n", "role": "assistant" }, { "content": "Title: Clarification of Approach and Additional Experiments\n>> The authors didn’t explain why they had to design Stereo Cost Volume Networks (SCVN, Section 3.1). \n\nThe focus of this work is on approaches that work well for sim-to-real transfer and not achieving highly accurate disparity predictions. In light of this, we tried to examine an architecture that enabled robust transfer but didn’t require computationally expensive operations such as 4D feature volumes or 3D convolutional operations. \n\nWe found that SCVN can enable reliable extraction of geometric features via explicit feature comparisons across the scan-line. Naive concatenation of left and right stereo images wasn’t as robust for transfer in our ablation on KITTI. In the Appendix, we provide an evaluation of 8 additional sim-to-real techniques (Table 5), and in this revision we have additionally added two more ablations of the SCVN architecture in Tables 1 and 4.\n\n>> How important is the disparity auxiliary loss (line 169-174)? \n\nThis is a great suggestion, and we have updated Table 4 to include this ablation for SimNet + SCVNs. Please see the SCVN ablations on the KITTI benchmark. The auxiliary loss was very important for high accuracy results. The auxiliary loss seems essential when trying to learn geometric features. Regarding Table 5, we use a depth auxiliary loss on non-SimNet architectures, however since the geometry isn’t being learned the refinement step doesn’t seem to help transfer. \n\n>> The second contribution indicates “the first network to enable single-shot prediction of 3D oriented bounding boxes of unknown objects”. \n\nWe believe that SimNet is the first to predict OBBs directly from the network output. An alternative approach to direct OBB prediction is to segment out the object with an instance mask detector and then to compute PCA on the resulting point cloud for an object. However, the two-stage approach is an approximation, since it can’t reason about the whole object (e.g., of the back of the object, which is unobserved) and therefore the OBBs have inaccurate depth. \n\nIn the paper we show a simple modification to an existing absolute pose loss (see MobilePose [41]) which can enable OBB prediction of objects, We consider this a minor contribution of the paper compared to our proposed sim-to-real technique. \n\n>> Line 72 indicates that one of the contribution is “(iv) experiments on the KITTI stereo vision benchmark dataset that suggest that the network transfers significantly better than standard domain randomization and naive stereo concatenation” \n\nThank you for pointing this out. The aim of this paper is to present a sim-to-real approach, and to only use synthetic data for training. The traditional KITTI benchmarks use real-world training data and are not focused, as this paper is, on sim-to-real transfer. Other comparable approaches that do sim-to-real transfer [28] have evaluated their sim-to-real approaches on the 2-D car prediction component of KITTI, which is what we did in this paper. Although they did not release code or data to compare against, the monocular result in Table 4 is a similar sim-to-real technique as that in [28].\n\nWe are not claiming that our approach would beat state-of-the-art using real-world data on KITTI. We used this experiment as an ablation over our SVCN sim-to-real technique to illustrate the performance improvements of our transfer algorithm relative to other sim-to-real variants (i.e. naive concatenation and monocular DR). \n\n>> As SimNet is a multi-task framework, do these tasks help each other? \n\nThis is a perceptive comment, and we have now added an additional experiment to study this. Our aim in creating a single multi-task framework is to enable the addition of new outputs easily and scalably. In this revision, we have modified the paper to describe the segmentation and full-res disparity prediction as optional heads (Section 3.3) and added an additional ablation study in Table 1 on our indoor scene dataset. \n\nWe found no significant performance difference (i.e. <0.03 mAP) when training without all the auxiliary losses, but still including the standard auxiliary disparity loss. As a result, we see that single task learning is just as effective.\nWe apologize for the confusion it caused having them in our paper. Our aim was to showcase the ease of multi-head training with densely annotated synthetic datasets, however it's clear that caused significant confusion. \n\n>> Line 108 the authors mentioned that the approach is comparable to Xie et al. [4], can you show the compared performance on segmentation?\n\nAs stated for the meta-reviewer, a two-shot sim-to-real approach similar to Xie et al was evaluated in Section B.1.8 and the results are in Table 5 (Appendix). Table 1 also now has a comparative result to Xie et al (RGB-D Seq). The evaluation is on the OBB prediction head for our indoor scene dataset. A direct comparison is not possible because the instance mask segmentation datasets used in [4] didn’t have stereo data.\n", "role": "user" }, { "content": "Title: Reviewer Response \nHello, thank you for the clarification! \n\nI am still concerned about the contribution with respect to the model architecture.\n\n> In light of this, we tried to examine an architecture that enabled robust transfer but didn’t require computationally expensive operations such as 4D feature volumes or 3D convolutional operations.\n\nTo support this claim, I think authors need to try existing model architectures for the stereo matching and report accuracy/speed trade-off before designing a new model architecture. As this is claimed to be the major contribution of the paper, I will keep my original score. ", "role": "assistant" }, { "content": "Title: Clarification on Stereo Architecture\nWe thank the reviewer for their final opinion. \n\nTo clarify a point, our choice in stereo architecture was a standard stereo network architecture. It is based on DispNet-C[15], which consists of two feature extractors fed into a 1D correlation cost-volume (i.e. SVCN) which is processed by a series of convolutions and then predicts disparity. Given that DispNet-C was published in 2016, we chose to update the architecture with more modern feature extractors (i.e. ResNets), which is commonly supported in training libraries (e.g. pytorch, tensorflow). We apologize for the confusion and will try to update the paper to make it more clear where our architecture came from. \n\nOur main contribution is showing the addition of a stereo network without “bells and whistles”' can enable robust sim-to-real transfer of high-level vision tasks from low quality synthetic data. We feel this is a significant contribution because it demonstrates a very promising way to approach sim-to-real transfer compared to RGB-D baselines. \n\nHowever, we agree with the reviewer that this might not be the optimal way to learn geometric features for transfer and other stereo networks should be considered with respect to speed/accuracy tradeoffs. In light of this, we hope that by releasing our indoor scenes stereo datasets and training code, more research into this topic can be explored by the community.\n", "role": "user" }, { "content": "I truly enjoyed the above exchange with the author, which has added considerable value to this work.", "role": "assistant" } ]
2WivNtnaFzx
CoRL 2021 Conference
Reviewer_o8ha
[ { "content": "\nYou are an experienced academic paper reviewer. You will receive a conference paper in the field of computer science or AI. Please analyze the paper content carefully and output your review content.\nMore importantly, the author will further explain or refute the review comments you gave, and you need to further discuss with the author based on the author's response. \nThe purpose of this rebuttal and discussion is:\n- Clarification: During the review process, the reviewer (you) may not accurately understand the contribution or method of the paper due to unclear expression or misunderstanding of certain details. Through rebuttal, the author has the opportunity to clarify these misunderstandings and further illustrate the effectiveness of their innovations or methods.\n- Respond to criticisms and suggestions: The reviewer (you) may make criticisms or suggestions on the paper, and the author can use the discussion session to provide specific responses, explain why certain criticisms may not apply, or how to improve and optimize certain aspects of the paper.\nFinally, you and the author will work together to enhance the persuasiveness of the paper and improve the quality of the paper.\n", "role": "system" }, { "content": "Now your reviewer ID is assigned as Reviewer_o8ha, and the following are the paper you need to review:\n```<<2WivNtnaFzx>>```", "role": "user" }, { "content": "Review Content: summary: This paper presents an architecture to predict object segmentation, oriented bounding boxes, keypoints and disparity from stereo RGB images provided as input. The training data is purely synthetic, generated in simulation via domain randomization. The trained system enables manipulation of objects in the real world, including transparent and reflective objects as well as non-rigid objects such as t-shirts. It can also achieve 2D car detection, as shown in experiments involving the KITTI benchmark.\nstrengths_and_weaknesses: Strengths:\n- Surprising performance in manipulation of transparent, reflective and non-rigid objects.\n\nWeaknesses:\n- A few elements can be better explained to increase the clarity of the paper.\nsummary_of_recommendation: This work achieves remarkable results in manipulating challenging objects (transparent, reflective, non-rigid).\n\nThe release of their dataset is also a significant contribution.\nissues: Figure 2: \"The output of the SCVN is a low resolution disparity image fed in with features from the left image to a ResNet-FPN backbone and output prediction heads\" --> can the authors please better explain what are the features from the left image? How are they obtained?\n\nCan the authors please explain the dimensionalities Wo/8 X Ho/8 X 16, Wo/8 X Ho/8 and Wo/8 X Ho/8 X 6? This is in subsection \"Oriented Boundin Boxes\". It's not clear to this reviewer why the oriented bounding boxes prediction leads to these shapes.\n\nTypos:\n\n- The second component and a core contribution SimNet (Figure 2) --> contribution of\n- However, the robot is only able grasp 35% of the “hard” objects with the RGB-D network --> able to grasp\n- we can learn robust “low-level” features like disparity than enable sim2real transfer of “high-level” vision tasks --> that enable\n- Each prediction head high uses the up-scaling branch defined in [40] --> What is meant here by \"high\"?\n- Since our SCVN, produces a disparity image at quarter resolution --> no comma between \"SCVN\" and \"produces\"\nRating: 9 strong accept, excellent work\n", "role": "assistant" }, { "content": "Title: Clarification of SimNet Model Features and OBB Dimensions\nWe would like to thank the reviewer for his positive feedback and suggestions on typos. We have already addressed some of them and will make sure they are all addressed in the final version. We address the additional comments below:\n\n>> Figure 2: \"The output of the SCVN is a low resolution disparity image fed in with features from the left image to a ResNet-FPN backbone and output prediction heads\" --> can the authors please better explain what are the features from the left image? How are they obtained?\n\nThanks for pointing this out, and we will clarify this further in the paper. The features are from a standard ResNet Stem which outputs 32 channels that are 4x downsampled from the original image. We will add more detail to the supplemental material in the final version. \n\n>> Can the authors please explain the dimensionalities Wo/8 X Ho/8 X 16, Wo/8 X Ho/8 and Wo/8 X Ho/8 X 6? This is in subsection \"Oriented Bounding Boxes\". It's not clear to this reviewer why the oriented bounding boxes prediction leads to these shapes.\n\nThe OBB head outputs a set of image sized tensors, which are then indexed to create the parameterized 3D structure. We plan to release the code for the camera ready, which will hopefully provide more information of the network structure. \n", "role": "user" }, { "content": "Title: Reviewer Response\nThank you for answering to the issues raised by the reviewers. In my opinion, the paper presents a significant contribution to the robotics community especially when it comes to manipulating non-rigid, transparent and reflective objects. My score remains unchanged.", "role": "assistant" } ]
2WivNtnaFzx
CoRL 2021 Conference
Reviewer_oTrx
[ { "content": "\nYou are an experienced academic paper reviewer. You will receive a conference paper in the field of computer science or AI. Please analyze the paper content carefully and output your review content.\nMore importantly, the author will further explain or refute the review comments you gave, and you need to further discuss with the author based on the author's response. \nThe purpose of this rebuttal and discussion is:\n- Clarification: During the review process, the reviewer (you) may not accurately understand the contribution or method of the paper due to unclear expression or misunderstanding of certain details. Through rebuttal, the author has the opportunity to clarify these misunderstandings and further illustrate the effectiveness of their innovations or methods.\n- Respond to criticisms and suggestions: The reviewer (you) may make criticisms or suggestions on the paper, and the author can use the discussion session to provide specific responses, explain why certain criticisms may not apply, or how to improve and optimize certain aspects of the paper.\nFinally, you and the author will work together to enhance the persuasiveness of the paper and improve the quality of the paper.\n", "role": "system" }, { "content": "Now your reviewer ID is assigned as Reviewer_oTrx, and the following are the paper you need to review:\n```<<2WivNtnaFzx>>```", "role": "user" }, { "content": "Review Content: summary: The paper presents a multi-task network consisting of ResNet(-FPN) blocks and a stereo matching module that takes in stereo images and outputs different predictions such as segmentation, 3D bounding boxes, keypoints, disparity, etc. The network is trained with data generated from a non-photorealistic simulator together with domain randomization. In the robotic experiments, a T-Shirt folding task based on keypoints and unknown object grasping based on the predicted bounding boxes is tested. Furthermore, 3D/2D object detection is evaluated on human household scenes (including transparent objects) and the KITTI benchmark. They show for their network that stereo inputs outperform mono, depth or RGB-D inputs in all cases and that sim2real transfer works well.\nstrengths_and_weaknesses: Strengths:\n\n- Several relevant robotic tasks are evaluated and the suitability of stereo data for these tasks is demonstrated\n- Sim2Real transfer from non-realistic simulated data is shown\n- Comparisons of input modalities using variations of their own network structure\n\nWeaknesses:\n\n- I did not learn very much. It is not a new finding that stereo can improve results when RGB-D sensors fail. Neither that disparity is a good auxiliary task for semantic predictions improving results over RGB. It is a nicely engineered system from existing components evaluated on robotic tasks. But the evaluation and discussion is lacking depth beyond \"look, our system works\". \nKeyPose: Multi-View 3D Labeling and Keypoint Estimation for Transparent Objects, CVPR 2020 \nReal-Time Semantic Stereo Matching, ICRA 2020\n- There is no comparison to existing approaches even when comparing on public benchmarks, e.g. on the 2d car detection of KITTI. It does not seem that results are competitive to state-of-the-art approaches regardless of modalities \nhttp://www.cvlibs.net/datasets/kitti/eval_object.php?obj_benchmark=2d \nStereo R-CNN based 3D Object Detection for Autonomous Driving, CVPR 2019 \n- The reader has no idea whether the modality comparisons hold in general or whether other RGB-D methods specifically tailored for fusing modalities would turn results around.\n- The argument for efficient non-realistic data generation becomes quite questionable if hyperparameter tuning takes \"20 single gpu instances for 48 hours\". There are easy ways to generate photorealistic annotated stereo data in much less time, e.g. BlenderProc\nsummary_of_recommendation: I welcome system papers and I think the approach has potential, but the evaluation is lacking quite a bit. There are no comparisons to existing approaches, no real discussions of results and not much additional findings compared to literature. Therefore, it can merely serve as a proof-of-concept.\nissues: - It would be nice to see the 3D predictions from a different angle, e.g. the 3d bounding boxes in a point cloud.\n- The supplement is over 50Mb, please reduce the size\nRating: 7 accept, but needs minor improvements\n", "role": "assistant" }, { "content": "Title: Clarification of SimNet sim-to-real approach and comparison to prior work\nWe would like to thank the reviewer for their comments. We believe that there is a misunderstanding of the setting that this paper studies, which is likely our fault. We would like to clarify the problem of focus, and we have updated the paper’s introduction and text to address this. We hope the reviewer will consider these clarifications.\n\n>> It is not a new finding that stereo can improve results when RGB-D sensors fail:\n\nThe papers that are listed above use real-world data and are not sim-to-real approaches. Neither of the above approaches is trained using only synthetic data, nor have they shown a benefit of incorporating learned stereo when only synthetic data is used for training for high-level vision tasks. So, they are not directly comparable to our main sim-to-real contribution. \n\nOur paper contributes a new technique for sim-to-real of high-level vision tasks, that relies on a stereo matching module. To our knowledge, there have been no comparisons in the literature that have shown stereo matching can enable more robust sim-to-real transfer than RGB-D based sensing for high-level vision tasks (i.e. 3D OBBs, keypoints, segmentation). The implications of such a result are: 1) optically challenging objects can be manipulated using only low-quality synthetic data and 2) there is no reliance on a physical sensor, which may have constrained supply. \n\n>> Baselines:\nThere is no comparison to existing approaches even when comparing on KITTI. \n\nThe existing approaches listed use real-world data, whereas SimNet is a sim-to-real approach that can be evaluated on challenging real-world tasks such as KITTI. The results on KITTI show that the incorporation of the SCVN learned stereo network provides a scalable sim-to-real approach that is able to perform well on a range of different tasks.\n\nThat said, a similar evaluation on 2D car detection for KITTI was performed in another sim-to-real approach in [28], which used mono-DR. However, [28] did not release their code or synthetic dataset used which makes direct comparison not possible. In light of that, we did our own relative comparisons on the KITTI benchmark with our lightweight single-shot detection network. Our goal with this experiment was to illustrate the performance differences between monocular-DR, naive stereo concatenation (i.e. stacked) and a SCVN for sim-to-real transfer (See Section B.1 for the baselines that we evaluated). We updated the experiments to show the need for the depth auxiliary loss and we added citations for the baselines that we compared against (Table 5 and Section B.1).\n\n>> The reader has no idea whether the modality comparisons hold in general\n\nWe would like to thank the reviewer for their comment. We have tried a significant number of RGB-D permutations (four), along with monocular and depth only permutations in B.1, including replicating a similar network to Xie et al (B.1.8). Results are shown in Table 5. If the reviewer has suggestions for comparison beyond the ones we have tried, we would be happy to discuss. .\n\n>> The argument for efficient non-realistic data generation becomes quite questionable if hyperparameter tuning takes \"20 single gpu instances for 48 hours\".\n\nThank you for your comment, and we would like to clarify the difference between loss hyperparameter tuning and dataset generation. Hyperparameter optimization was not used for data generation; the lightweight rendering presented in this paper is actually extremely cheap when compared to Blender. Hyperparameter tuning is used “to tune the loss weights,” as stated in section B.2, not to perform data generation. This tuning would only be needed if you wanted to use multi-head inference to reduce computation at run-time. For our KITTI experiments, we only trained a single 2D bounding box detection head, which doesn’t require hyper-parameter tuning and can be trained on a single GPU. \n\nWe added an additional experiment to Table 1 that ablates the multi-task nature of the model (SimNet w/o Aux.). This shows that multi-head training has no significant effect on the sim-to-real transfer performance of our approach. \n\n>> There are no comparisons to existing approaches.\n\nThe paper is offering comparisons of our stereo transfer techniques to existing common sim-to-real techniques (i.e. monocular-DR [5], depth-based transfer [47], RGB-D combinations [4]). We updated our experiment tables to include citations where those sim-to-real baseline techniques were taken from (Table 5, Section B.1 and Section 4.1). Table 5 of the appendix provides an ablation of 8 different approaches to sim-to-real transfer on a standard stereo vision benchmark task.\n\n>> Discussions of results\n\nWe added more text to the experimental results to include a better discussion of our SCVN ablation on the KITTI benchmark and our RGB-D baselines on the indoor scenes dataset. Due to space limitations, discussion was brief, but present in Section 4.\n\n\n", "role": "user" }, { "content": "Title: Thank you for your comments.\n> To our knowledge, there have been no comparisons in the literature that have shown stereo matching can enable more robust sim-to-real transfer than RGB-D based sensing for high-level vision tasks (i.e. 3D OBBs, keypoints, segmentation).\n\nThere are methods that show successful sim2real transfer for high-level stereo vision tasks that might be worth a reference, e.g.\n[Unknown Object Segmentation from Stereo Images](https://arxiv.org/abs/2103.06796) (admittedly this one is quite recent) \n\nIt is known that sim2real transfer for low-level vision tasks such as disparity estimation is easy and that it can benefit from high-level auxiliary tasks such as semantic segmentation. So I suppose the main contribution of this work is the observation that the other way around also holds, i.e. standard stereo matching can improve sim2real transfer for high-level vision tasks.\n\n> We would like to thank the reviewer for their comment. We have tried a significant number of RGB-D permutations (four), along with monocular and depth only permutations in B.1, including replicating a similar network to Xie et al (B.1.8). Results are shown in Table 5. If the reviewer has suggestions for comparison beyond the ones we have tried, we would be happy to discuss. .\n\nThere are quite many approaches on how to fuse RGB and depth data, see for example:\nhttps://arxiv.org/pdf/1808.03833.pdf , Table 17/18\n\nBut I appreciate the ones presented in the appendix.\n\n> Baselines: There is no comparison to existing approaches even when comparing on KITTI\n\nYou present a setting where you train on real KITTI data which is very important to rate the sim2real ability. It is easy and equally important to compare these real results with existing literature. I don't expect it to be SoTA, but I would like to know how mature your architecture is.\n\n> The argument for efficient non-realistic data generation becomes quite questionable if hyperparameter tuning takes \"20 single gpu instances for 48 hours\".\n>> Hyperparameter optimization was not used for data generation;\n\nThat is obvious, but why should you care about the efficiency of data generation if the training/tuning the networks takes so much more resources? \n\n> The paper is offering comparisons of our stereo transfer techniques to existing common sim-to-real techniques\n\nThe additional experiments and ablations are definitely adding to the paper and it is great that you implemented several methods. I sincerely hope that the code will actually be open-sourced as announced because otherwise these self-implemented results without comparisons to literature are pretty much worthless.\n\nIn conclusion, I still see a few problems with the paper. On the other hand, at least it seems to actually work well judging by the qualitative results and self-made baselines. The paper might also help to increase the popularity of stereo-based approaches for object-centric robotic vision tasks.", "role": "assistant" }, { "content": "Title: Thank you for your insightful comments\n>> There are methods that show successful sim2real transfer for high-level stereo vision tasks that might be worth a reference, e.g. Unknown Object Segmentation from Stereo Images (admittedly this one is quite recent).\n\nThank you for this reference, we were unaware of this work. This is a very recent preprint that we would consider submitted roughly around the time of our submission. However, we do agree that it is very relevant and will cite it in the final version of the paper.\n\nOur work and theirs offer complementary experiments to show the validity of sim2real transfer with stereo. While they consider the specific task of instance segmentation, we demonstrate that sim-to-real technique is applicable to a variety of high-level vision tasks such as 3D OBBs, keypoints and car detection. \n\nFurthermore, we demonstrate that the technique works well with very low quality datasets, whereas their approach is tested with photo-realistic scenes from SUNCG. Finally, our work demonstrates that this technique is reliable enough to enable robust manipulation of glassware in multiple homes. \nWe believe these additional experiments complement their work and together these two papers offer strong evidence for stereo based sim-to-real transfer. \n\n>> There are quite many approaches on how to fuse RGB and depth data, see for example: https://arxiv.org/pdf/1808.03833.pdf , Table 17/18 … But I appreciate the ones presented in the appendix.\n\nThank you for the comment. We hope that this paper provides value to the community in the comparisons that were performed and do see that there are a handful of additional variants that we could compare to. We will try to compare against more of the variants for the final version of our paper. \n\n>> You present a setting where you train on real KITTI data which is very important to rate the sim2real ability. It is easy and equally important to compare these real results with existing literature. I don't expect it to be SoTA, but I would like to know how mature your architecture is.\n\nThank you for your comment. Although the main reason for the KITTI experiments is to understand how close our sim-to-real approach would come to an approach trained on real data with the same method, we do see your point. For the final version of the paper, we will report SOTA numbers for similar single-shot network architectures for relative comparison. \n\n>> That is obvious, but why should you care about the efficiency of data generation if the training/tuning the networks takes so much more resources?\n\nThank you for your comment. To clarify, as shown by the ablation of all but the OBB output head in Table 1, the multi-task hyper-parameter search is optional and only needed for efficient runtime inference of many tasks. \n\nLow quality rendering can save computation resources, but also has the added benefit of not needing artists to create photo-realistic scenes. For example, datasets like SUNCG require expensive artist annotation, which makes it difficult to create data for new domains. By having such low-quality scene layout and texture randomizations, it's relatively easy for SimNet to switch from car detection to indoor scene understanding. \n\n.>> The additional experiments and ablations are definitely adding to the paper and it is great that you implemented several methods. I sincerely hope that the code will actually be open-sourced as announced because otherwise these self-implemented results without comparisons to literature are pretty much worthless.\n\nWe are happy that the additional results helped. To clarify one point, the code and dataset have already been published publicly on github and have received multiple downloads from other researchers. Unfortunately, it has been proven difficult to share without breaking anonymity, since some of the scenes have traceable markers in them. \n", "role": "user" }, { "content": "Title: Raise of score \nSince the authors have resolved many of my issues and concerns, I have raised the score to \"weak accept\". ", "role": "assistant" } ]
2WivNtnaFzx
CoRL 2021 Conference
Reviewer_m12X
[ { "content": "\nYou are an experienced academic paper reviewer. You will receive a conference paper in the field of computer science or AI. Please analyze the paper content carefully and output your review content.\nMore importantly, the author will further explain or refute the review comments you gave, and you need to further discuss with the author based on the author's response. \nThe purpose of this rebuttal and discussion is:\n- Clarification: During the review process, the reviewer (you) may not accurately understand the contribution or method of the paper due to unclear expression or misunderstanding of certain details. Through rebuttal, the author has the opportunity to clarify these misunderstandings and further illustrate the effectiveness of their innovations or methods.\n- Respond to criticisms and suggestions: The reviewer (you) may make criticisms or suggestions on the paper, and the author can use the discussion session to provide specific responses, explain why certain criticisms may not apply, or how to improve and optimize certain aspects of the paper.\nFinally, you and the author will work together to enhance the persuasiveness of the paper and improve the quality of the paper.\n", "role": "system" }, { "content": "Now your reviewer ID is assigned as Reviewer_m12X, and the following are the paper you need to review:\n```<<2WivNtnaFzx>>```", "role": "user" }, { "content": "Review Content: summary: This paper proposes an approach for sim2real transfer that can leverage suboptimal simulation data for downstream robotic manipulation tasks on unknown objects. The approach is based on a deep neural network that is trained on jointly optimizing a variety of perception-based losses from stereo images. To reduce the simulation gap, the model is trained on predicting an auxiliary disparsity map between its input images, which is then used as additional information for the later predictions. This incentivizes the model to focus on geometric reasoning rather than texture or depth. Experimentally, the authors show that this geometric reasoning improves downstream performance on object detection and manipulation tasks when compared to similar models that are trained without it.\nstrengths_and_weaknesses: ### Strengths\n\n- The main idea of training an auxiliary disparsity map from stereo inputs is a conceptually simple but effective approach to utilize geometric information in sim2real transfer.\n- This allows for good performance on downstream real-world tasks even when the model is trained on sub-optimal simulations, thus mitigating the need for slow and expensive hyper-realistic simulations.\n- The approach is applied to different real-world tasks, showcasing its versatility.\n- Both the related work and the model description are presented clearly. The figures and schematics are very fitting. The model is concisely summarized in the schematic in Figure 2, and Figure 4 shows a conclusive quantitative example of the advantages of the approach.\n\n### Weaknesses\n\n- The model depends on a plethora of different training objectives. As such, it needs to tune a weight for each of those, making it less applicable in novel scenarios. Adding up a number of losses like this also comes with the risk of the network prioritizing some losses and ignoring others, thus potentially being less reliable if not carefully tuned.\n- On the same note, the impact of the different training losses for the final performance is not really explored beyond the auxiliary loss. An additional ablation study on these losses would be useful.\nsummary_of_recommendation: The paper presents and explores the interesting idea of incentivizing geometric reasoning in a neural architecture by means of an auxiliary disparsity loss to improve sim2real transfer. The individual parts of the rather complex model are both intuitive and motivated nicely.\n\nThe approach is evaluated on different real-world scenarios and shown to achieve good performance. However, the experiments could be more convincing as they lack uncertainty measures (such as standard deviations of the performance over multiple trials) and some insightful ablations. It can be argued that the baselines that the method is compared to could have been stronger.\n\n\n========================================\n\n(Edited and copied from the reviewer response below) \nThe authors have resolved many of my concerns, while indicating that they intend to address most of the remaining ones if accepted. I can not evaluate intended changes, but still believe that the paper in its current state poses an interesting contribution. I will leave my score at `weak accept'.\nissues: - The baseline in Section 4.1.2. is chosen by \"sweeping over four different algorithms\", which are not explained further in the main paper.\n- The experimental results are presented as plain numbers without standard deviations, confidence intervals or other measures of uncertainty. This makes it hard to assess the stability of the approach as well as the qualitative difference between the approach and its baselines.\n- Section 4.4 reports mAP@ 0.5, while previous sections report mAP@ 0.25. This choice is not further explained/justified in the paper. Either making this consistent or explaining the reason for this change would help the experimental section.\n- The appendix mentions that the weights for the losses for the different models are chosen based on HyperBand. This should be part of the main paper. It should also be clarified how the other hyperparameters were chosen.\n- Contributions **(iii)** to **(v)** each refer to one experimental setup and the insights taken from it. This is more of a description and evaluation rather than a contribution. The insights (better transfer than baselines, useful for downstream policies) could instead be added mentioned in contribution **(i).**\n- The RGB-D baseline in Section 4.1.2 is chosen based on the performance for \"easy\" objects. Later on, this baseline performs bad on the \"hard\" objects, which could be an artefact of architecturally overfitting on the \"easy\" objects. The bad baseline performance (or rather the comparison of the model's performance to it) is a main selling point of the paper and highlighted in the abstract. As such, the baseline should be convincingly designed to be as strong as possible.\n- The car detection (Section 4.4) uses a \"Stacked\" baseline consisting of stereo images that is missing in previous sections. Considering the good performance of the \"Mono\" baseline in the previous section, it would be interesting to see how \"Stacked\" compares to the main model on the other tasks.\n- Some heads of the model use an L1 loss, others use a Huber loss. It is not clear why this distinction is made and why which loss is chosen.\n\n### Minor Issues\n\n- Table 1 shows the Perception performance of the model compared to baselines for \"easy\" objects. It would be interesting to also see the performance for \"hard\" objects.\n- The name *SimNet* is already used by NVIDIA for a simulation toolkit\n- The appendix is very bloated due to the figures having high resolution. The file itself is rather big, and some page takes a second to load\n- The model is presented as an end-to-end method in the appendix and the introduction. While one can argue that is is trained in an end-to-end fashion, this is different from end-to-end methods for e.g., robot policy learning. This distinction is briefly mentioned in the related work section, but not really cleared up.\n- The model feeds early features from the left image to its main backbone, but does not do so for the right image. This is presumably done because the left image is the basis for the output heads, but that is not explicitly mentioned in the paper.\n\n### Typos and Style\n\n- The model concept is explicitly described/explained in the abstract and each of the early sections. This feels somewhat repetitive and could be alleviated by shorter or more targeted descriptions.\n- Ll. 9, 10: The appendix mentions \"disparsity\" twice, once for the final output and once for the auxiliary loss. This distinction is not clear.\n- Ll. 29, 41: References to figures that are very far away from the current text\n- Ll. 35: \"artefacts\" → \"artifacts\"\n- Ll. 69: Contribution (ii) explicitly mentions single-shot prediction, but the rest of the paper mostly does so implicitly. If this is a selling point, it should maybe be more prominent in the paper.\n- Ll. 142: The double-subscript Notation for the images is a little cluttered. Maybe the image position (*l, r*) could instead be indicated via a superscript.\n- Ll. 158: Consecutive sentences start and end with an equation, which makes this hard to read.\n- Ll. 201: EPnP is used as an acronym but never written out.\n- Ll. 210: SVD is written in bold while other methods and/or acronyms are not.\n- Ll. 263: \"optically easy\" and \"optically hard\" should be made consistent with other parts of the paper, where the distinction is simply made between \"easy\" and \"hard\" objects.\n- Ll. 298: The reasoning \"since the ability...\" is stated as a fact, and should be supported by citations or other evidence.\n- Ll. 302: \"am\" → \"an\"\nRating: 7 accept, but needs minor improvements\n", "role": "assistant" }, { "content": "Title: Clarification of Experiments and Multi-task Learning Objective\n>> The model depends on a plethora of different training objectives. As such, it needs to tune a weight for each of those, making it less applicable in novel scenarios. Adding up a number of losses like this also comes with the risk of the network prioritizing some losses and ignoring others, thus potentially being less reliable if not carefully tuned.\n\nWe designed SimNet to have multi-headed predictions which allows significant computation wins at runtime, since a single forward-pass through the feature extraction backbone can be used across tasks. Thank you for pointing this out that it creates confusion to a reader. \nWe updated the paper with the following experiments to make it clear that this is only optional for our main sim-to-real contribution and give more insight into what losses are actually important. \n\n-We first set the loss weights to zero for the 3 auxiliary output heads for the OBB prediction tasks and demonstrate that you can achieve similar accuracy with just training a single task (Table 1). \n\n-Then on the more challenging KITTI benchmark, we ablate over using the disparity loss on the output of the SCVN and find a significant drop in performance, suggesting that while the final output heads losses are not relevant to the task, the intermediate loss on disparity at the output of the SCVN is important (Table 4). \n\n>> The baseline in Section 4.1.2. is chosen by \"sweeping over four different algorithms\", which are not explained further in the main paper.\n\nThank you for catching this: these are the four RGB-D variants described in Section B.1, and we have updated the text to reference this section in Section 4.1.2.\n\n>> The experimental results are presented as plain numbers without standard deviations, confidence intervals or other measures of uncertainty. \n\nWe will present standard deviation statistics for the experiments by camera ready if accepted. Qualitatively, we saw that runs were very consistent across random seeds.\n\n>> Section 4.4 reports mAP@ 0.5, while previous sections report mAP@ 0.25. This choice is not further explained/justified in the paper. \n\nThank you for pointing this out. We updated the text in Section 4.4 and Section 4.1 to add a reference to our supplemental material (Section B.3), where we discuss our evaluation method. The main reason for the discrepancy is that the metrics are measuring IOU of different structures (i.e. 2D bounding boxes vs. 3D OBBs). \n\nThe 0.5 score for 2D bounding boxes on KITTI car detection is consistent with what is used in [28]. However, since OBBs can rotate freely around symmetric principal axes, we opted for a looser acceptance criteria for evaluation of 3D bounding boxes, which resulted in [email protected]. We note though that our grasping results indicate the predicted OBBs are accurate enough for manipulation on a physical robot.\n\n>> The appendix mentions that the weights for the losses for the different models are chosen based on HyperBand. \n\nWe will add this to the main paper for final submission; thank you for the suggestion. We will also note that the need for HyperBand was specifically when using a large number of multi-headed predictions. We did not require such parameter tuning for the KITTI task, when only a single output head was used. Qualitatively, we found that the loss weights are not particularly sensitive, and in fact, we used the same loss weights when applicable across all tasks. Please also note the additional ablation that we added in Table 1 (SimNet w/o Aux.), which also quantitatively shows that the additional tasks are not required for good OBB prediction performance.\n\n>> Contributions (iii) to (v) each refer to one experimental setup and the insights taken from it.\n\nThank you for the suggestion. We will add these to contribution (i). Also, we made our final contribution to be the release of the stereo dataset and code used for evaluation. We are happy to provide an anonymized version of the code/dataset if requested. \n\n>> The RGB-D baseline in Section 4.1.2 is chosen based on the performance for \"easy\" objects.\n\nThis is a very perceptive suggestion. We use ground truth annotations from 3D scans of easy objects to evaluate each model. Standard RGB-D sensors make reflective or transparent objects challenging to scan, though the SCVN network does make this additional experiment feasible. If accepted, we will run all of the networks in Section B.1 on the robot grasping task with hard objects.\n\n>> The car detection (Section 4.4) uses a \"Stacked\" baseline consisting of stereo images that is missing in previous sections. \n\nThank you. We will add an ablation of the “stacked” baseline to the panoptic objects dataset in the camera ready, if accepted. We originally limited our ablation to KITTI to avoid overfitting our decision to indoor scenes dataset. \n", "role": "user" }, { "content": "Title: Reviewer Response\nThe authors have resolved many of my concerns, while indicating that they intend to address most of the remaining ones if accepted. I can not evaluate intended changes, but still believe that the paper in its current state poses an interesting contribution. I will leave my score at `weak accept'.", "role": "assistant" } ]
2uGN5jNJROR
CoRL 2021 Conference
Reviewer_zX2o
[ { "content": "\nYou are an experienced academic paper reviewer. You will receive a conference paper in the field of computer science or AI. Please analyze the paper content carefully and output your review content.\nMore importantly, the author will further explain or refute the review comments you gave, and you need to further discuss with the author based on the author's response. \nThe purpose of this rebuttal and discussion is:\n- Clarification: During the review process, the reviewer (you) may not accurately understand the contribution or method of the paper due to unclear expression or misunderstanding of certain details. Through rebuttal, the author has the opportunity to clarify these misunderstandings and further illustrate the effectiveness of their innovations or methods.\n- Respond to criticisms and suggestions: The reviewer (you) may make criticisms or suggestions on the paper, and the author can use the discussion session to provide specific responses, explain why certain criticisms may not apply, or how to improve and optimize certain aspects of the paper.\nFinally, you and the author will work together to enhance the persuasiveness of the paper and improve the quality of the paper.\n", "role": "system" }, { "content": "Now your reviewer ID is assigned as Reviewer_zX2o, and the following are the paper you need to review:\n```<<2uGN5jNJROR>>```", "role": "user" }, { "content": "Review Content: summary: This paper presents an open-source simulation environment iGibson 2.0 which supports a wide range of household tasks, extending the simulation from kinodynamics to other object states such as temperature etc. It provides a variety of functionalities, including logical states, generative scene initialization, and VR interface. \n\n\nstrengths_and_weaknesses: Strengths:\n- An open-source efforts on simulation with very extensive functionalities. It provides a wide range of logical states description, which alleviates users' efforts to manually define a lot of logic states on their own. This could also speed up the research efforts on related tasks, making people focus more on the algorithmic designs.\n- An interactive interface for easily collecting demonstration data.\n\nWeakness:\n- Seems that the relational states are limited to a pair of objects only. Would be nice to see an extension to this.\n- The simulation seems to focus more on the embodied AI research. It is hard to see how to transfer a policy from simulation to the real world for robotics tasks. \n\nsummary_of_recommendation: This is a simulation effort that will contribute to the community a lot. And the descriptions of the simulation is extensive.\nissues: I mainly have two questions about the experiment section:\n\n- For experiments on iGibson tasks, how is the reward defined for tasks 1) to 5) ? Is it just a sparse reward function? Does it come with any reward shaping?\n\n- What is the reason of not running rl algorithms on task 6)? It would be nice to see some justifications for this to understand the difficulty of task 6) compared to other tasks.\nRating: 9 strong accept, excellent work\n", "role": "assistant" }, { "content": "Title: Response to Reviewer zX2o and Follow-up\n\n\nThank you for your constructive review, we respond the questions as below:\n\n> Seems that the relational states are limited to a pair of objects only. Would be nice to see an extension to this.\n\nGood question! Currently we have focused on “unary” and “binary” predicates in first order logic, that is, predicates that take one object or a pair of objects as arguments. These are the most common ones used in logic when applied to physical tasks. However, as the reviewer pointed out, there could be predicates of higher arity, for example, `inBetween(o1, o2, o3)`. Our logic functionality allows future extensions to these types of predicates and we plan to do so as new activities require them.\n\n> How to transfer a policy from simulation to the real world for robotics tasks.\n\nAlthough our work has focused primarily on simulation, our goal is to use simulation as a proxy to develop solutions to real world robotics problems. All of our experiments are inherently robotic applications: pick and place, wiping, slicing, cooking, etc. \n\nTo alleviate the concern of unrealistic embodiment, we will additionally include results of RL experiments with the Fetch robot embodiment and share our findings in Appendix A.3 by the rebuttal deadline. iGibson 2.0 also includes models of other real robots such as Freight, LoCoBot, Turtlebot, Quadcopter, etc. \n\nWith respect to sim2real transferability, previous work [1] using the Fetch robot in iGibson has shown that the virtual sensor simulation is very realistic (see page 16) and such a platform has potential to develop solutions that transfer to the real world. Similar findings have been confirmed by other researchers using other types of robots for navigation tasks, e.g. four-wheeled robots [2] and legged robots [3].\n\nWe also want to note that transferring mobile manipulation (MM) policies from simulation to the real world is an open research problem. While there has been successful transfer of navigation and stationary manipulation policies, the community is still a few steps away from transferring MM policies to the real world. Nonetheless, it is our plan to test some of our experiments on real robots in the near future now that we have regained access to the laboratory.\n\n> For experiments on iGibson tasks, how is the reward defined for tasks 1) to 5) ? Is it just a sparse reward function? Does it come with any reward shaping?”\n\nTask 1) to 5) have reward shaping. The reward function contains both a sparse, success reward, and a dense reward that encourages task progress. For example, task 2) has a reward shaping term that encourages the hand to approach the towel in the first stage and the towel to approach the faucet in the second stage. Task 3) also gives a partial reward for each stain particle that is cleaned/removed. The other tasks have similar reward shaping terms. \n\n> What is the reason of not running rl algorithms on task 6)? It would be nice to see some justification for this to understand the difficulty of task 6) compared to other tasks.”\n\nTask 6 is extremely complex as it involves coordinating not just one end-effector but two. This increases the dimensionality of the action space (12 degrees of freedom), which poses a hard-exploration problem for model-free reinforcement learning. While solutions exist (e.g., [4][5]), they go beyond the scope of our experimental evaluation. With this being said, we will attempt to run the same RL algorithm used for task 1-5 to task 6 and share our results later.\n\n### References\n- [1] Xia, F., Li, C., Martín-Martín, R., Litany, O., Toshev, A., & Savarese, S. (2020). ReLMoGen: Leveraging motion generation in reinforcement learning for mobile manipulation. arXiv preprint arXiv:2008.07792.\n- [2] Meng, X., Xiang, Y., & Fox, D. (2021). Learning Composable Behavior Embeddings for Long-Horizon Visual Navigation. IEEE Robotics and Automation Letters, 6(2), 3128-3135.\n- [3] Li, T., Calandra, R., Pathak, D., Tian, Y., Meier, F., & Rai, A. (2021). Planning in learned latent action spaces for generalizable legged locomotion. IEEE Robotics and Automation Letters, 6(2), 2682-2689.\n- [4] Tung, Albert, et al. \"Learning Multi-Arm Manipulation Through Collaborative Teleoperation.\" arXiv preprint arXiv:2012.06738 (2020).\n- [5] Ha, Huy, Jingxi Xu, and Shuran Song. \"Learning a decentralized multi-arm motion planner.\" arXiv preprint arXiv:2011.02608 (2020).\n\nDear Reviewer,\n\nWe would like to thank you again for your time and feedback on iGibson 2.0.\n\nSince we posted our response last Thursday, we have made additional progress towards addressing the raised concerns. \n\nFirst, to address the concern of applicability to robotics and realism of embodiment, we conducted additional RL experiments with the Fetch robot, with simplified grasping and without it. When trained with simplified grasping, the RL policy achieves perfect success for 4 out of the 5 tasks (similar to bimanual humanoid) while Slicing Fruit task remains unsolved (because it requires a precise alignment between the knife blade and the fruit). All the joint actuations of Fetch are realistically simulated in Bullet, except the grasping. When trained without simplified grasping, in which case the robot relies on the friction between the gripper fingers and the object to grasp it, the RL policy has worse performance. This suggests that realistic grasping for a diverse set of objects (e.g. towel, knife, meat) remains a challenging robotics problem.\n\nSecond, to address the concern of limited data for imitation learning experiments of bimanual pick and place, we collected 30 (instead of 5) demonstrations of 6500+ frames in total. The results show improved performance for episodes initialized further away from success. When trained with only 5 VR demonstrations, the agent completely failed when starting at T-7s. Now with 30 VR demos, it achieves a success rate of 15%. However, the performance doesn’t improve much for T-2 or T-4. This may indicate that the collected demonstrations are not sufficient for the complex task (for example, [1] uses 2500 demonstrations for bimanual lifting, and arguably bimanual pick and place is harder than that). After the rebuttal, we will attempt to collect more training data and perform data augmentation, as well as to use more advanced imitation learning algorithms. We would also like to note that the bimanual pick and place task is extremely challenging since it requires coordination between two hands and delicately balancing the loads between two hands. We didn’t completely solve the problem but provided a baseline and an example of how the VR interface can be leveraged to efficiently collect demonstrations for bimanual manipulation.\n\nThird, per reviewer zX2o’s request, we added an additional RL experiment for the bimanual pick and place. As we expected, the RL policy fails to achieve success due to the complicated two-hand coordination that this task requires. Despite a lot of effort, we couldn’t come up with an adequate reward function that can induce such collaborative behaviors within the rebuttal period. \n\nLast but not least, we have also updated Sec. 6 and Appendix A.3 of the paper about our experimental evaluation accordingly.\n\nThank you again for your time and feedback!\n\n- [1] Xie, Fan, et al. \"Deep Imitation Learning for Bimanual Robotic Manipulation.\" Advances in Neural Information Processing Systems 33 (2020).\n\nBest,\n\nPaper293 Authors", "role": "user" }, { "content": "Thanks to the authors for their clarification. It satisfactorily addresses the major issues I had. I stand by my favorable recommendation for this paper.", "role": "assistant" } ]
2uGN5jNJROR
CoRL 2021 Conference
Reviewer_WuTK
[ { "content": "\nYou are an experienced academic paper reviewer. You will receive a conference paper in the field of computer science or AI. Please analyze the paper content carefully and output your review content.\nMore importantly, the author will further explain or refute the review comments you gave, and you need to further discuss with the author based on the author's response. \nThe purpose of this rebuttal and discussion is:\n- Clarification: During the review process, the reviewer (you) may not accurately understand the contribution or method of the paper due to unclear expression or misunderstanding of certain details. Through rebuttal, the author has the opportunity to clarify these misunderstandings and further illustrate the effectiveness of their innovations or methods.\n- Respond to criticisms and suggestions: The reviewer (you) may make criticisms or suggestions on the paper, and the author can use the discussion session to provide specific responses, explain why certain criticisms may not apply, or how to improve and optimize certain aspects of the paper.\nFinally, you and the author will work together to enhance the persuasiveness of the paper and improve the quality of the paper.\n", "role": "system" }, { "content": "Now your reviewer ID is assigned as Reviewer_WuTK, and the following are the paper you need to review:\n```<<2uGN5jNJROR>>```", "role": "user" }, { "content": "Review Content: summary: This paper presents iGibson 2.0, an open-source simulation environment with three main features:\n- a set of new physical properties such as temperature, wetness and cleanliness levels as well as unary and binary logical predicates such as \"ToggledOn\", \"InsideOf\", etc.\n- generative functions to sample valid simulated states given the logical predicates\n- a virtual reality interface to record human demonstrations for robot learning\nstrengths_and_weaknesses: The paper has two main strengths:\n- The generative functions may enable researchers to easily generate diverse scenes with several objects to train and test robot learning algorithms.\n- The virtual reality interface may be very useful to teach robots by demonstration or to initialize learning algorithms with human demonstrations.\n\nPossible weaknesses of this work lie in the fact that the simulations are rather simplistic. When cooking, the food has only three stages: frozen, cooked or burnt; sliced objects are simply replaced by two halves; liquid is simulated as droplets. As a consequence, the utility of training learning algorithms in these simulated environments is questionable if the ultimate goal is to enable robots to solve tasks in the real world.\n\nSome ideas for future work:\n- an empty/full state for glasses, cups, bottles, etc.\n- It might be interesting to consider simulating the possibility of making things dirty. For example, the preparation of food may make plates, cutlery and other objects dirty. One might want to work so that not too many things get dirty...\n\n\nsummary_of_recommendation: The generative capabilities of the proposed simulation environment may be helpful to researchers in need of creating diverse scenarios with several objects to train and test robot learning algorithms. The virtual reality interface presents a convenient way of giving demonstrations, especially for bimanual tasks.\n\nThe lack of realism of the simulations might prevent this environment from actually being used to train agents with the ultimate goal of deploying them in the real world.\nissues: * Typos:\n- Section 3: \" They can also be contained in receptacles (e.g. cups) and poured later, leading to realistic behavior for the simulation of several household activities involving liquids, illustrated in Fig. 2a.\" --> The reference here should be to Fig. 2b.\n- Figure 3b: \"When it is toggled on and and its appearance changes accordingly.\" --> delete one \"and\"\n- Figure 4: \"Visualizations of densely populated ecological scenes\"; \" robot learning and ecological experience in virtual reality\" --> is the desired term here really \"ecological\"?\n- Section 6: \"The results of this experiment are shown in Fig. 3b.\" --> The reference here should be to Fig. 5b.\nRating: 7 accept, but needs minor improvements\n", "role": "assistant" }, { "content": "Title: Response to reviewer WuTK and follow-up\nThanks for the constructive feedback and we provide responses as below:\n\n> The complexity/realism of simulation: \n\nWe want to clarify that in our implementation, food has a continuous temperature value that is mapped by the logic predicates into three possible binary values: frozen, cooked and burnt. We understand the reviewer’s concern: some approximations have been made in our simulator to achieve the speed necessary to train agents. \n\nWe argue that our approximations are realistic enough to force AI agents to learn the necessary skills and motion to solve the tasks. \n\n- For example, we do not simulate the most accurate thermodynamics for temperature change. Instead, we approximate with a system of heat sources and sinks that force the agent to learn to bring the objects to be cooked or frozen to be within the “functioning” radius of these sources/sinks (e.g. inside fridges/microwaves, near the heat source of stoves). The system also requires the agent to toggle on and/or close the door of these kitchen appliances for our “pseudo heat transfer” to happen. \n- Similarly, while a full simulation of fluids would be more realistic, droplets “behave” to some extent similarly to liquid: they can be contained in and poured by container objects; they are created in special locations (e.g. sinks) and absorbed when in contact with towels and other Soakable objects. \n- In the case of slicing, the most accurate behavior would require modifying the meshes of the sliceable objects dynamically during simulation, which is a very costly procedure that forestalls real-time applications like our VR system. Our approximation, while clearly not exact, still forces the agent to learn to pick up a sharp tool, and use the right cutting edge with enough force on the surface of the sliceable object to cut it.\n\nBased on this, we believe that the agents can learn strategies in iGibson 2.0 that, while may require adaptation to be transferred to the real world, are extremely useful to understand how to perform tasks in homes, such as using tools, cleaning surfaces, cooking food, etc.\n\nDuring the development process, we strive to find a balance between the scalability and fidelity of the simulation. Some recent advances in physics simulators (Flex/PhysX and Taichi) have pushed the state-of-the-art performance of simulating liquid, soft cloth, and sliceable objects. We have experimented with some of those, and found that they still lacked the scalability to support large-scale, fully interactive scenes that iGibson has at the moment.\n\nThe ideal solution would be to have an “heterogeneous” simulator that integrates different physics engines and apply them to where they perform the best, but this, apart from requiring a huge engineering effort, requires physics engines to “talk to each other”, affecting their states based on the computation of the others, which is currently not possible with most of them.\nIn any case, we are exploring avenues to increase the realism of the simulation of the extended states, and adding additional ones such as Filled, Hung, Assembled, etc\n\n> (would be good to support) an empty/full state for glasses, cups, bottles, etc.\n\nThis is a really good idea! Many tasks in homes require understanding and modifying the empty/full state of containers. We have added this to the Future Work section (Appendix A.6). We will add this functionality in future versions. Thank you for the suggestion.\n\n> It might be interesting to consider simulating the possibility of making things dirty\n\nThis is also a good idea. We currently have considered tasks where the agent needs to clean a dirty object, but it is a great observation that some tasks may create dirt, indirectly necessitating a cleaning task afterwards. The same applies to soakable: instead of allowing only one-direction change for these extended states (from dirty to clean, from dry to soaked), we could enable transitions in both directions, allowing the agent to make objects dirty or dry. This is a simple extension to our simulator that we are incorporating. We have added this to the Future Work section (Appendix A.6). We will add this functionality in future versions. Thank you for the suggestion.\n\n> Typos in the manuscript. Usage of the term “ecological”.\n\nThank you, we have fixed those typos.\n\nWith respect to the term “ecological”, we use it here in the “Gibsonian” manner [1] indicating that it is a more naturalistic and realistic-looking environment than a plain, empty scene, where the behavior of the agent may be different.\n\n- [1] Gibson, James J. The ecological approach to visual perception: classic edition. Psychology Press, 2014.\n\n\nDear Reviewer,\n\nWe would like to thank you again for your time and feedback on iGibson 2.0.\n\nSince we posted our response last Thursday, we have made additional progress towards addressing the raised concerns. \n\nFirst, to address the concern of applicability to robotics and realism of embodiment, we conducted additional RL experiments with the Fetch robot, with simplified grasping and without it. When trained with simplified grasping, the RL policy achieves perfect success for 4 out of the 5 tasks (similar to bimanual humanoid) while Slicing Fruit task remains unsolved (because it requires a precise alignment between the knife blade and the fruit). All the joint actuations of Fetch are realistically simulated in Bullet, except the grasping. When trained without simplified grasping, in which case the robot relies on the friction between the gripper fingers and the object to grasp it, the RL policy has worse performance. This suggests that realistic grasping for a diverse set of objects (e.g. towel, knife, meat) remains a challenging robotics problem.\n\nSecond, to address the concern of limited data for imitation learning experiments of bimanual pick and place, we collected 30 (instead of 5) demonstrations of 6500+ frames in total. The results show improved performance for episodes initialized further away from success. When trained with only 5 VR demonstrations, the agent completely failed when starting at T-7s. Now with 30 VR demos, it achieves a success rate of 15%. However, the performance doesn’t improve much for T-2 or T-4. This may indicate that the collected demonstrations are not sufficient for the complex task (for example, [1] uses 2500 demonstrations for bimanual lifting, and arguably bimanual pick and place is harder than that). After the rebuttal, we will attempt to collect more training data and perform data augmentation, as well as to use more advanced imitation learning algorithms. We would also like to note that the bimanual pick and place task is extremely challenging since it requires coordination between two hands and delicately balancing the loads between two hands. We didn’t completely solve the problem but provided a baseline and an example of how the VR interface can be leveraged to efficiently collect demonstrations for bimanual manipulation.\n\n\nLast but not least, we have also updated Sec. 6 and Appendix A.3 of the paper about our experimental evaluation accordingly.\n\nThank you again for your time and feedback!\n\n- [1] Xie, Fan, et al. \"Deep Imitation Learning for Bimanual Robotic Manipulation.\" Advances in Neural Information Processing Systems 33 (2020).\n\n\nBest,\n\nPaper293 Authors\n", "role": "user" }, { "content": "Title: Reviewer Response\nThank you for the detailed answers and for the additional work on the paper. My score remains the same.", "role": "assistant" } ]
2uGN5jNJROR
CoRL 2021 Conference
Reviewer_kM4j
[ { "content": "\nYou are an experienced academic paper reviewer. You will receive a conference paper in the field of computer science or AI. Please analyze the paper content carefully and output your review content.\nMore importantly, the author will further explain or refute the review comments you gave, and you need to further discuss with the author based on the author's response. \nThe purpose of this rebuttal and discussion is:\n- Clarification: During the review process, the reviewer (you) may not accurately understand the contribution or method of the paper due to unclear expression or misunderstanding of certain details. Through rebuttal, the author has the opportunity to clarify these misunderstandings and further illustrate the effectiveness of their innovations or methods.\n- Respond to criticisms and suggestions: The reviewer (you) may make criticisms or suggestions on the paper, and the author can use the discussion session to provide specific responses, explain why certain criticisms may not apply, or how to improve and optimize certain aspects of the paper.\nFinally, you and the author will work together to enhance the persuasiveness of the paper and improve the quality of the paper.\n", "role": "system" }, { "content": "Now your reviewer ID is assigned as Reviewer_kM4j, and the following are the paper you need to review:\n```<<2uGN5jNJROR>>```", "role": "user" }, { "content": "Review Content: summary: This paper presents iGibson 2.0, an embodied robotics simulator that makes three novel contributions: (1) the introduction of object states such as temperature, cleanliness, and toggled states, (2) the inclusion of predicate logic functions that can be used to specify tasks and generate scenes, and (3) a virtual reality system to collect demonstrations. These contributions are aimed at increasing the complexity and diversity of embodied tasks while also facilitating human access to these tasks via improved user interfaces.\nstrengths_and_weaknesses: Strengths:\n* The introduction is well-written and clear: it begins with a high-level discussion of the problem and then explains the solutions to address the problem\n* The related work section is thorough: it lays out prior works and contrasts these works with the proposed approach\n* The methods sections are thorough yet easy to understand: the figures especially complement the paper well\n* The three technical contributions of the paper are all novel and useful to the embodied AI community, especially contribution #2: the ability to generate scenes with a large number of objects can enable the study of much more realistic tasks\n\nWeaknesses:\n* Some of the design choices — in particular modeling water as a set of discrete spheres — seem unrealistic, raising doubts on the possibility of sim-to-real transfer\n* The RL experiments study relatively easy tasks: they consider relatively simple scenes, relatively short-horizon behaviors, dense rewards, and (presumably) full observability. Removing these assumptions is not explored in the experiments, making it difficult to understand the bottlenecks of learning-based agents in solving complex embodied tasks\n* The imitation learning experiment is not informative: providing 5 demonstrations seems artificially low, are there constraints for having such few demonstrations?\nsummary_of_recommendation: Overall this paper is well-written, clear, and makes novel and useful technical contributions. The main consideration for improving the paper concerns the experiments — they study relatively simple tasks and the experimental analysis can go deeper. Refer to the list of issues for concrete suggestions.\n\n**Update after rebuttal**: my recommendation stays the same. See post below for details.\nissues: * Explore the strengths and weaknesses of learning-based agents further. Either discuss or present empirical studies to answer the following questions: (1) what types of behaviors / tasks are especially difficult to solve (in addition to slicing)? (2) is partial observability an issue? ie. are there situations where the agent needs to keep track of the history of previous observations? (3) how sensitive is the agent to the camera viewpoint and the presence of distractor objects? (4) are there any modifications that should be made to learning-agents for dealing with object states?\n* Consider re-doing the imitation learning experiment with a substantially higher number of demonstrations\n* discuss the limitations of this work and future avenues of research\nRating: 7 accept, but needs minor improvements\n", "role": "assistant" }, { "content": "Title: Response to reviewer kM4j\nThanks for the constructive feedback and we provide responses as below:\n\n> The realism of some design choices\n\nWe understand the reviewer’s concern: some approximations have been made in our simulator to achieve the speed necessary to train agents. \n\nWe argue that our approximations are realistic enough to force AI agents to learn the necessary skills and motion to solve the tasks. \n\nFor example, we do not simulate the most accurate thermodynamics for temperature change. Instead, we approximate with a system of heat sources and sinks that force the agent to learn to bring the objects to be cooked or frozen to be within the “functioning” radius of these sources/sinks (e.g. inside fridges/microwaves, near the heat source of stoves). The system also requires the agent to toggle on and/or close the door of these kitchen appliances for our “pseudo heat transfer” to happen. \n\nSimilarly, while a full simulation of fluids would be more realistic, droplets “behave” to some extent similarly to liquid: they can be contained in and poured by container objects; they are created in special locations (e.g. sinks) and absorbed when in contact with towels and other `Soakable` objects. \n\n- In the case of slicing, the most accurate behavior would require modifying the meshes of the sliceable objects dynamically during simulation, which is a very costly procedure that forestalls real-time applications like our VR system. Our approximation, while clearly not exact, still forces the agent to learn to pick up a sharp tool, and use the right cutting edge with enough force on the surface of the sliceable object to cut it.\n- Based on this, we believe that the agents can learn strategies in iGibson 2.0 that, while may require adaptation to be transferred to the real world, are extremely useful to understand how to perform tasks in homes, such as using tools, cleaning surfaces, cooking food, etc.\n- During the development process, we strive to find a balance between the scalability and fidelity of the simulation. Some recent advances in physics simulators (Flex/PhysX and Taichi) have pushed the state-of-the-art performance of simulating liquid, soft cloth, and sliceable objects. We have experimented with some of those, and found that they still lacked the scalability to support large-scale, fully interactive scenes that iGibson has at the moment.\n\nThe ideal solution would be to have a “heterogeneous” simulator that integrates different physics engines and apply them to where they perform the best, but this, apart from requiring a huge engineering effort, requires physics engines to “talk to each other”, affecting their states based on the computation of the others, which is currently not possible with most of them.\nIn any case, we are exploring avenues to increase the realism of the simulation of the extended states, and adding additional ones such as Filled, Hung, Assembled, etc.\n\n\n> The RL experiments study relatively easy tasks (with assumptions. Exploring how these assumptions affect the results would be valuable.) (in the parenthesis we try to interpret what the reviewer mean.)\n\n\nAccording to a parallel submission BEHAVIOR (attached as supplementary material), these following factors contribute to the difficulty of household robotic tasks. \n- Long horizon: for relatively simple tasks that involve only one or two objects, we can achieve almost perfect success rates, but for those that involve many steps and objects, model-free RL algorithms don’t work anymore due to exploration challenges.\n- Physically based full-body control of the agent: We can achieve some success with an action space of magic actions or motion primitives. - But with physics simulation of full-body control, we achieve almost zero success rate. \n- Partial observability: Based on the experiments in a parallel submission BEHAVIOR, partial observability contributes to the difficulty of tasks, as the reviewer hypothesizes.\n- Reward shaping helps the agent to successfully achieve predicates. While using predicate as a sparse reward only, the agent doesn’t learn. \n\n> The imitation learning experiment is not informative: providing 5 demonstrations seems artificially low, are there constraints for having such few demonstrations?\n\nThis is a great point. Most imitation learning algorithms, and especially, straightforward ones such as behavioral cloning, require a larger amount of data to train robust policies. We will follow the recommendation, collect additional demonstrations, and retrain the policy. We will share our new results by the rebuttal deadline and revise the paper accordingly.\n\n> We added a section called “Limitations and Future Work” to our paper that we will also include here (see Appendix A.6 for the rebuttal and we will try to incorporate it into the main text in the final version).\n\nAlthough iGibson 2.0 has made several significant contributions towards simulating complex, everyday household tasks for robot learning, it is not without limitation. First of all, iGibson 2.0 doesn't support soft bodies / flexible material in a scalable way at the moment, due to the limitation of our underlying physics engine. This prevents us from simulating tasks like folding laundry and making bed in large, interactive scenes. Also, iGibson 2.0 doesn't support accurate human behavior modeling (other than goal-oriented navigation), and thus prevent us from simulating tasks that are inherently rich in human-robot interaction (e.g. elderly care). With the recent advancement of physics engines, and human behavior modeling and motion synthesis, we plan to overcome these limitations in the future. In addition, we also plan to support a more diverse set of extended object states (e.g. Filled, Hung, Assembled, etc) as well as bi-directional transition for some of our existing states (e.g. Soaked and Stained/Dusty), which can unlock even more household tasks. Finally, we plan to transfer mobile manipulation policies trained in iGibson 2.0 to the real world.\n\nDear Reviewer,\n\nWe would like to thank you again for your time and feedback on iGibson 2.0.\n\nSince we posted our response last Thursday, we have made additional progress towards addressing the raised concerns. \n\nFirst, to address the concern of applicability to robotics and realism of embodiment, we conducted additional RL experiments with the Fetch robot, with simplified grasping and without it. When trained with simplified grasping, the RL policy achieves perfect success for 4 out of the 5 tasks (similar to bimanual humanoid) while Slicing Fruit task remains unsolved (because it requires a precise alignment between the knife blade and the fruit). All the joint actuations of Fetch are realistically simulated in Bullet, except the grasping. When trained without simplified grasping, in which case the robot relies on the friction between the gripper fingers and the object to grasp it, the RL policy has worse performance. This suggests that realistic grasping for a diverse set of objects (e.g. towel, knife, meat) remains a challenging robotics problem.\n\nSecond, to address the concern of limited data for imitation learning experiments of bimanual pick and place, we collected 30 (instead of 5) demonstrations of 6500+ frames in total. The results show improved performance for episodes initialized further away from success. When trained with only 5 VR demonstrations, the agent completely failed when starting at T-7s. Now with 30 VR demos, it achieves a success rate of 15%. However, the performance doesn’t improve much for T-2 or T-4. This may indicate that the collected demonstrations are not sufficient for the complex task (for example, [1] uses 2500 demonstrations for bimanual lifting, and arguably bimanual pick and place is harder than that). After the rebuttal, we will attempt to collect more training data and perform data augmentation, as well as to use more advanced imitation learning algorithms. We would also like to note that the bimanual pick and place task is extremely challenging since it requires coordination between two hands and delicately balancing the loads between two hands. We didn’t completely solve the problem but provided a baseline and an example of how the VR interface can be leveraged to efficiently collect demonstrations for bimanual manipulation.\n\n\nLast but not least, we have also updated Sec. 6 and Appendix A.3 of the paper about our experimental evaluation accordingly.\n\nThank you again for your time and feedback!\n\n- [1] Xie, Fan, et al. \"Deep Imitation Learning for Bimanual Robotic Manipulation.\" Advances in Neural Information Processing Systems 33 (2020).\n\nBest,\n\nPaper293 Authors\n\n", "role": "user" }, { "content": "Title: Reviewer response to authors\nThank you for taking the time to carefully consider my review and for making the corresponding revisions. After a careful study of your revisions and the discussions with the other reviewers, I am going to maintain my recommendation at weak accept. I think this is a good paper as is, and it perhaps should be somewhere between weak and strong accept. But there is still some room for improvement to consider:\n* the number of demos collected for the bimanual task is now 30 instead of 5. That is certainly an improvement, but I think this is still on the low end. This suggests to me that perhaps collecting demonstrations for bimanual tasks with your VR interface may require expertise, and hence collecting a large number of demonstrations is challenging.\n* Many reviewers raised concerns about the realism of the simulator for transferring policies to the real world. I think you outlined the reasons for why it Is difficult to accurately model the real world, but nevertheless the concern still stands. I found the new experiments on the simplified vs. non-simplified grasping to be helpful in demonstrating the challenge, but it was not really a surprising result for me.", "role": "assistant" } ]
2uGN5jNJROR
CoRL 2021 Conference
Reviewer_adeL
[ { "content": "\nYou are an experienced academic paper reviewer. You will receive a conference paper in the field of computer science or AI. Please analyze the paper content carefully and output your review content.\nMore importantly, the author will further explain or refute the review comments you gave, and you need to further discuss with the author based on the author's response. \nThe purpose of this rebuttal and discussion is:\n- Clarification: During the review process, the reviewer (you) may not accurately understand the contribution or method of the paper due to unclear expression or misunderstanding of certain details. Through rebuttal, the author has the opportunity to clarify these misunderstandings and further illustrate the effectiveness of their innovations or methods.\n- Respond to criticisms and suggestions: The reviewer (you) may make criticisms or suggestions on the paper, and the author can use the discussion session to provide specific responses, explain why certain criticisms may not apply, or how to improve and optimize certain aspects of the paper.\nFinally, you and the author will work together to enhance the persuasiveness of the paper and improve the quality of the paper.\n", "role": "system" }, { "content": "Now your reviewer ID is assigned as Reviewer_adeL, and the following are the paper you need to review:\n```<<2uGN5jNJROR>>```", "role": "user" }, { "content": "Review Content: summary: The paper proposes the iGibson 2.0 simulation framework, which when compared to prior work, focuses on tasks involving object properties (material, wetness, temperature, etc.) and logical states (raw, cooked). The authors also provide a VR interface for users to interact with the environment - the demonstrations could be collected for the purpose of imitation learning. Six novel tasks were proposed (grasping a book from a table, cooking meat, slicing fruit, etc.) which are unique to the iGibson 2.0 simulator and imitation learning results were shown on the grasping task.\nstrengths_and_weaknesses: iGibson 2.0 is a really impressive simulator that is needed for the next step in embodied AI research to reason about more complex semantic tasks.\n\nMy biggest concern for this work is that it is not grounded in a solid application in robotics. How could the policies or demonstrations collected in this simulator be relevant for a real robot? If there are some sim2real transfer capabilities that would be a more valid contribution for CoRL and the robotics community. Otherwise, this work is more suited for a graphics or VR conference.\n\nThe grasping demo is not a contribution since there are other more established methods of doing sim2real grasping (DexNet, 6 DOF GraspNet, etc.). The other tasks look interesting.\nsummary_of_recommendation: The submission in its current form is a weak accept. \n\nissues: I have some further questions/comments/feedback:\n\nI would suggest showing clear comparisons, in the form of a table, to illustrate the differences between iGibson 2.0 and prior work (since there are a lot of simulators).\n\nSome miscellaneous questions on the implementation details (it would be great to include them in the paper)\n- How is the sliced peach mesh represented?\n- How do you place the fish in the pan at the right stable pose? Is this hardcoded?\n- Can the fish be burnt, do you model that? (instead of being in the raw vs cooked state)\n- How many assets are there in total? For instance, is there only 1 peach? There seems to be very limited assets in general\n- Do you have licenses for the assets when they are publicly released?\nRating: 7 accept, but needs minor improvements\n", "role": "assistant" }, { "content": "Title: Response to reviewer adeL\nWe thank the reviewer for the constructive feedback and we provide responses as below:\n\n\n\n> I would suggest showing clear comparisons, in the form of a table, to illustrate the differences between iGibson 2.0 and prior work (since there are a lot of simulators).\n\nWe included a comprehensive comparison table of different simulation environments in Appendix A.5. \n\n\n> Had there been more engineering/systems contributions or robotics applications, I would have recommended to accept it.\n\nWe address this concern in two parts. First, we provide more insights into engineering/system contributions with the simulation environment. There has been an very significant amount of engineering contributions in this work:\n\n- Object centric representation (semantic attributes, e.g. Cookable, Soakable, and physical attributes, e.g. mass, center of mass) \n- Extended object states and proximity and contact-based update functions (e.g. wetness, cleanliness, temperature)\n- Ray-casting and proximity-based checking functions for all logical states\n- Ray-casting based sampling functions for all logical states\n- Virtual reality interface (OpenVR integration, an assistive grasping mechanism that controls a realistic hand with 1DoF trigger, an intuitive interface that allows the agent to do navigation and manipulation at the same time, see Appendix A.1)\n- Performance improvement in the physics engine. We improve on several fronts compared with previous works 1) object loading 2) the object sleeping mechanism of pybullet 3) joining fixed links, 4) lazy update of object poses in renderer (see Appendix A.4)\n\nSecond, we provide clarification about robotics applications. Although our work has focused primarily on simulation, our goal is to use simulation as a proxy to develop solutions to real-world robotics problems. All of our experiments are inherently robotic applications: pick and place, wiping, slicing, cooking, etc. \n\nTo alleviate the concern of unrealistic embodiment, we will additionally include results of RL experiments with the Fetch robot embodiment and share our findings in Appendix A.3 by the rebuttal deadline. iGibson 2.0 also includes models of other real robots such as Freight, LoCoBot, Turtlebot, Quadcopter, etc. \n\nWith respect to sim2real transferability, previous work [1] using the Fetch robot in iGibson has shown that the virtual sensor simulation is very realistic (see page 16) and such a platform has the potential to develop solutions that transfer to the real world. Similar findings have been confirmed by other researchers using other types of robots for navigation tasks, e.g. four-wheeled robots [2] and legged robots [3].\n\nWe also want to note that transferring mobile manipulation (MM) policies from simulation to the real world is an open research problem. While there have been successful transfer of navigation and stationary manipulation policies, the community is still a few steps away from transferring MM policies to the real world. Nonetheless, it is our plan to test some of our experiments on real robots in the near future now that we have regained access to the laboratory.\n\n### References\n\n- [1] Xia, F., Li, C., Martín-Martín, R., Litany, O., Toshev, A., & Savarese, S. (2020). ReLMoGen: Leveraging motion generation in reinforcement learning for mobile manipulation. arXiv preprint arXiv:2008.07792.\n- [2] Meng, X., Xiang, Y., & Fox, D. (2021). Learning Composable Behavior Embeddings for Long-Horizon Visual Navigation. IEEE Robotics and Automation Letters, 6(2), 3128-3135.\n- [3] Li, T., Calandra, R., Pathak, D., Tian, Y., Meier, F., & Rai, A. (2021). Planning in learned latent action spaces for generalizable legged locomotion. IEEE Robotics and Automation Letters, 6(2), 2682-2689.\n\n\n> How is the sliced peach mesh represented?\n\nA sliceable object is represented as an URDF (the whole object) that is replaced by two URDFs (the object parts) when the object is interacted in the right way, e.g., with a sharp tool applying enough force on its surface. Specifically, when the sliced state transitions to `True`, the simulator replaces the whole object with two object parts. The two parts will inherit the extended states from the whole object (e.g. temperature) onwards.\n\n> How do you place the fish in the pan at the right stable pose? Is this hardcoded?\n\nNo, it is not hardcoded. To spawn objects, we use the sampling functions of kinematic logical states (e.g. `onTop`, `inside` - see Appendix A.2 for more details), and then let the objects fall due to gravity until they reach a stable pose after a few steps of physics simulation.\n\n> Can the fish be burnt, do you model that? (instead of being in the raw vs cooked state)\n\nYes, the fish can burn. We model that for all cookable objects. Depending on the value of the continuous temperature variable, the following logic predicates will return a boolean value: Frozen, Cooked, and Burnt.\n\n> “How many assets are there in total? For instance, is there only 1 peach? There seems to be very limited assets in general. Do you have licenses for the assets when they are publicly released?”\n\nThe assets are part of a parallel effort BEHAVIOR, a benchmark for 100 household activities. It includes a dataset of 1217 objects across 391 categories, ranging from food items to tableware, from home decorations to office supplies, and from apparel to cleaning tools. On average, each object category has approximately 3 different models. Our license agreement allows our users to use these assets within iGibson 2.0. We are committed to publicly release the assets once the review process is over. We also would like to highlight that iGibson 2.0 allows users to add new object models and categories of their choice easily.\n\n\nDear Reviewer,\n\nWe would like to thank you again for your time and feedback on iGibson 2.0.\n\nSince we posted our response last Thursday, we have made additional progress towards addressing the raised concerns. \n\nFirst, to address the concern of applicability to robotics and realism of embodiment, we conducted additional RL experiments with the Fetch robot, with simplified grasping and without it. When trained with simplified grasping, the RL policy achieves perfect success for 4 out of the 5 tasks (similar to bimanual humanoid) while Slicing Fruit task remains unsolved (because it requires a precise alignment between the knife blade and the fruit). All the joint actuations of Fetch are realistically simulated in Bullet, except the grasping. When trained without simplified grasping, in which case the robot relies on the friction between the gripper fingers and the object to grasp it, the RL policy has worse performance. This suggests that realistic grasping for a diverse set of objects (e.g. towel, knife, meat) remains a challenging robotics problem.\n\nSecond, to address the concern of limited data for imitation learning experiments of bimanual pick and place, we collected 30 (instead of 5) demonstrations of 6500+ frames in total. The results show improved performance for episodes initialized further away from success. When trained with only 5 VR demonstrations, the agent completely failed when starting at T-7s. Now with 30 VR demos, it achieves a success rate of 15%. However, the performance doesn’t improve much for T-2 or T-4. This may indicate that the collected demonstrations are not sufficient for the complex task (for example, [1] uses 2500 demonstrations for bimanual lifting, and arguably bimanual pick and place is harder than that). After the rebuttal, we will attempt to collect more training data and perform data augmentation, as well as to use more advanced imitation learning algorithms. We would also like to note that the bimanual pick and place task is extremely challenging since it requires coordination between two hands and delicately balancing the loads between two hands. We didn’t completely solve the problem but provided a baseline and an example of how the VR interface can be leveraged to efficiently collect demonstrations for bimanual manipulation.\n\n\nLast but not least, we have also updated Sec. 6 and Appendix A.3 of the paper about our experimental evaluation accordingly.\n\nThank you again for your time and feedback!\n\n- [1] Xie, Fan, et al. \"Deep Imitation Learning for Bimanual Robotic Manipulation.\" Advances in Neural Information Processing Systems 33 (2020).\n\nBest,\n\nPaper293 Authors\n", "role": "user" }, { "content": "Title: Thanks for the response\nHi authors, thanks for the response, adding the table and demonstrating the Fetch grasping experiments. Thanks for the clarifications as well. I have updated my score.\n\nI think there will be broader impact if the assets are licensed to be used outside iGibson 2.0 (I'm assuming its not possible if they are bought from a third party).", "role": "assistant" } ]
3HZLte8gMYS
CoRL 2021 Conference
Reviewer_N7Wd
[ { "content": "\nYou are an experienced academic paper reviewer. You will receive a conference paper in the field of computer science or AI. Please analyze the paper content carefully and output your review content.\nMore importantly, the author will further explain or refute the review comments you gave, and you need to further discuss with the author based on the author's response. \nThe purpose of this rebuttal and discussion is:\n- Clarification: During the review process, the reviewer (you) may not accurately understand the contribution or method of the paper due to unclear expression or misunderstanding of certain details. Through rebuttal, the author has the opportunity to clarify these misunderstandings and further illustrate the effectiveness of their innovations or methods.\n- Respond to criticisms and suggestions: The reviewer (you) may make criticisms or suggestions on the paper, and the author can use the discussion session to provide specific responses, explain why certain criticisms may not apply, or how to improve and optimize certain aspects of the paper.\nFinally, you and the author will work together to enhance the persuasiveness of the paper and improve the quality of the paper.\n", "role": "system" }, { "content": "Now your reviewer ID is assigned as Reviewer_N7Wd, and the following are the paper you need to review:\n```<<3HZLte8gMYS>>```", "role": "user" }, { "content": "Review Content: summary: In response to the near complete rewrite of the methods section, and the addition of some sorely lacking figures, I have upgraded my clarity score from poor to good. After arguments with the authors, I have become convinced that in principle at least a human level of heuristic based pruning for larger numbers of agents and levels is possible in principle, although I still think there isn't a clear direction on what this heuristic might be. Due to the novelty and strong potential impact of the paper, I am upgrading my recommendation from weak accept to strong accept. The original review is left unchanged below.\n\n===\n\nWhen an has social desires i.e. desires about the success or failure of other agents, a recursive problem comes into being where each agent must estimate other agent's reward in order to estimate their own reward, which in turn requires a recursive estimation of all other agent's rewards. Traditional MDPs cannot model such agents. This paper introduces a recursive social MDP where rewards are computed at different social levels. The 0th social level excludes social rewards entirely. In the first social level, each agent is rewarded according to their 0th level, and considering the 0th level rewards of all other agents according to their social reward function. On the second level, each agent is rewarded according to the other agent's first level rewards, and so on and so forth. This paper claims to have methods for computing these social rewards, social value functions, and social policies at different levels by estimating the physical and social goals of each other agent. The paper evaluates their method by comparing its estimates of the social relationships between agents (helping or hindering) to humans estimates of the same, and finds a significantly higher correlation between these estimates and the estimate of two baseline methods.\nstrengths_and_weaknesses: Strengths:\n\nThe paper addresses a significant problem in using RL for human robot interactions.\n\nThe method solves a significant technical challenge.\n\nWeaknesses:\n\nThe methods section of this paper is exceptionally unclear. I took at least 3 hours to understand just the method, in the process generating several figures that should have been in the main paper. The notation in the paper is used inconsistently, further exacerbating this problem.\n\nAlthough the social MDP framework allows for arbitrary recursive levels and numbers of agents, only two agents and two levels are tested experimentally.\n\nThe method is extremely computationally expensive. $O((A-1)^2\\ell)$ MDPs need to be solved, where $A$ is the number of agents and $\\ell$ is the depth of the social recursion. This is impractical for all but the smallest number of agents, which is likely why the experiments are limited. The paper suggests some spatial pruning of the dependency might be possible to alleviate this, but there are many environments where our actions can affect agents spatially far away, and so it is not obvious that further speedups are possible.\nsummary_of_recommendation: I recommend accepting this paper contingent on a significant rewrite of the methods section, which was exceptionally unclear. This paper addresses the important problem of modelling agents who value the wellbeing of others. The method, while poorly explained, is correct to the best of my knowledge, and is a natural complete description of the problem. Social reasoning is computationally expensive and difficult for humans, and so it is not surprising that it would also be so mathematically.\n\nI could be convinced to reject the paper if another reviewer found an unresolvable mathematical error in the method, which is reasonably likely, as I am not confident in my understanding of the method. I would also be convinced to reject if another reviewer had a strong argument that experiments with more agents or more social depth were unlikely to be as successful.\nissues: I have several significant confusions about how the method works. Many of these confusions could be resolved by the inclusion of an explicit algorithm figure for computing the actions of an agent within a social MDP and a diagram indicating how estimates of $R,Q,\\tilde{\\psi},\\tilde{\\chi},$ and $\\tilde{g}$ at different levels depend on each other. It would also help a lot if each of the expressions could include a derivation, even if they are only a few lines.\n\nAfter much deliberation, I now believe I understand the algorithm up to l=2 for 2 agents. I will now produce that algorithm here so that any misconceptions can be cleared up. I am deeply uncertain of many aspects of this description, especially when certain things are priors vs belief vectors at the previous level. I would like to reiterate that this was written very unclearly and in order to accept I would need a significant rewrite of the methods section.\n\nCompute $P(\\tilde{g}_2^{1,0})$ for many values of $g$, and then determine the working $\\tilde{g}_2^{1,0}$ by sampling one, or using the MLE or mean or something.\n\n=> In order to do so, estimate $\\tilde{R}\\_2^{0,1}$ under the assumed $g$ (which doesn't rely on $\\chi$ at the 0th level), then use that to compute $Q_{2}^0$, and use that to compute $\\tilde{\\pi}_2^1$, the non-social policy. The non social policy can then be used to determine $P(s^{1:T} | g_2)$, and the other terms are priors at this level. This whole procedure is essentially IRL in a non-social MDP.\n\nUnder this working $g$, compute $R \\rightarrow Q \\rightarrow \\pi$ as before. $\\tilde{\\psi}_2^{1,1} = \\tilde{\\pi}_2^1$.\n\nUsing an identical procedure, estimate $\\tilde{R}_1^{2,0}$.\n\nCompute $P(\\tilde{g} _2^{1,1})$ using prior belief vector $P(\\tilde{g}_2^{1,0})$ and $\\tilde{\\psi}_2^{1,1}$ to compute $P(s^{1:T} | g_2)$. Equation 3 does not include a level on the likelihood of $g$, so I'm assuming you pick the $\\psi$ at the current level and use the $\\chi$ implicitly used by $\\psi$, so you use the $\\chi$ of the prior level. This means that estimating $\\tilde{g}_2^{1,0}$ still doesn't rely on any $\\chi$ information, and so $P(\\chi)$ drops away at this level as well.\n\nEstimate $\\tilde{\\chi}_2^{1,1}$ using $\\tilde{\\psi}_2^{1,1}$ for $P(a_j^{t-1}|...)$. I assume at $t=0$ instead of recursing you use an improper prior of $1$.\n\nThen we estimate $\\tilde{R}_2^{1,1}$ using the estimated $\\tilde{g}_2^{1,1}$ to determine the non-social term, $\\tilde{\\chi}_2^{1,1}$ as the social weight, and the earlier $\\tilde{R}_1^{2,0}$ estimate of our own level 0 reward.\n\nFinally, we can compute our own $R^2_1$ level 2 reward using our ground truth $g_1$, our ground truth $\\chi_{12}$, and the estimated level 1 reward of agent 2 $\\tilde{R}_2^{1,1}$. From there we can estimate our own $Q^2_1$ function, and from there our own social policy $\\phi_1^2$.\n\nI will now describe other issues with the paper.\n\nYou define $\\mathcal{A} = \\mathcal{A}\\_i \\times \\mathcal{A}\\_J$. Does the set J include the $i$-th agent or not? If it does, does $\\mathcal{A}$ include agent $i$'s actions twice? This ambiguity is present everywhere $J$ is used, and it is used both ways e.g. in equation 4, the sum is over $j \\in J, j \\neq i$ which implies $i \\in J$, but line 140 states \"$\\chi_{iJ}$ is agent $i$'s social goal towards every other agent in J.\" which suggests $i \\notin J$.\n\nWith 2 agents, when agent 1 is trying to compute their first action, they need to maximize $Q_1^l(s, a_1, a_2, \\chi_{12}) = R_1(s, a_1, a_2, \\chi_{12}) + ...$, which requires knowing what $a_2$ is going to be. Agent 2 has the same problem. How is this resolved? Do the two agents take turns, and know the other agent's last action? Is there some protocol where a Pareto optimum is found?\n\nYou claim the time complexity is $O((A-1)^2 \\ell)$, but you also need to solve an MDP for each value of $g$ you test at the 0th layer, which is not included in the stated complexity.\n\nIn figures 2 and 3, are the given visual bounds and +- terms a confidence interval (if so, at what confidence). If not, what do they indicate?\n\nLine 70 \"Moreover, MDPs tend to be more efficient...\" What are the alternative formulations? Is this a claim you are making in this paper, or do you believe this is common knowledge? If the latter, please find a citation.\n\nThere are several notational or grammatical errors, some of which create ambiguity or affect clarity. I called out one earlier with the lack of a level on $P(g|s)$. Here are some more:\n\nLine 91: \"[24] propose\" -> nit, please list the author before the citation. The sentence should still be valid if all the citations are removed.\n\nEquation 2: $R_j^{j-1}$ -> $R_j^{l-1}\n\nLine 197: \"must compute pairwise social goal\" -> nit \"must compute the pairwise social goals\"\n\nFigure 1b caption \"that red wants to help it\" -> \"that red agent wants to harm it\".\n\nLine 208: \"four connected\" -> omit, just include the latter description. Four connection is under specified.\nRating: 9 strong accept, excellent work\n", "role": "assistant" }, { "content": "Title: Response to Reviewer N7Wd\nThank you for the helpful comments, we have incorporated them into an updated manuscript and addressed them point by point below.\n\n> Many of these confusions could be resolved by the inclusion of an explicit algorithm figure for computing the actions of an agent within a social MDP\n\nWe added Figure 2 to include the Social MDP algorithm sketch to show the sequence to compute the estimates and the recursion to the lower level for computing the actions. (Refer figure 2 at page 2)\n\n> A diagram indicating how estimates of R,Q,ψ~,χ~, and g~ at different levels depend on each other.\n\nWe added Figure 1 to show the dependency of variables between different levels. (Refer figure 1 at page 2)\n\n> Each of the expressions could include a derivation, even if they are only a few lines.\n\nWe rewrote section 3 to include the derivation of the Q function and label what each probability term means in equation 4. We also reorganized the subsections to introduce them in sequence. (Refer pages 4 through 5)\n\n> You define A=Ai×AJ. Does the set J include the i-th agent or not? If it does, does A include agent i's actions twice? This ambiguity is present everywhere J is used, and it is used both ways e.g. in equation 4, the sum is over j∈J,j≠i which implies i∈J, but line 140 states \"χiJ is agent i's social goal towards every other agent in J.\" which suggests i∉J.\n\nThe set J contains all agents in the environment so it includes i-th agent as well. We updated the definition of $\\chi_{iJ}$ to make it clear that the notation is just for convenience. And we also went over all equations to make sure that we include $j \\neq i$ whenever the summation is over other agents in J. (Refer line 141 to 142) \n\n> With 2 agents, when agent 1 is trying to compute their first action, they need to maximize Q1l(s,a1,a2,χ12)=R1(s,a1,a2,χ12)+..., which requires knowing what a2 is going to be. Agent 2 has the same problem. How is this resolved? Do the two agents take turns, and know the other agent's last action? Is there some protocol where a Pareto optimum is found?\n\nBoth agents take actions at the same time. When selecting the actions for agent i, we use the estimated actions for j to make decisions. The last observation is available to both agents to update the goal estimations so the action estimation is improved over time as well.\n\n> The method is extremely computationally expensive. O((A−1)^2 ℓ) MDPs need to be solved, where is the number of agents and is the depth of the social recursion. This is impractical for all but the smallest number of agents, which is likely why the experiments are limited\n\nTo address the reviewer’s concern we have run significantly more experiments referred to in the rest of the reviews. In addition, we note that quadratic algorithms are not impractical to run, moreso when the scaling factor A is small, as it is in social interactions. Most social interactions are between relatively few agents (even in a large party one does not directly and simultaneously interact with every agent). Moreover, this runtime is only required when computing the pairwise interactions between all agents, again a rare scenario at scale. Planning in general is riddled with algorithms that have relatively high complexity but are practical to run in general, e.g., AlphaZero is exponential in the branching factor of Chess, but it is still practical because not all interactions are present or meaningful.Algorithms like IPOMDPs have even far more extreme runtimes, requiring exponentially more recursive MDPs to be solved, yet they are still useful. Once the theory exists, approximate solutions can do wonders for speedups. (Refer lines 192 to 203)\n\n> You claim the time complexity is O((A−1)^(2ℓ)), but you also need to solve an MDP for each value of g you test at the 0th layer, which is not included in the stated complexity.\n\nAbsolutely. Our original formulation of the complexity was in terms of the number of recursive MDPs that must be solved, which includes the bottom MDP whose runtime scales as a function of g. We have updated the time complexity to more explicitly include the number of goals to be considered. (Refer lines 192 to 203)\n\n> In figures 2 and 3, are the given visual bounds and +- terms a confidence interval (if so, at what confidence). If not, what do they indicate?\n\nThe reviewer is correct. They are 95% confidence intervals. We have updated this in the caption of the figure 4 to note this. (Refer figure 4)\n\n> Line 70 \"Moreover, MDPs tend to be more efficient...\" What are the alternative formulations? Is this a claim you are making in this paper, or do you believe this is common knowledge? If the latter, please find a citation.\n\nWe meant this by comparison to POMDPs, we have removed this line as it was not essential.\n\n> There are several notational or grammatical errors, some of which create ambiguity or affect clarity. I called out one earlier with the lack of a level on P(g|s). Here are some more\n\nWe went over all the equations and fixed the errors that may introduce ambiguity and inconsistency. A level notation is included in all equations. The issues listed in the review are all fixed too. (Refer equation 2, 3, 4, 5, 6 and 7 at page 4 and 5)\n\n> Line 91: \"[24] propose\" -> nit, please list the author before the citation. The sentence should still be valid if all the citations are removed.\n\nWe have fixed the citation. (Refer line 91)\n\n> Equation 2: Rjj−1 -> $R_j^{l-1}\n\nThank you, we fixed this error in equation 2. (Refer equation 2 at page 4)\n\n> Line 197: \"must compute pairwise social goal\" -> nit \"must compute the pairwise social goals\"\n\nFixed. (Refer line 197 at page 6)\n\n> Figure 1b caption \"that red wants to help it\" -> \"that red agent wants to harm it\".\n\nFixed. (Refer figure 3 (previously figure 1) at page 6).\n\n> Line 208: \"four connected\" -> omit, just include the latter description. Four connection is under specified.\n\nUpdated the descriptions and included the four directions the agent can move. (Refer line 210 to 211).", "role": "user" }, { "content": "Title: Disagreement about the number of social agents that need to be considered\nFigures 1, 2, and the rewrite of section 3 are a significant improvement.\n> The set J...\nThank you for clearing this up.\n> we use the estimated actions for j to make decisions\nHow is the action estimated? Do you take the modal action from the estimated $\\ell$-th level social policy?\n> To address the reviewer’s concern...\nThe additional experiments are appreciated. I overstated my claim here to some extent. It's clear that humans are doing some kind of social pruning, and so in principle artificial methods must have access to some method that's at least that good.\n\nHowever, I disagree that \"Most social interactions are between relatively few agents (even in a large party one does not directly and simultaneously interact with every agent)\". Almost every action we take has social consequences for a large number of people. As an example, the decision to buy a certain product affects at least me, anyone consuming the product with me, the people who work at the store that sells the product, and the people who worked to produce that product. Note that spatial pruning would not do a good job of modelling interactions like these. These effects are often small or hard to estimate, and so (I assume, I am not a social scientist) humans tend to aggressively prune in the manner you've described. There are also notable circumstances where this pruning has a large cost, and it might be very valuable to have AI systems that in principle can do a better job of this than us.\n\nAll of this is to say: I don't think the suggested pruning method is likely to work well, and it's not obvious what the better ones should be.\n\n> Absolutely...\n\nYou're absorbing everything into M, yes? The change is appreciated.\n", "role": "assistant" }, { "content": "Title: The number of social agents that need to be considered\n> Figures 1, 2, and the rewrite of section 3 are a significant improvement.\n\nThanks! We agree.\n\n> However, I disagree that \"Most social interactions are between relatively few agents (even in a large party one does not directly and simultaneously interact with every agent)\".\n\nWe think this is a very neat point that is worth exploring below. Before we start with the reviewer's example, we want to make a distinction between social interactions and interactions with social consequences.\n\nLooking down at your cellphone while you drive and hitting someone is not a social interaction. The driver did not intend to hit anyone, although they were negligent. But it has social consequences both for the driver and for the person that was hit. Just because an action has social consequences, does not make it a social interaction. Moving on to the reviewer's example:\n\n> Almost every action we take has social consequences for a large number of people. As an example, the decision to buy a certain product affects at least me, anyone consuming the product with me, the people who work at the store that sells the product, and the people who worked to produce that product.\n\nWe are in complete agreement. Without a doubt this is true! But we think this proves our point. A tragic feature of how humans evaluate social interactions is that we do not consider these additional social interactions using the same mechanism that we use for small-scale social interactions. Directly forcing someone to work for you 14+ hours per day under squalid conditions without vacation for little to no pay is abhorrent and most people would consider this vile. Yet, one step removed, most people, regardless of what Amnesty International reports, don't find the same compassion and don't build the same 2nd hand social interactions with these workers. They continue to buy from such companies. The explanation for this is while an interaction exists with these workers, and it should be a social interactions, it is not, our mental mechanisms for social interactions don't apply because we don't behave as if they do.\n\n> These effects are often small or hard to estimate, and so (I assume, I am not a social scientist) humans tend to aggressively prune in the manner you've described. There are also notable circumstances where this pruning has a large cost, and it might be very valuable to have AI systems that in principle can do a better job of this than us.\n\nPerhaps what is going on is that there is a social interaction, but with some abstract concept of a \"worker\" and \"company\". These interactions seem to have far less of an emotional impact, we don't build rapport as easily, and notions of compassion don't really seem to apply in the same way. Sociologists often study face-to-face social interactions separately from other social actions.\n\n> However, I disagree that \"Most social interactions are between relatively few agents (even in a large party one does not directly and simultaneously interact with every agent)\".\n\nThere's a question here that experiments could answer: when you have an interaction with tens of thousands of people in a supply chain, does your mental model include them? Or does it include a single averaged entity \"the company\". We put forward that this could be the latter. Certainly humans did not evolve with thousands of other humans in close proximity (Dunbar's number would probably be larger in that case). But this is a testable hypothesis with modern neuroimaging: larger social interactions require more compute time, we should be able to decode this from fMRI or MEG. This hasn't been done to date, but it underscores the value of a model to guide experiments.\n\nAll of that being said, it could be that the reviewer is right! That humans do recruit the same mechanisms for these large-scale social interactions. In that case, we face the same problem that motion planning faces. We have a problem, we can formalize it, but it seems intractable in the real world, but humans and animals somehow solve it effortlessly. It's going to take a while to understand why this is but having the model is hand is clearly an important step.\n\nThe very fact that we can have this discussion shows how understudied social interactions are and highlights dire the need for mathematical models. Our model isn't perfect by any means. It only covers some interactions. And it's computationally expensive. But it's a precisely-specified model that one can attack, disagree with, prove false, modify, that makes concrete predictions about people and what we should find when we image their brains. We think switching to this mode of research is good progress for both social robots and understanding social interactions in humans.", "role": "user" }, { "content": "Title: Some people act on social goals wrt many people\nSo there are (at least) two concrete uses for a social MPD model: Understanding human actions, and creating a social agent. If there are humans an AI is trying to understand that take actions with regard to physically distant people, then you need to model those other people to understand the human's actions. Choosing to donate to a charity that affects people in another country is a fairly simple example of this. There are probably ways to abstract these other people into a single group object that abstracts those people, in the way that you abstract people into companies, which would reduce the effective number of people. I think there are nasty problems in e.g. coalition building/politics which cannot be easily abstracted in this way, but those may be in the minority of problems.\n\nOn the other hand, we might imagine an agent that we want primarily to optimize for universal social goals. This agent will then have to model everyone its actions affect, and then it may have this scaling problem if even some of the people the agent interacts have many nonzero social weights. There is a sense in which this problem is limited to the difficulty of the previous, which is that (unless any human has a social goal with regard to the artificial agent) modelling the full consequences of an action on very many people only happens at level 0, and all further levels can only consider the max number of people (or abstractions of people) that actual humans can manage.\n\nThe conceptual value of the model was never in question, my original objection was always in terms of the computational expense.\n\n", "role": "assistant" }, { "content": "Title: It's possible!\n> There are probably ways to abstract these other people into a single group object that abstracts those people, in the way that you abstract people into companies, which would reduce the effective number of people. I think there are nasty problems in e.g. coalition building/politics which cannot be easily abstracted in this way, but those may be in the minority of problems.\n\nAdding this level of abstraction has been one productive approach to motion planning. But for sure, there are plenty of nasty problems there. It doesn't seem like rigid abstraction layers work either here or in motion planning.\n\n> On the other hand, we might imagine an agent that we want primarily to optimize for universal social goals. This agent will then have to model everyone its actions affect, and then it may have this scaling problem if even some of the people the agent interacts have many nonzero social weights. There is a sense in which this problem is limited to the difficulty of the previous, which is that (unless any human has a social goal with regard to the artificial agent) modelling the full consequences of an action on very many people only happens at level 0, and all further levels can only consider the max number of people (or abstractions of people) that actual humans can manage.\n\nYeah, that's very possible! The next step is to consider superhuman social interactions that involve more people and aren't limited by things like Dunbar's number. I wonder what the consequences of this would be. Maybe we can actually find cases where in small games we can exceed the social inferences that humans are willing to make.\nWe were wondering if we addressed all your concerns and if you have any followup questions. Thank you!\nWe thank you for your strong support of our work and helping us make our manuscript better. \n Global/general Response:\n```\n Dear reviewers,\n\n We thank you for your valuable comments in your reviews which make a very interesting scientific discussion around the topic of social interactions. We are pleased to receive your positive enthusiasm for our work and are excited to work with you to make our manuscript a publishable paper. We are looking forward to hearing from you to see if we answered your concerns or if you have any follow-up questions. Below is the summary of all the fixes we made in the manuscript for your quick reference: \n\n\n### Summary of Fixes\n---\n#### I. Updates to the method section (section 3):\n* Included an algorithm sketch to show the sequence to compute the estimates and the recursion to the lower level for computing the actions.. (Refer figure 2 at page 2)\n* Included a dependency diagram indicating the estimates of variables at different levels of reasoning. (Refer figure 1 at page 2)\n* Rewrote section 3 to include the derivation of the Q function and label what each probability term means in equation 4. (Refer page 4 and 5)\n* Fixed all the equations for a few concerning notations. Also added descriptions for each equation (Refer equation 2,3,4,5,6,7 in page 4 and 5)\n* Reorganized the subsections of section 3 to introduce them in sequence. (line 138 to 190). \n\n#### II. Experiments \nWe ran 98 new experiments on all scenarios, on the cross product of all of the conditions (agents have either the same physical goal or different physical goals and one of 7 different scaling factors on each of their social goals (-2, -1, -0.5, 0, 0.5, 1, 2); 2*7*7=98 scenarios). The results for each experiment scenario can be found in the appendix. The performance for all the scenarios remained consistent with our initial results and is reported in Table 1. (Refer Page 11 through 32 of the appendix).\n\n#### III. Fixed other fixes \nAddressed 32 other issues raised by the reviewers and have fixed them in the manuscript. The line/page numbers are added to each review response to the reviewer. \n\nIn response to comments in the past day we have run an extensive human evaluation and made formatting changes. \nThese were the last two comments of two reviewers. We believe that we've addressed every comment with substantive changes.\n```\n", "role": "user" }, { "content": "I am grateful for the opportunity to discuss these points with the author, which has clearly contributed to strengthening this work.", "role": "assistant" } ]
3HZLte8gMYS
CoRL 2021 Conference
Reviewer_BjXW
[ { "content": "\nYou are an experienced academic paper reviewer. You will receive a conference paper in the field of computer science or AI. Please analyze the paper content carefully and output your review content.\nMore importantly, the author will further explain or refute the review comments you gave, and you need to further discuss with the author based on the author's response. \nThe purpose of this rebuttal and discussion is:\n- Clarification: During the review process, the reviewer (you) may not accurately understand the contribution or method of the paper due to unclear expression or misunderstanding of certain details. Through rebuttal, the author has the opportunity to clarify these misunderstandings and further illustrate the effectiveness of their innovations or methods.\n- Respond to criticisms and suggestions: The reviewer (you) may make criticisms or suggestions on the paper, and the author can use the discussion session to provide specific responses, explain why certain criticisms may not apply, or how to improve and optimize certain aspects of the paper.\nFinally, you and the author will work together to enhance the persuasiveness of the paper and improve the quality of the paper.\n", "role": "system" }, { "content": "Now your reviewer ID is assigned as Reviewer_BjXW, and the following are the paper you need to review:\n```<<3HZLte8gMYS>>```", "role": "user" }, { "content": "Review Content: summary: This work introduces recursive social MDPs, which are able to reason about other agents physical and social goals at different levels of recursion. These social MDPs enable agents to behave more socially…for example, if another agent wants to help them, they can accept help rather than trying to do their own physical task alone. These recursive social MDPs are tested on five potential social scenarios in a gridworld, and the social MDPs predictions are shown to correlate with human predictions of social/physical goal behavior.\nstrengths_and_weaknesses: The proposed Social MDPs are a very interesting idea, and the stated motivation for them is strong. The proposed framework is also quite general, which lends itself well to future extensions of this work to multiple agents, and potentially POMDPs. The paper shows a good amount of thought put towards future extensions of Social MDPs.\n\nHowever, it is unclear to me how the five chosen scenarios were picked for testing, and as far as I can tell there were no scenarios tested where both agents were trying to help each other. Without additional reasoning for why Scenarios 1, 15, 22, 28, and 30 were the ones chosen, it’s unclear how convincing the results are for the overall performance of Social MDPs. However, there is good performance shown on the selected five scenarios.\n\nOverall, this is a very interesting paper, and the motivation for Social MDPs is convincing.\nsummary_of_recommendation: I am recommending a weak reject, because it’s unclear why the specific scenarios were picked for testing while others were excluded. However, the Social MDPs are quite interesting and well presented, and the motivation was convincing.\n\nUpdated post-rebuttal: the authors added significant experiments during the rebuttal period, including all scenarios during testing. I now recommend accepting this paper, and have changed the technical quality to Very Good. I have not seen the full written addition to the paper as the authors were not able to add the full experiments to the pdf yet, so I am somewhat torn between a weak accept and a strong accept, but I'm updating my review to a strong accept contingent on these results being added to the paper.\nissues: Issues to address in the author response/revision period:\n-\tWhy were Scenarios 1, 15, 22, 28, and 30 chosen? Are other scenarios expected to perform as well as these five? \n-\tHow would a scenario with two helpful agents (say two agents with social goals set to 2) play out? \n-\tSome of the equations (for example, Equation 3), might be easier to understand with a written description alongside the mathematical equation.\n-\tHow do the agents take joint moves in this gridworld? Does agent 1 move, and then agent 2, or do they move simultaneously? \n-\tThe Social MDPs are tested on a task that is a fairly simple level 0 MDP. How would the time/learning complexity extend to more complex MDPs, and is it still feasible for 0 shot learning?\n-\tTiny note, but I think ~R_j^(j-1) in equation 2 is supposed to read ~R_j^(l-1), is that right?\nRating: 9 strong accept, excellent work\n", "role": "assistant" }, { "content": "Title: Response to Reviewer BjXW\nWe appreciate the reviewer’s thoughtful comments and have addressed these with extensive new substantive experiments.\n\n> I am recommending a weak reject, because it’s unclear why the specific scenarios were picked for testing while others were excluded. However, the Social MDPs are quite interesting and well presented, and the motivation was convincing.\n\nThe reviewer is right. Rather than cherry picking we should have run every single experiment scenario. We have done so now addressing the concerns about the experiments. We have run all experiments on all scenarios, on the cross product of all of the conditions (agents have either the same physical goal or different physical goals and one of 7 different scaling factors on each of their social goals (-2, -1, -0.5, 0, 0.5, 1, 2); 2*7*7=98 scenarios). The results for each experiment scenario can be found in the appendix. The performance for all the scenarios remained consistent with our initial results and is reported in Table 1. (Refer page 11 to 32 of appendix)\n\n> How would a scenario with two helpful agents (say two agents with social goals set to 2) play out? \n\nWhen both the agents have a social goal of 2 then they could either have a different physical goal (scenario 49) or a same physical goal (scenario 98). Please refer to https://social-mdp.github.io/scenarios#scenario-49 and https://social-mdp.github.io/scenarios#scenario-98 (note: it might take longer to load the videos on the webpage). The results of these can also be found in the appendix. (Refer page 22 and 32 of the appendix).\n\n> Some of the equations (for example, Equation 3), might be easier to understand with a written description alongside the mathematical equation.\n\nThe reviewer is correct, fixed. (Refer lines 138 to 190).\n\n> How do the agents take joint moves in this gridworld? Does agent 1 move, and then agent 2, or do they move simultaneously? \n\nBoth agents take actions at the same time in the gridworld. When selecting the actions for agent i, we use the estimated actions for j to make decisions. The last observation is available to both agents to update the goal estimations so the action estimation is improved over time as well.\n\n> The Social MDPs are tested on a task that is a fairly simple level 0 MDP. How would the time/learning complexity extend to more complex MDPs, and is it still feasible for 0 shot learning? \n\nIt is possible to run 0 shot learning on further complex MDP but the time complexity will increase as the state and action space get more complex. It is possible to speed up the model by amortized inference (similar to Netanyahu et al.’s PHASE 2021) over goals and relations by training a neural net to recognize goals and relations as initial guesses and refine them through probabilistic inference. We have updated this in the manuscript. (Refer line 201 to 203).\n\n> Tiny note, but I think ~R_j^(j-1) in equation 2 is supposed to read ~R_j^(l-1), is that right? \n\nIt is. Thank you. We fixed the error. (Refer equation 2 at page 4)\n\n Global/general Response:\n```\n Dear reviewers,\n\n We thank you for your valuable comments in your reviews which make a very interesting scientific discussion around the topic of social interactions. We are pleased to receive your positive enthusiasm for our work and are excited to work with you to make our manuscript a publishable paper. We are looking forward to hearing from you to see if we answered your concerns or if you have any follow-up questions. Below is the summary of all the fixes we made in the manuscript for your quick reference: \n\n\n### Summary of Fixes\n---\n#### I. Updates to the method section (section 3):\n* Included an algorithm sketch to show the sequence to compute the estimates and the recursion to the lower level for computing the actions.. (Refer figure 2 at page 2)\n* Included a dependency diagram indicating the estimates of variables at different levels of reasoning. (Refer figure 1 at page 2)\n* Rewrote section 3 to include the derivation of the Q function and label what each probability term means in equation 4. (Refer page 4 and 5)\n* Fixed all the equations for a few concerning notations. Also added descriptions for each equation (Refer equation 2,3,4,5,6,7 in page 4 and 5)\n* Reorganized the subsections of section 3 to introduce them in sequence. (line 138 to 190). \n\n#### II. Experiments \nWe ran 98 new experiments on all scenarios, on the cross product of all of the conditions (agents have either the same physical goal or different physical goals and one of 7 different scaling factors on each of their social goals (-2, -1, -0.5, 0, 0.5, 1, 2); 2*7*7=98 scenarios). The results for each experiment scenario can be found in the appendix. The performance for all the scenarios remained consistent with our initial results and is reported in Table 1. (Refer Page 11 through 32 of the appendix).\n\n#### III. Fixed other fixes \nAddressed 32 other issues raised by the reviewers and have fixed them in the manuscript. The line/page numbers are added to each review response to the reviewer. \n\nIn response to comments in the past day we have run an extensive human evaluation and made formatting changes. \nThese were the last two comments of two reviewers. We believe that we've addressed every comment with substantive changes.\n```\n", "role": "user" }, { "content": "Title: Updated Response\nThe authors answered most of my questions, and I appreciated the addition of experiments on the rest of the scenarios. However, I still have concerns about the experiments. As far as I can tell, there is still only human data for the original five scenarios, and the motivation for the five scenarios chosen for collecting human data is unclear. Without extra human experiments or reason for the chosen scenarios, the human results are unclear. I have kept my review at a weak reject. Thanks to the authors for the thorough response to my questions.", "role": "assistant" }, { "content": "Title: We have collected human data and updated all of the results\n> As far as I can tell, there is still only human data for the original five scenarios, and the motivation for the five scenarios chosen for collecting human data is unclear. Without extra human experiments or reason for the chosen scenarios, the human results are unclear.\n\nAh, we misunderstood what the reviewer was asking for!\n\nIn the past 24 hours we have collected human data for all scenarios, run our model, compared it against the human data and updated the website with the results. These will be in the final version of the manuscript (we can't update that on OpenReview right now). The full results with human data for every scenario as requested can be found here: https://social-mdp.github.io/results/\n\n| Goal | Social MDP (ours ) | Inverse Planning | Cue-based |\n|:-----------:|:------------------:|:----------------:|-----------|\n| Social Goal | 0.83 | 0.76 | 0.19 |\n| Physical Goal | 0.74 | 0.64 | 0.06 |\n\nThe results stay the same even though we included every single scenario thereby increased the number of scenarios several times.\n\n> Without extra human experiments or reason for the chosen scenarios, the human results are unclear. I have kept my review at a weak reject. Thanks to the authors for the thorough response to my questions.\n\nWe hope that this addresses all of the reviewer's concerns.", "role": "user" }, { "content": "Title: Response to additional human data\nThanks for the further update, these results are much more thorough and convincing to me. This addition changes my recommendation to a weak accept, which I will update in my review.", "role": "assistant" }, { "content": "Title: Thanks and Updates\nThanks for your comments!\nWe think that all of this resulted in a much better manuscript.\nWe thank you for your strong support in our work and help us make our manuscript stronger. \n\nIn response to your post-rebuttal comments about the need for written additions to the paper, we have added all the human experiment results in the latest version of the paper here - https://social-mdp.github.io/paper/S-MDP-CoRL-Paper-Latest-Version-v1.0.pdf ", "role": "user" }, { "content": "I am pleased to have had the opportunity to discuss the points above with the author, which has definitely improved the overall quality of the paper.", "role": "assistant" } ]
3HZLte8gMYS
CoRL 2021 Conference
Reviewer_jXz2
[ { "content": "\nYou are an experienced academic paper reviewer. You will receive a conference paper in the field of computer science or AI. Please analyze the paper content carefully and output your review content.\nMore importantly, the author will further explain or refute the review comments you gave, and you need to further discuss with the author based on the author's response. \nThe purpose of this rebuttal and discussion is:\n- Clarification: During the review process, the reviewer (you) may not accurately understand the contribution or method of the paper due to unclear expression or misunderstanding of certain details. Through rebuttal, the author has the opportunity to clarify these misunderstandings and further illustrate the effectiveness of their innovations or methods.\n- Respond to criticisms and suggestions: The reviewer (you) may make criticisms or suggestions on the paper, and the author can use the discussion session to provide specific responses, explain why certain criticisms may not apply, or how to improve and optimize certain aspects of the paper.\nFinally, you and the author will work together to enhance the persuasiveness of the paper and improve the quality of the paper.\n", "role": "system" }, { "content": "Now your reviewer ID is assigned as Reviewer_jXz2, and the following are the paper you need to review:\n```<<3HZLte8gMYS>>```", "role": "user" }, { "content": "Review Content: summary: This paper presents a novel methodology to include social goals in a decision-making problem (where physical goals are already considered). In this way, the problem is very well defined: how to incorporate social interactions into MDPs? The authors propose to consider recursive goals (social and physical) of all agents of the environment. In doing so, the authors (probably) opened a new research line in the Robotics community: Social Markov Decision Processes (Social MDPs).\n\nstrengths_and_weaknesses: * Strengths\nIndeed, the novelty of this work is its strength. There are few related works, so the authors may open here a new research line in Robotics. In addition, the problem has paramount importance for topics such as Human-Robot Interaction and Robot Learning. \n\n* Weaknesses\nHowever, the authors define \"Social Interactions\" in a very superficial way (helping/hindering), which should be comprehensively exploited. Other weaknesses that can be pointed out are: \n - mathematical formulations poorly justified/explained\n - results visually unclear but that are very important to understand the evidences/hypotheses presented in the document\n\nSee also \"Issues\"\nsummary_of_recommendation: Although the article is well written and the idea is very interesting, there are some missing links found throughout the document. The document needs some clarifications and discussions (maybe proofs, if that's the case) in the mathematical formulations. There is space for an Appendix for more explanations or additional material.\n\nissues: Abstract\nThe authors consider hindering and helping as social interactions, while one can state that these are more collaborative/uncooperative interactions. Could you define social interactions? For instance, in the experiments you show results with two robots. Do two robots comprise a social group? Perhaps, reasoning about other's intention may be considered as a social behavior, but it is an instance of social behaviors. \n\nIn the Abstract you should define the abbreviations: MDP - Markov decision process, and POMDP- Partially observable Markov decision process. The first time MDP is defined is in Sec. 3, line 103.\n\nSection 1. Introduction\nYou could define better (crisper) physical and social goals by including practical examples. \n\nThe authors consider social and physical goals at the same level of abstraction. However, one may figure cases where social goals drive physical goals. In these cases, social goals trigger physical goals. We can even consider, in those specific situations, that the physical goals are drives to satiate the social goals. Throughout the author's description, one can see that both concepts are disentangled, which is not (always) true - e.g. An agent wants to go towards a human to greet him (social goal); so, the agent needs to go to a certain location (physical goal) in order to greet the human. Hence, the physical goal stems from a social goal. How do you see that these cases affect your formulation? For instance, should the physical goal depend on the social goal? If so, how?\n\nSection 2. Related Work, Simulating social interactions\nRewrite lines 82-83 (word repetition - \"allow\").\n\nSection 3. Social MDPs\nLine 43: \"Unlike I-POMDPs, Social MDPs are not recursive in terms of agent's beliefs (...)\". Line 104: \"Social MDPs are (...) and nested MDPs that reason about the beliefs of other agents\". Please be coherent or clarify better. \n\nRegarding the notion of levels, in which extent levels deeper than 2 vary from the considered ones?\n\nSection 3.1 Assumptions\nIRL should be defined and discussed. There was no previous context when \"IRL\" was mentioned.\n\nSection 3.2 Formal definition of Social MDPs\nWhy the physical goal is not part of the definition? Or seen from a different perspective why the social goal is part of the definition? Being coherent here is important.\n\nReward\nIn the formula, the expresion R_j^{j-1,i} is not clear, do you mean R_j^{l-1,i}? It is the estimated reward for agent from 's point of view and following the methodology's formulation, j's are all considered with one level below the target's one.\n\nSections 3.3. ,3.4, and 3.5\nMathematical choices and formulas should be explained, discussed or referenced.\n\n4. Results\nThe results are extremely important and show how fruitful was the presented work. All images and plots must be bigger, otherwise one cannot see the real impact of your approach (the videos are also very good, but try to increase the size of the images, perhaps the inclusion of an Appendix is a great solution). In the caption of figure 1. (b) there is a mistake: the red robot wants to hinder the yellow, not to help it. Again, one can envisage social behaviors included in this system, but for now it is not clear that two robots helping/hindering each other is the representation of a social interaction.\n\nFinally, you reference Figure 3, but it is a Table. Please revise it.\n\nSection References\nReferences 12, 19, and 30 do not contain the respective conference or journal, Please include this information.\nRating: 7 accept, but needs minor improvements\n", "role": "assistant" }, { "content": "Title: Response to Reviewer jXz2\nThank you for the positive feedback. We have addressed all of the concerns brought up in the review below. In addition to the detailed response below we have also updated the manuscript fixing the typos the reviewer pointed out.\n\n> Abstract: The authors consider hindering and helping as social interactions, while one can state that these are more collaborative/uncooperative interactions. Could you define social interactions? For instance, in the experiments you show results with two robots. Do two robots comprise a social group? Perhaps, reasoning about other's intention may be considered as a social behavior, but it is an instance of social behaviors.\n\nThe reviewer’s point is well taken. There are no satisfactory mathematical definitions of what a social interaction is. That is precisely the problem we aim to address, taking a first step in that direction. We choose hindering and helping as social interactions by following 7 decades of work in the field of micro social interactions (see Maiwald & Suerig, 2017, Microsociology: A Tool Kit for Interaction Analysis for an extensive review). In the field of microsocial interactions studies do consider interactions between dyads (pairs of agents), including hindering and helping as we do here, but without a computational model.\nWe believe that a theory-driven approach which begins with work done in the social sciences can both result in robots that are socially adept and eventually elucidate the muddled picture of social interactions that the reviewer points out.\nWe have added a more explicit link to microsociology and the long history of these questions (Refer line 31 at page 1)\n\n> In the Abstract you should define the abbreviations: MDP - Markov decision process, and POMDP- Partially observable Markov decision process. The first time MDP is defined is in Sec. 3, line 103.\n\nWe have updated the abstract to elaborate acronyms. (Refer line 6 and line 17).\n\n> Section 1. Introduction You could define better (crisper) physical and social goals by including practical examples.\n\nThe reviewer is correct. We have added an example for each in the introduction. (Refer lines 38-39 at page 1)\n\n> The authors consider social and physical goals at the same level of abstraction. However, one may figure cases where social goals drive physical goals. In these cases, social goals trigger physical goals. We can even consider, in those specific situations, that the physical goals are drives to satiate the social goals. Throughout the author's description, one can see that both concepts are disentangled, which is not (always) true - e.g. An agent wants to go towards a human to greet him (social goal); so, the agent needs to go to a certain location (physical goal) in order to greet the human. Hence, the physical goal stems from a social goal. How do you see that these cases affect your formulation? For instance, should the physical goal depend on the social goal? If so, how?\n\nWe absolutely agree and believe that this framework addresses this precise issue. In the formulation we provide, social goals can depend on physical goals at different levels of recursion and vice versa. Without a doubt this is an important feature. Social goals can trigger physical subgoals and physical goals can trigger social subgoals. Indeed, in our formulation both kinds of goals equally and jointly drive the behavior of a planner, and both result in physical actions. \n\nWe could make this relationship more explicit as the reviewer points out, although we note that the integration between the two is already fully-available within Social MDPs and that this would be a speedup rather than a change in the behaviour of the agents. This could be done with a hierarchical planner that proposes physical goals for both physical and social goals. We intend to do this in the future and it is likely a critical step toward a more efficient formulation.\n\n> Reward In the formula, the expresion R_j^{j-1,i} is not clear, do you mean R_j^{l-1,i}? It is the estimated reward for agent from 's point of view and following the methodology's formulation, j's are all considered with one level below the target's one.\n\nWe fixed this error in equation 2. (Refer equation 2 at page 4)\n> … one can envisage social behaviors included in this system, but for now it is not clear that two robots helping/hindering each other is the representation of a social interaction.\n\nThe reviewer brings up an important theoretical issue. What is a mathematical model for social interactions? No such model exists at present, so we put forward Social MDPs for a subset of social interactions. What we mean by representation of social interactions is that the behaviors of the resulting agents are considered social behaviors by human observers. We never intend to claim that this is “the” representation of social interactions, merely that a subset of social interactions can be formulated in this manner giving rise to zero-shot execution, which is useful for both practical robotics and for hopefully making theoretical progress on this question.\n\n\n> Section 2. Related Work, Simulating social interactions Rewrite lines 82-83 (word repetition - \"allow\").\n\nFixed. (Refer line 84 to 86).\n\n> Section 3. Social MDPs Line 43: \"Unlike I-POMDPs, Social MDPs are not recursive in terms of agent's beliefs (...)\". Line 104: \"Social MDPs are (...) and nested MDPs that reason about the beliefs of other agents\". Please be coherent or clarify better.\n\nThank you. We used beliefs in a technical manner in the first sentence and in a sloppy way in the second sentence. We have corrected this. \nWhat we mean is that Social MDPs are recursive in how they estimate another agent’s reward, but not their beliefs (used in a technical sense, as in their estimates about partially-observed environments) about the world. (Refer lines 105 to 106)\n\n> Regarding the notion of levels, in which extent levels deeper than 2 vary from the considered ones?\n\nThis is a good question! There are two answers here, one is trivial and the other is deeper and theoretically exciting. \nThe simple answer is that deeper levels are helpful for cases which involve more than two agents in order to chain the agent’s behaviors. Agent A wants to fix their car. Agent B wants to help Agent A. Agent C wants to help Agent B. C must estimate B’s social goals which in turn requires estimating A’s physical goal. Each additional agent in this chain requires another level to estimate another agent’s social goals. While this answer is easy, it’s not really realistic beyond a modest depth. We doubt that any human interactions require very deep chains like this one.\nThe most nuanced answer is that we did not even understand the distinction between level 1 or 2 until we began exhaustively formulating cross products of scenarios and thinking through what agents would do. Only then did we discover that level 1 and 2 lead to substantially different behavior even for pairs of agents (because you can know that another agent is trying to help you). Level 3 would allow agent X to think about how the social goals of agent Y are a consequence of X’s actions, and how the different behaviors of X can lead to changes in the social goal of Y. We are in the process of extending our work to include notions of coercion and competition which would make Level 3 much richer.\nTheoretically, there is a practical question here. Do humans use a shortcut or do they also perform nested inference in this manner? Perhaps we can detect a signature of this with neuroimaging like fMRI, perhaps certain social disorders have to do with the level of inference being made, perhaps children develop deeper levels as they age, etc. We don’t know. But we are very excited to even be able to talk about such questions with a practical model in hand.\n\n> Section 3.1 Assumptions IRL should be defined and discussed. There was no previous context when \"IRL\" was mentioned.\n\nThank you, this was a leftover from a previous model. We removed it and corrected the paragraph.\n\n> Section 3.2 Formal definition of Social MDPs Why the physical goal is not part of the definition? Or seen from a different perspective why the social goal is part of the definition? Being coherent here is important.\n\nFixed. Refer equation 1 and lines 138 to 142.\n\n> Sections 3.3. ,3.4, and 3.5 Mathematical choices and formulas should be explained, discussed or referenced. \n\nWe rewrote section 3 and went over all the equations. We added the descriptions to the equations and fixed the errors that may introduce ambiguity and inconsistency. (Refer page 4 to 5).\n\n> Finally, you reference Figure 3, but it is a Table. Please revise it.\n\nThis is now Table 1. (Refer page 7)\n\n> Section References References 12, 19, and 30 do not contain the respective conference or journal, Please include this information.\n\nFixed. (Refer references at page 9 and 10)\n\n> Results: The results are extremely important and show how fruitful was the presented work. All images and plots must be bigger, otherwise one cannot see the real impact of your approach (the videos are also very good, but try to increase the size of the images, perhaps the inclusion of an Appendix is a great solution). \n\nWe have now added the results for each of the 98 experiment scenarios in the appendix with bigger images. (Refer page 11 through 32 of appendix)\n\n> In the caption of figure 1. (b) there is a mistake: the red robot wants to hinder the yellow, not to help it. \n\nFixed. (Refer figure 3(previously 1) at page 6)\n\t\t\n Global/general Response:\n```\n Dear reviewers,\n\n We thank you for your valuable comments in your reviews which make a very interesting scientific discussion around the topic of social interactions. We are pleased to receive your positive enthusiasm for our work and are excited to work with you to make our manuscript a publishable paper. We are looking forward to hearing from you to see if we answered your concerns or if you have any follow-up questions. Below is the summary of all the fixes we made in the manuscript for your quick reference: \n\n\n### Summary of Fixes\n---\n#### I. Updates to the method section (section 3):\n* Included an algorithm sketch to show the sequence to compute the estimates and the recursion to the lower level for computing the actions.. (Refer figure 2 at page 2)\n* Included a dependency diagram indicating the estimates of variables at different levels of reasoning. (Refer figure 1 at page 2)\n* Rewrote section 3 to include the derivation of the Q function and label what each probability term means in equation 4. (Refer page 4 and 5)\n* Fixed all the equations for a few concerning notations. Also added descriptions for each equation (Refer equation 2,3,4,5,6,7 in page 4 and 5)\n* Reorganized the subsections of section 3 to introduce them in sequence. (line 138 to 190). \n\n#### II. Experiments \nWe ran 98 new experiments on all scenarios, on the cross product of all of the conditions (agents have either the same physical goal or different physical goals and one of 7 different scaling factors on each of their social goals (-2, -1, -0.5, 0, 0.5, 1, 2); 2*7*7=98 scenarios). The results for each experiment scenario can be found in the appendix. The performance for all the scenarios remained consistent with our initial results and is reported in Table 1. (Refer Page 11 through 32 of the appendix).\n\n#### III. Fixed other fixes \nAddressed 32 other issues raised by the reviewers and have fixed them in the manuscript. The line/page numbers are added to each review response to the reviewer. \n\nIn response to comments in the past day we have run an extensive human evaluation and made formatting changes. \nThese were the last two comments of two reviewers. We believe that we've addressed every comment with substantive changes.\n```\n", "role": "user" }, { "content": "Thanks for the authors' response. It adequately addresses the points I raised. I uphold my recommendation to accept this paper.", "role": "assistant" } ]
4u25M570Iji
CoRL 2021 Conference
Reviewer_XGcM
[ { "content": "\nYou are an experienced academic paper reviewer. You will receive a conference paper in the field of computer science or AI. Please analyze the paper content carefully and output your review content.\nMore importantly, the author will further explain or refute the review comments you gave, and you need to further discuss with the author based on the author's response. \nThe purpose of this rebuttal and discussion is:\n- Clarification: During the review process, the reviewer (you) may not accurately understand the contribution or method of the paper due to unclear expression or misunderstanding of certain details. Through rebuttal, the author has the opportunity to clarify these misunderstandings and further illustrate the effectiveness of their innovations or methods.\n- Respond to criticisms and suggestions: The reviewer (you) may make criticisms or suggestions on the paper, and the author can use the discussion session to provide specific responses, explain why certain criticisms may not apply, or how to improve and optimize certain aspects of the paper.\nFinally, you and the author will work together to enhance the persuasiveness of the paper and improve the quality of the paper.\n", "role": "system" }, { "content": "Now your reviewer ID is assigned as Reviewer_XGcM, and the following are the paper you need to review:\n```<<4u25M570Iji>>```", "role": "user" }, { "content": "Review Content: summary: One of the problems in trajectory prediction is that the predicted trajectories do not abide by its context, i.e., they can go out of drivable areas. To solve this issue, the authors proposed an additional \"unlikelihood\" loss function which discourages the likelihood term to put lower density near negative trajectories. The authors show the improvement on nuScenes dataset where the loss is added to Trajectron++, and Argoverse dataset where the loss is added to Gaussian LaneGCN. The ablation suggests that this approach performs better than an adhoc post-processing approach that removes violation.\nstrengths_and_weaknesses: Strengths\n1. I like the key idea is based on the fact that validating trajectories is easier than generating them. So, we can first classify good and bad trajectories and use those to shape the output distribution. \n2. The idea of using \"unlikelihood\" seems to be novel, and this paper can inspire future avenues in exploiting negative trajectories.\n3. The ablation and the results are convincing.\n\nWeaknesses\n1. The loss function used in the experiment is not clear to me. For example in eq 5, what does p_theta(Y|X,z) looks like? Is it a gaussian with learned mean and variant? \n2. How does metrics reflect the multimodal nature of the trajectories? L2 measurement alone does not capture how accurate we model Y|X when they are multimodal. \n3. Figure 1 is not very clear in demonstrating the issue the paper is trying address. The uncertainty is only slightly off the track. Also, it seems like the high uncertainty is more of a problem in this figure. Also it would be nice to compare the result of this method before and after in in figure 1.\n4. How sensitive is the result to the hyper-parameter? Is the result overfit to the validation data -- as the paper mentioned that the validation data are used for testing?\n\nOthers:\n1. There might be similar approaches in ML+motion planning to avoid constraint violation. \n\nsummary_of_recommendation: The paper provides a simple trick that can be added generative models for motion forecasting. The paper provides convincing results that it can improve over the state-of-the-arts. However, I still have slight concern over the hyper-parameter tuning and test settings.\nissues: I'd like to see the authors address the 3 points mentioned above in the weakness section. \nSome word choices: geometrical nearness --> geometrical proximity\nRating: 9 strong accept, excellent work\n", "role": "assistant" }, { "content": "Title: Answer to Questions\nThank you for your detailed and helpful review, questions and suggestions. We here address them and incorporated all the feedback. \n\n**Loss function used in the experiment is not clear to me. For example in eq 5, what does $p_\\theta(Y|X,z)$ looks like? Is it a gaussian with a learned mean and variant?**\n\n$p_\\theta(Y|X)$ depends on the type of the distribution the model we combined with uses.\nIn case of a Gaussian mixture model (which is used by Trajectron++ as mentioned in ),\n$\\log p_\\theta(Y|X)= \\sum_t \\log \\sum_z p(z|X) N(y_t|\\mu_{z, t}, \\Sigma_{z, t})$. Here, $\\mu_{z,t}$ and $\\Sigma_{z,t}$ are the predicted mean and the covariance at the step t of the z-th component. $p(z|X)$ is a predicted categorical distribution.\nGaussian LaneGCN generates 6 Gaussian distributions. During training, Gaussian LaneGCN selects the best distribution among these 6 for each datapoint and optimizes the MLE loss (and the unlikelihood loss in our case) on it. \nSo $p_\\theta(Y|X)$ here is simply a Gaussian with a learned mean and variance.\n\n\n**Figure 1 is not very clear in demonstrating the issue the paper is trying to address. The uncertainty is only slightly off the track. Also, it seems like the high uncertainty is more of a problem in this figure. Also, it would be nice to compare the result of this method before and after in figure 1.**\n\nThanks for this suggestion! To better demonstrate, we replace the original Fig.1 with a crop version of the Trajectron++ example in Fig.3 and highlight the violation part by ellipses; see Fig.3. More qualitative examples are listed in the supplementary materials.\n\n\n\n\n\n**How do metrics reflect the multimodal nature of the trajectories? L2 measurement alone does not capture how accurate we model Y|X when they are multimodal.**\nWe target improving the quality of the predicted distribution. However, we only have 1 ground truth future trajectory instead of the real future distribution.\nIn this case, it is hard to have a metric that estimates how similar our predicted distribution $p_\\theta(y|x)$ is to the ground truth distribution $p_{gt}(y|x)$.\nAs our unlikelihood loss is built upon the context checker and is not so related to the multimodal property, we assume the multimodal nature of the prediction when using our loss will not be obviously affected. \nIn this case, the reduced L2 measurement like FDE-Full and ADE-Full can still show the improvement of the distribution quality.\nIn addition, we also report the context-violation rate in our experiments.\nThis metric is compatible with the multi-modal nature and shows that our distribution quality is improved.\n\n\n\n\n**How sensitive is the result to the hyper-parameter? Is the result overfit to the validation data -- as the paper mentioned that the validation data are used for testing?**\n\nFor nuScene dataset, we notice that the original hyperparameters that Trajectron++ uses are not good enough, and we are afraid that this will lead to a 'fake improvement' of our method. Therefore, we tune the hyperparameters of Trajectron++ based on **the performance of Trajectron++** (as mentioned in Line 215-216 of the updated paper) on a validation set that is split from the original training set. The original validation set is used as the test set, and no hyperparameters are optimized on it (i.e., it is disjoint from the hyper-parameter validation set ). Our method has a new hyperparameter gamma compared to Trajectron++. We simply set it to 1 in our experiments. \nFor Argoverse, the hyperparameters of Gaussian LaneGCN and our method are the same as the default hyperparameter of LaneGCN. For our additional gamma, we similarly set it to 1.\nWe did run new experiments with different gamma values (0.1, 0.3, 3, 10) and added the detailed results and discussion in the appendix (Section 'hyperparameter gamma'). We also briefly introduce this experiment in the ablation study of the main paper.\nWe notice that if we use a small $\\gamma$, the improvement over the original Trajectron++ is decreased. \nThis is expected since a smaller $\\gamma$ reduces the effect of our unlikelihood loss.\nThe performance doesn't change much when we further increase $\\gamma$ from 1 to 3 and 10.\nHowever, we notice that when we set $\\gamma$ to 3 and 10, as the training goes, the prediction accuracy decreases after it reaches the best performance. \nWe think this is because the model focuses too much on obeying the context and pays less attention to getting close to the ground truth in these cases. \nIn conclusion, balancing the original training loss and our likelihood loss matters, and simply setting $\\gamma$ to 1 could balance the original training loss and our unlikelihood loss well.\n Global/general Response:\n```\nWe thank reviewers for their valuable and insightful feedback. We are encouraged that they find our idea is novel (XGcM), interesting (Fbgh), and simple but effective (nXVp); our writing is clear (XGcM, Fbgh, nXVp), and our work could be impactful (XGcM, Fbgh, nXVp). We here reply to the reviewers' comments individually and incorporate all the feedback. \n\n**Updated Paper**\nWe also revised our paper and supplementary material to incorporate reviewers' feedback. The changed text is marked in blue color for an easy and quick check. We list here the key updates that we applied to improve the paper. \n\n1. We added new ablation studies on our hyperparameter $\\gamma$ in both the main paper and the supplementary material.\n\n2. We added a new discussion with the R2P2 method in the related work section and Beelines in the Context-Checker Design paragraph in Sec.3.3\n\n3. We updated Fig.1 and Fig.3 for a better demonstration\n\n4. We added the context-violation rate of the ground truth in Tab.1 and Tab.3.\n\n5. We added the standard deviation in Tab.5.\n\n6. We fixed grammar and notation mistakes.\n```\n", "role": "user" }, { "content": "Title: Thank you\nThank you for addressing my questions and concerns. After reading the author's response, I'd like to maintain my score which is strong accept.", "role": "assistant" } ]
4u25M570Iji
CoRL 2021 Conference
Reviewer_Fbgh
[ { "content": "\nYou are an experienced academic paper reviewer. You will receive a conference paper in the field of computer science or AI. Please analyze the paper content carefully and output your review content.\nMore importantly, the author will further explain or refute the review comments you gave, and you need to further discuss with the author based on the author's response. \nThe purpose of this rebuttal and discussion is:\n- Clarification: During the review process, the reviewer (you) may not accurately understand the contribution or method of the paper due to unclear expression or misunderstanding of certain details. Through rebuttal, the author has the opportunity to clarify these misunderstandings and further illustrate the effectiveness of their innovations or methods.\n- Respond to criticisms and suggestions: The reviewer (you) may make criticisms or suggestions on the paper, and the author can use the discussion session to provide specific responses, explain why certain criticisms may not apply, or how to improve and optimize certain aspects of the paper.\nFinally, you and the author will work together to enhance the persuasiveness of the paper and improve the quality of the paper.\n", "role": "system" }, { "content": "Now your reviewer ID is assigned as Reviewer_Fbgh, and the following are the paper you need to review:\n```<<4u25M570Iji>>```", "role": "user" }, { "content": "Review Content: summary: This paper's contrition is to use map information to mitigate false positives in motions forecasting tasks, by minimizing the predictive likelihood of motions that are known to violate known lane directions in a HD map.\nstrengths_and_weaknesses: Strengths:\n - Motivation\n - Clarity of writing\n - Experiments and multiple real datasets used\n\nWeaknesses:\n - Context checker is not learned, and some of the closest related works were not cited. While the learned part of this work is the original predictive model, and the context checker provides a superior loss function, as the authors demonstrate, the rules are handcrafted (e.g. binary 90 degree rule on lines 156-157), which makes this difficult to immediately extend to anything else, like cyclists, pedestrians, etc. While the point of this paper is not necessarily this, but to open research up to unlikelihood training in motion forecasting, other methods have used learning based approaches to mitigate false positives for autonomous vehicle motion in ways that are less hand-crafted and more widely applicable (see R2P2 algorithm, cited below [A]). In addition, the Beelines paper (cited below [B]) is very similar by using map information to alter the loss function for motion forecasting, and should be discussed in the context of this work.\nsummary_of_recommendation: I recommend weak-accept in light of the \"strengths and weaknesses\" discussion above. However, willing to consider strong-accept based on author responses. This is an important area that the community should be looking into more, and comparing against related works would help strengthen this paper.\nissues: Line 42 \"we are the first to propose unlikelihood training for continuous space of trajectories\": See R2P2 [A], e.g. fig 6, noting H(q,p) term to penalize bad samples. Might be worth referencing this work and discussing the differences.\n\nLines 44-46: \"inject contextual information as a learning signal\" seemed a little vague - could this be clarified?\n\nGrammar line 64: \"while Tang and Salakhutdinov [2], Salzmann et al. [1] uses\"\n\nLine 63 and 66: small preference against using reference numbers as nouns to begin a sentence.\n\nLine 78-79, could probability delete \"in contrast to continuous predictions that represent the future trajectories in our setting\" since next sentence says this too.\n\nLine 92: perhaps clarify different between x and X? X is random and x is not?\n\nLine 101: should \"Y_{i}\" be \"y_{i,gt}\" (line 92) or \"Y_{i,gt}\" (line 113) or \"\\bold{Y}_{i,gt}\" (Fig1 caption) or \"\\bold{y}_{i,gt}\" (line 171). Should some of these mean the same thing and should be following consistent notation? \n\nLine 102-103: change \"between the predicted distribution and ground truth distribution\" --> \"between the ground truth distribution and the predicted distribution\"\n\nLeft quotations on lines 105, 137, 138, 283\n\nI think the connection to REINFORECE in lines 138-142 is tenuous, consider removing.\n\nLine 151: \"map-based checker\": this is related to the Beelines [B] paper, worth citing and comparing to in the related work, since Beelines also contributes map information to alter the typical ML loss for forecasting in a way that avoids the more obvious-to-humans out-of-bounds errors.\n\nLine 157-158: \"The trajectories that fail to pass the test are identified as negative trajectories Y i,neg\": I wonder if there's a future work here based on a continuum of being more and more negative, the more the vehicle heading differs from the lane's heading, in addition to binary pass/fail tests.\n\nEquation 4: it's interesting the log_sigma cancelled out on line 174 and now doesn't feature in the sigma gradient term, effectively turning this into an L2 learning task with an initially-set hyperparameter of sigma. I.e. the two Gaussians have in effect lost their \"complexity terms\" that regularize sigma. I assume one can expect non-equal number of positives and negatives sample in general, so this affect would disappear, unless the positive and negative batches are *averaged* and not *summed*? Possibly worth commenting on this somewhere lines 177-186, if space limitation allow for (not big priority).\n\nLines 187-194: interesting observation! Nice explanation.\n\nTable 1: what is the \"Context-Violation-Rate\" of the ground truth trajectories for reference? (presumably something non-zero, but close to zero? Unless the \"disable rule\" in lines 160-161 ensure it'd be zero exactly?)\n\nLines 235-237: nice explanation.\n\nLine 284: \"and leads to a better prediction\" - interesting! Can the standard error be added into Table 5 that shows this, analogous to Table 4 etc?\n\nI like the combination of likely and unlikely trajectories in equation 2, especially since even if there's an error in the context checker, significant likelihood of an other-wise valid motion can override such errors. But this really depends on how is gamma set: how should gamma be set? Edit I see on lines 259 it's scheduled 0 to 1, is there anything special about the number 1 in this context, or could it be anything? (do positive and negative sample matter equally for the purpose of accurate prediction? Could you have got better scores if this was schedule up to a maximum of 0.1 or 10?). Additional experiments not necessarily required, more after an explanation and clarification in the text.\n\n[A]\nR2P2: A reparameterized pushforward policy for diverse, precise generative path forecasting\nby Nicholas Rhinehart, Kris Kitani, and Paul Vernaza\nhttps://openaccess.thecvf.com/content_ECCV_2018/papers/Nicholas_Rhinehart_R2P2_A_ReparameteRized_ECCV_2018_paper.pdf\n\n[B]\nBeelines: Motion Prediction Metrics for Self-Driving Safety and Comfort\nby Skanda Shridhar, Yuhang Ma, Tara Stentz, Zhengdi Shen, Galen Clark Haynes, Neil Traft\nat ICRA 2021, https://arxiv.org/abs/2011.00393\nRating: 9 strong accept, excellent work\n", "role": "assistant" }, { "content": "Title: Answer to Questions\nThank you for your detailed and helpful review, questions and suggestions. We here address them and incorporated all the feedback. \n\n\n**Context checker is not learned**\n\nTraining a context checker to judge whether a trajectory is 'positive' or 'negative' needs labels. (E.g., Ziegler et al. [https://arxiv.org/pdf/1909.08593.pdf], but in the field NLP)\nHowever, current datasets don't annotate and provide negative trajectories. \nA straightforward way to bypass this issue is labeling negative trajectories based on some rules and train the checker on it. \nHowever, we think in this case the learned checker is trained to approximate the rules. \nTherefore, treating directly these rules as the checker is a better way. Besides, we don't introduce any additional learnable parameters and keep the training simple.\nWe think that a learned checker might be more 'intelligent' than our handcrafted checker if we have proper human-annotated data. We leave this for future work.\n\n**The rules are handcrafted (e.g. binary 90-degree rule on lines 156-157), which makes this difficult to immediately extend to anything else, like cyclists, pedestrians, etc.**\n\nIndeed, our current rules are designed for vehicles.\nHowever, the overall framework of our method is not limited to the rules we proposed.\nFor example, we might check whether the predicted trajectories of a pedestrian are on the sidewalk or in front of a moving vehicle. There is a room for future work to improve the checker to better extend to cyclists and pedestrians. \n\n\n\n**Other methods have used learning-based approaches to mitigate false positives for autonomous vehicle motion in ways that are less hand-crafted and more widely applicable. R2P2, e.g. fig 6, noting H(q, p) term to penalize bad samples. Might be worth referencing this work and discussing the differences.**\n\nThank you for raising up this point!\nOur method is quite different from R2P2.\nThe q term in R2P2 is the predicted distribution and the p term is the ground truth distribution. \nThe H(q, p) loss term contains the prediction and the ground truth future only and hence \nit is still based on the similarity between the prediction and the ground truth. \nIndeed, the ground truth distribution $p(y|x)$ should fit the context quite well. \nHowever, we don't have it. \nR2P2 train another distribution $\\tilde p(y|x)$ using the ground truth trajectory as the surrogate of $p(y|x)$. \nAnd we will need to formulate how to train the surrogate well so the surrogate obeys the context. \nAs shown in the Eq.9 of R2P2, the training objective of the surrogate is another MLE loss based on the ground truth only. Therefore, this surrogate itself might have the same MLE issue we mention in the paragraph 'Limitation of MLE on Motion Forecasting' of Section 3.1.\nIn contrast, our unlikelihood loss is constructed from the context checker. Therefore, it is based on the context information directly (like the road boundary and the driving direction) instead of only ground truth information.\nWe updated our related work section to include R2P2 and a brief comparison.\n\n\n\n\n**The Beelines paper is very similar by using map information to alter the loss function for motion forecasting and should be discussed in the context of this work.**\n\nWe notice that the Beelines paper focuses on the evaluation only and doesn't propose a loss for training.\nThis paper proposes 2 metrics to quantify the effects of motion prediction on safety and comfort. These metrics are based on estimating potential collision between the ego vehicle and the surrounding vehicle.\nThis paper shows that these 2 metrics are better than L2-error-based metrics like ADE and FDE in identifying unsafe events.\nSince we focus on training a model instead of evaluation, we think our method is not very similar to Beelines.\nHowever, we still think Beelines is interesting. \nAlthough it's unclear whether the Beelines metrics can be used as a loss during training,\nit's possible to integrate these metrics into our framework as an additional checker rule.\nOur current checker rules focus on road boundaries and lane direction, but not the potential future collision.\nThese metrics can complement our rules.\nNote that the Beelines metrics are complicated but the code is not opensourced.\nHence we could not reliably use their proposed metrics to evaluate our method.\nWe added a short discussion in the Context Checker Design paragraph to show the integration possibility in the updated version. \n\n\n\n**Lines 44-46: \"inject contextual information as a learning signal\" seemed a little vague - could this be clarified?**\n\nThe original MLE loss is built using the ground truth trajectory only. \nTherefore, the model is trained to be close to the ground truth only. Although leveraging the contextual information helps to achieve this goal in some cases, the training objective doesn't directly force the model to take the contextual information into account.\nThere is no contextual signal in the MLE loss.\nIn contrast, our unlikelihood training loss is based on the context checker that depends on the contextual information. Therefore, our training objective contains contextual information. We have updated Line 44-46 (blue part in the updated paper) to make it more clear.\n\n\n\n\n**Line 92: perhaps clarify different between x and X? X is random and x is not?**\n**Line 101: should \"${Y_{i}}$\" be \"$y_{i,gt}$\" (line 92) or \"$Y_{i,gt}$\" (line 113) or \"$\\textbf{Y}{i,gt}$\" (Fig1 caption) or \"$\\textbf{y}{i,gt}$\" (line 171). Should some of these mean the same thing and should be following consistent notation?**\n\nSorry for the confusion of the notation in Section 3.1. All of the above-mentioned $Y$ should be $Y_{i, gt}$. And $x$ in Line 92 should be $X$.\nWe revised Section 3.1 and now they have the correct notation.\n\n\n**Line 157-158: \"The trajectories that fail to pass the test are identified as negative trajectories Y i,neg\": I wonder if there's a future work here based on a continuum of being more and more negative, the more the vehicle heading differs from the lane's heading, in addition to binary pass/fail tests.**\n\nThis is an interesting direction. A learnable checker might be close to this idea since it does binary classification and the output continuous score can be used as a 'negative level'. \nIn our future work, we might consider using such a negative level as a continuous reward function to train the model.\n\n\n\n\n**Equation 4: it's interesting the log sigma canceled out on line 174 and now doesn't feature in the sigma gradient term, effectively turning this into an L2 learning task with an initially-set hyperparameter of sigma. I.e. the two Gaussians have in effect lost their \"complexity terms\" that regularize sigma. I assume one can expect non-equal numbers of positives and negatives sample in general, so this effect would disappear unless the positive and negative batches are averaged and not summed? Possibly worth commenting on this somewhere lines 177-186, if space limitation allows for (not a big priority).**\n\nWe agree with the observation but our model still regularizes $\\sigma$ differently. \nLet's first check the gradient of the MLP loss w.r.t. $\\sigma$. $\\frac{d L}{d \\sigma} = \\frac{1}{\\sigma} - \\frac{1}{\\sigma^3} (y - \\mu)^2$ As you can see the first term (which is from the derivate of log sigma square term) is always positive and the second term is always negative or zero (note that $\\sigma > 0$). Therefore, $\\log \\sigma^2$ serves as a regularizer of the $\\sigma$. \nHowever, although $\\log \\sigma^2$ is canceled out in our case, our loss gradient (Eq.4) is not always zero or negative. The sign of the gradient actually depends on the distance between the predicted center and the ground truth (let's denote it as $d_{pos}$), and the distance between the predicted center and the negative (denoted as $d_{neg}$). These 2 distances together serve as regulators to control how $\\sigma$ changes in this case. \nWhen $d_{pos} > d_{neg}$, our prediction is far away from the ground truth, so $\\sigma$ increases to cover it.\nWhen $d_{pos} < d_{neg}$, $\\sigma$ decreases to exclude the context-violation region from high probability density region of the distribution.\nDuring training, our positive and negative batches are averaged and not summed (As Eq.1 is an expectation over the negatives).\n\n\n\n\n\n\n**Table 1: what is the \"Context-Violation-Rate\" of the ground truth trajectories for reference? (presumably something non-zero, but close to zero? Unless the \"disable rule\" in lines 160-161 ensures it'd be zero exactly?)**\n\nWe updated Table 1 and 3 to include the violation rate of the ground truth. In nuScenes, it is 5.44\\%. Argoverse is 0.85\\%.\n\n\n\n**Line 284: \"and leads to a better prediction\" - interesting! Can the standard error be added into Table 5 that shows this, analogous to Table 4 etc?**\n\nThank you for this suggestion. We have integrated the standard error into Table 5\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n**How should gamma be set? I see on Lines 259 it's scheduled 0 to 1, is there anything special about the number 1 in this context, or could it be anything?**\n\nIn our main paper, we simply set it to 1 and noticed a good performance. We add new ablation experiments with different gamma values (0.1, 0.3, 3, 10) in the section 'Hyperparameter gamma' of the supplementary material and briefly introduce it in the ablation study of the main paper. \nWe notice that if we use a small $\\gamma$, the improvement over the original Trajectron++ is decreased. \nThis is expected since a smaller $\\gamma$ reduces the effect of our unlikelihood loss.\nThe performance doesn't change much when we further increase $\\gamma$ from 1 to 3 and 10.\nHowever, we notice that when we set $\\gamma$ to 3 and 10, as the training goes, the prediction accuracy decreases after it reaches the best performance. \nWe think this is because the model focuses too much on obeying the context and pays less attention to getting close to the ground truth in these cases. \nIn conclusion, balancing the original training loss and our likelihood loss matters, and simply setting $\\gamma$ to 1 could balance the original training loss and our unlikelihood loss well.\n\n\n\n**Grammar line 64: \"while Tang and Salakhutdinov [2], Salzmann et al. [1] uses\"**\n\n**Line 63 and 66: small preference against using reference numbers as nouns to begin a sentence.**\n\n**Line 78-79, could probability delete \"in contrast to continuous predictions that represent the future trajectories in our setting\" since the next sentence says this too.**\n\n**Line 102-103: change \"between the predicted distribution and ground truth distribution\" --> \"between the ground truth distribution and the predicted distribution\"**\n\n**Left quotations on lines 105, 137, 138, 283**\n\n**I think the connection to REINFORECE in lines 138-142 is tenuous, consider removing.**\n\nThank you for these valuable suggestions on writing! We have updated our paper to include all the suggestions.\n Global/general Response:\n```\nWe thank reviewers for their valuable and insightful feedback. We are encouraged that they find our idea is novel (XGcM), interesting (Fbgh), and simple but effective (nXVp); our writing is clear (XGcM, Fbgh, nXVp), and our work could be impactful (XGcM, Fbgh, nXVp). We here reply to the reviewers' comments individually and incorporate all the feedback. \n\n**Updated Paper**\nWe also revised our paper and supplementary material to incorporate reviewers' feedback. The changed text is marked in blue color for an easy and quick check. We list here the key updates that we applied to improve the paper. \n\n1. We added new ablation studies on our hyperparameter $\\gamma$ in both the main paper and the supplementary material.\n\n2. We added a new discussion with the R2P2 method in the related work section and Beelines in the Context-Checker Design paragraph in Sec.3.3\n\n3. We updated Fig.1 and Fig.3 for a better demonstration\n\n4. We added the context-violation rate of the ground truth in Tab.1 and Tab.3.\n\n5. We added the standard deviation in Tab.5.\n\n6. We fixed grammar and notation mistakes.\n```\n", "role": "user" }, { "content": "Title: Reviewer Reply\n### Context checker not learned / R2P2:\n\nI partly disagree that negative examples are required for learned context checkers. It's true that R2P2 trains an surrogate p(y|x) using logistic regression in eq 9, although the regression is trained to be spatial only (to define a map-cost), independent enough from the original task for mitigate false positives (see Fig 7 comparison). Inverse reinforcement learning methods would be another way to learn context checker (example: maximum causal entropy IRL, summarized by eq 1 in GAIL https://arxiv.org/pdf/1606.03476.pdf).\n\nNevertheless, I appropriate the author's responses and changes to the text to compare with related literature work, and have updated my score.\n\n### Other\n\nI've read the rest of the (3 parts) response, and thank the authors for the additional clarify.", "role": "assistant" } ]
4u25M570Iji
CoRL 2021 Conference
Reviewer_nXVp
[ { "content": "\nYou are an experienced academic paper reviewer. You will receive a conference paper in the field of computer science or AI. Please analyze the paper content carefully and output your review content.\nMore importantly, the author will further explain or refute the review comments you gave, and you need to further discuss with the author based on the author's response. \nThe purpose of this rebuttal and discussion is:\n- Clarification: During the review process, the reviewer (you) may not accurately understand the contribution or method of the paper due to unclear expression or misunderstanding of certain details. Through rebuttal, the author has the opportunity to clarify these misunderstandings and further illustrate the effectiveness of their innovations or methods.\n- Respond to criticisms and suggestions: The reviewer (you) may make criticisms or suggestions on the paper, and the author can use the discussion session to provide specific responses, explain why certain criticisms may not apply, or how to improve and optimize certain aspects of the paper.\nFinally, you and the author will work together to enhance the persuasiveness of the paper and improve the quality of the paper.\n", "role": "system" }, { "content": "Now your reviewer ID is assigned as Reviewer_nXVp, and the following are the paper you need to review:\n```<<4u25M570Iji>>```", "role": "user" }, { "content": "Review Content: summary: The work introduces the application of 'unlikelihood' loss to augmenting standard training losses for trajectory learning. The work supports the notion of applying (soft) constraint to the training objective by analysing contextual information to inform what should or should not be penalized.\nstrengths_and_weaknesses: - The idea is very simple but seems to be effective\n- It addresses a seemingly obvious but in my mind absolutely necessary encoding of violations in the application domain\n- The paper is well written and the ideas come across clearly\nsummary_of_recommendation: Overall I think the paper presents a simple but very practically useful application of the unlikelihood loss for trajectory learning.\nissues: Comments and Questions\n- Connection with MAP: In the abstract the contribution is stated as \"Orthogonally, we propose a new objective, unlikelihood training, which forces predicted trajectories that conflict with contextual information to be assigned a lower probability\". While the term \"unlikelihood\" in this context makes perfect sense (and is adopted from prior work - welleck 2019), in my mind what it *really* seems to be in the Bayesian sense is that it is simply a _hyperprior_ in precisely the same sense as in maximum a posteriori (MAP) estimation. I see that the hyperprior is, in the unliklihood sense, simply another distribution imbued by the \"contextual information\". Could the authors provide any commentary on a link between the two?\n\n- Unlikelihood data\nThe authors state \"However, these are not given in the dataset. To solve this issue, we approximate the samples by directly drawing a set of trajectories from the predicted distribution and select the trajectories that violate the contextual information out by a context checker.\" This brings to mind the idea of an adversarial game being played between the model and the checker. Although here the checker is assumed to be a kind of oracle. Would there be any possiblity for encoding uncertainty over the checker itself? Furthermore, it would seem the method is highly dependent on sample complexity. I.e. if the complete set of \"invalid\" trajectories is sampled uninformatively, then it would seem that the loss would practically contribute not much (since there are no negative samples to learn from). This problem would be exacerbated (potentialy exponentially in higher dimensions). Have the authors considered how such a problem may manifest in the given problems and also how to alleviate such problems (perhaps some kind of informative sampling regime).\n\n- Figure 3. I find the diagram somewhat visually uninformative. This could be improved in many ways: highlighting areas of major differences as given in the caption. At the very least the diagram could be helped with a legend that identifies the various components of interest to leave the reader wondering less (e.g. are there any signficant differences between the blue, green and red distributions? - this is unclear from the photo)\nRating: 7 accept, but needs minor improvements\n", "role": "assistant" }, { "content": "Title: Answer to Questions\nWe thank Reviewer nXVp for the valuable and helpful comments. We incorporated all the feedback here.\n\n**Connection with MAP: It really seems to be in the Bayesian sense is that it is simply a hyperprior in precisely the same sense as in maximum a posteriori (MAP) estimation. I see that the hyperprior is, in the unlikelihood sense, simply another distribution imbued by the \"contextual information\". Could the authors provide any commentary on a link between the two?**\n\nOur checker defines a prior distribution implicitly (Let's denote it as $p(Y)$, where $p(Y)=0$ if Y violates the checker and $p(Y)$= positive constant if Y passes), but our method isn't similar to a MAP method. \nWhen we use the $p(Y)$ as the prior distribution in the MAP framework, the training objective we want to maximize is $p(Y|X) \\propto p(X|Y) p(Y)$. We can observe that we need $p(X|Y)$ here, which we don't have in our model.\nLet's analyse our loss in case we use MLE loss as $L_{orig}$ in Eq.1, setting $\\gamma=1$, and assume a ground truth distribution $p_{gt}(Y|X)$ where the real data is from. $L = -E_{p_{gt}(y|X)}\\log p_{\\theta}(Y|X) + E_{p_{neg}(Y|X)}\\log p_{\\theta}(Y|X)$. \nHere we have 3 posterior distributions: the real future $p_{gt}(Y|X)$, the posterior negative distribution where the negative trajectories are from $p_{neg}(Y|X)$, and the posterior distribution estimated by the model $p_{\\theta}(Y|X)$. \nDue to the expectation over different distribution, the 2 loss terms in $L$ cannot be reduced using Bayes' theorem to get some Bayesian meaning. \nIn addition, since the negative trajectories are sampled from the predicted distribution and filtered out by the checker, $p_{neg}(Y|X) = 0$, if $p(Y) \\neq 0$; $p_{neg}(Y|X) = p_{\\theta}(Y|X)/K$, if $p(Y) = 0$. Here $K$ is a constant to make sure the probability density will be integrated to 1 and $K=\\int_{p(Y)=0} p_\\theta(Y|X) dY$. Here, the relationship between $p_{neg}(Y|X)$ and $p(Y)$ is not built on Bayesian.\nTherefore, our unlikelhood modeling may not have a strong connection to prior modeling in MAP. \n\n\n**Although here the checker is assumed to be a kind of oracle. Would there be any possibility for encoding uncertainty over the checker itself?**\n\nIn future work, we might design a learnable checker if we have the (positive/negative) labels of trajectories. In this case, the checker is trained to do binary classification and the output scores can be viewed as the uncertainty.\n\n\n\n**It would seem the method is highly dependent on sample complexity. I.e. if the complete set of \"invalid\" trajectories is sampled uninformatively, then it would seem that the loss would practically contribute not much (since there are no negative samples to learn from). This problem would be exacerbated (potentially exponentially in higher dimensions).**\n\n\nOur negative trajectories are sampled from the predicted distribution of the model and filtered by our context checker. \nIf there are no so many negative samples, our predicted distribution on this datapoint is already not bad (in the obeying contextual obeying perspective). \nIn contrast, if a predicted distribution violates the context a lot, we can easily obtain enough negative trajectories for our method to improve this prediction.\nSince the predicted distribution we use in the experiments is Gaussian, the probability density of the context-violated trajectories will never go to zero. \nWe agree that our method might not further reduce the probability density of the negative when it is already too low to easily obtain negative samples.\nA straightforward way to alleviate this issue is to simply sample more. As the number of samples increase, we have a higher chance to obtain negative trajectories with low probability density.\nWe might also weigh the negative more during sampling as an informative sample strategy. We leave it for future research.\n\n\n**Figure 3. Highlighting areas of major differences as given in the caption.**\n\nThank you for your suggestion.\nWe added ellipses to highlight 2 context violation cases in Trajectron++ in the updated version.\n Global/general Response:\n```\nWe thank reviewers for their valuable and insightful feedback. We are encouraged that they find our idea is novel (XGcM), interesting (Fbgh), and simple but effective (nXVp); our writing is clear (XGcM, Fbgh, nXVp), and our work could be impactful (XGcM, Fbgh, nXVp). We here reply to the reviewers' comments individually and incorporate all the feedback. \n\n**Updated Paper**\nWe also revised our paper and supplementary material to incorporate reviewers' feedback. The changed text is marked in blue color for an easy and quick check. We list here the key updates that we applied to improve the paper. \n\n1. We added new ablation studies on our hyperparameter $\\gamma$ in both the main paper and the supplementary material.\n\n2. We added a new discussion with the R2P2 method in the related work section and Beelines in the Context-Checker Design paragraph in Sec.3.3\n\n3. We updated Fig.1 and Fig.3 for a better demonstration\n\n4. We added the context-violation rate of the ground truth in Tab.1 and Tab.3.\n\n5. We added the standard deviation in Tab.5.\n\n6. We fixed grammar and notation mistakes.\n```\n", "role": "user" }, { "content": "I acknowledge the authors' response. It satisfactorily addresses the major issues I had. I will continue to recommend accepting this work.", "role": "assistant" } ]
50523z0PALg
CoRL 2021 Conference
Reviewer_2B5H
[ { "content": "\nYou are an experienced academic paper reviewer. You will receive a conference paper in the field of computer science or AI. Please analyze the paper content carefully and output your review content.\nMore importantly, the author will further explain or refute the review comments you gave, and you need to further discuss with the author based on the author's response. \nThe purpose of this rebuttal and discussion is:\n- Clarification: During the review process, the reviewer (you) may not accurately understand the contribution or method of the paper due to unclear expression or misunderstanding of certain details. Through rebuttal, the author has the opportunity to clarify these misunderstandings and further illustrate the effectiveness of their innovations or methods.\n- Respond to criticisms and suggestions: The reviewer (you) may make criticisms or suggestions on the paper, and the author can use the discussion session to provide specific responses, explain why certain criticisms may not apply, or how to improve and optimize certain aspects of the paper.\nFinally, you and the author will work together to enhance the persuasiveness of the paper and improve the quality of the paper.\n", "role": "system" }, { "content": "Now your reviewer ID is assigned as Reviewer_2B5H, and the following are the paper you need to review:\n```<<50523z0PALg>>```", "role": "user" }, { "content": "Review Content: summary: This paper presents a method for embedding prior knowledge on the dynamics of a robot (e.g. in the form of physical constraints that the system has to satisfy, the inertia matrix, etc.) inside a dynamics-learning framework in order to help the model generalize better. This is done by modeling the robot dynamics as a Gaussian process, and incorporating the a-priori known dynamics information in the GP's mean function. The method is benchmarked on a 7-DOF arm following a planar end-effector trajectory and the dynamics models learned using the approach are shown to generalize better than baseline approaches.\nstrengths_and_weaknesses: Strengths\n- The paper is very clearly written, providing an extensive motivation of the problem studied and an extensive overview of prior work.\n- The paper is technically solid, though it is admittedly easy to get lost in the notation at times (a table summarizing all the different forces would be helpful for the reader).\n\nWeaknesses\n- Overall, the contribution appears to be a somewhat minimal modification to reference [35] in the paper. From my understanding, the differences are twofold: 1) swapping out modeling the unknown accelerations with modeling the unknown forces and 2) implementing the GP training in GPyTorch. The paper claims on line 192 that the first change can improve sample efficiency, yet there is no baseline comparison in the results with a method that learns the accelerations directly (i.e. a variant of [35] which is trained using GPyTorch), which leaves me uncertain of the relative improvement of this paper's method over [35].\n- The use of \\theta_A is rather confusing, as it is used to refer to different subsets of the mass matrix/forces and to both known and unknown parameters. In the discussion near line 80, \\theta_A refers to any model parameters, including the mass matrix and all forces. In line 231, it is used to denote possibly erroneous parameters of the mass matrix M, but in line 243 it is claimed that M is known. Later in the results section (line 300), it seems to be instead used to denote components of Q_G, Q_C, and Q_u. It would help clarify things if \\theta_A were explicitly described for each example involving the 7-DOF arm in the results.\n- While the primary benefit of modeling the forces instead of the accelerations is to take advantage of prior knowledge in known components of the forces/the inertia matrix, the paper doesn't sufficiently motivate why we might have prior knowledge for some of the discussed components. The mass matrix M and A, b (arising from the constraint manifold) are motivated in the paragraphs, but it's not clear why we might have prior knowledge on Q_C or Q_D, for instance. More discussion on why it might be plausible to have prior knowledge on each analytical dynamics parameter would be useful.\n- The results are a bit confusing:\n---- In Figure 2b, why are there multiple curves with the same color? Are these just the loss curves for different training runs?\n---- There is a baseline comparison to a neural network discussed in the text, which based on those numbers seems to have similar performance as the proposed methods, but it does not appear in Figure 2; why is this? Also, from the supplementary, it seems like the NN is trained using more points than the GP-based methods; using the same number of points would help ease comparison. More discussion comparing the NN to the proposed approach would help.\n---- Q is modeled as Q_u + Q_G + Q_C in this example; why are dissipative forces Q_D not considered?\nsummary_of_recommendation: While the paper is overall well-written and technically proficient, I am not fully convinced of the method's contribution compared to prior work [35] or the plausibility of having prior information on certain dynamics parameters. A revision along the lines of what follows would help improve my confidence in the paper.\nissues: - I would be more convinced of the utility of the method if there was a baseline comparison with [35], with the training procedure changed to use GPyTorch-based inference.\n- I would also be more convinced if the authors could provide justification on where the a-priori information on the unknown parameters might come from.\n- It would help to expand the discussion of the results and clarify the usage of \\theta_A, as described above.\nRating: 7 accept, but needs minor improvements\n", "role": "assistant" }, { "content": "Title: Author Response\n> The paper is technically solid, though it is admittedly easy to get lost in the notation at times (a table summarizing all the different forces would be helpful for the reader).\n\nWe agree that the chosen notation for the robot’s dynamics equations deviate from what could be considered a standard notation in literature on robot dynamics as found e.g. in [1] - [3]. We chose this particular notation to emphasize that we distinguish analytical mechanics knowledge in the lines of inertia-related functions (denoted by M) and force-related functions (denoted by Q). **We added a table summarizing all dynamic terms to the appendix of the current submission.**\n\n[1] Bruno Siciliano, Lorenzo Sciavicco, Luigi Villani, and Giuseppe Oriolo. Robotics: modelling, planning and control. Springer Science & Business Media, 2010.\n[2] Roy Featherstone. Rigid body dynamics algorithms. Springer, 2008.\n[3] Werner Schiehlen and Peter Eberhard. Applied dynamics, volume 57. Springer, 2014.\n\n> Overall, the contribution appears to be a somewhat minimal modification to reference [35] in the paper. From my understanding, the differences are twofold: 1) swapping out modeling the unknown accelerations with modeling the unknown forces and 2) implementing the GP training in GPyTorch. The paper claims on line 192 that the first change can improve sample efficiency, yet there is no baseline comparison in the results with a method that learns the accelerations directly (i.e. a variant of [35] which is trained using GPyTorch), which leaves me uncertain of the relative improvement of this paper's method over [35].\n\n Using our framework, we added the prediction results of a structured GP model in the lines of [35] to Figure 2. Figure 2 now shows the relative improvement of our proposed framework compared to a structured model that places a GP prior onto the system’s accelerations.\n\n> The use of \\theta_A is rather confusing, as it is used to refer to different subsets of the mass matrix/forces and to both known and unknown parameters. In the discussion near line 80, \\theta_A refers to any model parameters, including the mass matrix and all forces. In line 231, it is used to denote possibly erroneous parameters of the mass matrix M, but in line 243 it is claimed that M is known. Later in the results section (line 300), it seems to be instead used to denote components of Q_G, Q_C, and Q_u. It would help clarify things if \\theta_A were explicitly described for each example involving the 7-DOF arm in the results.\n\nWe thank the reviewer for this observation and agree that especially line 80 and line 231 may confuse a potential reader. $\\theta_A$ shall denote all parameters of a given rigid-body dynamics model as pointed out in line 80. To make this point more clear, we added an additional sentence to the submission close to line 80, reading: \n\n*“The analytical model parameters $\\theta_A$ can be divided into kinematic parameters (e.g. the length between adjacent joints) and inertia parameters (\\eg CoG positions, masses, and inertias). The model parameters $\\theta_A$ often deviate from the real physical values of the system.”*\n\nWe further adjusted the mentioned sentence in line 231 to: \n*“Yet, for FD it is critical that we mitigate errors in the inertial parameters **being part of $\\theta_A$** as all forces in (4) are being multiplied by $M^{-1}(\\theta_A)$.”* \n\nWhile we assume that $M$ is known in line 243, we use our definition of known as given in line 234 as: \n\n*“The term known is defined in the following as the existence of an optimal $\\theta_A$, $\\theta_A^\\star$, such that the error between a function and its analytical description approaches zero.”* \n\nTo improve the clarity of this definition, we slightly altered the definition in the current submission in line 234 to: \n\n*“The term known is defined in the following as the existence of an optimal $\\theta_A$, $\\theta_A^\\star$, such that the error between a **physical **function and its analytical description **in terms of $\\theta_A$** approaches zero.”*\n\nTo improve clarity, we altered line 300 to: \n*“In this figure, the term \"S-GP\" refers to the model in (6) **with $Q_K=0$** while the term ``S-GP + analytical mean'' assumes an analytical model $Q_K=Q_G+Q_C+Q_u$ as the GP's prior mean function. **For both S-GP models we assume that accurate analytical parameters are given, that is** $\\theta_A=\\theta_A^\\star$”*\n> While the primary benefit of modeling the forces instead of the accelerations is to take advantage of prior knowledge in known components of the forces/the inertia matrix, the paper doesn't sufficiently motivate why we might have prior knowledge for some of the discussed components. The mass matrix M and A, b (arising from the constraint manifold) are motivated in the paragraphs, but it's not clear why we might have prior knowledge on Q_C or Q_D, for instance. More discussion on why it might be plausible to have prior knowledge on each analytical dynamics parameter would be useful.\n\nWe thank the reviewer for these helpful remarks. Around line 300, **we added the following sentence to emphasize why prior knowledge on $Q_C$ as well as $Q_G$ is plausible:** \n\n*“We assume $Q_G+Q_C$ as known as these analytical functions are being derived solely in terms of known kinematics and inertia functions, as well as the gravitational acceleration constant [17].”*\n\n In [1], the exact analytical equations of $Q_C$ and $Q_G$ are denoted in terms of kinematic functions as well as $M$ for the case of Lagrangian dynamics that are being subject to implicit constraints. **We do not assume prior knowledge on the dissipative force $Q_D$ or $Q_z$.** As these forces being dissipative, they arise from friction or damping phenomena that are often difficult to model a priori.\n\n[1] A. R. Geist and S. Trimpe. Structured learning of rigid-body dynamics: A survey and unified view from a robotics perspective. GAMM Mitteilungen, 44(2):34, 2021.\n\n> --- In Figure 2b, why are there multiple curves with the same color? Are these just the loss curves for different training runs?\n\nThe plots were indeed unnecessarily confusing. The y-axis in Figure 2b showed the mean prediction error on a test data set for **each** output dimension (joint) of the respective dynamics model. In the current submission, Figure 2b now shows the mean prediction error over all output dimensions of the structured dynamics model. The x-axis is kept the same showing an increasing number of training points that are used to train the respective dynamics model.\n\n> --- There is a baseline comparison to a neural network discussed in the text, which based on those numbers seems to have similar performance as the proposed methods, but it does not appear in Figure 2; why is this?\n\nThe performance of the neural network (NN) is only comparable with the GP models using 10 times the maximum number of data points. **The prediction error of the NN for using 100 to 1000 training points is considerably larger than the errors of the GP models.** If we would plot the large prediction error of the NN in Figure 2b, one could barely see a difference in the GP's prediction errors.\n\n> Also, from the supplementary, it seems like the NN is trained using more points than the GP-based methods; using the same number of points would help ease comparison. More discussion comparing the NN to the proposed approach would help.\n\nAlready at ten times the maximum number of data points used for estimating the GP hyperparameters, the analytical model and NN have a larger prediction error than the GP models. As reducing the number of data points for training the analytical model and NN is likely to increase the error of these models, we do not see the necessity to add these models to Figure 2.\n\n> --- Q is modeled as Q_u + Q_G + Q_C in this example; why are dissipative forces Q_D not considered?\n\nWe split $Q$ in a known part $Q_K$ and an unknown part that shall be modeled using a GP kernel prior. As already discussed above, the bias force $Q_C$ and the gravitational force $Q_G$ can be assumed to be known, as these terms can be derived analytically by solely using kinematics, inertia functions, and the gravitational acceleration constant. In the case of electric motors, the control force $Q_u$ can be closely approximated using the supplied motor current and motor-torque constant. **Terms that are unknown, that is, cannot be solely described in terms of a priori derived analytical quantities, are the dissipative forces $Q_D$ and the end-effector force $Q_z$.** These unknown forces are being approximated by the Gaussian process which is then being transformed by the known inertia matrix to yield the system’s acceleration caused by $Q_D + Q_z$. \n\n**In short, $Q_D + Q_z$ being difficult to model analytically a priori is being approximated by the GP using data.**\n", "role": "user" }, { "content": "Title: Reviewer Response\nThank you for addressing the points in my review. The comparison to prior work is useful to show the benefit of the method when less data is available. While I don't believe there is a lot of novelty in modeling forces vs. accelerations, it does produce better results, which is noteworthy. I will change my rating to \"Weak Accept\".", "role": "assistant" } ]
50523z0PALg
CoRL 2021 Conference
Reviewer_Ahf1
[ { "content": "\nYou are an experienced academic paper reviewer. You will receive a conference paper in the field of computer science or AI. Please analyze the paper content carefully and output your review content.\nMore importantly, the author will further explain or refute the review comments you gave, and you need to further discuss with the author based on the author's response. \nThe purpose of this rebuttal and discussion is:\n- Clarification: During the review process, the reviewer (you) may not accurately understand the contribution or method of the paper due to unclear expression or misunderstanding of certain details. Through rebuttal, the author has the opportunity to clarify these misunderstandings and further illustrate the effectiveness of their innovations or methods.\n- Respond to criticisms and suggestions: The reviewer (you) may make criticisms or suggestions on the paper, and the author can use the discussion session to provide specific responses, explain why certain criticisms may not apply, or how to improve and optimize certain aspects of the paper.\nFinally, you and the author will work together to enhance the persuasiveness of the paper and improve the quality of the paper.\n", "role": "system" }, { "content": "Now your reviewer ID is assigned as Reviewer_Ahf1, and the following are the paper you need to review:\n```<<50523z0PALg>>```", "role": "user" }, { "content": "Review Content: summary: In this paper, the authors propose a structured learning approach to model the forward dynamics of a robot with implicitly constrained dynamics. For this purpose, they put a Gaussian Process prior on the unknown forces of the system. The basic structure of the equations of motion and the constrained dynamics are included in the Gaussian Process model by exploiting that GPs are closed under linear transformations. The hyperparameters are optimized by GPU accelerated computation. A simulation with a 7-dof robot shows the effectiveness of the proposed approach.\nstrengths_and_weaknesses: Strength\n-\tHigh quality simulation that is described in detail in the supplementary material\n\nWeakness\n-\tSloppy problem setting and motivation \n- Approach is very similar to existing work [35]\n\nsummary_of_recommendation: The problem presented in this paper is of interest and relevance. However, the solution seems to be very similar to [35] by simply exploiting the fact the GPs are closed under linear transformation. I do not see a contribution in the GPU acceleration as the MLE (14) is standard and GPU optimization packages are quite common nowadays. Thus, I see the main contribution in the thorough simulation. Therefore, it's mostly incremental theoretical work but with a nice simulation.\n\nUpdate: Score remains unchanged. See reviewer comment for more information.\nissues: Major:\n- The problem setting is very sloppy. What means “sufficiently rigid”? What is an “accurate representation? Why “NOISY input point”? $q_k$, etc. are not defined at this point. What is an “informative data set”? “EOM” not defined here….\nI would suggest to clarify in particular Assumption 2. The current form is not acceptable. Just consider rigid body motion.\n- The general motivation to put the prior on the forces and not on the acceleration as in [35] in not sufficiently discussed. Furthermore, in line 152 “for some applications it can be more practically […] as we propose in this work? Which applications? Why?\n\nMinor:\n- The motivation for the usage of data-driven model is given by (stochastic) friction, backlash, etc. Yet, the simulation contains a very simple friction model (viscous friction). The results would be more convincing if you include more “advanced” types of friction in the system.\n- Line 16/17: I would rather say any model-based control approach (includes standard control approaches such as computed torque for example)\n- Line 26 and more: The term “analytical model” is not well defined. Do you mean parametric models? I think a GP is a (probabilistic) analytical model as well.\n- Line 85: “$Q_u+Q_D$ […] being the joint torques that are measurable in the robot joints” Why is the gravitational force not measurable in the joints?\n-Line 277: It’s a simulation and not an experiment.\nRating: 7 accept, but needs minor improvements\n", "role": "assistant" }, { "content": "Title: Author Response\n> The problem setting is very sloppy. What means “sufficiently rigid”? What is an “accurate representation? Why “NOISY input point”? , etc. are not defined at this point. What is an “informative data set”? “EOM” not defined here…. I would suggest to clarify in particular Assumption 2. The current form is not acceptable. Just consider rigid body motion.\n\nWe thank the reviewer for the detailed comments with regards to the problem formulation. We changed the wording of Assumption 2 to:\n*“The bodies (aka links) of the mechanical system are rigid.”*. \n\nWe removed the terms *“noisy”* and *“informative”* from Section 1.1. The term *“EOM”* is now properly introduced.\n\n> The general motivation to put the prior on the forces and not on the acceleration as in [35] in not sufficiently discussed. Furthermore, in line 152 “for some applications it can be more practically […] as we propose in this work? Which applications? Why?\n\nWe now compare our method to a structured model similar to [35] using the by us developed computation pipeline in PyTorch. The sentence in line 152, \n\n*“Albeit, for some applications it can be more practical to not rely on joint torque measurements and instead approximate QI and Qz through a data-driven model using constraint knowledge as we propose in this work.”*, \n\nwe removed from the current submission due to space constraints. **We added examples for what phenomena $Q_z$ and $Q_I$ may represent in a real robot.**\n\n> The motivation for the usage of data-driven model is given by (stochastic) friction, backlash, etc. Yet, the simulation contains a very simple friction model (viscous friction). The results would be more convincing if you include more “advanced” types of friction in the system.\n\nOur paper proposes a conceptual as well as computational framework that details the combination of GP regression with rigid-body dynamics. Building on this framework, we plan follow-up work that explores the design of kernel force priors for learning structured dynamics that are influenced by differing types of friction and backlash.\n\n> Line 16/17: I would rather say any model-based control approach (includes standard control approaches such as computed torque for example)\n\nWe use now in line 16/17 the wording “model-based control approaches”.\n\n> Line 26 and more: The term “analytical model” is not well defined. Do you mean parametric models? I think a GP is a (probabilistic) analytical model as well.\n\nIf the reader interprets “analytical” as “relating to or using analysis or logical reasoning”, this could indeed lead to confusion. We replaced the term “analytical model” with the term “physics model” or alternatively use the wording “analytical mechanics”.\n\n> Line 85: “[…] being the joint torques that are measurable in the robot joints” Why is the gravitational force not measurable in the joints?\n\nLet's assume that the robot's actuators are electric motors that are directly placed inside the robot arm's joints. Then torques are typically measured through the torsion of a (motor) shaft (of neglectable mass) due to two opposing torques being applied to the shaft’s ends. In the simplest case, the first end of the shaft lies embedded inside a motor while the other end of the shaft is attached to a body of the robot arm. On the second end of the shaft, torques are applied by either external forces (such as the gravitational force $Q_G$), inertia related torques $M\\ddot q - Q_C$, end-effector related forces $Q_I$ and $Q_z$, or by dissipative forces inside the bearings of the joint $Q_D$. The only way to apply torques on the other end of the motor shaft is by the joint torques $\\tau$, which can be motor control torques as well as dissipative torques inside the motor’s bearings holding the shaft. If the joint torques are zero, an external torque that is being applied to a robot arm’s body would simply rotate the body together with the shaft without twisting this shaft. Subsequently, a joint torque sensor measures the effect of the joint torques onto a shaft that is being attached to a rigid-body rotating around the joint. If no external forces act onto the robot arm except for $Q_G$, the joint torques change the robot arm’s motion according to the EOM $\\tau = M \\ddot{q} - Q_C - Q_G$. If we have an accurate model for $M \\ddot{q} - Q_C$, we could estimate $Q_G$ using joint torque measurements.\nThe above explanation reflects our understanding of measuring joint torques inside of robot arms. If the reviewer has additional insight on this topic, we would be thankful to receive additional remarks.\n\n> Line 277: It’s a simulation and not an experiment.\n\nWe unfortunately missed to change the wording \"experiment\" to \"simulation\" in the current revised version. However, we will change the wording accordingly in a subsequent revised version.\n", "role": "user" }, { "content": "Title: Reviewer response\nThanks to the authors for the updated paper. However, I still have some comments:\n\n> We removed the terms “noisy” and “informative” from Section 1.1. The term “EOM” is now properly introduced.\n\nIn line 63, you are still using the term \"noisy\". If that's not a mistake, please explain why.\n\n>Our paper proposes a conceptual as well as computational framework that details the combination of GP regression with rigid-body dynamics.\n\nI understand conceptual work but what's the benefit of the idea if you can't convince the reader that your approach is needed for some settings/applications? I strongly suggest to use a more complex simulation example. In addition, the concept is still very similar to [35] such that my score remains the same even though I appreciate the work of the authors.", "role": "assistant" } ]
50523z0PALg
CoRL 2021 Conference
Reviewer_HDXR
[ { "content": "\nYou are an experienced academic paper reviewer. You will receive a conference paper in the field of computer science or AI. Please analyze the paper content carefully and output your review content.\nMore importantly, the author will further explain or refute the review comments you gave, and you need to further discuss with the author based on the author's response. \nThe purpose of this rebuttal and discussion is:\n- Clarification: During the review process, the reviewer (you) may not accurately understand the contribution or method of the paper due to unclear expression or misunderstanding of certain details. Through rebuttal, the author has the opportunity to clarify these misunderstandings and further illustrate the effectiveness of their innovations or methods.\n- Respond to criticisms and suggestions: The reviewer (you) may make criticisms or suggestions on the paper, and the author can use the discussion session to provide specific responses, explain why certain criticisms may not apply, or how to improve and optimize certain aspects of the paper.\nFinally, you and the author will work together to enhance the persuasiveness of the paper and improve the quality of the paper.\n", "role": "system" }, { "content": "Now your reviewer ID is assigned as Reviewer_HDXR, and the following are the paper you need to review:\n```<<50523z0PALg>>```", "role": "user" }, { "content": "Review Content: summary: The paper proposes a grey box model of rigid body dynamics (RBD) by combining a white box RBD model with a Gaussian process over external forces. \nThis model is evaluated in simulation of a contact-heavy manipulatior task.\nstrengths_and_weaknesses: I thought this was a beautiful paper and was the best on my stack. \nThe idea of greybox modelling via the external forces is original and makes sense. \nThe inclusion of constrained dynamics is also a nice touch compared to previous data-driven RBD work.. \n\nThe literature review was nice and informative. The only missing work I could think of is [A].\n\nThe technical section was very readable. \n\nThe weakness is in the experiments. For model learning, the real world is often very different to simulators (especially w.r.t. contract forces) so its a shame that we cannot see how the model scales to the real world. Do the authors have access to a real manipulator?\n\nA second issue is with the scalability of GPs. I imagine sparse GPs slot into this framework quite easily, but would be good to see how the approximation effects the performance. \n\nA neural network baseline of [20 30] is too small, especially has MBRL dynamics models are easily in the size of [200 200 200 200]. \n\nA final weakness is the title. The current title is far too general and doesn't distinguish this work from prior work. The title should include rigid body dynamics, Gaussian processes and their use as modelling external forces. \n\nLine 339: isn't a quality of the SE kernel that it perfoms ARD?\n\nMinor formatting suggestions:\n- consider using boldface for matrices and vectors \n- JMLR capitalization rules hold only for names of people and places\n- it looks like you use \\intercal and \\top as your transpose symbol. \n\n\n[A] A Bayesian Approach to Nonlinear Parameter Identification for Rigid Body Dynamics RSS Ting et al. 2006\nsummary_of_recommendation: Well executed paper on gray box model learning with GPs via external forces. A real robot experiment would be really good to properly evaluate the model learning. \nissues: See above.\nRating: 9 strong accept, excellent work\n", "role": "assistant" }, { "content": "Title: Author Response\n> The literature review was nice and informative. The only missing work I could think of is [A].\n\nThank you for pointing us to [A]. We added [A] to the literature discussion.\n\n> The weakness is in the experiments. For model learning, the real world is often very different to simulators (especially w.r.t. contract forces) so its a shame that we cannot see how the model scales to the real world. Do the authors have access to a real manipulator?\n\nWe agree that it would be nice to test the proposed framework on a real robot. We currently plan follow-up work that builds on the proposed structured GP framework to learn the dynamics of a real robot and which in particular delves more in the design of GP force priors for learning physical friction functions.\n\n> A second issue is with the scalability of GPs. I imagine sparse GPs slot into this framework quite easily, but would be good to see how the approximation effects the performance.\n\nThe combination of sparse GPs with our framework is indeed an interesting direction to consider for follow-up work. For the current submission, considering the page limit of this submission, we are not sure if the analysis of approximation effects of sparse GP regression inside our structured modeling framework can be done thoroughly enough such that we arrive at a scientifically insightful conclusion.\n\n> A neural network baseline of [20 30] is too small, especially has MBRL dynamics models are easily in the size of [200 200 200 200].\n\nWe agree that in literature on MBRL, the NN is considerably larger than the one we used in our results section. Yet, as the experiments shall show the limits of pure data-driven modelling compared to our proposed framework for structured modeling, we purposefully chose a data set that is considerably smaller than the data sets that one would encounter in MBRL literature. As pointed out, e.g. in [1], Neural Networks tend to overfit on small datasets, leading to bad prediction results on the test data set. This problem is aggravated by increasing the neural network size. While we tried to level the playing field in the results section by training the NN on ten times more data compared to our structured GP, we nonetheless found that the relatively small neural network had a lower test prediction error than larger networks. Nevertheless, we added to the appendix prediction results of a neural network of size of size [80] as well as [200 200 200 200].\n\n[1] Chua, Kurtland, et al. \"Deep reinforcement learning in a handful of trials using probabilistic dynamics models.\" arXiv preprint arXiv:1805.12114 (2018).\n\n> A final weakness is the title. The current title is far too general and doesn't distinguish this work from prior work. The title should include rigid body dynamics, Gaussian processes and their use as modelling external forces.\n\nWe changed the title to “Using Model Knowledge for Learning Rigid-Body Forward Dynamics with Gaussian processes”. Note that we do not mention external forces explicitly in the title, as the paper focuses in equal parts on the discussion of what qualifies as model knowledge as well as subsequently modeling external forces with GPs.\n\n> Line 339: isn't a quality of the SE kernel that it perfoms ARD?\n\nIt is a nice quality of the SE kernel that it performs automatic relevance determination. However, despite this advantageous property, the SE kernel assumes that the process being modeled is infinite times differentiable which for most physical functions is not the case. This is why we point out in the conclusion of our submission, that future work could focus on designing GP kernels for learning specific type of force functions. Another often mentioned reason for using the SE kernel is that it is a universal kernel, that is, it is capable of learning any continuous function given enough data, under certain conditions. We did not mention in our submission that SE kernels are universal, as force functions are often not continuous and structured models are used in scenarios where the amount of data is limited.\n\n> Minor formatting suggestions:\nconsider using boldface for matrices and vectors\n\nWe respectfully refrain from using boldface for matrices as in the revised manuscript almost every symbol denotes a vector or matrix. The only exceptions are the dimensions of the respective vectors or matrices.\n\n> JMLR capitalization rules hold only for names of people and places\n\nWe are unfortunately not sure what we capitalized wrongly, **could you please point us to the type of words we may (de-)capitalize?**\n\n> it looks like you use \\intercal and \\top as your transpose symbol.\n\nThank you for pointing this out. We now only use \\top as transpose symbol.\n\n", "role": "user" }, { "content": "I appreciate the authors' reply. The reply answers almost all of my questions. I stand by my favorable recommendation for this paper.", "role": "assistant" } ]
50523z0PALg
CoRL 2021 Conference
Reviewer_ZmdF
[ { "content": "\nYou are an experienced academic paper reviewer. You will receive a conference paper in the field of computer science or AI. Please analyze the paper content carefully and output your review content.\nMore importantly, the author will further explain or refute the review comments you gave, and you need to further discuss with the author based on the author's response. \nThe purpose of this rebuttal and discussion is:\n- Clarification: During the review process, the reviewer (you) may not accurately understand the contribution or method of the paper due to unclear expression or misunderstanding of certain details. Through rebuttal, the author has the opportunity to clarify these misunderstandings and further illustrate the effectiveness of their innovations or methods.\n- Respond to criticisms and suggestions: The reviewer (you) may make criticisms or suggestions on the paper, and the author can use the discussion session to provide specific responses, explain why certain criticisms may not apply, or how to improve and optimize certain aspects of the paper.\nFinally, you and the author will work together to enhance the persuasiveness of the paper and improve the quality of the paper.\n", "role": "system" }, { "content": "Now your reviewer ID is assigned as Reviewer_ZmdF, and the following are the paper you need to review:\n```<<50523z0PALg>>```", "role": "user" }, { "content": "Review Content: summary: The paper proposes a method to learn forward dynamics while explicitly enforcing kinematic, inertia and implicit constraint equations. The constraint matrix, inertia matrix and known forces are explicitly estimated as the mean of the Gaussian Process (GP) Regression, while the variance of the GP captures uncertainties. The model parameters are trained using auto-differentiation. Experiment results in simulation show that, training models with structured knowledge converges faster and leads to smaller prediction errors.\nstrengths_and_weaknesses: Strengths:\n- The paper proposes a novel method to combine analytical and data-driven dynamics modeling. Despite its complexity, the model can be trained using auto-differentiation with fast GPU acceleration, which is promising.\n\nWeaknesses:\n- Lack of sufficient comparisons with existing baseline:\nThe author only compared their approach with standard GP and a standard feed-forward neural network. It would be nice to see the comparison with PETS [1], which uses an ensemble of probabilistic models to capture uncertainty. Reading from Fig.2 and 3 in the appendix, it seems like a major benefit of GP is the modeling of uncertainty and lower prediction errors, which is achievable by PETS.\n\n- Organization:\nThe authors should better organize the main paper and appendices. Currently, the main paper focuses excessively heavy on problem setup and preliminary information, while a lot of interesting results and analyses remain in the appendix. My suggestions is as follows:\n* Trim down section 1.2 and focus more on intuitions. What does $Q$, $Q_z$, $Q_I$ mean? Some examples could be helpful here ($Q_I, Q_Z$ in Fig.1 isn't exactly clear).\n* Trim down the related works section. Right now it's overly detailed.\n* Trim down section 2.1, or move it to Appendix. \n* Move Fig.2/Fig.3 from the Appendix to the main paper, as well as related analysis. For example, why does the analytical model have significantly larger errors in dimension 4, 5, 6 only? Why does GP have significantly higher uncertainty in dimension 2 and 4 compared to other dimensions? It would be nice to investigate this in greater details.\n* Move Section 5 in Appendix to the main paper, and add more results on long-term prediction accuracy.\n\nReferences:\n[1] Chua, Kurtland, et al. \"Deep reinforcement learning in a handful of trials using probabilistic dynamics models.\" arXiv preprint arXiv:1805.12114 (2018).\nsummary_of_recommendation: [Update on Aug.30]\n\nUpdate: I have updated the recommendation based on the author's responses. The paper's clarity is also improved in the revision. I have NOT updated the \"clarity of representation\" score yet.\n\n[Original Comment]\n\nThe paper presents a novel way to model forward dynamics by combining both physics knowledge and data-driven regression. The main reason for the current recommendation is the organization: the main paper contains an excessive amount of details and preliminary information, while the results and analysis remain concise. I would love to re-evaluate the paper after revision.\nissues: See \"Strengths And Weaknesses\" above.\nRating: 7 accept, but needs minor improvements\n", "role": "assistant" }, { "content": "Title: Author Response\n> Lack of sufficient comparisons with existing baseline: The author only compared their approach with standard GP and a standard feed-forward neural network. It would be nice to see the comparison with PETS [1], which uses an ensemble of probabilistic models to capture uncertainty. Reading from Fig. 2 and 3 in the appendix, it seems like a major benefit of GP is the modeling of uncertainty and lower prediction errors, which is achievable by PETS.\n\nWe thank the reviewer for pointing us to PETS [1] as an alternative approach for probabilistic data-driven modeling of dynamics functions. **We added [1] to the introduction as we believe that similar to the GP based model-based RL framework PILCO, the results in [1] similarly indicate that probabilistic models may lead to better performance of model-based control algorithms.**\n\nAs our paper focuses on the conscious combination of analytical mechanics with data-driven modeling, we tried to keep the comparison clear and simple. That is, comparing a GP with an SE kernel to the exact same GP with physics knowledge built into it, allows one to clearly deduce that the physics knowledge improved the model’s sample efficiency.\n\nThe comparison to an analytical rigid-body model that is missing the dissipative force, also seems sensible as it highlights that a physics model’s performance is sensitive to unmodeled friction phenomena.\n\n**The comparison of the GP models to a NN could already be subject to debate, as the prediction accuracy of NN depends as strongly on its architecture as the prediction accuracy of a GP depends on the chosen Kernel function.** In turn, comparing a NN dynamics modeling approach such as PETS [1] to a structured GP with a comparably simple SE Kernel would not suffice. To get a sensible overview on how the state of the art in deep dynamics modeling compares to structured GP modeling, one would need to compare a careful selection of different “advanced” GP models with different deep dynamics modelling approaches. Yet, this, we believe, would result in a different type of paper as the one we intended to write. The focus of our submission lies on a discussion of implicit rigid-body mechanics and how a framework resulting from this discussion can be efficiently implemented to allow learning of high-dimensional dynamics functions.\n\n> Trim down section 1.2 and focus more on intuitions. What does Q, Q_z, Q_I mean? Some examples could be helpful here (Fig.1 isn't exactly clear).\n\nWe added some intuition on the forces $Q$, $Q_z$, and $Q_I$. In particular, we write: \n\n*“[...] with the analytical model parameters $\\theta_A$, symmetric and positive definite inertia matrix $M(q;\\theta_A)$, torques acting on the unconstrained system $Q(x;\\theta_A)$, torques $Q_z(x;\\theta_A)$ caused by Cartesian end-effector friction forces $F_z$, and torques $Q_I(x;\\theta_A)$ that are caused by Cartesian surface normal forces $F_I$ also acting on the end-effector. That is, if $Q$ presses the robot's end-effector onto a surface, the surface applies as a reaction the force $F_I$ that always remains normal to the surface. The transformation of $F_I$ into generalized coordinates yields the torques $Q_I$. The force $F_I$ often causes dissipative forces between the end-effector and the surface. These dissipative forces $Q_z$ lie always tangential to the surface. The torques acting in the unconstrained system $Q(x;\\theta_A)=Q_D+Q_u+Q_G+Q_C$ consist of bias forces $Q_C$, gravitational forces $Q_G$, dissipative forces inside the joints $Q_D$, and actuation forces $Q_u$. Often in literature $Q_u+Q_D$ is denoted by $\\tau$ being referred to as joint torques which are the torques that are measurable in a robot's joints.”*\n\n**We also added a table summarizing all forces to the supplementary material.**\n\n> Trim down the related works section. Right now it's overly detailed.\n\nWe trimmed down the related works section.\n\n> Trim down section 2.1, or move it to Appendix.\n\nAs suggested, we moved Section 2.1 to the Appendix to clear up some space for providing more intuition on rigid-body mechanics (Q, Q_z, Q_I ) as well as expanding on the discussion of the results.\n\n> Move Fig.2/Fig.3 from the Appendix to the main paper, as well as related analysis. \n\nWe moved a smaller combined version of Figure 2 and Figure 3 to the main paper. \n\n> For example, why does the analytical model have significantly larger errors in dimension 4, 5, 6 only? \n\nWe added the following sentence to the current submission that hopefully answers your question:\n\n*“The analytical baseline model does not contain a function describing the surface friction which in turn causes the model to yield large prediction errors in the robot arm's joints that are close to the end-effector.”*\n\n So, the last 3 dimensions of the generalized accelerations (4,5,6) are the dimensions that are most affected by the unmodelled Cartesian friction forces when mapped to the generalized space.\n> Why does GP have significantly higher uncertainty in dimension 2 and 4 compared to other dimensions? It would be nice to investigate this in greater details.\n\nNote that the measurement noise for all dimensions is the same. The conditional variance of the posterior GP distribution as depicted in Figure 4 in the supplementary material does not vary significantly between the different output dimensions. **As the y-axis scaling in Figure 4 of the supplementary material is not the same it gives the impression that the posterior variance varies significantly between the GP model’s outputs.** We added a sentence to the figure description that puts the reader’s attention to the differing y-axis scaling.\n\n> Move Section 5 in Appendix to the main paper, and add more results on long-term prediction accuracy.\n\n**We added an additional plot as well as a short discussion on the long-term prediction accuracy of the proposed structured model with and without Baumgarte stabilization.**", "role": "user" }, { "content": "Title: Response to Authors\nThanks for the detailed response and the paper revision. I believe the authors have done an extensive job revising the paper, and the revision addresses most of my concerns. I have updated my rating accordingly.", "role": "assistant" } ]
59aUaAbVfMA
CoRL 2021 Conference
Reviewer_KMoW
[ { "content": "\nYou are an experienced academic paper reviewer. You will receive a conference paper in the field of computer science or AI. Please analyze the paper content carefully and output your review content.\nMore importantly, the author will further explain or refute the review comments you gave, and you need to further discuss with the author based on the author's response. \nThe purpose of this rebuttal and discussion is:\n- Clarification: During the review process, the reviewer (you) may not accurately understand the contribution or method of the paper due to unclear expression or misunderstanding of certain details. Through rebuttal, the author has the opportunity to clarify these misunderstandings and further illustrate the effectiveness of their innovations or methods.\n- Respond to criticisms and suggestions: The reviewer (you) may make criticisms or suggestions on the paper, and the author can use the discussion session to provide specific responses, explain why certain criticisms may not apply, or how to improve and optimize certain aspects of the paper.\nFinally, you and the author will work together to enhance the persuasiveness of the paper and improve the quality of the paper.\n", "role": "system" }, { "content": "Now your reviewer ID is assigned as Reviewer_KMoW, and the following are the paper you need to review:\n```<<59aUaAbVfMA>>```", "role": "user" }, { "content": "Review Content: summary: This paper presents a method for training policies using Domain Randomization, where the randomization distribution is fit with some real world data. The algorithm, named Neural Posterior Domain Randomization (NPDR) in the paper, consists of using a likelihood-free inference method, Sequential Neural Posterior Estimation with Normalizing Flows (SNPE-C or APT) , to determine the distribution used to train policies in simulation with Domain Randomization. This is similar to BayesSim, which this paper uses as a baseline for comparison.\nstrengths_and_weaknesses: This paper demonstrates the power of likelihood-free inference methods for the tasks of parameter identification in robotics tasks. Furthermore, it shows how likelihood-free inference can be integrated naturally into a domain randomization pipeline for training robot controllers in simulations. This work also demonstrates the proposed Domain Randomization algorithm on a real physical system, the Furuta pendulum. The paper is clearly written and touches upon a very relevant topic for robotics research. The experimental results on the Furuta Pendulum task show an improvement over the online BayesSim baseline.\n\nThe strengths of this paper are in the simplicity of the proposed method and the experimentation with real robot systems.\n\nThe weaknesses of this paper are in the originality and impact of its contributions and in the experimental evaluation. \n\nIn terms of originality and impact, the proposed algorithm is not very different to BayesSim at a high level. In a detailed view, the proposed algorithm can be viewed as the same as BayesSim, but replacing the posterior inference algorithm and density model (both of which aren't contributions from this paper). \n\nAn important shortcoming of the experimental results is that the differences in experimental results can be attributed to multiple factors (the ones listed in Section 5.2), but the paper does not provide isolated ablations or improvements to the baselines to determine the influence of the components of NPDR in the final performance. The comparison doesn't seem to account for model capacity. \nsummary_of_recommendation: While the main technique used in this paper (likelihood free inference with normalizing flows) is of great interest to roboticists, the contribution is thin. I would still recommend this for acceptance given that it would be the first documented application of SNPE with normalizing flows to learning control policies. But I would condition my acceptance to a proper ablation study (to ensure that the method was compared to the best possible baseline)\nissues: The paper compares NPDR to online BayesSim, but not to vanilla BayesSim.\n\nThe paper attributes the difference in performance to 1) the choice of inference algorithm 2) the choice of density model 3) that NDPR trains the policy until convergence. These three factors can be removed from NPDR (or added to vanilla BayesSim) independently to determine their importance.\nRating: 7 accept, but needs minor improvements\n", "role": "assistant" }, { "content": "Title: Authors' Answer to Reviewer KMoW\nThe proposed NPDR algorithm is indeed closely related to BayesSim in that it interleaves policy optimization with approximate Bayesian inference of the system dynamics. However, from this perspective, a number of model-based RL algorithms follow such an approach, the difference being in exactly what probabilistic model is used, what inference algorithm, what policy representation and optimization procedure (cf. PILCO, PETS, Planet of the Bayesians, etc.). Therefore, we emphasize precisely the choice of these components and provide evaluations of a novel combination involving normalizing flows as posterior models coupled with SNPE-C as the inference algorithm. The similarity between NPDR and (online) BayesSim is intended and beneficial in order to have a comparable baseline, which allows us to state that our change of the \"posterior inference algorithm and density model\" is significant.\n\nMoreover, NPDR optimizes the initial policy in simulation using the prior over domain parameters (Line 2 in Algorithm 1). We found that this change was important to achieve the sim-to-real transfer in more challenging control tasks, since the initial policy gathers the first data on the physical system. If the recorded trajectories are informative, the next posterior estimate is very unlikely to be good. Online BayesSim, in contrast, executes a random initial policy (only one gradient step done) on the real robot (Algorithm 1 in [KMoW-1]).\nAnother important modification is the segmentwise synchronization of the simulations with the ground truth data, which was necessary since the dynamical system diverge quickly when applying open-loop control (straight-forward application of the recorded actions). We noticed that our description within Section 3 was not placed prominently enough, therefore we added a corresponding statement to the 'Contributions' paragraph.\n\nTo the first issue: we did compare NPDR against #vanilla' BayesSim, the pendulum and mini golf experiments (Section 4.1 and 4.2). For these experiments, the rollouts have been collected with a fixed behavioral policy. Therefore, no policy optimization was necessary, i.e., 'vanilla' BayesSim was used.\n\nTo the second issue: it is correct that we attribute the difference in performance to these three points, and we added an ablation study to Appendix E which compares the performance of the Bayesian system identification for NPDR (using SNPE-C) with normalizing flows, and a mixture of Gaussians, as well as BayesSim (using SNPE-A) with a mixture of Gaussians. Please note that it is not possible to employ normalizing flows with SNPE-A. The ablation study is evaluating the three alternatives on the same recorded trajectories and does not involve policy optimization. Our results show that using SNPE-C as LFI subroutine yields a better posterior estimate than SNPE-A even when both algorithms use a mixture of Gaussians as the model. Moreover, SNPE-C performs better with a masked autoregressive flow than with a mixture of Gaussians.\n\n[KMoW-1] R. Possas et al. \"Online BayesSim for Combined Simulator Parameter Inference and Policy Improvement\", IROS, 2020.\n\n Global/general Response:\n```\nFirst of all, we thank you for investing your time to give us truly helpful feedback. We appreciate the friendly tone in which the reviews have been written, and gave our best to realize the improvement suggestions, address the comments, and answer open questions.\n\nGenerally, we want to convey the message that LFI is a powerful tool for sim-to-real robot learning, particularly in combination with domain randomization. While BayesSim is an inspirational approach and performed well on the problems it has been tested on so far, we demonstrate that one can do even better by \n* using more efficient inference methods together with more flexible neural models,\n* segmentwise synchronization of the simulations (during inference) with the recorded target domain data, and\n* training the policies until convergence (crucial for the data collection with the first policy which is trained using the prior).\nIn this paper, we explicitly connect NPDR (our method) to simulation-based inference approaches, demonstrating the power and flexibility of such methods in the context of robotics and sim-to-real transfer.\n\nBased on your reviews, we did the following changes to the main paper and the supplementary material:\n* Updated the contribution statement in Section 1.\n* Updated Algorithm 1 to provide more information on $f_\\psi$.\n* Added a short explanation of the DTW metric in Section 4.\n* Added a description of the necessary modification to online BayesSim in Section 4.\n* Updated Table 1 with new results, showing the standard deviations for NPDR and BayesSim.\n* Fixed a typo in Table 2 where the standard deviation for NPDR was off by one digit. We noticed this when revisiting the data for the ablation study.\n* Updated Figure A1 in Appendix D to display the posterior for Bayesian linear regression.\n* Added an experiment to Appendix D for NPDR using SNPE-C with a mixture of Gaussians (ablation study).\n* Added an experiment to Appendix D for NPDR varying the number of target domain rollouts for domain parameter inference.\n* Added a discussion of the computational complexity of NPDR and BayesSim in Appendix E.\n```\n", "role": "user" }, { "content": "I'm grateful for the authors' response. It adequately addresses the points I raised. I reaffirm my positive endorsement for this paper.", "role": "assistant" } ]
59aUaAbVfMA
CoRL 2021 Conference
Reviewer_wTxL
[ { "content": "\nYou are an experienced academic paper reviewer. You will receive a conference paper in the field of computer science or AI. Please analyze the paper content carefully and output your review content.\nMore importantly, the author will further explain or refute the review comments you gave, and you need to further discuss with the author based on the author's response. \nThe purpose of this rebuttal and discussion is:\n- Clarification: During the review process, the reviewer (you) may not accurately understand the contribution or method of the paper due to unclear expression or misunderstanding of certain details. Through rebuttal, the author has the opportunity to clarify these misunderstandings and further illustrate the effectiveness of their innovations or methods.\n- Respond to criticisms and suggestions: The reviewer (you) may make criticisms or suggestions on the paper, and the author can use the discussion session to provide specific responses, explain why certain criticisms may not apply, or how to improve and optimize certain aspects of the paper.\nFinally, you and the author will work together to enhance the persuasiveness of the paper and improve the quality of the paper.\n", "role": "system" }, { "content": "Now your reviewer ID is assigned as Reviewer_wTxL, and the following are the paper you need to review:\n```<<59aUaAbVfMA>>```", "role": "user" }, { "content": "Review Content: summary: This work proposes a new way to leverage domain randomization to estimate and adapt the posterior distribution over the simulator’s parameters, and consequently allowing optimization of a policy suitable for the target environment in the real world. Specifically, it combines likelihood-free inference methods based on normalizing flows with domain randomization to estimate the posterior. This makes fewer assumptions about the domain parameter distribution, and can model correlations between parameters. This approach is evaluated in a sim-to-real experiment on a swing-up pendulum task.\nstrengths_and_weaknesses: Strengths:\n- NPDR combines a strong LFI method with domain randomization to flexibly model the posterior distribution over parameters given a small set of observations. The experiments demonstrate the wide applicability of the method, and also include results on a real pendulum system.\n\n- The paper is overall well written and easy to read. The visualizations help illustrate and characterize the differences between NPDR and BayesSim. \n\nWeaknesses:\n- Perhaps, a weakness is that the method is a somewhat straightforward combination of a LFI method based on normalizing flows with domain randomization. However, this work highlights settings that necessitate a stronger neural density estimator.\n\n- It would be useful to include the sample mean and standard deviation of the results across multiple experiments in Table 1, in addition to reporting the max over experiments.\n\n- The studied pendulum control task is quite simple. The returns achieved by NPDR and BayesSim are thus quite close with overlapping intervals. It would be good to apply the method on a wider range of control tasks.\nsummary_of_recommendation: I am recommending a weak accept. Overall, the paper clearly communicates the method and its strengths. It also experimentally evaluates several aspects such as its ability to capture correlations between parameters. However, the studied tasks and quantitative results are a bit limited.\nissues: - In terms of writing organization, having the related work earlier in the paper such as after the introduction would help a reader who has less familiarity with domain randomization better understand the contributions and differences of this work.\n\n- Describing what the Dynamic Time Warping (DTW) metric is in more detail would make the paper more self-contained.\n\n- As mentioned earlier, it would be useful to include the sample mean and standard deviation of the results across multiple experiments in Table 1, in addition to reporting the max over experiments.\nRating: 7 accept, but needs minor improvements\n", "role": "assistant" }, { "content": "Title: Authors' Answer to Reviewer wTxL\nWe acknowledge that NPDR is a natural next step for sim-to-real robot learning based on LFI methods. Furthermore, we argue that this paper presents valuable modifications and improvements to the state of the art, thereby reinforcing other Bayesian inference approaches for learning transferable control policies.\n\nWe also agree that evaluating over more control tasks is generally good. However, we would like to point out that the swing-up and balancing task on the Furuta pendulum is actually quite challenging because the system is underactuated and the dynamics are fast and oscillatory. Moreover, the phase as well as gain margins for actuation errors are very small. In combination, these properties make it difficult to stabilize at the system's unstable equilibrium point. We also see it as a contribution that we evaluated online BayesSim on a sim-to-real control task that is more challenging than the ones it has been tested on so far (2D trajectory tracking using a wheeled robot). From this perspective, the overlapping intervals verify our implementation of BayesSim, thereby supporting the complete line of research which combines LFI and domain randomization.\n\nTo address your second point, we ran 9 additional NPDR and BayesSim experiments for the mini golf task. Each experiment is run with the same hyper-parameters on the same recorded trajectories, but with a different random seed. Based on the new results, we updated Table 1 according to your suggestion.\n\nAs requested, we extended the description of DTW to the 'Metrics' paragraph in Section 4.\n Global/general Response:\n```\nFirst of all, we thank you for investing your time to give us truly helpful feedback. We appreciate the friendly tone in which the reviews have been written, and gave our best to realize the improvement suggestions, address the comments, and answer open questions.\n\nGenerally, we want to convey the message that LFI is a powerful tool for sim-to-real robot learning, particularly in combination with domain randomization. While BayesSim is an inspirational approach and performed well on the problems it has been tested on so far, we demonstrate that one can do even better by \n* using more efficient inference methods together with more flexible neural models,\n* segmentwise synchronization of the simulations (during inference) with the recorded target domain data, and\n* training the policies until convergence (crucial for the data collection with the first policy which is trained using the prior).\nIn this paper, we explicitly connect NPDR (our method) to simulation-based inference approaches, demonstrating the power and flexibility of such methods in the context of robotics and sim-to-real transfer.\n\nBased on your reviews, we did the following changes to the main paper and the supplementary material:\n* Updated the contribution statement in Section 1.\n* Updated Algorithm 1 to provide more information on $f_\\psi$.\n* Added a short explanation of the DTW metric in Section 4.\n* Added a description of the necessary modification to online BayesSim in Section 4.\n* Updated Table 1 with new results, showing the standard deviations for NPDR and BayesSim.\n* Fixed a typo in Table 2 where the standard deviation for NPDR was off by one digit. We noticed this when revisiting the data for the ablation study.\n* Updated Figure A1 in Appendix D to display the posterior for Bayesian linear regression.\n* Added an experiment to Appendix D for NPDR using SNPE-C with a mixture of Gaussians (ablation study).\n* Added an experiment to Appendix D for NPDR varying the number of target domain rollouts for domain parameter inference.\n* Added a discussion of the computational complexity of NPDR and BayesSim in Appendix E.\n```\n", "role": "user" }, { "content": "Thank you for the detailed response from the authors. Most of my concerns have been addressed. I remain supportive of my positive recommendation for this paper.", "role": "assistant" } ]
59aUaAbVfMA
CoRL 2021 Conference
Reviewer_FjeG
[ { "content": "\nYou are an experienced academic paper reviewer. You will receive a conference paper in the field of computer science or AI. Please analyze the paper content carefully and output your review content.\nMore importantly, the author will further explain or refute the review comments you gave, and you need to further discuss with the author based on the author's response. \nThe purpose of this rebuttal and discussion is:\n- Clarification: During the review process, the reviewer (you) may not accurately understand the contribution or method of the paper due to unclear expression or misunderstanding of certain details. Through rebuttal, the author has the opportunity to clarify these misunderstandings and further illustrate the effectiveness of their innovations or methods.\n- Respond to criticisms and suggestions: The reviewer (you) may make criticisms or suggestions on the paper, and the author can use the discussion session to provide specific responses, explain why certain criticisms may not apply, or how to improve and optimize certain aspects of the paper.\nFinally, you and the author will work together to enhance the persuasiveness of the paper and improve the quality of the paper.\n", "role": "system" }, { "content": "Now your reviewer ID is assigned as Reviewer_FjeG, and the following are the paper you need to review:\n```<<59aUaAbVfMA>>```", "role": "user" }, { "content": "Review Content: summary: This paper applies neural likelihood-free inference (LFI) to domain randomization, aimed to tackle the sim-to-real transfer problem. LFI brings the benefit of relaxing the restrictive assumptions on the parameter distribution of the simulators and removing the requirement for a differentiable simulator.\nstrengths_and_weaknesses: Strengths:\n- The proposed method is a natural step towards more general and better-performing domain randomization for better sim-to-real transfer.\n- The paper is well written.\n\nWeaknesses:\n- My most major concern is regarding whether the improvement of the current paper over BayesSim is significant enough. Firstly, in lines 230-231, because of this difference (ii), does your proposed method also incur more computational cost? I think an empirical comparison with [14,15] (or a discussion on it if comparison is not feasible) in terms of the computational costs is needed. Secondly, in lines 231-233, why isn't BayesSim [14,15] able to do this? That is, why can't their method also train the policy parameters directly based on the latest posterior? Moreover, I think the performances of BayesSim and the proposed NPDR are actually very similar in Figure 5.\n- lines 140-142: I think what is described here are the advantages of the proposed method (i.e., free of potentially restrictive assumptions on the domain parameter distribution, doesn't require a differentiable simulator, etc.), however, it doesn't exclude the comparison with other methods that don't have these advantages (e.g., those methods that assume a parametric distribution on domain parameters). Therefore, I think comparisons with more domain randomization methods should be performed.\n- Table 2: why is \"Return sim\" so high for \"Bayes. Lin. Reg.\"? Do they overfit to the simulations?\n- lines 36-39: what's the motivation for using LFI for inferring the domain parameter distribution, instead of other inference methods such as those based on variational inference or MCMC?\n- Algorithm 1, line 6 and line 10: I think giving more details on this function $f_{\\boldsymbol{\\psi}}$ will be helpful\nsummary_of_recommendation: This paper improves over the BayesSim method for domain randomization for sim-to-real transfer. My most major concern is the significance of the improvement over BayesSim which determines the technical novelty of the paper, please see details below.\nissues: My most major concerns is whether the improvement of the current paper over the method of BayesSim is significant enough, and I have listed the relevant questions to be addressed in Section \"Strengths and Weaknesses\" above under \"Weaknesses\" (the first point there). Also, I have some less major concerns/questions which I have also listed under \"Weaknesses\".\nRating: 7 accept, but needs minor improvements\n", "role": "assistant" }, { "content": "Title: Authors' Answer to Reviewer FjeG\nThe vast majority of the computational cost for NPDR as well as BayesSim originates from running the simulations. Once the simulations are done, the posteriors are fitted. Using the sbi toolbox, these weight updates take about 5--300s for SNPE-C as well as SNPE-A. Importantly, SNPE-C is performing a substantially different multi-round inference than SNPE-A, meaning it updates the posterior multiple times on the same set of simulations (unlike SNPE-A). This leads to a notable reduction of the required number of simulations. Eventually, NPDR and BayesSim take approximately the same wall clock time, measured on a desktop PC: 20min (pendulum) 3.5h (mini golf), and 8h (Furuta pendulum). Most of the required time for the experiment on the Furuta comes from the policy optimization and the interaction with the physical device. We added this discussion of the computational cost to Appendix E.\n\nWe would like to clarify one misinterpretation: BayesSim can train the policy parameters directly based on the latest posterior. Independent of this, the lines 231--233 (in the first version of our paper) state that online BayesSim does not train the policy until convergence, but updates the domain and policy parameters directly after each other at every time step (lines 13 and 14 in Algorithm 1 in [FjeG-1]). This update strategy did not work at all in our experiments because the random initial policy of online BayesSim did not yield meaningful trajectories for the subsequent inference. We assume that the update scheme of online BayesSim worked in [FjeG-1] for two reasons:\n\n* The planar trajectory tracking task on the wheeled robot in [FjeG-1] is much more benign, especially when in comes to exploration, i.e., even a random policy can gather useful data in this environment. \n* For the experiments in [FjeG-1], BayesSim was not used together with RL, but with MPC (see the last paragraph of Section V. in [FjeG-1]). This means that the control strategy is only updated in terms of its internal model and not by changing the policy parameters.\n\nTo obtain comparable results, we adapted online BayesSim to train the policy until convergence the same way we do for NPDR. We noticed that this fact was not explicitly mentioned in the first version of the paper, thus added a corresponding statement in Section 4.\n\nThe purpose of Figure 5 is go give the reader a visualization of how samples from the posteriors manifest on trajectory-level, e.g., allowing to gauge when the open-loop predictions start to deviate how much in comparison to the nominal simulation. Figure 5 is not apt to read the performances, since it only displays one posterior per method for one real-world trajectory, both chosen randomly. In order to compare the final policy performances, we refer to the summarized in Table 2.\n\nThe paragraph starting at line 140 is intended to explain why we chose these two baselines. In our opinion, real-world evaluations are ultimately the only ones that matter for sim-to-real research. However, evaluating on physical devices is orders of magnitude more expensive in term of time and labor than in simulation. Therefore, we only selected the methods which are the most comparable in the sense that they make similar assumptions. Comparisons against approaches with stronger assumptions on the domain parameter distribution are a definitely good extension for further research.\n\nBayesian linear regression utilizes the analytic form of the equations of motion and finds a posterior that distributes the probability mass over a wider range of parameter values. We updated Figure A1 in the appendix to illustrate that. In particular, the masses $M_r$ and $M_p$ identified by Bayesian linear regression are significantly different from the values found by NPDR and BayesSim, which makes the simulated environment easier to solve. However, the policy found in such simulated environment does not transfer to the real system as well as the policies found by NPDR and BayesSim.\n\nLFI is motivated by the fact that we do not assume to have access to the likelihood $p(x | \\xi)$ (see the lines 87 and 99 in the first version, or the first sentence of Section 5.3). Therefore, variational inference is not feasible. Alternatively, approaches based on ABC and MCMC would also be possible. We decided for a SNPE variant because they had been shown to be superior to 'classical' ABC methods [FjeG-2, FjeG-3, FjeG-4].\n\nWe added further information on $f_\\psi$ to the lines 6 and 10 of Algorithm 1.\n\n[FjeG-1] R. Possas et al. \"Online BayesSim for Combined Simulator Parameter Inference and Policy Improvement\", IROS, 2020. \n[FjeG-2] G. Papamakarios and I. Murray, \"Fast $\\epsilon$-free inference of simulation models with Bayesian conditional density estimation\", NIPS, 2016. \n[FjeG-3] F. Ramos et al., \"Adaptive domain randomization via probabilistic inference for robotics simulators\", RSS, 2019. \n[FjeG-4] J.-M. Lueckmann et al., \"Benchmarking Simulation-based inference\", AISTATS, 2021.\n Global/general Response:\n```\nFirst of all, we thank you for investing your time to give us truly helpful feedback. We appreciate the friendly tone in which the reviews have been written, and gave our best to realize the improvement suggestions, address the comments, and answer open questions.\n\nGenerally, we want to convey the message that LFI is a powerful tool for sim-to-real robot learning, particularly in combination with domain randomization. While BayesSim is an inspirational approach and performed well on the problems it has been tested on so far, we demonstrate that one can do even better by \n* using more efficient inference methods together with more flexible neural models,\n* segmentwise synchronization of the simulations (during inference) with the recorded target domain data, and\n* training the policies until convergence (crucial for the data collection with the first policy which is trained using the prior).\nIn this paper, we explicitly connect NPDR (our method) to simulation-based inference approaches, demonstrating the power and flexibility of such methods in the context of robotics and sim-to-real transfer.\n\nBased on your reviews, we did the following changes to the main paper and the supplementary material:\n* Updated the contribution statement in Section 1.\n* Updated Algorithm 1 to provide more information on $f_\\psi$.\n* Added a short explanation of the DTW metric in Section 4.\n* Added a description of the necessary modification to online BayesSim in Section 4.\n* Updated Table 1 with new results, showing the standard deviations for NPDR and BayesSim.\n* Fixed a typo in Table 2 where the standard deviation for NPDR was off by one digit. We noticed this when revisiting the data for the ablation study.\n* Updated Figure A1 in Appendix D to display the posterior for Bayesian linear regression.\n* Added an experiment to Appendix D for NPDR using SNPE-C with a mixture of Gaussians (ablation study).\n* Added an experiment to Appendix D for NPDR varying the number of target domain rollouts for domain parameter inference.\n* Added a discussion of the computational complexity of NPDR and BayesSim in Appendix E.\n```\n", "role": "user" }, { "content": "I'm grateful for the authors' response. Most of my concerns have been addressed.", "role": "assistant" } ]
59aUaAbVfMA
CoRL 2021 Conference
Reviewer_tnJY
[ { "content": "\nYou are an experienced academic paper reviewer. You will receive a conference paper in the field of computer science or AI. Please analyze the paper content carefully and output your review content.\nMore importantly, the author will further explain or refute the review comments you gave, and you need to further discuss with the author based on the author's response. \nThe purpose of this rebuttal and discussion is:\n- Clarification: During the review process, the reviewer (you) may not accurately understand the contribution or method of the paper due to unclear expression or misunderstanding of certain details. Through rebuttal, the author has the opportunity to clarify these misunderstandings and further illustrate the effectiveness of their innovations or methods.\n- Respond to criticisms and suggestions: The reviewer (you) may make criticisms or suggestions on the paper, and the author can use the discussion session to provide specific responses, explain why certain criticisms may not apply, or how to improve and optimize certain aspects of the paper.\nFinally, you and the author will work together to enhance the persuasiveness of the paper and improve the quality of the paper.\n", "role": "system" }, { "content": "Now your reviewer ID is assigned as Reviewer_tnJY, and the following are the paper you need to review:\n```<<59aUaAbVfMA>>```", "role": "user" }, { "content": "Review Content: summary: This paper use SNPE-C (a Likelihood-Free Inference method) to learn a density estimator to compute the posterior conditioned on real observation, and train the RL agent in simulation environment based on the parameters sampled from posterior (domain randomization) to minimize the dynamic sim to real gap, the advantage of the method was shown by one sim2sim and two sim2real experiments.\nstrengths_and_weaknesses: Strengths:\nThe method applied in this paper can be applied to simulators that can only sample parameters which is an easy-to-use method. Requirement of real rollout is also reduced by the method, according to experiment setting, only one iteration of training can get good performance, which outperforms than the baseline. Both insight and real experiments are conducted to show the advantage of the method.\n\nWeaknesses:\nThe method applied in this paper do have a good performance, but this seems mainly because of the strength of the SNPE-C itself, and in a previous paper [1], SNPE-C has already been proposed to compute posterior for simulator. It looks like the improvement for the method is not enough when apply this method to sim2real.\n\n[1] Greenberg, David, Marcel Nonnenmacher, and Jakob Macke. \"Automatic posterior transformation for likelihood-free inference.\" International Conference on Machine Learning. PMLR, 2019.\n\nsummary_of_recommendation: Although the SNPE-C seems just applied from a previous paper, but the previous paper is just use SNPE-C for one simulator, not involve sim2real, and the result in this paper also show good performance. The proposed method has improved a lot compare to the baseline, also considering the low requirement for real data, this maybe a useful method for dynamic sim2real.\nissues: 1. Clarify the contribution of improvement when apply the SNPE-C to the sim to real compare with the previous paper [1].\n2. Show some experiment about how the number of real rollouts influence the performance of the method.\n3. It seems the trajectory of each rollout was not provided in paper, it’s hard to evaluate the total number need for real data.\nRating: 7 accept, but needs minor improvements\n", "role": "assistant" }, { "content": "Title: Authors' Answer to Reviewer tnJY\nIt is correct that the performance increase comes mostly, but not exclusively, from the usage of SNPE-C with masked autoregressive flows (the policy optimization subroutines, i.e., their hyper-parameters, were chosen to be identical). To investigate this point, we added a small ablation study to Appendix D which shows the influence of the density estimator model. We want to emphasize that for our approach, SNPE-C can easily be replaced with any other inference method that is capable of working with neural density estimators, including methods which are estimating the likelihood, or a likelihood ratio (Table A1 in the appendix). Our choice of SNPE-C was motivated by prior experiments and by the results in [tnJY-1].\n\nIn comparison to [tnJY-2], we contribute by demonstrating that SNPE-C can be used to infer the parameters of a state-of-the-art physics simulator based on noisy _real-world_ time series data. Although Greenberg et al. showed in [tnJY-2] that SNPE-C works with time series data, their target domain was given by the Lotka-Volterra model, i.e., a simulation. Furthermore, we believe that it is a contribution to show that SNPE-C is also useful when interleaved with policy optimization for sim-to-_real_ robot learning.\n\nFor our experiments, a trajectory contains 800 (simulated pendulum), 800 (robot mini golf), or 1250 (Furuta pendulum) time steps of respectively 2, 16, 4 dimensional states. We found that one trajectory is enough for the LFI procedure to learn a decent posterior estimate. However, the resulting estimate can vary depending on how noisy the measurements are. Thus, more target domain rollouts, e.g., 5 or 10, result in a more accurate posterior which is estimated more consistently over different experiments. On the downside, these additional rollouts come at the price of running the policy on the physical device. In order to visualize the effect of the number of rollouts, we conducted a sim-to-sim experiment on the Furuta pendulum and discussed the results in Appendix D. Finally, we will publish the trajectory data alongside with the code as soon as the double-blind restriction is lifted.\n\n[tnJY-1] J.-M. Lueckmann et al., \"Benchmarking Simulation-based inference\", AISTATS, 2021. \n[tnJY-2] D.S. Greenberg et al., \"Automatic Posterior Transformation for Likelihood-Free Inference\", ICML, 2019.\n Global/general Response:\n```\nFirst of all, we thank you for investing your time to give us truly helpful feedback. We appreciate the friendly tone in which the reviews have been written, and gave our best to realize the improvement suggestions, address the comments, and answer open questions.\n\nGenerally, we want to convey the message that LFI is a powerful tool for sim-to-real robot learning, particularly in combination with domain randomization. While BayesSim is an inspirational approach and performed well on the problems it has been tested on so far, we demonstrate that one can do even better by \n* using more efficient inference methods together with more flexible neural models,\n* segmentwise synchronization of the simulations (during inference) with the recorded target domain data, and\n* training the policies until convergence (crucial for the data collection with the first policy which is trained using the prior).\nIn this paper, we explicitly connect NPDR (our method) to simulation-based inference approaches, demonstrating the power and flexibility of such methods in the context of robotics and sim-to-real transfer.\n\nBased on your reviews, we did the following changes to the main paper and the supplementary material:\n* Updated the contribution statement in Section 1.\n* Updated Algorithm 1 to provide more information on $f_\\psi$.\n* Added a short explanation of the DTW metric in Section 4.\n* Added a description of the necessary modification to online BayesSim in Section 4.\n* Updated Table 1 with new results, showing the standard deviations for NPDR and BayesSim.\n* Fixed a typo in Table 2 where the standard deviation for NPDR was off by one digit. We noticed this when revisiting the data for the ablation study.\n* Updated Figure A1 in Appendix D to display the posterior for Bayesian linear regression.\n* Added an experiment to Appendix D for NPDR using SNPE-C with a mixture of Gaussians (ablation study).\n* Added an experiment to Appendix D for NPDR varying the number of target domain rollouts for domain parameter inference.\n* Added a discussion of the computational complexity of NPDR and BayesSim in Appendix E.\n```\n", "role": "user" }, { "content": "I acknowledge the authors' response. The authors have answered almost all of my concerns. I reaffirm my positive endorsement for this paper.", "role": "assistant" } ]
5DjX89Wyhk-
CoRL 2021 Conference
Reviewer_54xG
[ { "content": "\nYou are an experienced academic paper reviewer. You will receive a conference paper in the field of computer science or AI. Please analyze the paper content carefully and output your review content.\nMore importantly, the author will further explain or refute the review comments you gave, and you need to further discuss with the author based on the author's response. \nThe purpose of this rebuttal and discussion is:\n- Clarification: During the review process, the reviewer (you) may not accurately understand the contribution or method of the paper due to unclear expression or misunderstanding of certain details. Through rebuttal, the author has the opportunity to clarify these misunderstandings and further illustrate the effectiveness of their innovations or methods.\n- Respond to criticisms and suggestions: The reviewer (you) may make criticisms or suggestions on the paper, and the author can use the discussion session to provide specific responses, explain why certain criticisms may not apply, or how to improve and optimize certain aspects of the paper.\nFinally, you and the author will work together to enhance the persuasiveness of the paper and improve the quality of the paper.\n", "role": "system" }, { "content": "Now your reviewer ID is assigned as Reviewer_54xG, and the following are the paper you need to review:\n```<<5DjX89Wyhk->>```", "role": "user" }, { "content": "Review Content: summary: The paper proposed an approach to manipulate unknown object with vague instructions. The proposed method learns the topology relationship between an anchor object and the unknown object (segmented though). \nstrengths_and_weaknesses: Learning topology and manipulated with vague instructions could improve human robot interactions significantly, and such technique can enable many robotics applications.\nHowever the vague instructions could add more uncertainty and I suspect the affected range surrounding the anchor object might be an sensitive parameters and have strong effects on the performance of the proposed approach.\nsummary_of_recommendation: The paper is well organized and easy to follow, and the proposed approach was verified with real world experiments.\nissues: The 'unknown objects' in the title could be clarified a bit. e.g. the main focus is to be able to manipulated 'novel' object but still rely on segmentation performance.\nRating: 7 accept, but needs minor improvements\n", "role": "assistant" }, { "content": "Title: Response to reviewer 54xG\nThank you for your comments. \n\n> However the vague instructions could add more uncertainty and I suspect the affected range surrounding the anchor object might be an sensitive parameters and have strong effects on the performance of the proposed approach.\n\n\nThe range around the anchor object is used for predicting object stability (as in the discriminator). We think this is not an extremely sensitive parameter, although it is the “ball query” operation used in PointNet++. This hyperparameter does need to be set properly (in the Pointnet++ backbone, as well as in our code), in that it should be larger than the necessary objects.\n\nIf it’s of interest to the reviewers, we could potentially add some experiments looking at this to the camera ready. We didn’t consider this high priority since it’s a fundamental part of pointnet++ models already which have been used successfully in a number of related robot learning tasks such as grasp learning.\n\n> The 'unknown objects' in the title could be clarified a bit. e.g. the main focus is to be able to manipulated 'novel' object but still rely on segmentation performance.\n\nApologies for this not being clear, you are correct that we do not have a way of recovering from segmentation failures and we make this assumption explicit in the paper. We’ve updated the title to use “novel” instead of “unknown” to alleviate this issue. \n", "role": "user" }, { "content": "Title: Thanks for the reply\nAll my questions are answered and I have finished update my review.", "role": "assistant" } ]
5DjX89Wyhk-
CoRL 2021 Conference
Reviewer_f3r9
[ { "content": "\nYou are an experienced academic paper reviewer. You will receive a conference paper in the field of computer science or AI. Please analyze the paper content carefully and output your review content.\nMore importantly, the author will further explain or refute the review comments you gave, and you need to further discuss with the author based on the author's response. \nThe purpose of this rebuttal and discussion is:\n- Clarification: During the review process, the reviewer (you) may not accurately understand the contribution or method of the paper due to unclear expression or misunderstanding of certain details. Through rebuttal, the author has the opportunity to clarify these misunderstandings and further illustrate the effectiveness of their innovations or methods.\n- Respond to criticisms and suggestions: The reviewer (you) may make criticisms or suggestions on the paper, and the author can use the discussion session to provide specific responses, explain why certain criticisms may not apply, or how to improve and optimize certain aspects of the paper.\nFinally, you and the author will work together to enhance the persuasiveness of the paper and improve the quality of the paper.\n", "role": "system" }, { "content": "Now your reviewer ID is assigned as Reviewer_f3r9, and the following are the paper you need to review:\n```<<5DjX89Wyhk->>```", "role": "user" }, { "content": "Review Content: summary: The paper proposes a novel approach for predicting stable placements of objects in a rearrangement task. This goal of this task is to rearrange a set of objects given high-level predicates describing their target location such as \"above\", \"near\" etc. The paper decomposes this task into multiple subcomponents: (1) Object and scene encoders which project the point clouds of a pair of objects and the scene into a latent space, (2) a relation predictor that predicts a set of fixed spatial binary predicates from the latent space representations the objects and scene, (3) a pose prior used to sample new object locations given a spatial predicate, (4) a scene discriminator used to reject invalid placement proposals, (5) a placement planner to determine a target placement location.\n\nThe paper evaluates the approach in a variety of simulation and real-world experiments.\nstrengths_and_weaknesses: ## Strengths\n\nThe paper addresses a challenging an important problem and proposes a complex and technically sound approach. It provides a large set of both simulated and real-world experiments, and shows the general validity of the approach. The presentation is mostly clear and easy to follow. I like the decomposition of the approach and the inclusion of a scene discriminator as a \"critic\".\n\n## Weaknesses\n\n1. Presentation and experimental evaluation: The experimental sections contain various studies, and I think it is a good idea to re-order the sections as done in the revision. I now understand what the key result is and why it shows that the proposed method works better. However, the paper would still profit from a clearer guidance for the reader as to what the experimental hypotheses are, how they matter for the final performance, and whether the experiments confirm the hypotheses. \n\n2. Model-free vs. model-based. As discussed in the rebuttal, the dataset generation (Section 2.3) and the model-based baseline are large equivalent with the main difference being that one operates on meshes and one of partial points clouds, and that the model-based baseline requires access to CAD models. The latter difference was not obvious to me, and should be pointed out explicitly in the paper.\n\n3. Justification on decisions for problem formulation. In their rebuttal, the authors argued that multiple cameras are difficult in non-controlled scenarios (I agree) and that collecting multiple viewpoints is too difficult / costly (I don't fully agree). I feel the paper makes some arbitrary choices as to what it expects as given and how it frames the problem - e.g. instance segmentation capabilities are considered as a given, but a dense fusion capability for acquiring and merging multiple viewpoints is not. The paper would profit from a better justification as to why these choices were made.\nsummary_of_recommendation: The paper proposes a complex yet mostly sound approach to the complex rearrangement task. The paper has some shortcomings wrt to clarity and the experimental evaluation, in particular in terms of its presentation.\nissues: ### Clarity & Presentation\n\n- Introduction: I couldn't really understand from the introduction what the problem the paper wants to solve and how it wants to solve it until reading section 2.\nImportantly, the introduction does not explain what the rearrangement task actually *is*, and the argument in L24-29 does not really motivate the task of rearrangement. I would recommend to first explain what the rearrangement task is, why it is challenging, and how this paper decomposes this task. Then it should be explained what alternatives exist (incl prior work) for each subcomponent, and what the choice + contribution of each component of this paper is. I feel that all of this information is somewhere hidden in the introduction, but it needs to be reordered/rewritten in order to guide the reader more gently through the complex matter.\n\n- Figure 2 & 3: I cannot really understand the depictions of the MDN. What do the different colors mean? What do we see here? These figures should be explained in the paper.\n\n- Latent object & scene encoders. First of all, I think it should be stated more clearly what the purpose of these is. If I understand correctly, this component enables the approach to generalize over different object geometries. Second, I'm wondering what role the hard-coded radius delta plays in the generality of the approach. \n\n### Experimental evaluation\n\nTable 1 reports compares the learned and the model-based baseline in terms of specificity and sensitivity, but it is actually hard to tell which one performs better. Eyeballing the numbers, it doesn't seem to me that one can be regarded the clear winner, depending on whether we put more emphasis on specificity or sensitivity. Which one should we give more weight?\n(Also, what does it mean for the model-based baseline for \"centered\" to have 0% sensitivity and 100% specificity?)\n\nI would suggest to use a single metric (e.g. F-Score) to compare the baselines. Furthermore, I would suggest to use bold face for the best performing approach in each row.\n\n### Dataset generation & model-based relationship predictor\n\nIt sounds to me that the dataset generation (Section 2.3) and the model-based baseline are large equivalent with the difference that one operates on meshes and the other on partial points clouds. Is this assessment correct? Or does object geometry play a bigger role? I would like to see in the paper a more explicit explanation of the differences.\n\nIf that assessment is correct, it seems that the only problem of the model-based baseline is the partial visibility. I would like to see a more elaborate discussion in section 3 if that is the case, or why else the model-based baseline performs (allegedly, see previous point) worse.\n\nFinally, if the partial visibility is a problem, why not add 1-2 additional RGB-D sensors? It should be justified why this is not a solution to the problem, as it would significantly simplify the machinery proposed here to infer spatial relationships.\n\n### Minor issues\n\n- Real world experiments. The paper makes the assumption that object points clouds are fully segmented, but no details apart from a citation of [12] are mentioned in section 3.3. The section mentions that grasping is an issue, but can failures also be attributed to the segmentation?\n- L99 \"optima\" is plura, the singular form is of \"optimum\"\nRating: 7 accept, but needs minor improvements\n", "role": "assistant" }, { "content": "Title: Response to Review f3R9\nThank you for your detailed feedback, it was very helpful. We believe we can show that our method is substantially better than the baseline in a number of ways, and is both novel and useful; we hope that our revisions make this clear.\n\n> I couldn't really understand from the introduction what the problem the paper wants to solve and how it wants to solve it until reading section 2\n\nWe made extensive changes to the introduction to make this clear.\n\n> Figure 2 & 3: I cannot really understand the depictions of the MDN. What do the different colors mean? What do we see here? These figures should be explained in the paper.\n\nThank you for pointing this out. We expanded our explanation of the MDN figures at line 195 at the end of section 2.2. These show the query object (yellow), anchor (blue), and scene (red).\n\n> First of all, I think it should be stated more clearly what the purpose of these is. If I understand correctly, this component enables the approach to generalize over different object geometries. Second, I'm wondering what role the hard-coded radius delta plays in the generality of the approach.\n\nYes, the object and scene encoders allow for generalization over different object geometries, particularly when placing the object at a stable location in the scene. We add this to line 125 in Section 2.1. The hyperparameter radius delta needs to capture the volume around an object; this can be set experimentally, but is not very sensitive. \n\n> Table 1 reports compares the learned and the model-based baseline in terms of specificity and sensitivity, but it is actually hard to tell which one performs better. Eyeballing the numbers, it doesn't seem to me that one can be regarded the clear winner, depending on whether we put more emphasis on specificity or sensitivity. Which one should we give more weight? (Also, what does it mean for the model-based baseline for \"centered\" to have 0% sensitivity and 100% specificity?)\n\nThis is a good point, and we can see why this was confusing. First of all, we would like to clarify that table one does *not* show overall performance, but only shows the quality of the predicate predictor. This is not critically important to the performance of the method as a whole, which is shown in Table 2. We also re-organized the experiments section to emphasize the planner ablation experiments more, which we believe is the more important result to show the importance of our combined approach.\n\n> I would suggest to use a single metric (e.g. F-Score) to compare the baselines. Furthermore, I would suggest to use bold face for the best performing approach in each row.\n\nDone. We’ve used F-score instead in the paper (table 2 now), and moved the previous results to the appendix.\n\n> It sounds to me that the dataset generation (Section 2.3) and the model-based baseline are large equivalent with the difference that one operates on meshes and the other on partial points clouds.\n\nYes, correct. Our goal was stable placement in clutter even when meshes are not known and with partial occlusions. We assume the specific objects upon which we are testing do not appear in training. We selected objects from different datasets (YCB/HOPE for real-world tests and Table 2, ShapeNet for training).\n\n> Finally, if the partial visibility is a problem, why not add 1-2 additional RGB-D sensors? It should be justified why this is not a solution to the problem, as it would significantly simplify the machinery proposed here to infer spatial relationships.\n\nWe discuss this in the text. Multiple RGB-D sensors are not viable in scenarios where you cannot instrument the world, particularly in mobile-manipulation. While it might be possible to build a representation from multiple views, we desire to see how well it performs from only a single view as generating multiple views from a mobile manipulator can be time consuming and is error prone.\n\n> The paper makes the assumption that object points clouds are fully segmented, but no details apart from a citation of [12] are mentioned in section 3.3. The section mentions that grasping is an issue, but can failures also be attributed to the segmentation?\n\nWe included an extensive explanation of our unknown-object instance segmentation pipeline in the appendix; there is a large amount of existing work on both grasping unknown objects and unknown object instance segmentation, so we take these capabilities as a given.\nStill, there are many cases where instance segmentation causes issues for grasping and manipulation; we included a discussion of this in section A.5 our appendix, and showed an example where only part of the object is predicted to move. These issues could become more prevalent in multi-step planning, however, replanning and improved state estimation / segmentation over time could improve this. We leave a more thorough investigation to improving segmentation during plan execution as future work.\n\n> L99 \"optima\" is plural, the singular form is of \"optimum\"\n\nThanks, fixed.\n", "role": "user" }, { "content": "Title: Updated review\nThank you for your detailed response and for updating the paper.\n\nI think it is a good idea to re-order the sections as done in the revision, I now understand what the key result is and why it shows that the proposed method works better than the baseline. Therefore, I changed my vote to weak accept. \n\nHowever, the paper would still profit from a clearer guidance for the reader as to what the experimental hypotheses are, how they matter for the final performance, and whether the experiments confirm the hypotheses. I also feel that some of the assumptions are a bit arbitrary, e.g. instance segmentation is considered as given, but dense fusion from multiple viewpoints isn't. ", "role": "assistant" } ]
5DjX89Wyhk-
CoRL 2021 Conference
Reviewer_Tchz
[ { "content": "\nYou are an experienced academic paper reviewer. You will receive a conference paper in the field of computer science or AI. Please analyze the paper content carefully and output your review content.\nMore importantly, the author will further explain or refute the review comments you gave, and you need to further discuss with the author based on the author's response. \nThe purpose of this rebuttal and discussion is:\n- Clarification: During the review process, the reviewer (you) may not accurately understand the contribution or method of the paper due to unclear expression or misunderstanding of certain details. Through rebuttal, the author has the opportunity to clarify these misunderstandings and further illustrate the effectiveness of their innovations or methods.\n- Respond to criticisms and suggestions: The reviewer (you) may make criticisms or suggestions on the paper, and the author can use the discussion session to provide specific responses, explain why certain criticisms may not apply, or how to improve and optimize certain aspects of the paper.\nFinally, you and the author will work together to enhance the persuasiveness of the paper and improve the quality of the paper.\n", "role": "system" }, { "content": "Now your reviewer ID is assigned as Reviewer_Tchz, and the following are the paper you need to review:\n```<<5DjX89Wyhk->>```", "role": "user" }, { "content": "Review Content: summary: This paper presents a novel integrated approach combining visual perception, logical reasoning, and motion planning of a robot arm for pick-and-place tasks. \nLearned through segmented RGB-D data from simulated scenarios, semantic spatial relations between objects are inferred. \nA novel discriminator function is also learned to predict the feasibility of placement pose of an object given a semantic goal defined as a relative spatial relation between the query and a secondary anchor object.\nThe output of this combined visual and semantic module is fed into an of-the-shelf sampling-based motion planner to realize the pick-and-place task by the robot. \nThis architecture is also shown to be transferable to a physical robot executing such plans in the real-world.\nstrengths_and_weaknesses: The main strength of this work is the novel combination of the learned (spatial) relational predictor and the physical validity discriminator. The overall system architecture is also well-engineered. \n\nExperimental analysis is detailed and supports the novelty and usefulness claims. The analysis and justification of failure cases are also clear. The real-world transfer of learned components is valuable and encouraging.\n\nIn terms of improvement points, I have a few suggestions:\nThe emphasis on the applicability of the proposed approach for 'unseen' objects is not justified. Because i) it's unclear which type of objects were in the training set vs the leftout 'unseen' ones and how much they resemble/differ from each other w.r.t. their geometries, and ii) the framework relies on segmented point cloud data, 'objectness' seems to become irrelevant or less important. \n\nDecoupling of goal pose prediction/planning and motion control/execution is a critical (design) feature of this work. I can see its benefits, however, many robotic manipulation tasks require sequential decisions that are likely to depend on each other not only in terms of logical validity but also for manipulation planning feasibility. For example, how (with which pose) the robot picks up a tool to use affects the feasible actions for the follow-up steps. Since the authors also suggest investigating long-horizon tasks, the paper can benefit from such a discussion on how the proposed approach can be applied on those scenarios. \n\nIt's also unclear how this approach can be extended for multi-object relational predictions and planning.\nsummary_of_recommendation: The paper proposes a two-step process for the problem of rearranging objects in an environment by robots.\nThis strategy comprises learning to predict spatial semantic relations between objects and learning to infer physical validity of placement poses using RGB-D sensory data. \nEven though individual components rely on prior works, their combination provides a novel framework for simple pick-and-place tasks given spatial logical goals.\nThe experimental analysis demonstrates promising initial steps for the applicability of this approach for such problems.\nIn general, the paper is well-written, and with some revisions and clarifications it can be improved further.\nissues: Some of my suggestions are above (Strengths & Weaknesses). Here, I provide some further improvement points.\nOverall, the presentation is good. However, the method section encapsulates both prior work that this paper relies on and the original contribution all together. Either a separation or clear emphasis on what is based on prior work vs new would improve the paper.\n\nThe role of the scene encoder is not well motivated/justified and thus might be clarified better.\n\nSupp. material:\n\nVideo: Timings need improvement. There is some flickering.\n\nAppendix: There are some typos, unfinished sentences.\nRating: 7 accept, but needs minor improvements\n", "role": "assistant" }, { "content": "Title: Response to reviewer Tchz\nThank you for your useful feedback.\n\n> I can see its benefits, however, many robotic manipulation tasks require sequential decisions that are likely to depend on each other not only in terms of logical validity but also for manipulation planning feasibility.\n\nIndeed, we plan on investigating this more in the future as mentioned in the conclusion. We’ve updated the introduction to highlight why we think the current study examines many of the critical points necessary to improve before extending to a full multi-step task and motion planning framework.\n\n> The emphasis on the applicability of the proposed approach for 'unseen' objects is not justified. Because i) it's unclear which type of objects were in the training set vs the leftout 'unseen' ones and how much they resemble/differ from each other w.r.t. their geometries, and ii) the framework relies on segmented point cloud data, 'objectness' seems to become irrelevant or less important.\n\ni) Thanks for this point, we didn’t give significant details about this, instead just referencing the object sets (HOPE and YCB) used. A depiction of all the objects is also included in the supplementary materials. For training, we describe some of the ShapeNet objects in Sec. 2.3; we used bowls, books, bottles, plates, pots, cups, cartons, and several other tools and utensils. These objects were chosen to cover a wide range of small, manipulable objects; none of them appear in our real-world experiments or in our ablation experiments.\n\nii) While you are right that object semantic identity is not important, as you pointed out in point (i) the difference in geometries is important and object class differences is one proxy for different distributions in object shape that our learned point-cloud feature encoders must generalize across in successfully predicting relations and stable configurations.\n\n> It's also unclear how this approach can be extended for multi-object relational predictions and planning.\n\nWhile many multi-object relations could be handled by enumerating pairwise-relations (e.g. object x should be left of all objects), you are correct that our method would not directly scale to 3-, 4-, or n-object relations. In cases where the relations always took the same number of objects as input, we could straightforwardly extend our method to learn classifiers with the n relevant objects as input.\n\nHowever for relations with a variable number of input objects, we would need to use some form of graph or recurrent neural network structure to scale to this problem. This is an active area of ongoing research for us, which we hope to publish in a future work that builds off of the formulation presented here.\n\n> However, the method section encapsulates both prior work that this paper relies on and the original contribution all together. Either a separation or clear emphasis on what is based on prior work vs new would improve the paper.\n\nYes, unfortunately we didn’t have space for a full separate related work in the paper. We have tried to highlight the contributions of our work and focus on what the new aspects are: the discriminator, planning algorithm, data generation, and to a lesser extent the predicate prediction. We’ve also updated the introduction to more clearly highlight the distinction of our work over previous work in the area.\n\n> The role of the scene encoder is not well motivated/justified and thus might be clarified better.\n\nThe point of the object and scene encoders is indeed to allow for generalization over different object geometries, particularly when placing the object at a stable location in the scene. The scene encoder also allows the MDN to capture where the object might be placed in order to avoid large aspects of scene geometry, including clutter that is neither the anchor nor the query object. We added a note to this effect to section 2.1 (line 125).\n\n> Video: Timings need improvement. There is some flickering.\n\nThanks for pointing this out, we will make sure to clean up the video if accepted to the conference.\n\n> Appendix: There are some typos, unfinished sentences.\n\nWe’ve done a thorough edit and revision of the text in the main paper and supplemental materials to fix any issues.\n", "role": "user" }, { "content": "Title: Response to rebuttal\nThank you for your clarifications. Due to some of the simplifying assumptions, and concerns over its applicability to multi-step manipulation problems, I cannot upgrade my recommendation but keep it at 'weak accept'.", "role": "assistant" } ]
5P_3bRWiRsF
CoRL 2021 Conference
Reviewer_U7Po
[ { "content": "\nYou are an experienced academic paper reviewer. You will receive a conference paper in the field of computer science or AI. Please analyze the paper content carefully and output your review content.\nMore importantly, the author will further explain or refute the review comments you gave, and you need to further discuss with the author based on the author's response. \nThe purpose of this rebuttal and discussion is:\n- Clarification: During the review process, the reviewer (you) may not accurately understand the contribution or method of the paper due to unclear expression or misunderstanding of certain details. Through rebuttal, the author has the opportunity to clarify these misunderstandings and further illustrate the effectiveness of their innovations or methods.\n- Respond to criticisms and suggestions: The reviewer (you) may make criticisms or suggestions on the paper, and the author can use the discussion session to provide specific responses, explain why certain criticisms may not apply, or how to improve and optimize certain aspects of the paper.\nFinally, you and the author will work together to enhance the persuasiveness of the paper and improve the quality of the paper.\n", "role": "system" }, { "content": "Now your reviewer ID is assigned as Reviewer_U7Po, and the following are the paper you need to review:\n```<<5P_3bRWiRsF>>```", "role": "user" }, { "content": "Review Content: summary: This work aims at providing a systematic way to debug controllers and analyze behavior saliency, in order to avoid dangerous or unexpected situations. There are various approaches to do so, as direct testing of extreme and edge cases or providing a mathematical analysis of the controller. In most cases, this is either cumbersome or extremely difficult. The focus of the paper is to establish a framework to evaluate controllers and summarize robot performance with the specific purpose of informing accurate human models. One way of testing for controller failure is to roll it out on many different scenarios, but this is a notably difficult problem, considering that it involves sampling from a posterior which is predominated by zero-density regions (salient behaviors/edge cases). They present RoCUS, a method that enables understanding of robot controllers via posterior sampling of representative behaviors.\nstrengths_and_weaknesses: The paper is well written apart from some typos. They provide a solution to the problem of posterior sampling by relaxing the posterior and reformulate it such that one only has to tune an intuitive hyperparameter (alpha) which represents the volume of the samples. Like this, one can use methods like Metropolis-Hastings, as they do, to sample from the posterior. They also propose different alternative metrics for behavior understanding, that do not purely focus on task completion. \nOne of the weaknesses of the paper was a lack of a baseline comparison (with any of the methods cited in the related work for example). It could be nice to see how it improves over a less sophisticated form of sampling.\nsummary_of_recommendation: This paper provides a complementary approach to direct testing of extreme cases, which is very useful when the controller is deployed in situations that could hurt humans. The two presented use cases (navigation and manipulation) provided interesting insights which could be further showcased and assessed in other more complicated environments, or better, more complicated tasks, in the lack of real robotic experiments.\nissues: - Line 153: what do you mean when b tends to + or - infinity?\n- Line 312: what do you mean with b=0?\n- How does RoCUS compare to other task completion-based metrics?\n- While describing figure 2 you mention that for a deterministic system and controller, the probability of a given trajectory is a delta. It is not clear to me if you are modeling also the initial condition of the dynamical system, together with the trajectory. \n- Would be interesting to see more use cases of matching vs maximal mode.\n- The premises of the paper are very alluring and it would be interesting to see RoCUS applied to more environments/tasks.\nRating: 7 accept, but needs minor improvements\n", "role": "assistant" }, { "content": "Title: Author response\nThank you for your feedback. We refer to our response to the meta-reviewer above for the discussion on baseline comparison and changes to the paper draft. We address each of the issues raised. All the line and section numbers refer to the revised draft. \n\n1. There is a slight abuse of notation here. What we meant is that we want to find tasks (e.g. obstacle configuration) that lead to excessively large (or small) values of certain behavior (e.g. total navigation distance). Since we do not have a finite target value (who knows a priori how long the navigation distance could be?), we use a reparametrization as described in Eq. 4 to sample in this formulation. Hence, the name “maximal (or minimal, if using negative behavior value) mode”.\n\n2. We want to sample minimal straight-line deviation in this case study. From its definition in Line 520 in Appendix C, we know that it is non-negative. Thus, we choose an “anchor value” to 0 to essentially sample obstacle configurations with minimal straight-line deviation. Directly using the negation of the maximal mode (as described above) would lead to similar results. \n\n3. We use RoCUS to refer to the entire sampling framework. It is compatible with any type of metric, defined on the trajectory. Thus, it can be used to evaluate task completion-based metrics as well. In fact, in Line 308, we used RoCUS to first evaluate the initial DS controller on minimal final distance from the end-effector to the target. This metric is arguably a task-completion distance, since we would expect successful completions to have small (or even 0) final distances. Using RoCUS, we found similar asymmetry as the previous RRT case, which led us to identify the impact of the robot kinematic structure, and led to subsequent controller improvement. \n\n4. For the deterministic case, everything is deterministic. So if the initial condition is necessary for deterministic simulation, it needs to be fixed as well. Otherwise, the formulation in Fig 3 and Eq 7 needs to be used, as discussed in the Stochastic Dynamics section (App. B of the revised draft). Specifically for the DS controller, the trajectory is obtained by integrating the DS control law forward in time from the starting point/initial condition (x(0)=starting point). Hence, when evaluating the DS control approach we are taking into consideration the initial condition, as it is embedded in the trajectory.\n\n5. We compiled a new Table 1 to show additional quantitative results, and also included more results in Appendix I and K, but they are more “expected” than the two use-cases highlighted in the main text, so we did not extensively discuss them. \n\n6. Due to the space constraint, we evaluated on three distinct controllers on two of the most popular robotic problems, navigation and arm kinematics, and already demonstrated non-trivial and hard to identify issues and insights following our analysis. Thus, it would be exciting to use RoCUS on more complex tasks but we leave this to future work. We added some discussion in the revised Sec. 7 about how RoCUS can be used on physical robots and more complex tasks. \n\nAgain, thank you for your time and efforts and please let us know if you have any additional questions or concerns. \n", "role": "user" }, { "content": "Title: Response to authors\nI thank the authors for clarifying my doubts. I still recommend accepting the paper if the other reviewers agree.", "role": "assistant" }, { "content": "Title: Thank you very much\nWe are glad to see that our response is helpful and thank you for your support of the submission! ", "role": "user" }, { "content": "I am delighted to have engaged in the above conversation with the author, which really makes this work stronger.", "role": "assistant" } ]
5P_3bRWiRsF
CoRL 2021 Conference
Reviewer_h5ZA
[ { "content": "\nYou are an experienced academic paper reviewer. You will receive a conference paper in the field of computer science or AI. Please analyze the paper content carefully and output your review content.\nMore importantly, the author will further explain or refute the review comments you gave, and you need to further discuss with the author based on the author's response. \nThe purpose of this rebuttal and discussion is:\n- Clarification: During the review process, the reviewer (you) may not accurately understand the contribution or method of the paper due to unclear expression or misunderstanding of certain details. Through rebuttal, the author has the opportunity to clarify these misunderstandings and further illustrate the effectiveness of their innovations or methods.\n- Respond to criticisms and suggestions: The reviewer (you) may make criticisms or suggestions on the paper, and the author can use the discussion session to provide specific responses, explain why certain criticisms may not apply, or how to improve and optimize certain aspects of the paper.\nFinally, you and the author will work together to enhance the persuasiveness of the paper and improve the quality of the paper.\n", "role": "system" }, { "content": "Now your reviewer ID is assigned as Reviewer_h5ZA, and the following are the paper you need to review:\n```<<5P_3bRWiRsF>>```", "role": "user" }, { "content": "Review Content: summary: In this article, the authors propose a Bayesian framework that aims to find situation in robot planning tasks that lead to trajectories which exhibit specified behaviors. For this purpose, the task distribution is defined as the prior, and the behavior saliency is the likelihood. Then, the samples of the posterior are tasks that balance these two objectives. Two simulations demonstrate the benefits of the proposed approach. \nstrengths_and_weaknesses: Strengths:\n-\tInteresting and time-relevant topic as it allows to study the behavior of “black-box” controller in robotics\n-\tSmart idea using the Bayesian framework\n- Simulation with complex examples\n-\tPaper is well written and structured\n\nWeakness\n-\tSome minor mistakes and missing definitions\n- The baseline of the simulation seems to be too simple\n\nsummary_of_recommendation: One of the most interesting papers I have reviewed this year. The proposed approach is highly relevant as more and more \"black-box\" controller are used in robotics. However, the results should be compared to other more complex metrics.\n\nUpdate: Based on the authors' response, I updated my recommendation to \"strong accept\".\nissues: - (2) What is No? I guess it's the normal distribution but the notation is uncommon and never introduced.\n- Alg.1 : \"numner\" -> \"number\"\n- Alg.1 : How does the choice of $N_B$ and $N_t$ affect the result?\nRating: 9 strong accept, excellent work\n", "role": "assistant" }, { "content": "Title: Author response\nThank you for your feedback. In a certain sense, we share your concern in our limited comparison against baselines, but we actually could not identify existing approaches that try to solve the same problem, especially for robotic tasks, as discussed in detail in our response to the meta-reviewer. Thus, we hope that RoCUS could bring the importance of holistic evaluation to the attention of the community, and have it built on and extended by future work. However, we added a baseline comparison with top-k selection in Sec 6 of the revised draft, and we refer to the paper and our response to the meta-reviewer above for more discussions. \n\nNo refers to the normal distribution. We have changed it to $\\mathcal N$, which seems to be more standard, as requested by Reviewer YUw7. \n\nFor $N_B$ and $N_T$, we found that the MCMC chain mixes pretty fast, which is studied in Fig. 7 of Sec. 6 in the revised paper (it appeared in the Appendix of the original version but several reviewers would like to see quantitative study into the sampler itself). Thus, a small burn-in sampling and thinning period would be sufficient. \n\nAgain, thank you for your time and efforts and please let us know if you have any additional questions or concerns. \n", "role": "user" }, { "content": "Title: Reviewer response\nThank you for addressing all my comments. I updated my recommendation to \"strong accept\".", "role": "assistant" }, { "content": "Title: Thank you very much\nDear reviewer, \n\nThank you for taking the time in going over our revision and response, and we appreciate your support of the submission. \n\nBest, \n\nPaper authors\n", "role": "user" }, { "content": "I am pleased to have had the opportunity to discuss the points above with the author, which has definitely improved the overall quality of the paper.", "role": "assistant" } ]
5P_3bRWiRsF
CoRL 2021 Conference
Reviewer_YUw7
[ { "content": "\nYou are an experienced academic paper reviewer. You will receive a conference paper in the field of computer science or AI. Please analyze the paper content carefully and output your review content.\nMore importantly, the author will further explain or refute the review comments you gave, and you need to further discuss with the author based on the author's response. \nThe purpose of this rebuttal and discussion is:\n- Clarification: During the review process, the reviewer (you) may not accurately understand the contribution or method of the paper due to unclear expression or misunderstanding of certain details. Through rebuttal, the author has the opportunity to clarify these misunderstandings and further illustrate the effectiveness of their innovations or methods.\n- Respond to criticisms and suggestions: The reviewer (you) may make criticisms or suggestions on the paper, and the author can use the discussion session to provide specific responses, explain why certain criticisms may not apply, or how to improve and optimize certain aspects of the paper.\nFinally, you and the author will work together to enhance the persuasiveness of the paper and improve the quality of the paper.\n", "role": "system" }, { "content": "Now your reviewer ID is assigned as Reviewer_YUw7, and the following are the paper you need to review:\n```<<5P_3bRWiRsF>>```", "role": "user" }, { "content": "Review Content: summary: Complex robotic controllers typically demonstrate both intended and emergent behavior. Whilst intended behavior is optimized for and measured (e.g. navigate to x without collisions, grasp object y), often complex controllers exhibit emergent behaviors (e.g. jerkiness, object clearance, path length) that are also important to understand and measure. This work presents RoCUS, a method for understanding emergent controller behavior using a Bayesian sampling-based method. Unlike other controller testing techniques, RoCUS focuses on sampling representative trajectories instead of extreme or edge case trajectories that exhibit the emergent behavior of interest. \n\nstrengths_and_weaknesses: **Strengths**\n\n1. The proposed method is interesting. It appears reasonably general (provided that a function measuring the behavior of interest can be defined, and the environment scenarios of interest parameterized) and potentially a very useful way to enhance understanding of robot controllers beyond measuring task completion.\n * Of particular value is the focus on representative trajectories.\n2. The experimental evidence provided is interesting (taking into account the appendix), especially Table 1 which highlights the differences between controllers. This type of controller characterization provides a rich and valuable way of understanding controllers that is complementary to task completion metrics. \n3. The problem of characterizing and understanding emergent robot controller behavior is highly relevant to robot learning, especially if learning robot controllers are to be deployed in the real world. The problem setting is well motivated and explained in the paper. \n4. The related work is thorough.\n5. The paper is well written, the clarity of presentation is high throughout\n6. The video is a valuable addition, especially the chart presented starting at 45s\n7. The behavior taxonomy is valuable, well described, and appear comprehensive\n * Potentially consider looking into obstacle clearance velocity (i.e. average speed at closest distance to obstacle) in future work.\n8. Sufficient detail appears to be provided to reproduce the work taking into account the appendix. The code is also released.\n\n**Weaknesses**\n\nNo baseline\n* The main alternative to RoCUS presented in the paper is a simple top-k baseline however no results using this approach are presented. This makes it difficult to assess the benefits of RoCUS over the (much simpler) baseline.\n\nScope\n* Whilst this paper is relevant to robot learning in that it proposes a method for better understanding complex and potentially high dimensional learned robot controllers, there is no evidence provided or discussion of how the results in simulation are relevant to physical robot controllers. Potential questions of interest include:\n 1. Can this method be applied to a physical robot controller? If not, why not?\n 2. If this method is only applicable in simulation, can it be used to understand physical robot controllers? If not, why not and how might this limitation be overcome in the future?\n\nThe results are a little challenging to interpret.\n* Figure 5 and Table 1(appendix) indicates that there is significant variation between the different controllers’ emergent behavior. This is interesting, but it is challenging to interpret and compare controllers because the likelihood of the posterior samples is not clear. Is the likelihood of the posterior samples equal across all three controllers? It would be even more useful if the likelihood could be provided for each controller and behavior for all posterior means.\n* To give an example, consider Table 1(appendix), Behavior: Length. The IL and DS controllers have a similar posterior mean length (161, 166 respectively), but quite different Prior Means (161, 201 respectively). It is not clear how to compare IL and DS on trajectory length for representative samples. Are trajectories with sample length of 161 and 166 equally likely for IL and DS?\n\nA number of the most interesting results are located in the appendix, and the main paper’s experimental evidence is not as compelling without it. \n* Suggest moving Table 1 and Table 2 to the main paper.\n* Suggest moving the discussion of the stochastic controller to the appendix to make space. Similarly the explanation of the RRT controller could be shortened since controller understanding instead of design is the main focus of the paper\n\nMinor\n* It is not clear why IL is used in one experimental setting (2D nav) and RL in another (Reaching)\n* The sampling formulation (see eq 2) appears to be very similar to BAYES-TREX. It would be nice to see a brief discussion in the related work describing how RoCUS differs (e.g. trajectories vs classification, MCMC vs MH sampling).\n* Notation: The use of No() for the Normal distribution is confusing since it is non-standard. The notation in [12] is clearer.\n* Typo: 172 I think this should read (Line 7) instead of (Line 6).\n* It is not clear why all the emergent behaviors are not evaluated for the 7DoF reaching task (Table 2) whilst they were for 2D nav (Table 1). It would be valuable to see Table 2 extended to include all of the behaviors from Table 1.\nsummary_of_recommendation: Thank you for this submission. Overall this is an interesting method that offers insight into an important problem in robot learning (understanding emergent controller behavior). The method is well explained and the results in simulation are interesting, especially when the appendix is taken into account. It is also a pleasure to read. However there are a few issues, described above, some of which are significant.\nissues: * Please consider the four main issues of baseline, scope, results interpretation, and structure\n* Please also address the minor points listed above.\nRating: 7 accept, but needs minor improvements\n", "role": "assistant" }, { "content": "Title: Author response\nThank you for your comments. We have added a baseline comparison with top-k selection to the new Sec. 6 of the revised paper, and discussed relationships to physical robots in Sec. 7 in blue text. For more details, we refer to the paper and our response to the meta-reviewer.\n\nFor result interpretation, we do intend to make the results comparable across controllers, not with respect to specific numerical values of behavior value, but rather with respect to the overall “likelihood” of the sampled trajectories. Specifically, we introduced a single hyper-parameter, $\\alpha$, defined in Eq. 3 and 5 for the matching and maximal modes, to “tune” this overall likelihood. The detailed analysis is in Appendix A of the supplementary material. We believe that this is the correct notion of comparability as it represents representativeness of the sampled tasks and the associated trajectories. With this interpretation, it is indeed that trajectories at the respective posterior means for different controllers are approximately equally likely, although the specifics depend on the exact form of the posterior, which is intractable to evaluate due to high-dimensionality. \n\nWe have consolidated the two tables in appendix to a single Table 1, and pulled it into the main text under Section 5. Please see our response to the meta-reviewer for more details on the restructuring. \n\nOur response to the minor issues are in order below (all the figure numbering, etc. refer to the current revised draft): \n\n1. We initially tried RL on the 2D navigation domain as well, and actually experimented with both a partially observable setting with simulated LiDAR input (i.e. same as the current IL input) and a fully observable setting of directly feeding in the 2D obstacle map. However, under our computational constraint of a single GPU card, we were not able to train a decent policy with both DDPG and PPO despite extensive hyper-parameter search. We suspect that this is due to the high variability of the obstacle configuration (see Fig. 11 of the Appendix for some visualization), which is prone to “local minima”. Thus, we used IL instead. For arm-reaching, PPO is successful with minimal hyper-parameter tuning, so we used its policy for evaluation. \n\n2. Indeed, RoCUS is inspired by both the transparency-by-example principle and the posterior sampling formulation put forth by the Bayes-TrEx paper. There are several technical differences: \n\n (a). Bayes-TrEx works on classification, while RoCUS works on robotic controllers. This motivates us to define a list of behaviors, including emergent ones. \n\n (b). We added a maximal mode, recognizing that many robotic behavior values can be unbounded, as opposed to classification probability, which is always between 0 and 1. We proposed a reparametrization technique in Eq 4 for this mode. \n\n (c). We proposed the hyper-parameter $\\alpha$, rather than the standard deviation of the Gaussian relaxation as in Bayes-TrEx, since the $\\alpha$ hyper-parameter has a much more intuitive meaning, and automatically takes care of conversion between different unit (as detailed in Appendix A). \n\n3. We have No() to $\\mathcal N()$ to refer to the normal distribution in the revision. \n\n4. It is a typo, but actually it should be Line 5, to compute the forward and reverse transition probability $p_{for}$, $p_{rev}$. It is fixed in the revision. \n\n5. For the arm reaching task, we found early on that the DS controller was not performing as well as expected. Thus, most efforts were devoted to find out the reason and improve its design such as the final distance between the end-effector to the target, as described in the case-study. We believe that such a concrete demonstration of controller improvement based on RoCUS analysis is more valuable than a simple compilation of behavior results, which mostly confirm the correctness of the sampling procedure itself. \n\nAgain, thank you for your time and efforts and please let us know if you have any additional questions or concerns. \n", "role": "user" }, { "content": "Title: Response to authors\nDear authors,\n\nThank you for taking the time to respond to my questions and for the efforts that you made to revise the paper. \n\nThe authors have addressed all of my concerns regarding baselines, scope, result interpretation and the paper structure. I therefore change my recommendation to weak accept. \n\nAs I mentioned in my original review, this is an interesting method that offers insight into an important problem in robot learning. The method and results are clearly presented, and given the changes, the results are compelling.\n\nTo further improve the paper, I would love to see the top k baseline results included in Table 1. I would be interested to know how different the Post (D) metrics using RoCUS are when compared with the top k baseline.\n\nI look forward to seeing the authors proposed future work of applying RoCUS to compare two controllers. It would also be interesting to see RoCUS applied to the motivating use case of finding representative scenarios for certain test cases (e.g. vehicle swerving) in the application of Autonomous Vehicles.\n", "role": "assistant" }, { "content": "Title: Thank you very much!\nDear reviewer, \n\nWe are glad that our response addressed your concerns and really appreciate your support of the submission! \n\nBest, \n\nPaper authors", "role": "user" }, { "content": "I am pleased to have had the opportunity to discuss the points above with the author, which has clearly contributed to strengthening this work.", "role": "assistant" } ]
5P_3bRWiRsF
CoRL 2021 Conference
Reviewer_UK3k
[ { "content": "\nYou are an experienced academic paper reviewer. You will receive a conference paper in the field of computer science or AI. Please analyze the paper content carefully and output your review content.\nMore importantly, the author will further explain or refute the review comments you gave, and you need to further discuss with the author based on the author's response. \nThe purpose of this rebuttal and discussion is:\n- Clarification: During the review process, the reviewer (you) may not accurately understand the contribution or method of the paper due to unclear expression or misunderstanding of certain details. Through rebuttal, the author has the opportunity to clarify these misunderstandings and further illustrate the effectiveness of their innovations or methods.\n- Respond to criticisms and suggestions: The reviewer (you) may make criticisms or suggestions on the paper, and the author can use the discussion session to provide specific responses, explain why certain criticisms may not apply, or how to improve and optimize certain aspects of the paper.\nFinally, you and the author will work together to enhance the persuasiveness of the paper and improve the quality of the paper.\n", "role": "system" }, { "content": "Now your reviewer ID is assigned as Reviewer_UK3k, and the following are the paper you need to review:\n```<<5P_3bRWiRsF>>```", "role": "user" }, { "content": "Review Content: summary: The paper introduces a Bayesian model for policy evaluation. They introduce in a principled way an approach to sample tasks and trajectories in which a certain desired metric, b, is maximized. To do so, the paper proposes to apply Metropolis Hasting over an approximated posterior distribution.\n\nThe paper proposes a set of behavioural metrics (trajectory length, time derivatives, straight line deviation, obstacle clearance and motion legibility) and evaluate the performance for a set of policies (Imitation Learning, Motion Planning, Reinforcement learning and Dynamic Systems) to evaluate the proposed policy evaluation method. \nstrengths_and_weaknesses: Strengths:\n1. Formulating policy evaluation for robust interaction with he environment as a bayesian inference problem is interesting as it provides well-formulated problem that allow us to get deeper insights and let us compare the different methods for policy evaluation.\n\nWeakness:\n1. The main weakness of the paper is the lack of qualitative metrics. The paper proposes an evaluation method, but only evaluates the performance of a set of policies with quantitative measures. \n2. RRT algorithm is well known and it would be enough to re-direct the reader to the original paper, rather than putting the algorithm itself in the paper\n3. When applied the Dynamics-based approach, they first generate a task space trajectory and then map the trajectory to the configuration space by Inverse Kinematics. Instead, the performance of the DS based method would improve if it considers a multi-objective reactive motion generator in which obstacle avoidance elements can integrated [1,2,3] with the goto movements.\n4. The paper lacks any information of the required amount of samples (from both trajectories and tasks) for proper evaluation.\n\n\n[1] Khatib, Oussama, \"Real-Time Obstacle Avoidance for Manipulators and Mobile Robots\", 1986\n\n[2] Ratliff, Nathan, et al., \"Riemannian Motion Policies\", 2018\n\n[3] Urain, Julen et al., \"Composable Energy Policies for Reactive Motion Generation and Reinforcement Learning\", 2021\nsummary_of_recommendation: I suggest a weak rejection. The paper proposes a policy evaluation framework but it did not exploit it enough. The paper requires more metrics, more comparison, more policies and qualititative metrics for a better methods comparison.\nissues: The authours might consider adding adding qualititative metrics to improve the policy evaluation.\nRating: 4 possibly reject, but has redeeming facets\n", "role": "assistant" }, { "content": "Title: Author response\nThank you for your comments. We address each weakness point in order below. Other than them, we also added a quantitative comparison against the top-k selection baseline in Sec. 6 of the revised paper. Please see our response to the meta-reviewer for more detail. \n\n1. Originally we had some quantitative results to show the effectiveness of our sampling procedure in finding behavior-conforming examples in Table 1 and 2 of the Appendix (of the original version). Following the suggestion of Reviewer YUw7 above, we have merged and moved them to the main text as the new Table 1. We demonstrate qualitative utilities of RoCUS in the two use cases of Sec. 5, which uncovers insights of implicit model bias and leads to an improved DS controller design for the arm reaching task. \n\n2. A similar issue is also pointed out by Reviewer YUw7, and we have delegated it to the Appendix E in the revision. We do prefer to keep it just for clarity, since the stochasticity of the RRT algorithm motivates the use of an “as-needed” kernel. \n\n3. We thank the reviewer for the suggestion. Since our main goal is to showcase that RoCUS could be used for debugging faulty controllers, rather than proposing the best controller for each task, we add the discussion to additional ideas for controller improvement in Line 320 but leave specific implementations to future work. \n\n4. Figure 7 of the new Sec. 6 shows the sampling trace on several tasks. We can see that the chain mixes quite well in general, and a couple thousand samples (i.e. task + induced trajectory pair) are sufficient to cover the distribution. \n\nAgain, thank you for your time and efforts and please let us know if you have any additional questions or concerns. \n", "role": "user" }, { "content": "I appreciate the authors' feedback. It answers most of my concerns, and I will likely raise the rating.", "role": "assistant" } ]
7uSBJDoP7tY
CoRL 2021 Conference
Reviewer_UVfU
[ { "content": "\nYou are an experienced academic paper reviewer. You will receive a conference paper in the field of computer science or AI. Please analyze the paper content carefully and output your review content.\nMore importantly, the author will further explain or refute the review comments you gave, and you need to further discuss with the author based on the author's response. \nThe purpose of this rebuttal and discussion is:\n- Clarification: During the review process, the reviewer (you) may not accurately understand the contribution or method of the paper due to unclear expression or misunderstanding of certain details. Through rebuttal, the author has the opportunity to clarify these misunderstandings and further illustrate the effectiveness of their innovations or methods.\n- Respond to criticisms and suggestions: The reviewer (you) may make criticisms or suggestions on the paper, and the author can use the discussion session to provide specific responses, explain why certain criticisms may not apply, or how to improve and optimize certain aspects of the paper.\nFinally, you and the author will work together to enhance the persuasiveness of the paper and improve the quality of the paper.\n", "role": "system" }, { "content": "Now your reviewer ID is assigned as Reviewer_UVfU, and the following are the paper you need to review:\n```<<7uSBJDoP7tY>>```", "role": "user" }, { "content": "Review Content: summary: This paper presents a method of learning to manipulate a wide range of objects above and below the palm of the dexterous shadow-hand. Their method involves training a teacher policy with privileged information from the simulator (such as the true ground-truth state information), and then using it to distill a policy with Dagger into a student policy that learns to take actions in joint space directly from joint positions and a RGBD point cloud of the object. They compare both MLP and RNN architectures, and train and test with and without domain randomization, on both the YCB and EGAD object datasets. They also make architectural contributions in their visual policy architecture by designing a sparse 3D convolutional version of the IMPALA architecture, which takes raw point clouds as input and outputs actions.\nstrengths_and_weaknesses: Strengths:\n\n- The sheer scope and variation across objects tested with this method, and the range of different policy architectures and approaches tested makes this paper extremely thorough in its analysis of this reorientation task.\n- The authors deliberately choose joint position control with RGBD sensors to make their method easier to transfer to a real robot environment.\n- The use of the gravity curriculum to successfully train the hand to manipulate the object upside-down is also a considerable feat and seems to work well in simulation. It remains to be seen if this policy is transferrable to a real environment.\n- Their method also shows the ability to zero-shot transfer across different object datasets (with YCB -> EGAD showing better transfer results)\n\nWeaknesses:\n\n- The authors mention that their current training strategy terminates the episode if the time limit is reached, or the hand is successful at reposing the object to the goal orientation. However, this does not guarantee that the final state of the object is stably grasped by the hand. This is apparent given one of the learned strategies for the upward-facing hand throws the object up with a spin to get it to the correct pose. While it is an interesting emergent skill, it is a limitation that their method does not guarantee that the object can be used by the hand after being reposed.\n- The authors claim that position control is preferred to torque control for sim-to-real transfer. However since their method is not actually tested on a real robot, and they do domain randomization to be invariant to joint and tension dampening, the stated reasoning is not fully consistent. \n- The student network operates with an RGBD point cloud and position of all the hand joints. Point clouds are in general noisy and might contain even more noise than tested in simulation with domain randomization when factoring the occlusions and interaction between the hand and the object. The transferability between sim and real of this policy remains a considerable challenge.\n- The notable issue of reorienting symmetric objects with RGBD sensors discussed in the paper makes their method less robust for certain kinds of objects. It might be worth exploring whether using object keypoints can help reduce some of these effects.\nsummary_of_recommendation: I would like to recommend this paper purely on its merits for having extensively explored how to enable dexterous reposing of objects with model-free reinforcement learning methods using 3D Convolutions and teacher-student training. While they do not show their method working on a real hardware platform, due to the current state of the pandemic, they do extensively test their method with different architectures and object datasets. Additionally, they demonstrate the generality of their approach by showing zero-shot policy transfer across these datasets. One limitation of their method include the fact that the environment terminates episodes after successfully reorienting the object to the goal pose without seeing if it falls/can hold that position after the episode ends. \nissues: - The tables are a bit difficult to quickly scan for which method shows the best performance, bolding the best performing method might be informative in drawing conclusions later from the results.\n- There are multiple instances in the text where there are object variations in the scale, mass, and aspect ratios of the objects that are scattered throughout the sections (3, and 4.1). It would be helpful if the success rates for each of these different variations were compiled in a table in the appendix (C or D), so that their effects relative to one another on the performance of the method could be communicated more clearly.\n- Table D.5 shows the performance of their vision model trained and tested with random transformations done on the point cloud. It would be useful to show the effect of these perturbations with an ablation study showing the effect that each of these transformations (and all of them combiend) on a model that is trained without them.\n- I was unable to find the experimental results on the zero-shot training performance on objects weighing up to 500g referenced on line 212 in the paper and appendix.\nRating: 9 strong accept, excellent work\n", "role": "assistant" }, { "content": "Title: Response to Reviewer UVfU\nWe sincerely thank reviewer UVfU for the feedback on our paper. We address the reviewer's concerns as follows.\n\n**Q: Terminating the episode on success does not guarantee that the final state of the object is stably grasped by the hand.**\n\n**A**: We empirically found that in most cases the final states are stable in the successful episodes. Since we randomize the initial and goal orientations during training and generously reward the agent for manipulating the object into the goal orientation, we hypothesize that the goal acts as an \"attractor\" at policy's convergence. Therefore, during testing, even if the policy overshoots, it knows how to reorient the object back to the goal orientation. In such a scenario, if the policy overshoots too much, there will be oscillations, and the object will be reoriented back-and-forth around the goal orientation. Empirically, we observe that the policy doesn't show such oscillations as can be seen in 16 new videos on the project website ([https://sites.google.com/view/in-hand-reorientation](https://sites.google.com/view/in-hand-reorientation)) where the goal orientation changes after the previous goal orientation is met (**Continuing Reorientation**). Additionally, we have included 16 new videos where the episode is not terminated after the goal orientation is reached (**No Immediate Termination after Reaching the Goal Orientation**). We can see from these videos that even though the objects are not \"still\" on reaching the goal orientation, there is no significant overshooting and the objects are largely stable.\n\nWith that being said, there is certainly room to improve stability at the goal state. For example, during training, we can set the success criterion to be that the object needs to stay close to the goal orientation for several consecutive time steps or the velocity of the object needs to be 0, etc. These small improvements can be easily incorporated into our work. However, since our setup already works well. We leave it to future work as rerunning all the experiments with such modifications will take more time than the rebuttal period.\n\n**Q: Inconsistent reasoning on “position control is preferred to torque control for sim-to-real transfer”.**\n\n**A:** We are sorry for the confusion. It is common to use PD/PID controllers as part of position control. Due to motor inertia, joint damping affects how well the PID controller works. Since we don't have ground truth access to these parameters in the simulator, we wanted to evaluate the robustness of the learned policies to these parameters. Therefore we perform domain randomization with parameters such as joint damping and tension. Finally, the choice for using position control is guided by our experience in transferring policies on real robots. Many papers [1,2] have shown sim-to-real transfer using position controllers and found that randomizing the dynamics improves sim-to-real transfer performance. \n\n**Q: Point clouds are in general noisy and might contain even more noise than tested in simulation with domain randomization when factoring the occlusions and interaction between the hand and the object.**\n\n**A:** We agree that real-world point clouds can be noisier. As a proxy for real-world noise, we perform noise augmentation on the simulated point cloud and report results as explained in Appendix D.5. We are happy to incorporate specific noise models if the reviewer thinks it would make a stronger case for sim-to-real transfer. \n\nWe believe that occlusion will not be a major contributing factor for the difference in the simulated and real point cloud. The reason is that even in simulation, we do not use the ground truth point cloud of the hand or the object, but rather we reconstruct the point cloud using RGBD cameras placed on top of the hand. Therefore, in the simulation, the point cloud also has occlusions due to interaction between the hand and the object. \n\nIt is possible that when we do the sim-to-real transfer, we might need to tune more on how much noise we add during training. Due to the ongoing pandemic, we are unable to conduct real robot experiments. Our system is designed using observation and action spaces that we believe can be transferred to the real system, something we will validate in future work.\n\n**Q: It might be worth exploring whether using object keypoints can help reduce some of these effects.**\n\n**A:** We thank the reviewer for the valuable suggestion. Using keypoints to represent the object pose is indeed a good approach to mitigate the symmetry issue. However, it comes with its own set of challenges: it can be less robust to occlusions, and it remains unclear how to generalize keypoints to new objects from different categories. We agree with the reviewer that the use of keypoints is a promising direction for future work.\n**Q: \"Unable to find the experimental results on the zero-shot training performance on objects weighing up to 500g referenced on line 212\"**\n\n**A:** We are sorry that the reviewer couldn't find the experiment result. The result is actually in the footnote on Page 5. \n\n**Q: Use a table to better explain the object variations in section 3 and 4.1.**\n\n**A:** Thanks for the suggestion. We have added a table (Table C3 in the appendix) to explain parameters influencing object variations.\n\n**Q: \"It would be useful to show the effect of these perturbations with an ablation study showing the effect that each of these transformations (and all of them combined) on a model that is trained without them\".**\n\n**A:** Performance comparison between the model trained with and without data augmentations is reported in Table D.6 in the appendix. We would have loved to investigate the effect of each data augmentation individually — however, we have not done so due to practical considerations. First, it increases the number of experiments many-folds (number of augmentations x number of random seeds), which is beyond our computational budget. Second, individual augmentations do not slow down training noticeably and the method of combining various augmentations has proven useful in contrastive learning [4,5] and reinforcement learning [6].\n\n---\n\nIn addition, we have bolded the number of the best-performing method in Table 1 and Table D.5 in our updated manuscript as the reviewer suggested.\n\n\n1. Peng, X.B., Andrychowicz, M., Zaremba, W. and Abbeel, P., 2018, May. Sim-to-real transfer of robotic control with dynamics randomization. In 2018 IEEE international conference on robotics and automation (ICRA) (pp. 3803-3810). IEEE.\n2. Open AI, Andrychowicz, O.M., Baker, B., Chociej, M., Jozefowicz, R., McGrew, B., Pachocki, J., Petron, A., Plappert, M., Powell, G., Ray, A. and Schneider, J., 2020. Learning dexterous in-hand manipulation. The International Journal of Robotics Research, 39(1), pp.3-20.\n3. Siekmann, J., Green, K., Warila, J., Fern, A. and Hurst, J., 2021. Blind Bipedal Stair Traversal via Sim-to-Real Reinforcement Learning. arXiv preprint arXiv:2105.08328.\n4. Chen, T., Kornblith, S., Norouzi, M. and Hinton, G., 2020, November. A simple framework for contrastive learning of visual representations. In International conference on machine learning (pp. 1597-1607). PMLR.\n5. He, K., Fan, H., Wu, Y., Xie, S. and Girshick, R., 2020. Momentum contrast for unsupervised visual representation learning. In Proceedings of the IEEE/CVF Conference on Computer Vision and Pattern Recognition (pp. 9729-9738).\n6. Raileanu, R., Goldstein, M., Yarats, D., Kostrikov, I. and Fergus, R., 2020. Automatic data augmentation for generalization in deep reinforcement learning. arXiv preprint arXiv:2006.12862.\n Global/general Response:\n```\nWe thank the AC and the reviewers for their comments and suggestions. We are glad that the reviewers found:\n\n(1) our paper to be tackling challenging/hard tasks (Reviewer Cfuq, Reviewer uUVE).\n\n(2) our analysis/experiments to be thorough and convincing (Reviewer UVfU, Reviewer Cfuq, Reviewer uUVE).\n\n(3) our results to be good, impressive, and strong (Reviewer UVfU, Reviewer uUVE).\n\n(4) our method to be effective, promising, and simple (Reviewer Cfuq, Reviewer uUVE).\n\n(5) the proposed gravity curriculum to be a \"considerable feat\" (Reviewer UVfU).\n\nWe have addressed the AC and the reviewers' concerns individually below. We also want to point out a few updates on the paper as follows:\n\n- We have updated our project website ([https://sites.google.com/view/in-hand-reorientation](https://sites.google.com/view/in-hand-reorientation)) with videos showing how the hand and object move if episodes are not terminated upon success and what if the goal changes upon success.\n- We got a small amount of improvement on the vision policy's performance on the mug object and b_toy_airplane by running the experiments longer after the submission. We have highlighted (blue) the new results in Table 3 and Table D.6. These small improvements do not affect conclusions drawn in the paper.\n- We have incorporated most writing suggestions in the paper. Some of the major changes are highlighted in blue in the updated paper.\n```\n", "role": "user" }, { "content": "Title: Rebuttal Response\nThank you for the thoughtful rebuttal responses to my comments and concerns, and incorporating the suggestions for improved clarity in the shown results. Upon also seeing the responses to questions brought up by the other reviewers, I am updating my recommendation to a strong accept as I feel the main comments from the meta-review have been sufficiently addressed. ", "role": "assistant" } ]
7uSBJDoP7tY
CoRL 2021 Conference
Reviewer_Cfuq
[ { "content": "\nYou are an experienced academic paper reviewer. You will receive a conference paper in the field of computer science or AI. Please analyze the paper content carefully and output your review content.\nMore importantly, the author will further explain or refute the review comments you gave, and you need to further discuss with the author based on the author's response. \nThe purpose of this rebuttal and discussion is:\n- Clarification: During the review process, the reviewer (you) may not accurately understand the contribution or method of the paper due to unclear expression or misunderstanding of certain details. Through rebuttal, the author has the opportunity to clarify these misunderstandings and further illustrate the effectiveness of their innovations or methods.\n- Respond to criticisms and suggestions: The reviewer (you) may make criticisms or suggestions on the paper, and the author can use the discussion session to provide specific responses, explain why certain criticisms may not apply, or how to improve and optimize certain aspects of the paper.\nFinally, you and the author will work together to enhance the persuasiveness of the paper and improve the quality of the paper.\n", "role": "system" }, { "content": "Now your reviewer ID is assigned as Reviewer_Cfuq, and the following are the paper you need to review:\n```<<7uSBJDoP7tY>>```", "role": "user" }, { "content": "Review Content: summary: This paper includes two main contributions. First, the authors developed an approach to transfer (using DAGGER) a teacher policy trained (using model-free RL) with full state information to a student policy trained with only sensory information. To achieve this, they exploited the fact that in simulations the state information and the correlated sensory information are simultaneously available, which enables the student to imitate the teacher’s action and learn a policy that maps sensory information to the same actions. They applied this design to in-hand reorientation of objects and demonstrated that their approach allows learning of successful reorientation for a much larger set of object shapes than has been attempted by the research community. Second, the authors also developed an effective way of training the agent to do in-hand reorientation with the robotic hand facing downwards. To achieve this, the authors had to develop both a lift policy that is used to identify good initial poses and a “gravity” curriculum where the gravitational acceleration is changed gradually from 1.0 to -9.8. \nstrengths_and_weaknesses: Strengths\n\ni.\tThe transfer approach developed by the authors is a promising approach. It is capable of leveraging increasingly better simulators and increasingly bigger datasets or model sets of diverse physical objects. The fact that the authors could get reorientation to work for a much larger set of object shapes than before could be believably attributed to the effectiveness of their approach.\n\nii.\tGetting reorientation to work well enough with the robotic hand facing down is not trivial. The authors did a fairly thorough study of this highly specific but very challenging case.\n\niii.\tThe empirical results reported are largely believable.\n\niv.\tThe system integration, while not involving physical robots, is nontrivial.\n\nWeaknesses\n\ni.\tThere seems to be two papers here: the first one about the transfer method and the second one about learning reorientation when the robotic hand is facing downward. Either of these have enough content and importance. What is unfortunately is that the authors completely failed to relate these two aspects of the paper/project in an organic way. See Issues.a below for more discussion.\n\nii.\tIt should be noted that the effectiveness of the transfer method is not fully validated in the sense of supporting a full transfer to physical robot. (Of course getting Shadow hand to work physically with deep RL is in itself a huge challenge.) The reason this ultimate transfer to the real world is important is because it will test how heavily the transfer depends on the full coincidence of state information and sensory information that is likely only obtainable in simulation. The method's strength won’t be adequately established until evaluated against a full transfer to the real world. Similarly, the method's alleged “simplicity” (which the authors never made adequately explicit, but presumably is another way of calling the straightforward exploitation of the coincidence of state and sensory info in simulation) may become a liability if transfer to the real world cannot be made to work well.\n\niii.\tThe draft in its current state is quite rough with various writing and formatting issues (pointed out in Issues below). But the presentation overall suffers from a degree of being scattered. In addition to the major issue of there being two projects/papers in one, some other examples include specifics and motivations for variations such as MLP vs. RNN being missing.\n\nsummary_of_recommendation: In spite of the weaknesses identified earlier and the numerous issues identified below, this reviewer believes that the authors have done enough and achieved enough to warrant attention from and discussion by the broader CoRL community. The presentation in the paper, which needs to be significantly improved in the final submission, does manage to get the main contribution across as compelling research. Either of the two major parts of the paper could stimulate and engender much meaningful research conversations.\nissues: a.\tTitle: “A Simple Method for Complex In-Hand Manipulation”. From the text, it is not clear what the “method” is. Is it the distillation of policies trained with state information into ones that do not use state information? If so, how do the various arrangements needed for learning manipulation with hand facing down fit into the method? Also not clear is what the authors mean by “Simple”. In what sense is the method simple?\n\nb.\tRegarding the fact that this paper includes two projects: (1) transfer and (2) in-hand reorientation with hand facing down, the authors made no attempt to link the two themes. For (2), the authors ended up developing a lot of machinery (lifting policy, gravity curriculum, table support etc) to investigate and to get it to work. Doesn’t all these under (2) make “the method” very complex? Or if (1) and (2) are really different, maybe we should do two separate papers? If (1) and (2) are related, how should or could the transfer method be adapted in a curriculum context?\n\nc.\tIn the eyes of this reviewer, the authors may have missed a great opportunity to exploit a hand-orientation curriculum. That is, instead of artificially tweaking gravity, we could much more naturally make hand orientation change according to a curriculum. (See o. and r. below for more.) This could allow the authors to eliminate most of the complexity noted above in b. above. Moreover, there might also be an opportunity of linking the two parts of the paper together, if a hand-orientation curriculum could be organized with the curriculum for the teacher requiring fine-grained sampling of orientations but that for the student requiring much more coarse-grained sampling of orientations (or something like that).\n\nd.\tFigure 1: presumably misplaced above the Abstract.\n\ne.\tLine 3 in the Abstract: “a simple model-free framework” -- the whole abstract contains zero information about either the method (as in the title) or the framework. Nor does it give any sense to the word “Simple” in the title and here. Presumably, the unique or novel features of the method or the framework should be explained or at least noted in the Abstract as well as how such features make the method or framework simple.\n\nf.\tLines 18-19: “These two tasks are harder because the object is in an intrinsically unstable configuration”. This does not seem to be true of the case where the object being manipulated is supported by a table.\n\ng.\tLine 40: Among the desiderata, (d) could be more clearly formulated in explicit contrast with approaches that require accurate state measurement (e.g. through motion capture).\n\nh.\tLine 43: “building a simple framework”, again no real information was given as to why and how the framework is simple in this Introduction.\n\ni.\tLine 63-66: This sentence adds nothing. It seems to be a wasted sentence because it started to talk about how the student policy is trained and then deferred to Section 2.2.1 immediately. It is also not clear how this sentence connects with the next one that starts with “However, …”\n\nj.\tLine 94: should introduce delta q_t^target explicitly.\n\nk.\tSection 2.2: it is probably going to help a lot if a table is included to directly compare the observations available to the teacher (Full State) and those available to the student (Reduced State).\n\nl.\tFigure 2: gap is needed between the main text and the caption for Figure 2.\n\nm.\tLines 189-190: theta^bar under the two settings are respectively 0.1 and 0.2. Any principled reason why? Also, d^bar_C is set to 0.01. How does that combine with theta^bar = 0.2?\n\nn.\tLine 192: “reorients” => “reorient”.\n\no.\tSection 42 Lines 235-245: The discussion in this paragraph is important but seems more narrow than warranted. First, the authors state “A natural question to ask is then does this still hold true when the hand is flipped upside down.” (Lines 236-237) But a more natural question seems to be if the hand’s orientation deviates from facing upwards at all. There are many possible orientations the hand could take. Facing up and facing down are just two extremes. In fact, the gravity curriculum proposed by the authors could be possibly replaced by a hand orientation curriculum that could be much more natural and potentially enable learning of policy structures much more generalizable. Second, “Unsurprisingly, the agent is unable to learn …” is possibly only unsurprising if the hand is putting in the extreme orientation of facing downward. The agent has no opportunity of learning effect of gravity for different orientations, with the two studied in the paper being only two extremes occupying a whole continuum of rich structures.\n\np.\tSection 4.2.1: some comment/information about the strategy learned by the agent is expected. For example, does the agent leave the object to be supported by the table alone without any contact between maneuvers? If so, how that may have simplified the learning for the agent? If not, how does the support help? The reader is left wondering …\n\nq.\tLines 267-270: the method of training the agent to learn a lifting policy and then use it to determine initial pose, while effective, seems to add a lot of complexity to the method. The reader is left to wonder why the method/framework is still characterized as “simple”.\n\nr.\tLine 287: “we start the training with g = 1 m / s^2,” -- This means there is (anti-)gravitational force moving the object upward into the hand. Why is this needed? How could this be justified?\n\ns.\tLine 309: “high success rate” -- there is no reference / baseline / comparison offered to support the claim that the success rate is high.\n\nt.\tLine 351: “this policy” => “the teacher policy” might be more clear.\nRating: 9 strong accept, excellent work\n", "role": "assistant" }, { "content": "Title: Response to Reviewer Cfuq\nWe sincerely thank reviewer Cfuq for the helpful feedback and suggestions on our paper. We address the reviewer's concerns below.\n\n**Q: \"There seems to be two papers here: the first one about the transfer method and the second one about learning reorientation when the robotic hand is facing downward.\" \"For (2), the authors ended up developing a lot of machinery (lifting policy, gravity curriculum, table support etc) to investigate and to get it to work. \"**\n\n**A:** We are sorry that the two aspects of our work came out as disconnected. Our overall goal is to perform in-hand re-orientation of objects in general scenarios. These scenarios involve the hand facing upwards, downwards, and in some cases using an external surface. The teacher-student learning is applicable to all these scenarios. We employ this paradigm because it is easier and faster to learn teacher policies with privileged state information only available in the simulator (as shown in the rightmost figure in Figure D.6). Next, because we want these policies to be useful for real-world manipulation eventually, we distill this policy (i.e., student policy) to work only with sensory data available in the real world.\n\nThe second set of machinery — the lifting policy and the gravity curriculum were used for manipulation with hand-facing downwards. The gravity curriculum is used to improve the teacher policy's performance. The student-teacher paradigm is complementary to these innovations and is necessary for superior performance on the student policy. We, therefore, feel that both the teacher-student learning and the machinery for downward-facing manipulation is necessary for the hand to generally re-orient objects. \n\n**Q: What does \"Simple\" refer to?**\n\n**A:** We acknowledge that the term \"simple\" has been used subjectively, and we never defined what is simple. We call our method simple because (i) we do not make use of explicit models of the object, the manipulator, or the contact dynamics. Our method builds upon a well-established model-free RL algorithm, PPO. The three key components: teacher-student learning, gravity curriculum, and stable initialization of objects are general ideas that are likely to be useful even outside the context of in-hand re-orientation tasks. (ii) Secondly, we don't require any special pre-processing of sensory observations. E.g., our vision-based policies can work directly from RGBD point clouds captured by cameras. We will add this clarification in the text. Also, we are not tied to the use of the word \"simple\". If the reviewer strongly feels we should not use the word \"simple\", we are happy to change the title.\n\n**Q: \" the effectiveness of the transfer method is not fully validated in the sense of supporting a full transfer to physical robot\"**\n\n**A:** We have not evaluated the policies on the physical robot due to limited lab access in the pandemic. We agree with the reviewer that the true test is real-world deployment. We could have presented only part of of our machinery in the paper, the method required for downward-facing object re-orientation. However, if this machinery used privileged observation only available in simulation, then there would be no chance of transfer to the real world. To ensure that there is a realistic chance for such transfer we presented the student-teacher paradigm that enables us to train policies with realistic sensory observations. Further, we provide a detailed analysis of how the performance varies due to noise in sensing and uncertainty in simulation parameters. We will better connect the two parts of the paper in the revised manuscript. \n\n**Q: Motivations for variations such as MLP vs. RNN are missing**\n\n**A:** We thank the reviewer for pointing this out. We have added the motivation in the Appendix Section D1 in the updated manuscript. The motivation is:\n\n- We hypothesized by temporal integration RNN teacher policies can implicitly represent object shape information and might perform better. However, we experimentally found that this is not the case and the MLP policy performs equally well (see Table 1).\n- For the student policies, RNN outperforms MLP policies because student policies do not have access to privileged state information, and accumulating information over time improves performance.\n\n**Q: \"the authors may have missed a great opportunity to exploit a hand-orientation curriculum\"**\n\n**A:** Thanks for the suggestion. Firstly, we want to point out that as shown in the gravity curriculum is not \"critical\" for manipulation (Exp. ID S in Table D.5), but it improves performance substantially (Exp. ID T in Table D.5).\n\nSecondly, we would like to draw parallel between the gravity and the hand-curriculum. Theoretically, instead of changing the orientation of the hand, we can change the direction of the gravity vector. Because all that matters is the relative relationship between gravity and hand orientation, it will have the same effect. In our work, we experimented with a limited gravity curriculum where the direction was fixed, but we changed the magnitude. We agree that it would indeed be an exciting avenue of future work to explore the hand-orientation curriculum/gravity direction curriculum to expand the scope of what the learned policies can achieve. \n\nThirdly, we want to point out that the hand curriculum does not necessarily simplify the setup. We would still need a good object pose initialization and therefore the lifting policy. Please note that the use of a table is not part of the machinery for downward-facing manipulation. It is a separate experiment to probe can the learned policies make use of an external surface if it is available. Lastly, we will have to come up with a mechanism that decides when to change the orientation of the hand/gravity, which may or may not be simple. \n\nTherefore, we believe that hand-orientation curriculum is not a replacement for our machinery, but is complementary to our work. It will push the span of in-hand re-orientation further and will be an exciting avenue for future work. Thanks once again for the valuable suggestion.\n\n**Q: Why is $g$ initialized as $+1m/s^2$ (an (anti-)gravitational force)?**\n\n**A:** $+1m/s^2$ gives a small anti-gravitational force and this force can help push the object towards the hand (which makes it similar to the case of the hand facing upward). This makes learning easier. One can also start $g$ with $0m/s^2$, we found that setting $g_0$ to be $+1m/s^2$ marginally speeds up the learning. \n\n**Q: The abstract contains zero information about either the method (as in the title) or the framework. Line 43: “building a simple framework”, again no real information was given as to why and how the framework is simple in this Introduction.**\n\n**A:** Thanks for pointing it out. We will revise the draft to specify what simple means (which we have answered in the second question above).\n\n**Q: Lines 189-190: theta^bar under the two settings are respectively 0.1 and 0.2. Any principled reason why? Also, d^bar_C is set to 0.01. How does that combine with theta^bar = 0.2?**\n\n**A:** The two settings referred by the reviewer are training the student vision policy and training the policies (either teacher or student policies) with the full state information. Vision policy can be less accurate than the full-state policy as it does not have direct access to the object orientation and information loss resulting from point cloud voxelization. Therefore, we used a slightly higher threshold for the vision's policy reorientation error. However, to allow direct comparison between state and vision-based policies we will include the performance of vision policy with the threshold set to 0.1rad in the final version of our paper. At the same time please note that 0.2rad is still a small threshold (around 11 degrees). \n\nThe combination of $\\theta$ and $d_C$ is explained in Section 2.2.2 (Mitigating the object symmetry issue). Specifically when ($\\Delta\\theta\\leq\\bar{\\theta}$) or ($d_C\\leq \\bar{d}_C$) is true, we declare success.\n\n**Q: Section 4.2.1: some comment/information about the strategy learned by the agent is expected.**\n\n**A:** As we can see from the videos on the project website, the hand reorients the objects in different ways depending on their shape and size. One way it learned is that it reorients the object while having the object always touching the table (sometimes it looks like a rolling motion) until the object is in the desired orientation. And at the end of the orientation, the hand might lift the object up to reach the final orientation. Another way it learned is that it grasps the object, reorients it a bit, puts it down on the table, and repeatedly performs grasping and placing the object on the table until the orientation matches with the target orientation.\n\n Global/general Response:\n```\nWe thank the AC and the reviewers for their comments and suggestions. We are glad that the reviewers found:\n\n(1) our paper to be tackling challenging/hard tasks (Reviewer Cfuq, Reviewer uUVE).\n\n(2) our analysis/experiments to be thorough and convincing (Reviewer UVfU, Reviewer Cfuq, Reviewer uUVE).\n\n(3) our results to be good, impressive, and strong (Reviewer UVfU, Reviewer uUVE).\n\n(4) our method to be effective, promising, and simple (Reviewer Cfuq, Reviewer uUVE).\n\n(5) the proposed gravity curriculum to be a \"considerable feat\" (Reviewer UVfU).\n\nWe have addressed the AC and the reviewers' concerns individually below. We also want to point out a few updates on the paper as follows:\n\n- We have updated our project website ([https://sites.google.com/view/in-hand-reorientation](https://sites.google.com/view/in-hand-reorientation)) with videos showing how the hand and object move if episodes are not terminated upon success and what if the goal changes upon success.\n- We got a small amount of improvement on the vision policy's performance on the mug object and b_toy_airplane by running the experiments longer after the submission. We have highlighted (blue) the new results in Table 3 and Table D.6. These small improvements do not affect conclusions drawn in the paper.\n- We have incorporated most writing suggestions in the paper. Some of the major changes are highlighted in blue in the updated paper.\n```\n", "role": "user" }, { "content": "Title: Response to Rebuttal\nI would like to thank the authors for their detailed and careful rebuttal. I also find the addition of the videos for the \"No immediate termination\" case (in response to reviewer UVfU) to be compelling. I feel the authors have done enough and clarified enough to warrant a Strong Accept and have thus updated my recommendation accordingly.\n\nAs to \"simple\", I remain unconvinced that that is the most helpful characterization. But may the authors really like the contradistinction with \"complex\". I won't object to that, but am still wondering ... ;-)", "role": "assistant" } ]
7uSBJDoP7tY
CoRL 2021 Conference
Reviewer_uUVE
[ { "content": "\nYou are an experienced academic paper reviewer. You will receive a conference paper in the field of computer science or AI. Please analyze the paper content carefully and output your review content.\nMore importantly, the author will further explain or refute the review comments you gave, and you need to further discuss with the author based on the author's response. \nThe purpose of this rebuttal and discussion is:\n- Clarification: During the review process, the reviewer (you) may not accurately understand the contribution or method of the paper due to unclear expression or misunderstanding of certain details. Through rebuttal, the author has the opportunity to clarify these misunderstandings and further illustrate the effectiveness of their innovations or methods.\n- Respond to criticisms and suggestions: The reviewer (you) may make criticisms or suggestions on the paper, and the author can use the discussion session to provide specific responses, explain why certain criticisms may not apply, or how to improve and optimize certain aspects of the paper.\nFinally, you and the author will work together to enhance the persuasiveness of the paper and improve the quality of the paper.\n", "role": "system" }, { "content": "Now your reviewer ID is assigned as Reviewer_uUVE, and the following are the paper you need to review:\n```<<7uSBJDoP7tY>>```", "role": "user" }, { "content": "Review Content: summary: This paper presents a system in simulation for in-hand reorientation of novel objects. The work leverage privileged information from the simulator to train a model-free teacher policy and then applies Dagger to learn a model-free student policy which has access to only sensor inputs that are generally available in the real world.\n\nstrengths_and_weaknesses: Strengths\n+ I consider this a 'systems' paper as it builds on mostly known algorithmic advances but effectively puts them together in a 'simple' manner to demonstration fairly strong results on a hard in-hand reorientation task.\n+ The experiments are quite comprehensive and the paper makes good faith effort in arguing the applicability of the method to a real setting despite the results demonstrated in sim only.\n+ Results are impressive and will serve the community well as a strong starting baseline for future work.\n\nWeaknesses\n- w1: I expect/encourage the authors to release code, models, and datasets otherwise much of the value of the contribution would be lost.\n- W2: Insights gained from experiments were quite helpful, it would be good to have a more extended discussion on the limitations.\nsummary_of_recommendation: Overall, this is a solid paper that makes advancements in in-hand manipulation.\nissues: W2\n- Besides the domain randomization tried, I believe there will likely be more considerations needed for zero shot sim2real to be possible -- this is just based on the fact that while simulation photo-realism has come a long way existing simulators still massively struggle (and make strong assumptions) when it comes to simulating contact. One could sacrifice sim speed for fidelity, but that would likely not serve well for a model-free RL pipeline.\n- The simulation/task seem to get cut off when the success condition is triggered, but it seems that some of the executions were mid motion. This in practice would lead to overshooting goal, instability, dropping object, etc. A fix to consider would be to add some zero velocity criteria (so object is stable in-hand) on top of the current goal reward.\n- How do we scale model-free RL to real world and lead to more 'natural' motions?\n - An observation from the experiment videos is that there tends to be a lot of flaying and extra finger motions, likely since the reward is not capturing these.\n - What about ego centric perception and thus heavy occlusion when working in the real-world.\n - How do we continue to learn online in the real world since we won't have access to privileged information anymore.\nThe above questions are obviously hard and open research problems, but some discussion in the context of the limitations of this paper would be beneficial.\nRating: 9 strong accept, excellent work\n", "role": "assistant" }, { "content": "Title: Response to Reviewer uUVE\nWe would like to thank reviewer uUVE for the helpful comments. We address the reviewer's concerns as follows:\n\n**Q: \"I expect/encourage the authors to release code, models, and datasets otherwise much of the value of the contribution would be lost.\"**\n\n**A:** Yes, we will release the code that can reproduce the results in the paper upon the paper's acceptance.\n\n**Q: A more extended discussion on the limitations. Also, How do we scale model-free RL to real world and lead to more 'natural' motions?**\n\n**A:** Due to the page limit, we have provided as much discussion as possible in the submission. We are happy to add more discussions here.\n\n* Currently, due to the compute limit, we are only able to train a separate vision policy for each object even though we can train one single state-based policy for all objects. Future work should look at efficiently train a single vision policy that can reorient many objects.\n\n* Figure D.10 and D.11 show that the success rates for objects with different shapes vary significantly. Future work should investigate methods for improving the policy's performance on objects that are not working as well.\n\n* While we have demonstrated surprisingly good performance of the learned policies without using any object shape information, it is an important future work to see how we can incorporate shape into the policy to improve performance. It is possible that this would improve performance on objects our current method suffers on. \n\n* As the reviewer mentioned, sometimes some fingers can move unnaturally during the reorientation. How to make the hand reorient object more human-like is an interesting direction. One possibility is to modify the reward function to include energy cost, coupling between fingers, etc. Another way is to make use of human hand demonstrations.\n\n* If the camera can only be placed in an ego-centric viewpoint, as mentioned by the reviewer, the occlusions will be more severe. One way to mitigate occlusion is to augment the policy with a memory of past time steps or memory of past manipulation of the same object or one of a similar shape. Another way is adding more cameras as is commonly done in many mobile robot platforms and in our work.\n\n* Continuously learning in the real world is challenging. It requires reward computation, resets, etc. Future work investigating reset-free learning, use of self-supervised learning in conjunction with RL are likely to benefit. Another challenge is in robust hardware that is capable of running for millions of iterations. Another avenue is to incorporate human demonstrations to aid learning of manipulation policies. \n\n**Q: Episodes terminate after the goal orientation is reached. There could be overshooting goal.**\n\n**A:** Reviewer UVfU also asked this question. Our common response to both reviewers is below: \n\nSince we randomize the initial and goal orientations during training and generously reward the agent for manipulating the object into the goal orientation, we hypothesize that the goal acts as an \"attractor\" at policy's convergence. Therefore, during testing, even if the policy overshoots, it knows how to reorient the object back to the goal orientation. In such a scenario, if the policy overshoots too much, there will be oscillations, and the object will be reoriented back-and-forth around the goal orientation. Empirically, we observe that the policy doesn't show such oscillations as can be seen in 16 new videos on the project website ([https://sites.google.com/view/in-hand-reorientation](https://sites.google.com/view/in-hand-reorientation)) where the goal orientation changes after the previous goal orientation is met (\"Continuing Reorientation\"). Additionally, we have included 16 new videos where the episode is not terminated after the goal orientation is reached (\"No Immediate Termination after Reaching the Goal Orientation\"). We can see from these videos that even though the objects are not \"still\" on reaching the goal orientation, there is no significant overshooting and the objects are largely stable.\n\nWith that being said, there is certainly room to improve stability at the goal state. For example, during training, we can set the success criterion to be that the object needs to stay close to the goal orientation for several consecutive time steps or the velocity of the object needs to be 0, etc. These small improvements can be easily incorporated into our work. However, since our setup already works well. We leave it to future work as rerunning all the experiments with such modifications will take more time than the rebuttal period.\n Global/general Response:\n```\nWe thank the AC and the reviewers for their comments and suggestions. We are glad that the reviewers found:\n\n(1) our paper to be tackling challenging/hard tasks (Reviewer Cfuq, Reviewer uUVE).\n\n(2) our analysis/experiments to be thorough and convincing (Reviewer UVfU, Reviewer Cfuq, Reviewer uUVE).\n\n(3) our results to be good, impressive, and strong (Reviewer UVfU, Reviewer uUVE).\n\n(4) our method to be effective, promising, and simple (Reviewer Cfuq, Reviewer uUVE).\n\n(5) the proposed gravity curriculum to be a \"considerable feat\" (Reviewer UVfU).\n\nWe have addressed the AC and the reviewers' concerns individually below. We also want to point out a few updates on the paper as follows:\n\n- We have updated our project website ([https://sites.google.com/view/in-hand-reorientation](https://sites.google.com/view/in-hand-reorientation)) with videos showing how the hand and object move if episodes are not terminated upon success and what if the goal changes upon success.\n- We got a small amount of improvement on the vision policy's performance on the mug object and b_toy_airplane by running the experiments longer after the submission. We have highlighted (blue) the new results in Table 3 and Table D.6. These small improvements do not affect conclusions drawn in the paper.\n- We have incorporated most writing suggestions in the paper. Some of the major changes are highlighted in blue in the updated paper.\n```\n", "role": "user" }, { "content": "Title: response to authors\nThank you for the extra discussion and the additional videos. Having read the other reviews and rebuttal I will keep my score and support accepting the paper.", "role": "assistant" } ]
87_OJU4sw3V
CoRL 2021 Conference
Reviewer_fsSv
[ { "content": "\nYou are an experienced academic paper reviewer. You will receive a conference paper in the field of computer science or AI. Please analyze the paper content carefully and output your review content.\nMore importantly, the author will further explain or refute the review comments you gave, and you need to further discuss with the author based on the author's response. \nThe purpose of this rebuttal and discussion is:\n- Clarification: During the review process, the reviewer (you) may not accurately understand the contribution or method of the paper due to unclear expression or misunderstanding of certain details. Through rebuttal, the author has the opportunity to clarify these misunderstandings and further illustrate the effectiveness of their innovations or methods.\n- Respond to criticisms and suggestions: The reviewer (you) may make criticisms or suggestions on the paper, and the author can use the discussion session to provide specific responses, explain why certain criticisms may not apply, or how to improve and optimize certain aspects of the paper.\nFinally, you and the author will work together to enhance the persuasiveness of the paper and improve the quality of the paper.\n", "role": "system" }, { "content": "Now your reviewer ID is assigned as Reviewer_fsSv, and the following are the paper you need to review:\n```<<87_OJU4sw3V>>```", "role": "user" }, { "content": "Review Content: summary: The work presents a tactile sensor named as ReSkin that can replaces its skin. It is based on magnetic sensing that separates the electronic circuitry from the passive interface, making it easier to replace interfaces as they wear out. A neural network method is also proposed to to learn sensor response models that are variant to across fabrication and time.\nstrengths_and_weaknesses: Strengths:\n1. The presented replaceable skin and the model to learn sensor responses across fabrication and time are interesting.\n2. Some interesting results are presented in the experiments.\n\nWeaknesses:\nThe contributions of the paper are not clear as some of the available tactile sensors come with replaceable skins naturally, for example GelSight and GelTip sensors. It is not very convincing to claim that a tactile sensor with replaceable skin is proposed. Also, it is clear how the proposed sensor is different from the magnetic sensors in the literature. It is interesting to learn sensor responses across fabrication and time are interesting but it can be taken separately from the design and fabrication of the ReSkin.\nGomes, D.F., Lin, Z. and Luo, S., 2020, June. GelTip: A finger-shaped optical tactile sensor for robotic manipulation. In 2020 IEEE/RSJ International Conference on Intelligent Robots and Systems (IROS) (pp. 9903-9909). IEEE.\n\nsummary_of_recommendation: Magnetic sensors are one major type of the tactile sensors for robotic applications, it is not clear how the proposed sensor differs from the ones in the literature. \nissues: The presentation of the paper can be improved, for example,\n1. Experiment Setup is ahead of the sensor models, which makes it confusing to follow.\n2. In Section 5, the network architecture can be better illustrated.\n3. The contact localization is a easy task for the tactile sensor as it is to detect the contact on the surface, it would be better to include analysis on adaptation for force prediction.\nRating: 4 possibly reject, but has redeeming facets\n", "role": "assistant" }, { "content": "Title: Response to Reviewer fsSv\nBefore we answer individual queries, we highlight our response on novelty and contributions in the common response above. In summary, we believe ReSkin is the only viable sensor for robot learning approaches because of its form factor. ReSkin sensors can be put on human gloves which allows collection of object-interaction data in the wild [something which you cannot do with gelsight for example]. And to the best of the authors’ knowledge, there has been no related work with gelsight-based sensors or any other tactile sensors that characterize the deterioration of the sensor as well as variability across different instances of the sensor. \n\nWe now address the rest of the reviewer’s concerns below:\n1. __Comparison to Gelsight and Geltip:__\nThe biggest difference between Gelsight/Geltip and ReSkin is form factor. Gelsights are clunky (>18mm depth) because of the distance required between elastomer and the camera required. So, even if one can replace skin in a gelsight, it is not a viable option for a lot of sensing applications such as force gloves. That said, changing elastomers in a gelsight is a bit more involved process: they require a reflective surface (airbrushed by hand in geltip) or putting a grid to visualize contacts. \nTo the best of the authors knowledge, the gelsight-based literature does not state how many sensors have been used to collect the data presented in each paper. Signal quality for gelsight-based sensors is highly dependent on the quality of the elastomer. For example, GelSlim [1] showed that sensor quality begins to deteriorate significantly after 3500 grasps. ReSkin response is much less sensitive to degradation of the elastomer and we show sustained performance over 50k indentations.\n\n2. __Difference from existing magnetic skins:__ This sensor is different from existing magnetic sensors by using magnet microparticles over mm-scale magnets. By using microparticles, the skin itself can be molded into many shapes and thicknesses. We also modified the training magnets to induce a pattern of edges onto the surface, which we believe reduces variability across fabrication and contributes to the generalizability of the models presented in this paper.\n\n3. __Generalization of Model Separated from Fabrication:__ We believe that the generalizability of learned models presented in the paper is closely tied to the fabrication techniques used. While some gelsight designs such as DIGIT[2] might have positive characteristics such as long-lasting, it is just not a viable solution because of the large form factor.\n\n4. __Self-supervised adaptation for force prediction:__ We would like to highlight we have already done this and the reviewer seems to have missed the experiment. Table 1 in the paper shows an improvement in force prediction as well, when self-supervision is added.\n\n\n[1] Donlon, Elliott et al. “GelSlim: A High-Resolution, Compact, Robust, and Calibrated Tactile-sensing Finger.” 2018 IEEE/RSJ International Conference on Intelligent Robots and Systems (IROS) (2018): 1927-1934.\n\n[2] Lambeta, Mike, et al. \"Digit: A novel design for a low-cost compact high-resolution tactile sensor with application to in-hand manipulation.\" IEEE Robotics and Automation Letters 5.3 (2020): 3838-3845.\n\n Global/general Response:\n```\nWe thank the reviewers and AC for their feedback. First, we agree with AC that this is not a standard CoRL paper. Therefore, we urge the reviewers and AC to give a second hard look at our paper. Before we start the rebuttal and answer individual queries, we would like to make a passionate appeal (as AC asks for it) for why we believe CoRL is indeed the right venue and why this paper has potential to make a huge impact in the CoRL community. \n\n### Context: \n\nUnlike vision, tactile perception is not the first class citizen in robotics because (a) either the sensors are too expensive (biotac) or (b) the form factor is too clumsy to measure signals in the wild (gelsight and geltip). What currently robot learning and large-scale learning are missing is richness of data which becomes supervision in itself for learning approaches. Learning approaches need an inexpensive, long-lasting and easy-to-use tactile sensor. We believe ReSkin is the only sensor that satisfies all the requirements (See below). We believe our paper has the potential to make a much bigger change in the robot learning community. And we believe the CoRL community needs to know the availability of this sensor.\n\n| | ReSkin (ours) | DIGIT [1] | GelSlim [2] | BioTac [3] | RSkin [4] | Multimodal skin [5] |\n| ----------- | :---------: | :---------: |:---------: |:---------: |:---------: |:---------: |\nType|Magnetic|Optical|Optical | MEMS | Piezoresistive fabric|Sensing chip|\nFrequency|~400 Hz|60 Hz|60 Hz|100 Hz|?|250 Hz|\nVariable Form Factor|&#9989;|&#10060;|&#10060;|&#10060;|&#9989;|&#10060;|\nLow thickness (< 3 mm)|&#9989;|&#10060;|&#10060;|&#10060;|&#9989;|&#9989;|\nLow Cost|&#9989;|&#9989;|&#9989;|&#10060;|&#10060;|&#10060;|\nQuantified performance over time|&#9989;|&#10060;|&#10060;|&#10060;|&#10060;|&#10060;|\nEasy Replaceability|&#9989;|&#9989;|&#9989;|N/A|&#10060;|&#9989;|\nArea Coverage|&#9989;|&#10060;|&#10060;|&#10060;|&#9989;|&#9989;|\nDurability (>50k contacts)|&#9989;|?|&#10060;|&#9989;|?|?|\n\n### Novelty: \n\nBut what about novelty. Reviewers and AC are right (a) Magnetic skins and other sensors have existed. While we do provide some novelty in fabrication, is it novel enough?\n(b) self-supervised learning, multi-task learning has existed and there are so many papers. Is there any novelty in learning? So, where does our novelty lie? \n\nFirst, if this is the yardstick and way we evaluate papers, then award-winning paper [6] should not be novel and should have been rejected. If you look at [6], the network architecture was not new (it was standard ImageNet architecture). So no novelty on the learning side. From a robotics perspective, grasping open-loop experiments was not novel or something to rave about. The novelty of the paper lies in the intersection of Deep Learning and Physical Robots. And it spurned so much followup research. Papers that cross traditional boundaries have a negative bias when judged by individual communities but their novelty lies in the way they bring two fields together. \n\nWe believe our novelty is the intersection of self-supervised learning and soft sensing. It might seem that there are already papers at the intersection of tactile and learning but we want to highlight that all those papers are at the application interface -- the sensors are already working and to make the application work (marble juggling etc.) learning is used. On the other hand, in our case, the sensor signal by itself is not that meaningful and useful. The learned models fail to reproduce across multiple fabrications and over wear and tear. It is the large-scale and self-supervised learning that actually makes the sensor usable. \n\nTherefore, our core contribution is to advocate the use of inexpensive materials and low-form factor sensing but overcome wear-tear and fabrication issues via use of large-scale and self-supervised learning. More specifically, \n\n1. Our paper introduces novel fabrication techniques to reduce the thickness, introduce variable form factors [by using mm particles] and reduce noise signal. \n2. Our paper is the first to perform large-scale empirical analysis to understand the relationship between wear/tear and learned models.\n3. Our paper is first to demonstrate that fabrication issues and inconsistencies can be dealt with via a simple self-supervised scheme and a few hundred samples. Our SSL calibration technique could be useful for other sensors/tasks as well.\n\nBut above all, we believe our sensor is the only sensor which satisfies all the requirements to emerge as the only viable sensor for learning applications.\n\n...\n\n### Are Self-supervised results statistically significant?\n\nWe performed paired t-tests using data for \"Multi-sensor without triplet loss\" and \"Multi-sensor with triplet loss, adapted using 390 indentations\", to evaluate the statistical significance of our results. We find t=4.575 and t=4.596 for MSExy and MSEFz respectively, which are both significantly higher than t.9995=3.965 for 𝜈 = 17. This clearly highlights that our results are statistically significant.\n\n### Other significant additions (details below): \n\nWe have also added two new experiments which highlight that ReSkin can be used for shear force estimation and that self-supervised calibration works even in the wild where the skin is manually pressed to collect the data. We hope reviewers 51C5 and fsSv can look at these results along with other discussions to re-evaluate the paper and its contributions.\n\n[1] Lambeta, Mike, et al. \"Digit: A novel design for a low-cost compact high-resolution tactile sensor with application to in-hand manipulation.\" IEEE Robotics and Automation Letters 5.3 (2020): 3838-3845.\n\n[2] Donlon, Elliott et al. “GelSlim: A High-Resolution, Compact, Robust, and Calibrated Tactile-sensing Finger.” 2018 IEEE/RSJ International Conference on Intelligent Robots and Systems (IROS) (2018): 1927-1934.\n\n[3] Sundaralingam, Balakumar, et al. \"Robust learning of tactile force estimation through robot interaction.\" 2019 International Conference on Robotics and Automation (ICRA). IEEE, 2019.\n\n[4] T. Bhattacharjee, A. Jain, S. Vaish, M. D. Killpack and C. C. Kemp, \"Tactile sensing over articulated joints with stretchable sensors,\" 2013 World Haptics Conference (WHC), 2013, pp. 103-108, doi: 10.1109/WHC.2013.6548392.\n\n[5] Cheng, Gordon, et al. \"A comprehensive realization of robot skin: Sensors, sensing, control, and applications.\" Proceedings of the IEEE 107.10 (2019): 2034-2051.\n\n[6] L. Pinto and A. Gupta, \"Supersizing self-supervision: Learning to grasp from 50K tries and 700 robot hours,\" 2016 IEEE International Conference on Robotics and Automation (ICRA), 2016, pp. 3406-3413, doi: 10.1109/ICRA.2016.7487517.\n\n```\n\n Global/general Response:\n```\nDear AC and Reviewers,\n\nWe were hoping for a discussion:\n\n1. With Reviewer 51C5 in light of the new experiments and comparisons to state-of-the-art\n2. With AC with respect to our arguments for applicability to CoRL and novelty.\n3. With Reviewer fsSv in light of the comparison to others and reread of force adaptation result.\n\nWhile we haven’t had any discussions yet, we are still available to answer more questions today. We sincerely believe this paper has potential to have a big impact in the robot learning community. We will upload an updated version of the paper later today.\n\nThanks\n\nAuthors\n```\n", "role": "user" }, { "content": "Thanks for the authors' response. They've addressed nearly all of my concerns, and I may raise the score accordingly.", "role": "assistant" } ]
87_OJU4sw3V
CoRL 2021 Conference
Reviewer_VwcU
[ { "content": "\nYou are an experienced academic paper reviewer. You will receive a conference paper in the field of computer science or AI. Please analyze the paper content carefully and output your review content.\nMore importantly, the author will further explain or refute the review comments you gave, and you need to further discuss with the author based on the author's response. \nThe purpose of this rebuttal and discussion is:\n- Clarification: During the review process, the reviewer (you) may not accurately understand the contribution or method of the paper due to unclear expression or misunderstanding of certain details. Through rebuttal, the author has the opportunity to clarify these misunderstandings and further illustrate the effectiveness of their innovations or methods.\n- Respond to criticisms and suggestions: The reviewer (you) may make criticisms or suggestions on the paper, and the author can use the discussion session to provide specific responses, explain why certain criticisms may not apply, or how to improve and optimize certain aspects of the paper.\nFinally, you and the author will work together to enhance the persuasiveness of the paper and improve the quality of the paper.\n", "role": "system" }, { "content": "Now your reviewer ID is assigned as Reviewer_VwcU, and the following are the paper you need to review:\n```<<87_OJU4sw3V>>```", "role": "user" }, { "content": "Review Content: summary: The paper proposes a new soft tactile sensor that relies on the change in the magnetic properties of the soft magnetized skin to estimate and localize the applied force. Experiments are carried out to learn the models that map the magnetic field measurements to applied forces, and techniques for generalization when the skin or PCB is replaced are proposed and evaluated. Example applications are described in the paper and demonstrated in the video.\nstrengths_and_weaknesses: Strengths: The proposed sensor has a number of desirable properties: it is small, durable, allows for easy replacement of skin, etc.\n\nWeaknesses: Experiments only seem to evaluate the normal force. Is the estimation of the shear force also reliable? Can one estimate force when the contact surface is large? Can one estimate the skin deformation from the magnetic flux readings?\n\nsummary_of_recommendation: The proposed sensor design may be potentially useful in many applications. The paper showed in detail that the sensor can be utilized at high rate (roughly 400Hz) and with good precision (roughly 1mm). The fact that the sensor design and code are publicly released is a big bonus.\nissues: The video can be shortened. Picking grapes and blueberries is roughly the same, perhaps one of the experiments can be dropped from the video. It would be good to see the sensor readings when the berries are picked up. How noisy are those measurements?\n\nWhat happens if there is external magnetic field? Is the sensor not useful then anymore? It may be worth adding a paragraph or subsection discussing the limitations of the current design. For example, if one manipulates metal objects that can be magnetized, will this affect the performance? Can you suggest any solutions for this problem?\nRating: 9 strong accept, excellent work\n", "role": "assistant" }, { "content": "Title: Response to Reviewer VwcU\nWe thank the reviewer for positive feedback. We are pleased to confirm that we have done the shear force estimation and discuss all the limitations. We will put these limitations in the final version of the paper. \n\n1. __Shear force estimation:__ The reviewer is correct that it is possible to measure flux changes when applying shear force. To demonstrate this, we performed another experiment with the same experimental setup. Data is collected dynamically by indenting the sensor to a certain depth and dragging it along the sensor. We move in straight lines along x and y directions (as defined by the coordinate system in Section 4 of the paper) at intervals of 2 mm to cover the entire area of the sensor. This results in a total of over 350K samples. We use an 80-20 split for training and test data, with test data comprising the last 20% of all samples. We use the same network architecture presented in Section 4, predicting (x y Fx Fy Fz) instead of just (x y Fz). For this simple experiment, we get MSE for Fxy: 0.0011 +/- 0.0002 N^2, without compromising on prediction of normal force or contact location. Applied shear forces went up to 1 N in each direction.\n\n2. __Multi-point contact and large surface area contact:__ When the contact surface is large there is a corresponding larger shift in magnetic flux. While we believe this is possible, it seems beyond the scope of the current paper. \n\n3. __Estimating full skin deformation:__ It would be very interesting to fully estimate the skin deformation from the magnetic flux readings. While this would make sensor output more interpretable, at this time, this remains as future work.\n\n4. __Effect of external magnetic fields and metallic objects:__ The reviewer is correct - external magnetic fields can influence sensor readings. If a strong magnet is in the direct proximity of the magnetometer, the direction of the flux will point towards it. For magnets, the sensor skin will no longer provide the data but the object itself will. But for most practical applications, we have not found small external magnetic fields from motors etc not to be an issue.\n\n For metal objects that may be ferromagnetic, we found little to no effect. The main reason being that the magnetometer is set at a very high sensitivity that complements a very weak magnetic skin. The magnetic skin will not be able to attract or repel even small metallic objects like screws.\n\n One way to mitigate these problems is to place another magnetometer out of range from the skin (>5mm). If that magnetometer picks up readings, then the system knows that an external field is now interfering.\n Global/general Response:\n```\nWe thank the reviewers and AC for their feedback. First, we agree with AC that this is not a standard CoRL paper. Therefore, we urge the reviewers and AC to give a second hard look at our paper. Before we start the rebuttal and answer individual queries, we would like to make a passionate appeal (as AC asks for it) for why we believe CoRL is indeed the right venue and why this paper has potential to make a huge impact in the CoRL community. \n\n### Context: \n\nUnlike vision, tactile perception is not the first class citizen in robotics because (a) either the sensors are too expensive (biotac) or (b) the form factor is too clumsy to measure signals in the wild (gelsight and geltip). What currently robot learning and large-scale learning are missing is richness of data which becomes supervision in itself for learning approaches. Learning approaches need an inexpensive, long-lasting and easy-to-use tactile sensor. We believe ReSkin is the only sensor that satisfies all the requirements (See below). We believe our paper has the potential to make a much bigger change in the robot learning community. And we believe the CoRL community needs to know the availability of this sensor.\n\n| | ReSkin (ours) | DIGIT [1] | GelSlim [2] | BioTac [3] | RSkin [4] | Multimodal skin [5] |\n| ----------- | :---------: | :---------: |:---------: |:---------: |:---------: |:---------: |\nType|Magnetic|Optical|Optical | MEMS | Piezoresistive fabric|Sensing chip|\nFrequency|~400 Hz|60 Hz|60 Hz|100 Hz|?|250 Hz|\nVariable Form Factor|&#9989;|&#10060;|&#10060;|&#10060;|&#9989;|&#10060;|\nLow thickness (< 3 mm)|&#9989;|&#10060;|&#10060;|&#10060;|&#9989;|&#9989;|\nLow Cost|&#9989;|&#9989;|&#9989;|&#10060;|&#10060;|&#10060;|\nQuantified performance over time|&#9989;|&#10060;|&#10060;|&#10060;|&#10060;|&#10060;|\nEasy Replaceability|&#9989;|&#9989;|&#9989;|N/A|&#10060;|&#9989;|\nArea Coverage|&#9989;|&#10060;|&#10060;|&#10060;|&#9989;|&#9989;|\nDurability (>50k contacts)|&#9989;|?|&#10060;|&#9989;|?|?|\n\n### Novelty: \n\nBut what about novelty. Reviewers and AC are right (a) Magnetic skins and other sensors have existed. While we do provide some novelty in fabrication, is it novel enough?\n(b) self-supervised learning, multi-task learning has existed and there are so many papers. Is there any novelty in learning? So, where does our novelty lie? \n\nFirst, if this is the yardstick and way we evaluate papers, then award-winning paper [6] should not be novel and should have been rejected. If you look at [6], the network architecture was not new (it was standard ImageNet architecture). So no novelty on the learning side. From a robotics perspective, grasping open-loop experiments was not novel or something to rave about. The novelty of the paper lies in the intersection of Deep Learning and Physical Robots. And it spurned so much followup research. Papers that cross traditional boundaries have a negative bias when judged by individual communities but their novelty lies in the way they bring two fields together. \n\nWe believe our novelty is the intersection of self-supervised learning and soft sensing. It might seem that there are already papers at the intersection of tactile and learning but we want to highlight that all those papers are at the application interface -- the sensors are already working and to make the application work (marble juggling etc.) learning is used. On the other hand, in our case, the sensor signal by itself is not that meaningful and useful. The learned models fail to reproduce across multiple fabrications and over wear and tear. It is the large-scale and self-supervised learning that actually makes the sensor usable. \n\nTherefore, our core contribution is to advocate the use of inexpensive materials and low-form factor sensing but overcome wear-tear and fabrication issues via use of large-scale and self-supervised learning. More specifically, \n\n1. Our paper introduces novel fabrication techniques to reduce the thickness, introduce variable form factors [by using mm particles] and reduce noise signal. \n2. Our paper is the first to perform large-scale empirical analysis to understand the relationship between wear/tear and learned models.\n3. Our paper is first to demonstrate that fabrication issues and inconsistencies can be dealt with via a simple self-supervised scheme and a few hundred samples. Our SSL calibration technique could be useful for other sensors/tasks as well.\n\nBut above all, we believe our sensor is the only sensor which satisfies all the requirements to emerge as the only viable sensor for learning applications.\n\n...\n\n### Are Self-supervised results statistically significant?\n\nWe performed paired t-tests using data for \"Multi-sensor without triplet loss\" and \"Multi-sensor with triplet loss, adapted using 390 indentations\", to evaluate the statistical significance of our results. We find t=4.575 and t=4.596 for MSExy and MSEFz respectively, which are both significantly higher than t.9995=3.965 for 𝜈 = 17. This clearly highlights that our results are statistically significant.\n\n### Other significant additions (details below): \n\nWe have also added two new experiments which highlight that ReSkin can be used for shear force estimation and that self-supervised calibration works even in the wild where the skin is manually pressed to collect the data. We hope reviewers 51C5 and fsSv can look at these results along with other discussions to re-evaluate the paper and its contributions.\n\n[1] Lambeta, Mike, et al. \"Digit: A novel design for a low-cost compact high-resolution tactile sensor with application to in-hand manipulation.\" IEEE Robotics and Automation Letters 5.3 (2020): 3838-3845.\n\n[2] Donlon, Elliott et al. “GelSlim: A High-Resolution, Compact, Robust, and Calibrated Tactile-sensing Finger.” 2018 IEEE/RSJ International Conference on Intelligent Robots and Systems (IROS) (2018): 1927-1934.\n\n[3] Sundaralingam, Balakumar, et al. \"Robust learning of tactile force estimation through robot interaction.\" 2019 International Conference on Robotics and Automation (ICRA). IEEE, 2019.\n\n[4] T. Bhattacharjee, A. Jain, S. Vaish, M. D. Killpack and C. C. Kemp, \"Tactile sensing over articulated joints with stretchable sensors,\" 2013 World Haptics Conference (WHC), 2013, pp. 103-108, doi: 10.1109/WHC.2013.6548392.\n\n[5] Cheng, Gordon, et al. \"A comprehensive realization of robot skin: Sensors, sensing, control, and applications.\" Proceedings of the IEEE 107.10 (2019): 2034-2051.\n\n[6] L. Pinto and A. Gupta, \"Supersizing self-supervision: Learning to grasp from 50K tries and 700 robot hours,\" 2016 IEEE International Conference on Robotics and Automation (ICRA), 2016, pp. 3406-3413, doi: 10.1109/ICRA.2016.7487517.\n\n```\n\n Global/general Response:\n```\nDear AC and Reviewers,\n\nWe were hoping for a discussion:\n\n1. With Reviewer 51C5 in light of the new experiments and comparisons to state-of-the-art\n2. With AC with respect to our arguments for applicability to CoRL and novelty.\n3. With Reviewer fsSv in light of the comparison to others and reread of force adaptation result.\n\nWhile we haven’t had any discussions yet, we are still available to answer more questions today. We sincerely believe this paper has potential to have a big impact in the robot learning community. We will upload an updated version of the paper later today.\n\nThanks\n\nAuthors\n```\n", "role": "user" }, { "content": "I'm grateful for the authors' response. Most of my concerns have been addressed. I still support my favorable recommendation for this manuscript.", "role": "assistant" } ]
87_OJU4sw3V
CoRL 2021 Conference
Reviewer_51C5
[ { "content": "\nYou are an experienced academic paper reviewer. You will receive a conference paper in the field of computer science or AI. Please analyze the paper content carefully and output your review content.\nMore importantly, the author will further explain or refute the review comments you gave, and you need to further discuss with the author based on the author's response. \nThe purpose of this rebuttal and discussion is:\n- Clarification: During the review process, the reviewer (you) may not accurately understand the contribution or method of the paper due to unclear expression or misunderstanding of certain details. Through rebuttal, the author has the opportunity to clarify these misunderstandings and further illustrate the effectiveness of their innovations or methods.\n- Respond to criticisms and suggestions: The reviewer (you) may make criticisms or suggestions on the paper, and the author can use the discussion session to provide specific responses, explain why certain criticisms may not apply, or how to improve and optimize certain aspects of the paper.\nFinally, you and the author will work together to enhance the persuasiveness of the paper and improve the quality of the paper.\n", "role": "system" }, { "content": "Now your reviewer ID is assigned as Reviewer_51C5, and the following are the paper you need to review:\n```<<87_OJU4sw3V>>```", "role": "user" }, { "content": "Review Content: summary: The paper proposes ReSkin, an inexpensive, replaceable, and robust tactile skin based on magnetometer-based sensing mechanism and discusses learning methods for calibrating the sensor raw signals to contact localization and force prediction output across different skins and sensing boards.\n\nstrengths_and_weaknesses: Strengths:\n- The skin is inexpensive, replaceable, and robust to wear and tear. I really like how easy it is to replace the skin layer\n- The skin can sense normal forces and potentially shear forces as well (not shown in this paper)\n- The evaluation was done with a large variety of skins\n- The demonstrations were shown on a variety of applications\n\nSuggestions for improvement:\n- Clarifying contributions with respect to the state-of-the-art: There is an extensive body of work on tactile skins (both large-area and small with resistive, capacitive, magnetic, optical, and multimodal sensing etc.) for robots which have not been cited in this paper. Clarifying the contributions of this paper with respect to this extensive body of work (especially large-area skins which was one of the primary motivations of this paper ( https://spj.sciencemag.org/journals/research/2019/3018568/, https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0921889014001821, https://ieeexplore.ieee.org/document/6548392, https://ieeexplore.ieee.org/stamp/stamp.jsp?arnumber=8812712, https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S0921889016307837, https://arxiv.org/abs/1803.00628, https://link.springer.com/chapter/10.1007/978-3-319-04123-0_6, https://ieeexplore.ieee.org/stamp/stamp.jsp?arnumber=9247533 , and many more ...) and other magnetic sensing based skins that the authors have already cited such as Hellebrekers et al.,Yan et al.) would make the paper stronger.\n\n- The paper can also become stronger by discussing the limitations of this sensing skin. Is the sensing technology affected by the presence of other magnetic objects in the environment? Are multiple-touch scenarios possible with this skin (all the demonstrations and data collection were single touch)? Is there any cross-talk when multiple touch points are proximally located? While the data acquisition rate is impressive, the latency is not clear. Analyzing these effects or discussing limitations and potential solutions can make the paper more complete. \n\n- While the evaluation was done with a variety of skins and a lot of data, it is not clear what the insights from the generalization results are. The paper can benefit from details such as how do the 18 different sensing skins differ so that it’s clear what is the generalization across? Do the results generalize across different indenter sizes? In touch modality, sensing is inherently coupled to action and analyzing these effects while considering variations across parameters that affect the actions are crucial. While the results with self-supervised adaptation across multiple sensors are encouraging, in a new scenario, the fine-tuning demonstrated in the paper is done using data collected in a very controlled scenario. Is this feasible in unstructured real-world scenarios?\n\n- Has the paper considered using model-based approaches for calibration and using data-driven methods to model the residuals or unmodeled effects? In the real-world, collecting data is hard especially with contact and conditions vary widely. Having a physics-based model as a prior or to provide some structure can potentially benefit a lot during calibration in previously unseen scenarios.\n\n- Can the paper discuss how (or if) the sensing method can be extended to normal 6D force/torque sensing and shear sensing, which could be very useful in real physical interactions? This could be a strong differentiating factor with many existing large-area tactile sensing skins.\n\n- The paper should be carefully reviewed throughout for typos and word omissions. For example: Line 254: … data, and ?\n\nsummary_of_recommendation: While the paper discusses an encouraging tactile skin technology and learning-based calibration method, it is not clear what the contributions are with respect to other magnetic skins or large-area skins in general. Also, the applicability of the skin and scalability of the calibration procedure needs to be analyzed especially in the light of unstructured scenarios. This is on the way to becoming a strong paper but it needs more work at its current state.\n\n------\n\nThe rebuttal has addressed most of my concerns. I am changing my score to Weak Accept.\nissues: See “Suggestions for Improvement” section above.\nRating: 7 accept, but needs minor improvements\n", "role": "assistant" }, { "content": "Title: Response to Reviewer 51C5\nWe thank the reviewer for their detailed and constructive comments. We are pleased to report that we have done all the experiments and discussions the reviewer has asked for. This includes shear force, SSL in uncontrolled setup, novelty discussion and finally the limitations. We will include all these in the final version of the paper. As reviewer points out that with these changes, it will be a strong paper -- we hope with these changes the reviewer can confirm and update the rating accordingly.\n1. __Clarifying contributions with respect to state of the art:__\nThe authors agree the paper would benefit from more comparison to related works and clearly outlining novelty. Please see the main comment to AC for discussion on novelty and how we believe our sensor is the top viable option for robot sensing.\n 1. Unlike resistive and capacitive sensors, magnetic and optical tactile sensors do not need to sequentially sample each module to create a full tactile reading. Due to the common grid-like or array-like layout of resistive and capacitive sensors, there are many wires that are required to measure the response. This makes them too fragile and difficult to scale up for robotic sensing. \n\n 2. Optical sensors, such as GelSight and other gelsight-based sensors (GelSlim[1], Gelsight Wedge[2], OmniTac[3] etc), use cameras to image the surface, which doesn’t require any wires. However, cameras require a minimum distance to the surface which results in bulky tactile modules as laid out in the table above. Furthermore, this can result in sensors with a fixed form factor that are very difficult to scale up to other shapes and sizes. The size of the sensor can make it necessary to have intrusive tactile solutions [4] which are often undesirable.\n\n 3. Magnetic sensors: ReSkin differs from previous magnetic tactile sensors by using magnetic microparticles over embedded magnets. This allows reskin to be molded and cut into more diverse shapes, especially thinner. The magnetic microparticles give a weaker flux signal, which is paired with a more sensitive magnetometer. In this way, ReSkin will not affect the objects handled during use. Additionally, ReSkin presents a model that has been generalized and characterized across 18 samples, instead of the typical 1 or assumed 1.\n\n 4. Large area skins: There have been a number of attempts towards developing a large area skin: a number of them based on conductive fabrics with piezoresistive layers[5,6,8] and a few others based on rigid taxels[7] and optical sensors[4]. A number of these solutions however, lack shear sensing capabilities[6,7,8] and conformal contact[7]. Fabric-based solutions often involve a tedious manual sewing process[6] and do not address failure cases and durability. We believe that ReSkin is uniquely positioned to satisfy all of these requirements, and has the potential to be a truly scalable large, soft skin solution.\n\n2. __Limitations of the sensing skin:__\n 1. Effect of external magnetic fields: The reviewer is correct - external magnetic fields can influence sensor readings. If a strong magnet is in the direct proximity of the magnetometer, the direction of the flux will point towards it. For magnets, the sensor skin will no longer provide the data but the object itself will.\n 2. Multi-point contact: In this current work, the authors only investigated single-touch signals. However, it is possible to define multi-touch if the locations are sufficiently spaced apart (>1cm). If the two contacts are closer than that, they will be registered as one large surface touch. While this is a very interesting question to investigate, it is currently left to future work.\n 3. Latency: The latency upon applying pressure is negligible: the flux readings immediately change with the sensor deformation. Any latency is associated with the material properties, which are more present upon removing pressure. After removing the applied forces, the elastomeric skin takes time to restore to its initial resting state.\n\n3. __Generalization results:__\n 1. The 18 different sensor skins differ in many ways that are often hard to control, even in a lab environment. The skins were fabricated on different days, at different temperatures and humidities. When mixing the two-part polymer, slight differences in weight can lead to different material properties. Even at the exact same weight, the polymer cross-linking is random and can lead to variation. Adding the magnetic microparticles adds variation in the exact amount that ends up in the molds. The most important factor is magnetic microparticle distribution. The orientation of each particle to itself and others within the skin changes the flux measurement and its response to deformation. \n\n 2. For different indenters, previous work has shown that a model trained using data from one indentor can roughly generalize to larger indentors [9]\n 3. The principles demonstrated in this work are indeed from a very controlled scenario. To test the applicability of our method in a less controlled environment, we performed another experiment where we manually indent the sensor 325 times and run self-supervised adaptation using the triplet loss. We then collect test data using the experimental setup described in Section 4, to evaluate the models. The results are as follows:\n\n *Without adaptation:*\n\n Acc: 79.86%, MSE_xy: 0.676 mm2, MSEFz: 0.268 N2\n\n *With adaptation:*\n\n Acc: 84.87%, MSExy: 0.489 mm2, MSEFz: 0.192 N2\n\n4. __Model-based approaches for calibration:__ The authors have considered model-based approaches to the sensor model. We can model the skin as an elastomer loaded with rigid magnetic particles. However, these models do not account for interactions between magnetic particles. These models also need to be solved with FEA, which furthermore is time-consuming, and assumes a uniform distribution that is not accurate for the skin. Regardless, the authors agree some physics priors, perhaps a simplified physics-model or a handful or pre-solved FEA results, may greatly help constrain the prediction problem and improve results.\n\n5. __Extension to 6D force/torque sensing and shear sensing:__ The skin can sense shear force at this time. To demonstrate this, we performed another experiment with the same experimental setup. Data is collected dynamically by indenting the sensor to a certain depth and dragging it along the sensor. We move in straight lines along x and y directions (as defined by the coordinate system in Section 4) at intervals of 2 mm to cover the entire area of the sensor. This results in a total of over 350K samples. We use an 80-20 split for training and test data, with test data comprising the last 20% of all samples. We use the same network architecture presented in Section 4, predicting (x y Fx Fy Fz) instead of just (x y Fz). For this simple experiment, we get MSE for Fxy: 0.0011 +/- 0.0002 N2, without compromising on prediction of normal force or contact location. Applied shear forces went up to 1 N in each direction.\nFor torque, we would need to monitor shear forces over time to get a rotation estimate.\n\n6. __Typos and word omissions:__ Thank you for your attention to detail. The authors will carefully review the paper to remove these mistakes.\n\n[1] Donlon, Elliott et al. “GelSlim: A High-Resolution, Compact, Robust, and Calibrated Tactile-sensing Finger.” 2018 IEEE/RSJ International Conference on Intelligent Robots and Systems (IROS) (2018): 1927-1934.\n\n[2] Wang, Shaoxiong et al. “GelSight Wedge: Measuring High-Resolution 3D Contact Geometry with a Compact Robot Finger.” ArXiv abs/2106.08851 (2021): n. pag.\n\n[3] Padmanabha, Akhil et al. “OmniTact: A Multi-Directional High-Resolution Touch Sensor.” 2020 IEEE International Conference on Robotics and Automation (ICRA) (2020): 618-624.\n\n[4] L. Van Duong and V. A. Ho, \"Large-Scale Vision-Based Tactile Sensing for Robot Links: Design, Modeling, and Evaluation,\" in IEEE Transactions on Robotics, vol. 37, no. 2, pp. 390-403, April 2021, doi: 10.1109/TRO.2020.3031251.\n\n[5] Büscher, Gereon H., et al. \"Flexible and stretchable fabric-based tactile sensor.\" Robotics and Autonomous Systems 63 (2015): 244-252.\n\n[6] T. Bhattacharjee, A. Jain, S. Vaish, M. D. Killpack and C. C. Kemp, \"Tactile sensing over articulated joints with stretchable sensors,\" 2013 World Haptics Conference (WHC), 2013, pp. 103-108, doi: 10.1109/WHC.2013.6548392.\n\n[7] Cheng, Gordon, et al. \"A comprehensive realization of robot skin: Sensors, sensing, control, and applications.\" Proceedings of the IEEE 107.10 (2019): 2034-2051.\n\n[8] Joshua Wade, et al. “A force and thermal sensing skin for robots in human environments”\nRobotics and Autonomous Systems, Volume 96, 2017, Pages 1-14, ISSN 0921-8890, doi: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.robot.2017.06.008.\n\n[9] Hellebrekers, T., Chang, N., Chin, K., Ford, M. J., Kroemer, O., & Majidi, C. (2020). Soft magnetic tactile skin for continuous force and location estimation using neural networks. IEEE Robotics and Automation Letters, 5(3), 3892-3898.\n\n[10] Lambeta, Mike, et al. \"Digit: A novel design for a low-cost compact high-resolution tactile sensor with application to in-hand manipulation.\" IEEE Robotics and Automation Letters 5.3 (2020): 3838-3845.\n Global/general Response:\n```\nWe thank the reviewers and AC for their feedback. First, we agree with AC that this is not a standard CoRL paper. Therefore, we urge the reviewers and AC to give a second hard look at our paper. Before we start the rebuttal and answer individual queries, we would like to make a passionate appeal (as AC asks for it) for why we believe CoRL is indeed the right venue and why this paper has potential to make a huge impact in the CoRL community. \n\n### Context: \n\nUnlike vision, tactile perception is not the first class citizen in robotics because (a) either the sensors are too expensive (biotac) or (b) the form factor is too clumsy to measure signals in the wild (gelsight and geltip). What currently robot learning and large-scale learning are missing is richness of data which becomes supervision in itself for learning approaches. Learning approaches need an inexpensive, long-lasting and easy-to-use tactile sensor. We believe ReSkin is the only sensor that satisfies all the requirements (See below). We believe our paper has the potential to make a much bigger change in the robot learning community. And we believe the CoRL community needs to know the availability of this sensor.\n\n| | ReSkin (ours) | DIGIT [1] | GelSlim [2] | BioTac [3] | RSkin [4] | Multimodal skin [5] |\n| ----------- | :---------: | :---------: |:---------: |:---------: |:---------: |:---------: |\nType|Magnetic|Optical|Optical | MEMS | Piezoresistive fabric|Sensing chip|\nFrequency|~400 Hz|60 Hz|60 Hz|100 Hz|?|250 Hz|\nVariable Form Factor|&#9989;|&#10060;|&#10060;|&#10060;|&#9989;|&#10060;|\nLow thickness (< 3 mm)|&#9989;|&#10060;|&#10060;|&#10060;|&#9989;|&#9989;|\nLow Cost|&#9989;|&#9989;|&#9989;|&#10060;|&#10060;|&#10060;|\nQuantified performance over time|&#9989;|&#10060;|&#10060;|&#10060;|&#10060;|&#10060;|\nEasy Replaceability|&#9989;|&#9989;|&#9989;|N/A|&#10060;|&#9989;|\nArea Coverage|&#9989;|&#10060;|&#10060;|&#10060;|&#9989;|&#9989;|\nDurability (>50k contacts)|&#9989;|?|&#10060;|&#9989;|?|?|\n\n### Novelty: \n\nBut what about novelty. Reviewers and AC are right (a) Magnetic skins and other sensors have existed. While we do provide some novelty in fabrication, is it novel enough?\n(b) self-supervised learning, multi-task learning has existed and there are so many papers. Is there any novelty in learning? So, where does our novelty lie? \n\nFirst, if this is the yardstick and way we evaluate papers, then award-winning paper [6] should not be novel and should have been rejected. If you look at [6], the network architecture was not new (it was standard ImageNet architecture). So no novelty on the learning side. From a robotics perspective, grasping open-loop experiments was not novel or something to rave about. The novelty of the paper lies in the intersection of Deep Learning and Physical Robots. And it spurned so much followup research. Papers that cross traditional boundaries have a negative bias when judged by individual communities but their novelty lies in the way they bring two fields together. \n\nWe believe our novelty is the intersection of self-supervised learning and soft sensing. It might seem that there are already papers at the intersection of tactile and learning but we want to highlight that all those papers are at the application interface -- the sensors are already working and to make the application work (marble juggling etc.) learning is used. On the other hand, in our case, the sensor signal by itself is not that meaningful and useful. The learned models fail to reproduce across multiple fabrications and over wear and tear. It is the large-scale and self-supervised learning that actually makes the sensor usable. \n\nTherefore, our core contribution is to advocate the use of inexpensive materials and low-form factor sensing but overcome wear-tear and fabrication issues via use of large-scale and self-supervised learning. More specifically, \n\n1. Our paper introduces novel fabrication techniques to reduce the thickness, introduce variable form factors [by using mm particles] and reduce noise signal. \n2. Our paper is the first to perform large-scale empirical analysis to understand the relationship between wear/tear and learned models.\n3. Our paper is first to demonstrate that fabrication issues and inconsistencies can be dealt with via a simple self-supervised scheme and a few hundred samples. Our SSL calibration technique could be useful for other sensors/tasks as well.\n\nBut above all, we believe our sensor is the only sensor which satisfies all the requirements to emerge as the only viable sensor for learning applications.\n\n...\n\n### Are Self-supervised results statistically significant?\n\nWe performed paired t-tests using data for \"Multi-sensor without triplet loss\" and \"Multi-sensor with triplet loss, adapted using 390 indentations\", to evaluate the statistical significance of our results. We find t=4.575 and t=4.596 for MSExy and MSEFz respectively, which are both significantly higher than t.9995=3.965 for 𝜈 = 17. This clearly highlights that our results are statistically significant.\n\n### Other significant additions (details below): \n\nWe have also added two new experiments which highlight that ReSkin can be used for shear force estimation and that self-supervised calibration works even in the wild where the skin is manually pressed to collect the data. We hope reviewers 51C5 and fsSv can look at these results along with other discussions to re-evaluate the paper and its contributions.\n\n[1] Lambeta, Mike, et al. \"Digit: A novel design for a low-cost compact high-resolution tactile sensor with application to in-hand manipulation.\" IEEE Robotics and Automation Letters 5.3 (2020): 3838-3845.\n\n[2] Donlon, Elliott et al. “GelSlim: A High-Resolution, Compact, Robust, and Calibrated Tactile-sensing Finger.” 2018 IEEE/RSJ International Conference on Intelligent Robots and Systems (IROS) (2018): 1927-1934.\n\n[3] Sundaralingam, Balakumar, et al. \"Robust learning of tactile force estimation through robot interaction.\" 2019 International Conference on Robotics and Automation (ICRA). IEEE, 2019.\n\n[4] T. Bhattacharjee, A. Jain, S. Vaish, M. D. Killpack and C. C. Kemp, \"Tactile sensing over articulated joints with stretchable sensors,\" 2013 World Haptics Conference (WHC), 2013, pp. 103-108, doi: 10.1109/WHC.2013.6548392.\n\n[5] Cheng, Gordon, et al. \"A comprehensive realization of robot skin: Sensors, sensing, control, and applications.\" Proceedings of the IEEE 107.10 (2019): 2034-2051.\n\n[6] L. Pinto and A. Gupta, \"Supersizing self-supervision: Learning to grasp from 50K tries and 700 robot hours,\" 2016 IEEE International Conference on Robotics and Automation (ICRA), 2016, pp. 3406-3413, doi: 10.1109/ICRA.2016.7487517.\n\n```\n\n Global/general Response:\n```\nDear AC and Reviewers,\n\nWe were hoping for a discussion:\n\n1. With Reviewer 51C5 in light of the new experiments and comparisons to state-of-the-art\n2. With AC with respect to our arguments for applicability to CoRL and novelty.\n3. With Reviewer fsSv in light of the comparison to others and reread of force adaptation result.\n\nWhile we haven’t had any discussions yet, we are still available to answer more questions today. We sincerely believe this paper has potential to have a big impact in the robot learning community. We will upload an updated version of the paper later today.\n\nThanks\n\nAuthors\n```\n", "role": "user" }, { "content": "I'm grateful for the authors' response. They have adequately addressed the majority of my concerns.", "role": "assistant" } ]
87_OJU4sw3V
CoRL 2021 Conference
Reviewer_2SmQ
[ { "content": "\nYou are an experienced academic paper reviewer. You will receive a conference paper in the field of computer science or AI. Please analyze the paper content carefully and output your review content.\nMore importantly, the author will further explain or refute the review comments you gave, and you need to further discuss with the author based on the author's response. \nThe purpose of this rebuttal and discussion is:\n- Clarification: During the review process, the reviewer (you) may not accurately understand the contribution or method of the paper due to unclear expression or misunderstanding of certain details. Through rebuttal, the author has the opportunity to clarify these misunderstandings and further illustrate the effectiveness of their innovations or methods.\n- Respond to criticisms and suggestions: The reviewer (you) may make criticisms or suggestions on the paper, and the author can use the discussion session to provide specific responses, explain why certain criticisms may not apply, or how to improve and optimize certain aspects of the paper.\nFinally, you and the author will work together to enhance the persuasiveness of the paper and improve the quality of the paper.\n", "role": "system" }, { "content": "Now your reviewer ID is assigned as Reviewer_2SmQ, and the following are the paper you need to review:\n```<<87_OJU4sw3V>>```", "role": "user" }, { "content": "Review Content: summary: In this paper, the authors present a new type of low cost contact sensor based on magnetic field distortions. The core idea is to use fabricated elastomer materials with embedded magnetic particles. When the material is distorted under pressure, the relative distances between the magnetic particles will also shift. The change in the magnetic flux can be detected by an array of magnetometers. The authors used supervised training to calibrate the contact sensor, i.e. map magnetic field readings to contact location and force magnitude using a neural network. They also proposed a triplet loss to adapt their learned sensor response model to changes in the elastomer material or sensor boards without the need to use labelled new data. The authors demonstrated that their contact sensor can be used for various applications such as manipulation and locomotion. \nstrengths_and_weaknesses: The main strength of this paper includes:\n\n(1) A fabrication process to produce cheap, replaceable \"skins\" that can be used to measure contacts.\n\n(2) A learned sensor response model that maps the magnetic flux to contact forces and locations. By combining readings from multiple sensors and regularizing the training using a self-supervision loss, the model can generalize to new materials and sensor boards without complicated calibration process. \n\n(3) Can be applied to many different types of tasks. \n\nThe main limitations of the paper are:\n\n(1) Generalization to simultaneously multiple contact points. In the proposed pipeline, the authors used single point contact data (i.e. \"indentation\") to train their model. And the validation and adaptation also depends on point contact responses. This raised a question on whether/why their learned model can generalize to a multi-point contact, or surface contact situations. The deformation of the material is a nonlinear response, so one cannot just assume a simple addition of the magnetic flux happens under a continuous surface load. Needs more discussion and experiments to explain and validate the more general situation. For example, Is a ReSkin unit really measuring the center of pressure or something else?\n\n(2) Continuous adaptation. The authors claimed that when a new \"skin\" is replaced, the model can still generalize by self-supervised training using the triplet loss + old labelled data. The question is if this process will eventually produce bias overtime? For example, what happens if one swaps the elastomer 10 times? After 10 adaptations is there any \"drift\" in the model so the performance will degrade? Needs more discussion and experiments on this.\n\n \nsummary_of_recommendation: Given the broad potential application and simplicity of recalibration using self-supervision, I think the ReSkin technique and their calibration model can be potentially very useful for the robotics community in general. \nissues: See my comments in the main limitations.\nRating: 7 accept, but needs minor improvements\n", "role": "assistant" }, { "content": "Title: Response to Reviewer 2SmQ\nWe thank the reviewer for positive feedback. We answer two of the review concerns below:\n\n1. __Multi-point and large surface contact:__ Multi-point contact and/or large surface contact are possible but beyond scope of current paper. The deformation to magnetic flux relationship is non-linear but the magnetometer reads a vector sum of the full environment. The authors do believe ReSkin measures the center of pressure. Previous work [1] tested a larger indentor on small indentor dataset and it was seen to work fairly well\n\n2. __Continuous adaptation:__ We always start from the base model [since magnetometers do not degrade over time] when replacing the skin and therefore, we do not need to worry about any additional drift.\n\n[1] Hellebrekers, T., Chang, N., Chin, K., Ford, M. J., Kroemer, O., & Majidi, C. (2020). Soft magnetic tactile skin for continuous force and location estimation using neural networks. IEEE Robotics and Automation Letters, 5(3), 3892-3898.\n\n Global/general Response:\n```\nWe thank the reviewers and AC for their feedback. First, we agree with AC that this is not a standard CoRL paper. Therefore, we urge the reviewers and AC to give a second hard look at our paper. Before we start the rebuttal and answer individual queries, we would like to make a passionate appeal (as AC asks for it) for why we believe CoRL is indeed the right venue and why this paper has potential to make a huge impact in the CoRL community. \n\n### Context: \n\nUnlike vision, tactile perception is not the first class citizen in robotics because (a) either the sensors are too expensive (biotac) or (b) the form factor is too clumsy to measure signals in the wild (gelsight and geltip). What currently robot learning and large-scale learning are missing is richness of data which becomes supervision in itself for learning approaches. Learning approaches need an inexpensive, long-lasting and easy-to-use tactile sensor. We believe ReSkin is the only sensor that satisfies all the requirements (See below). We believe our paper has the potential to make a much bigger change in the robot learning community. And we believe the CoRL community needs to know the availability of this sensor.\n\n| | ReSkin (ours) | DIGIT [1] | GelSlim [2] | BioTac [3] | RSkin [4] | Multimodal skin [5] |\n| ----------- | :---------: | :---------: |:---------: |:---------: |:---------: |:---------: |\nType|Magnetic|Optical|Optical | MEMS | Piezoresistive fabric|Sensing chip|\nFrequency|~400 Hz|60 Hz|60 Hz|100 Hz|?|250 Hz|\nVariable Form Factor|&#9989;|&#10060;|&#10060;|&#10060;|&#9989;|&#10060;|\nLow thickness (< 3 mm)|&#9989;|&#10060;|&#10060;|&#10060;|&#9989;|&#9989;|\nLow Cost|&#9989;|&#9989;|&#9989;|&#10060;|&#10060;|&#10060;|\nQuantified performance over time|&#9989;|&#10060;|&#10060;|&#10060;|&#10060;|&#10060;|\nEasy Replaceability|&#9989;|&#9989;|&#9989;|N/A|&#10060;|&#9989;|\nArea Coverage|&#9989;|&#10060;|&#10060;|&#10060;|&#9989;|&#9989;|\nDurability (>50k contacts)|&#9989;|?|&#10060;|&#9989;|?|?|\n\n### Novelty: \n\nBut what about novelty. Reviewers and AC are right (a) Magnetic skins and other sensors have existed. While we do provide some novelty in fabrication, is it novel enough?\n(b) self-supervised learning, multi-task learning has existed and there are so many papers. Is there any novelty in learning? So, where does our novelty lie? \n\nFirst, if this is the yardstick and way we evaluate papers, then award-winning paper [6] should not be novel and should have been rejected. If you look at [6], the network architecture was not new (it was standard ImageNet architecture). So no novelty on the learning side. From a robotics perspective, grasping open-loop experiments was not novel or something to rave about. The novelty of the paper lies in the intersection of Deep Learning and Physical Robots. And it spurned so much followup research. Papers that cross traditional boundaries have a negative bias when judged by individual communities but their novelty lies in the way they bring two fields together. \n\nWe believe our novelty is the intersection of self-supervised learning and soft sensing. It might seem that there are already papers at the intersection of tactile and learning but we want to highlight that all those papers are at the application interface -- the sensors are already working and to make the application work (marble juggling etc.) learning is used. On the other hand, in our case, the sensor signal by itself is not that meaningful and useful. The learned models fail to reproduce across multiple fabrications and over wear and tear. It is the large-scale and self-supervised learning that actually makes the sensor usable. \n\nTherefore, our core contribution is to advocate the use of inexpensive materials and low-form factor sensing but overcome wear-tear and fabrication issues via use of large-scale and self-supervised learning. More specifically, \n\n1. Our paper introduces novel fabrication techniques to reduce the thickness, introduce variable form factors [by using mm particles] and reduce noise signal. \n2. Our paper is the first to perform large-scale empirical analysis to understand the relationship between wear/tear and learned models.\n3. Our paper is first to demonstrate that fabrication issues and inconsistencies can be dealt with via a simple self-supervised scheme and a few hundred samples. Our SSL calibration technique could be useful for other sensors/tasks as well.\n\nBut above all, we believe our sensor is the only sensor which satisfies all the requirements to emerge as the only viable sensor for learning applications.\n\n...\n\n### Are Self-supervised results statistically significant?\n\nWe performed paired t-tests using data for \"Multi-sensor without triplet loss\" and \"Multi-sensor with triplet loss, adapted using 390 indentations\", to evaluate the statistical significance of our results. We find t=4.575 and t=4.596 for MSExy and MSEFz respectively, which are both significantly higher than t.9995=3.965 for 𝜈 = 17. This clearly highlights that our results are statistically significant.\n\n### Other significant additions (details below): \n\nWe have also added two new experiments which highlight that ReSkin can be used for shear force estimation and that self-supervised calibration works even in the wild where the skin is manually pressed to collect the data. We hope reviewers 51C5 and fsSv can look at these results along with other discussions to re-evaluate the paper and its contributions.\n\n[1] Lambeta, Mike, et al. \"Digit: A novel design for a low-cost compact high-resolution tactile sensor with application to in-hand manipulation.\" IEEE Robotics and Automation Letters 5.3 (2020): 3838-3845.\n\n[2] Donlon, Elliott et al. “GelSlim: A High-Resolution, Compact, Robust, and Calibrated Tactile-sensing Finger.” 2018 IEEE/RSJ International Conference on Intelligent Robots and Systems (IROS) (2018): 1927-1934.\n\n[3] Sundaralingam, Balakumar, et al. \"Robust learning of tactile force estimation through robot interaction.\" 2019 International Conference on Robotics and Automation (ICRA). IEEE, 2019.\n\n[4] T. Bhattacharjee, A. Jain, S. Vaish, M. D. Killpack and C. C. Kemp, \"Tactile sensing over articulated joints with stretchable sensors,\" 2013 World Haptics Conference (WHC), 2013, pp. 103-108, doi: 10.1109/WHC.2013.6548392.\n\n[5] Cheng, Gordon, et al. \"A comprehensive realization of robot skin: Sensors, sensing, control, and applications.\" Proceedings of the IEEE 107.10 (2019): 2034-2051.\n\n[6] L. Pinto and A. Gupta, \"Supersizing self-supervision: Learning to grasp from 50K tries and 700 robot hours,\" 2016 IEEE International Conference on Robotics and Automation (ICRA), 2016, pp. 3406-3413, doi: 10.1109/ICRA.2016.7487517.\n\n```\n\n Global/general Response:\n```\nDear AC and Reviewers,\n\nWe were hoping for a discussion:\n\n1. With Reviewer 51C5 in light of the new experiments and comparisons to state-of-the-art\n2. With AC with respect to our arguments for applicability to CoRL and novelty.\n3. With Reviewer fsSv in light of the comparison to others and reread of force adaptation result.\n\nWhile we haven’t had any discussions yet, we are still available to answer more questions today. We sincerely believe this paper has potential to have a big impact in the robot learning community. We will upload an updated version of the paper later today.\n\nThanks\n\nAuthors\n```\n", "role": "user" }, { "content": "I appreciate the authors' reply. The reply answers almost all of my questions. I uphold my recommendation to accept this paper.", "role": "assistant" } ]
8K5kisAnb_p
CoRL 2021 Conference
Reviewer_o7Dq
[ { "content": "\nYou are an experienced academic paper reviewer. You will receive a conference paper in the field of computer science or AI. Please analyze the paper content carefully and output your review content.\nMore importantly, the author will further explain or refute the review comments you gave, and you need to further discuss with the author based on the author's response. \nThe purpose of this rebuttal and discussion is:\n- Clarification: During the review process, the reviewer (you) may not accurately understand the contribution or method of the paper due to unclear expression or misunderstanding of certain details. Through rebuttal, the author has the opportunity to clarify these misunderstandings and further illustrate the effectiveness of their innovations or methods.\n- Respond to criticisms and suggestions: The reviewer (you) may make criticisms or suggestions on the paper, and the author can use the discussion session to provide specific responses, explain why certain criticisms may not apply, or how to improve and optimize certain aspects of the paper.\nFinally, you and the author will work together to enhance the persuasiveness of the paper and improve the quality of the paper.\n", "role": "system" }, { "content": "Now your reviewer ID is assigned as Reviewer_o7Dq, and the following are the paper you need to review:\n```<<8K5kisAnb_p>>```", "role": "user" }, { "content": "Review Content: summary: The paper formulates a novel approach for robust model-based learning based on control lyapunov functions (CLF) and control barrier function (CBF) in a unified framework that allows to produce a robust lyapunov-like function that certifies stability and safety for a system with unknown but bounded parameters. The construction of the Lyapunov-like function is automatically generated from a supervised learning framework. The authors show the performance of the controller compared against robust MPC formulations on 7 different plants. They show that the robust control lyapunov function based QP (rCLBF-QP) offers more reliability on the safety rate and it outperforms robust MPC in most of the cases. \nstrengths_and_weaknesses: The paper has an incremental and very clear presentation of the rCLBF, expressing theorems that provide a sound formulation of the controller. \nThe idea of providing a lyapunov-like function that produces a certificate for stability and safety together provides a better framework for learning and optimization.\nMoreover, the conditions of the theorems are used to construct a Loss function for the neural network approximator of the lyapunov-like function, leaving less design work to hand tuned parameters or functions. \n\nsummary_of_recommendation: The paper proposes a novel formulation of a unifying lyapunov-like function that provides a robust certificate for stability and safety. The formulation allows an automatic way to produce such functions via supervised learning. \nissues: The paper might benefit with more discussion about the implementation details of the neural network, like the number of train points, or the parameters a1 - a3, for instance.\nRating: 9 strong accept, excellent work\n", "role": "assistant" }, { "content": "Title: Author Response to Reviewer o7Dq\nThank you for your feedback. The request for additional implementation details regarding training was a common theme in our reviews, and we have revised our paper to include additional details. In the original version of our paper, we included some training implementation details in the supplementary materials (marked as page 12 in `supplementary_material/corl21_robust_certificates_supplementary_material.pdf`). These details include the values of $a_1$-$a_3$, as well as sensible defaults for the safety level $c$ and rCLBF convergence rate $\\lambda$. We have expanded this section (changes highlighted in blue on pages 12 and 13) to provide additional implementation details, and we have included additional details in the main body of our paper (page 5).", "role": "user" }, { "content": "Thank you for the detailed response from the authors. The reply answers almost all of my questions. I keep my recommendation for this paper to be accepted.", "role": "assistant" } ]
8K5kisAnb_p
CoRL 2021 Conference
Reviewer_JDXV
[ { "content": "\nYou are an experienced academic paper reviewer. You will receive a conference paper in the field of computer science or AI. Please analyze the paper content carefully and output your review content.\nMore importantly, the author will further explain or refute the review comments you gave, and you need to further discuss with the author based on the author's response. \nThe purpose of this rebuttal and discussion is:\n- Clarification: During the review process, the reviewer (you) may not accurately understand the contribution or method of the paper due to unclear expression or misunderstanding of certain details. Through rebuttal, the author has the opportunity to clarify these misunderstandings and further illustrate the effectiveness of their innovations or methods.\n- Respond to criticisms and suggestions: The reviewer (you) may make criticisms or suggestions on the paper, and the author can use the discussion session to provide specific responses, explain why certain criticisms may not apply, or how to improve and optimize certain aspects of the paper.\nFinally, you and the author will work together to enhance the persuasiveness of the paper and improve the quality of the paper.\n", "role": "system" }, { "content": "Now your reviewer ID is assigned as Reviewer_JDXV, and the following are the paper you need to review:\n```<<8K5kisAnb_p>>```", "role": "user" }, { "content": "Review Content: summary: This paper proposes a somewhat novel definition of a Control Lyapunov-Barrier function. Such a function is approximately synthesized by learning it as a neural network using samples drawn from a robot's state space as training data. The method is demonstrated successfully on a variety of examples of increasing complexity.\nstrengths_and_weaknesses: STRENGTHS\n- The first three sections are really well-written and easy to follow, much better than many other papers I've read\n- The core idea is clear and well-founded in controls theory; I love seeing this effort to merge controls and learning literature.\n\nWEAKNESSES\n- The proposed CLBF is not very surprising, and the paper doesn't really address the hardest parts of synthesizing such an object; I don't feel that the idea is novel enough on its own to warrant such a \"light\" discussion of the challenges (which are, to the paper's credit, clearly stated in the conclusion!)\n- The experiments section is severely lacking in explanation of how exactly the CLBF is synthesized; since this is a paper about learning a CLBF, it should explain more about learning, not just about application.\n- The proposed method could probably be compared against a couple other approaches, besides just the rather naive robust MPC in the current comparison. I'd recommend comparing against an HJB PDE method and, if possible, a GP-based safe RL method.\n\nsummary_of_recommendation: I personally don't see how this is especially different from learning a potential field or other generic barrier function style approach. Given that the core idea is the CBLF, it was surprising to me that, just using the paper, I had no clear idea of how I'd implement the proposed method. Perhaps that is just my own ignorance! But I think there are many clarifications that could be added about the proposed method to make it a much more convincing paper.\n\nUpdate (I'm leaving my previous comments unedited). The authors have addressed my concerns both in their comments and in the paper. I think the paper is much stronger now, and demonstrates an interesting advance in RL. I also must admit that I didn't carefully read the supplementary material while originally reviewing the paper! So now I will switch from \"reject\" to \"accept.\"\nissues: Here I've listed notes that I took while reading, most of which are \"issues\" but some of which are also just comments about what I enjoyed when reading the paper :)\n\nAbstract\n- Are the safety and stability guarantees DURING training, or only AFTER training?\n- Does the proposed method consider actuator limits? How does one ensure there is always a feasible safe control action available?\n\nIntroduction / Related Work\n- Fig. 1 would benefit from a bit of organization (maybe create a grid?) and some additional subtitles or labels explaining what each problem is (e.g., drone, segway, car)\n- The discussion of robust MPC is really helpful and clear\n- It's a bit odd to have just one subsection in Sec. 1\n- An additional challenge to note with CBFs and CLFs is that it's unclear if a feasible safe control is always available (i.e., is the QP always feasible?)\n\nPreliminaries and Background\n- Thank you for clearly stating the problem! So many papers fail to do this!\n- The CLBF definition is nice, but sounds very non-convex and hard to satisfy when synthesizing $V$ -- I'm really curious to see how you do it!\n- Minor typo: the subscript \"CLBF\" in the paragraph under (2) shouldn't be italicized\n- Give that CLBFs are basically a type of potential field, how do you actually ensure reachability? That is, how do you ensure the controlled system doesn't get, e.g., \"stuck\" behind an obstacle when the gradients cancel out in (1e)?\n\nRobust CLBF Certificates for Safe Control / Learning rCBLFs\n- I've had lots of reviewers complain when I put core proofs in supplementary materials. I personally think this is fine, but just be prepared for other reviewers to complain ;)\n- Is it really reasonable to consider a *convex hull* of parameters? The idea of convexity here needs some further explanation to guide reader intuition and justify this idea.\n- Fig. 2 is... not really helpful at all. I mean, there's a state, a neural network or two, and some outputs.\n- Ah, I love this idea that $\\pi_{\\mathrm{NN}}$ is used to prove that the feasible set of the QP is nonempty! Very curious to see how that works.\n- How would this method ever sample enough points in a high-dimensional state space to enable making strong claims that $V$ satisfies (1) (besides the \"easy\" claim of satisfying (1b))?\n- It might be better to use \"split\" rather than \"subequations\" for (5), since it's a single equation continued onto a second line.\n- I prefer the convention of using \"\\cdot\" instead of \"\\circle\" to represent an arbitrary argument (e.g., in where the paper explains the ReLU notation)\n- OK, so it seems sneaky that $\\pi_{\\mathrm{NN}}$ is supposed to ensure the QP is always feasible, but, at the end of the day, you have to relax the QP to make this possible.\n- It seems terrible to have to verify $V$ after training it. Was this verification actually implemented? I guess I'll find out in the next section!\n\nExperiments\n- What does \"steadily\" increasing complexity mean? Just say \"increasing complexity\" and avoid empty words!\n- I really appreciate that you also tried to implement a SOS method. They're really hard to use!\n- What hardware did you use to train your neural networks? How long did training take? Did you apply a verification method afterwards to check that the Lyapunov conditions hold? It's really odd to write a neural network training paper and then include no training results or discussion!\n- For the simpler models, it would also be good to compare against, e.g., a grid-based HJB PDE solver approach, since such methods would have similar online running rates as your proposed method.\n- Fig. 5 is fun and helpful\n\nDiscussion / Conclusion\n- Cool, the method works!\n- There are huge open questions, though! I think the conclusion does a good job of stating these questions -- but they aren't very surprising. I'm a little sad this paper doesn't do a better job of trying to address these questions, since the underlying CLBF idea isn't incredibly new or surprising.\nRating: 7 accept, but needs minor improvements\n", "role": "assistant" }, { "content": "Title: Author Response to Reviewer JDXV\nThank you for your comments; we appreciate your feedback!\n\nWe’d like to begin by providing some high-level clarification about our approach, and then address your specific concerns. We have also revised our paper and supplementary material (major changes highlighted in blue) based on your feedback, including adding additional results comparing with HJB and safe RL on a subset of our examples.\n\nDue to space constraints, we have to break up our response into a couple of comments, which follow below.\n\n### High-level clarification\n\nYou asked how the rCLBFs used in our paper differs from a potential field or generic barrier function.\n\nOn a theoretical level, CLBFs are generalizations of artificial potential fields (both the attractive and repulsive terms, just as CBFs generalize the repulsive terms of a potential field (cf. [1] below, which we now reference on page 2). On a practical level, the main difference between an rCLBF (or CLBF generally) and a potential field is that a CLBF must by definition satisfy condition (1e) --- if this condition is indeed satisfied everywhere, then there will be no local minima where the system can get stuck (the main drawback of traditional potential fields). In fact, there is some theoretical work suggesting that even if (1e) is violated by a small amount on a small enough subset of the state space, then the reachability guarantees from Lyapunov theory still apply (cf. [2] below).\n\nThere are two main differences between our rCLBFs and generic barrier functions:\n\nFirst, the rCLBF guarantees safety and stability for a range of parameter values, while generic barrier functions are specific to one set of parameters. We assume that the parameters are unknown but lie within the convex hull of a known set of points (a common example from our experiments is a hyperrectangle). The intuition for choosing this representation is that the key constraint on a CLBF-based controller (equation 2) is convex in the parameters (subject to the assumption that the dynamics are affine in the parameters, as discussed in section 3). Because of this convexity, checking equation 2 at each corner point of a polytope guarantees that it will hold continuously on the interior. This inspires the QP constraint in equation 4, which checks this constraint at each corner point of the set of unknown parameters.\n\nSecond, an rCLBF includes stability and safety guarantees in a single certificate, whereas a control barrier function guarantees safety only. A control barrier function can be combined with a standard control Lyapunov function, but the gradient from these two functions can conflict and cause the controller to get stuck. By combining safety and stability into a single certificate function, we are left with a single gradient, and we can train the rCLBF so that this gradient satisfies condition (1e). Our definition of rCLBF inherits this property from similar functions in references [26] and [27] in our paper; our specific advance over these CLBFs is the introduction of robustness and the use of neural networks to synthesize these objects. We clarify this on page 3.\n\n[1] A. Singletary, K. Klingebiel, J. Bourne, A. Browning, P. Tokumaru, and A. Ames, “Comparative Analysis of Control Barrier Functions and Artificial Potential Fields for Obstacle Avoidance,” Oct. 2020.\n[2] S. Liu, D. Liberzon, V. Zharnitsky, “Almost Lyapunov functions for nonlinear systems,” Automatica 113, 2020, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.automatica.2019.108758\n\nAdditional Comparisons to HJB and Safe RL\n-----------------------------------------------------------\n\nWe have implemented HJ and safe RL methods for the satellite and Segway examples. We chose these examples because they are a) low-dimensional and b) contain complex safe/unsafe set specifications. We did not apply HJ methods to our other examples since they are too high-dimensional (these four-dimensional examples have solution times of 3-4 hours, which would grow to >100 hours for higher dimensional systems). Results from these comparisons are included in the main paper (page 8 and figure 5). We discuss the conceptual differences between our approach and these methods here.\n\nAt a theoretical level, the basic assumptions of Hamilton-Jacobi methods differ from ours: we assume bounded parametric uncertainty, while HJ methods assume an additive adversarial disturbance. As a result, HJ methods will be conservative compared to our methods, since modelling an uncertain mass parameter (for example) will require over-approximation with an additive disturbance in the HJ framework. In addition, the controllers derived from the HJ optimal value function are themselves very conservative; typically, HJ optimal controllers do not allow the system to approach the unsafe region, even when necessary to reach the goal (i.e. HJ optimal controllers enforce a monotonically increasing safety measure).\n\nWe see these differences play out in our results. In the satellite example, the HJ controller maintains safety but fails to reach the goal, which is located near the boundary of the unsafe region (since the HJ optimal controller is not able to approach the unsafe region in order to reach the goal). In the Segway example, we were unable to synthesize a controller using HJ reachability methods, since the backwards reachable tube did not grow to include the start state with a 5 second horizon (which was sufficient for our other controllers to reach the goal). This is likely due to the conservatism induced by over-approximating parametric uncertainty with an additive term.\n\nFor our comparison with safe RL methods, we implemented constrained policy optimization (CPO). We also considered a popular GP-based safe RL method [3]; however, this work defines safety as stability in the region of attraction, where we define safety in a more general reach-avoid sense. As a result, we cannot use the method in [3] on our examples, so we use CPO instead. Of course, constrained RL algorithms like CPO can guarantee only probabilistic constraint satisfaction, but these results still provide a useful point of comparison.\n\nIn the satellite example, CPO learned a policy that reached the goal, but it did not learn to avoid the unsafe region. In the Segway example, CPO was able to learn to stabilize the Segway in the absence of any obstacles, but we were not able to learn a safe, stable policy in the presence of an obstacle.\n\n[3] Berkenkamp F, Turchetta M, Schoellig A P, et al. Safe model-based reinforcement learning with stability guarantees[J]. arXiv preprint arXiv:1705.08551, 2017.\n\n### Learning Implementation Details\n\nWe apologize for not providing a clearer picture of our implementation. Due to space constraints, our initial submission included most of the implementation details in the supplementary materials, including hyperparameter values, sampling and initialization strategies, and details about training-time relaxation of the CLBF. These details can be found in `supplementary_material/corl21_robust_certificates_supplementary_material.pdf` (starting on the first page, marked 12). In response to your feedback, we have shifted some of this material to the main paper (see page 5).\n\n### Verification and Safety Guarantees\n\nThanks for your questions about verification and safety guarantees, which we are happy to clarify here:\n\n- We are proposing a nonlinear control synthesis method, so the safety guarantees apply after training; we do not require safety guarantees during training in simulation. Unlike an RL-based approach, we use a model-based supervised learning approach by sampling points from the state space and applying the loss in equation (5) pointwise.\n\n- We discuss a few potential verification strategies in the supplementary material, but scalable verification of neural network controllers for nonlinear systems remains an open problem. In this paper, we focus on the control synthesis problem and do not attempt to exhaustively verify the learned certificates, but we do provide sampling-based evidence in that direction. Specifically, figures 6-12 in the supplementary material solve the rCLBF-QP at each point on a dense grid in a 2D slice of the state space, plotting the maximum violation of the constraints in equation (4) at each point. In some cases (the kinematic car, Fig. 6, and neural lander, Fig. 9), we found that rCLBF-QP is feasible everywhere except for a small region around the origin; intuitively, this is because it is impossible to robustly stabilize this plant at a single point when the parameters are unknown. In all other case, we found that either the QP is feasible everywhere except for a sparse set of points where the violation is small, or the QP is feasible everywhere inside the safe region but infeasible in some parts of the unsafe region. We hope that these results will help build confidence in our approach, even if they do not represent a comprehensive verification result.\n\n- The relationship between $\\pi_{NN}$ and the need to relax the CLBF-QP. The main purpose of $\\pi_{NN}$ is to act analogously to the actor in an actor-critic RL architecture (the rCLBF acts as the critic). $\\pi_{NN}$ then helps refine the rCLBF, shaping the rCLBF gradient to encourage feasibility of the rCLBF-QP. However, we observed that the learned rCLBF typically converges to a solution where the rCLBF-QP is feasible before $\\pi_{NN}$ converges. To address this mismatch, we use the training strategy described in the supplementary materials, where we solve the *relaxed* rCLBF-QP at training time, and then use that relaxation to determine which regions of the state space require additional training. In regions where the relaxation is large, we continue to use $\\pi_{NN}$ to train the rCLBF, but in regions where the relaxation is zero we do not need to train further (as long as the safe/unsafe region boundary conditions are satisfied). Once training is complete, the required relaxation for the rCLBF-QP is very small (see the previous point), but we leave the relaxation enabled with a cost penalty on the order of $10^3$ to $10^5$ to avoid runtime exceptions from our QP solver. We’ve added a discussion of this strategy on page 5.\n\nIf you have any further questions or would like to see additional changes to the paper, we'd be happy to address those before the response period closes. Please just let us know.", "role": "user" }, { "content": "Title: Response\nThanks for the clarification about your proposed CLBF! This makes a lot more sense to me now, and I better understand the novelty.\nAwesome, thank you for adding these comparisons! I specifically was hoping that you would show that the HJ method is more conservative than yours :) this is really great!\nThank you for the clarification! I feel like I understand what is going on much better now.\n\nAlso, I realize in retrospect that it is definitely fine for the supplementary material to contain all the training details. But, I'm glad you moved some of the material to the main text -- it makes the paper feel less opaque!\n\n", "role": "assistant" }, { "content": "Title: Response\nGreat! We're happy that you're happy :)\n\nThanks again for your comments throughout this process; it has definitely helped improve our paper!", "role": "user" }, { "content": "I am pleased to have had the opportunity to discuss the points above with the author, which undoubtedly enhances the strength of this paper.", "role": "assistant" } ]
8K5kisAnb_p
CoRL 2021 Conference
Reviewer_mZgd
[ { "content": "\nYou are an experienced academic paper reviewer. You will receive a conference paper in the field of computer science or AI. Please analyze the paper content carefully and output your review content.\nMore importantly, the author will further explain or refute the review comments you gave, and you need to further discuss with the author based on the author's response. \nThe purpose of this rebuttal and discussion is:\n- Clarification: During the review process, the reviewer (you) may not accurately understand the contribution or method of the paper due to unclear expression or misunderstanding of certain details. Through rebuttal, the author has the opportunity to clarify these misunderstandings and further illustrate the effectiveness of their innovations or methods.\n- Respond to criticisms and suggestions: The reviewer (you) may make criticisms or suggestions on the paper, and the author can use the discussion session to provide specific responses, explain why certain criticisms may not apply, or how to improve and optimize certain aspects of the paper.\nFinally, you and the author will work together to enhance the persuasiveness of the paper and improve the quality of the paper.\n", "role": "system" }, { "content": "Now your reviewer ID is assigned as Reviewer_mZgd, and the following are the paper you need to review:\n```<<8K5kisAnb_p>>```", "role": "user" }, { "content": "Review Content: summary: The main idea of the paper is to design feedback control systems with safety and stability guarantees by fitting robust Lyapunov/Barrier functions and policies, and then applying a standard pointwise min-norm control. The resulting controller is compared in simulation to robust linear MPC on a number of interesting examples.\n\nstrengths_and_weaknesses: Strengths:\n1) The authors are clearly well-versed in control theory. Material in Sections 1-4 provides a well-written overview of the main ideas around control Lyapunov functins (CLFs) and their close cousins the control barrier functions (CBFs). \n2) The main technical novelty is a proposed method for computing CLFs, CBFs, and policies as a supervised-learning problem, given in Section 5, although this builds fairly naturally on the contributions of citation [8] in the paper. \n3) The simulation results are interesting and demonstrate clear potential for the method. Experiments would be nice of course, but in the year of COVID it is understood that this was extremely difficult.\n\nWeaknesses:\n1) This is minor, but I think it could be more clearly stated in Definition 3 or Theorem 2 that the dynamics must be affine in \\theta for this approach to work. This is briefly mentioned at the start of Section 3 and is dismissed as not restrictive, however in many cases of interest in robotics, in order to achieve an affine parameterisation of uncertainty it is necessary to use quite conservative overparameterisations.\n2) Similarly, for parameter-dependent problems it is known that have parameter *independent* Lyapunov functions can be very conservative, however this is required for the proposed approach. The conservatism of this is not discussed.\n3) I think the main contribution of the paper is really the sampling and fitting scheme in Section 5, but the discussion of sampling is not very deep, it just states that N_train points are sampled uniformly at random from X. \n- Is X bounded? If not, how does one sample uniformly? If it is, how do we know X is robustly forward-invariant? Usually a Lyapunov function would be used to verify such a property, but this is assumed before the search for a Lyapunov function begins. \n- Why uniform sampling? The method proposed is analogous to an actor-critic algorithm in RL with the \"critic\" in this case being a CLBF, and the Lyapunov condition replacing the Bellman equation. In RL uniform sampling of the state space is rare, and sampling design is indeed fundamental to the problem of \"exploration vs exploitation\", as well as classical experimental design.\n4) I'm a little uneasy about claiming safety based on condition (3a) being satisfied only on a finite collection of sample points. The paper says \"once trained, V can be verified using...\" and gives some references. But these are quite general in nature, it is not entirely clear how they would be adapted to the present problem. Would they prove that (3a) holds globally?\nsummary_of_recommendation: Overall I enjoyed reading the paper and think it has the beginnings of a very useful approach. I have some reservations about points of detail, as discussed above, at least if the objective is for feedback systems that are really provably safe.\nissues: As above, I think the paper would be significantly improved if:\n- The technical requirements of affine parameterisation and parameter-independent Lyapunov functions were discussed more clearly\n- The question of sampling training points was clarified and explored in more detail\n- It was clarified how the learned CLBF could be rigorously verified.\nRating: 7 accept, but needs minor improvements\n", "role": "assistant" }, { "content": "Title: Author Response to Reviewer mZgd\nThank you for your feedback! We’ve revised our paper based on your comments, with major changes highlighted in blue. We’d also like to answer some of your questions directly.\n\n### Affine-parameterization\nWe have revised Definition 3 (page 4) to include the assumption of an affine parameterization. We would also like to note that our approach can also be applied in some cases where the dynamics are not affine in some parameters so long as the dynamics can be re-parameterized; for example, mass commonly enters as $1/m$, but simply treating $1/m$ as the uncertain parameter in the range $[1/(m_{max}),\\ 1/(m_{min})]$ results in a suitable affine parameterization.\n\n### Conservatism of Parameter-independent Lyapunov function\n\nYou are correct that our use of a parameter-independent CLBF introduces some bias into our control policy. The most obvious manifestation of the effects of the parameter-independent CLBF are in Section 6.2, where we attempt to track a trajectory with unknown curvature. Since this curvature is unknown, it is impossible for the controller to maintain zero tracking error (in effect, there is no single control input that renders the goal a fixed point for all possible parameter values). This steady-state error also manifests in Figure 4, and is the reason why our problem statement (Definition 1) includes some tolerance around the goal. We have added some discussion to Section 6.2 covering this issue (page 7).\n\n### Sampling Strategy\nOur choice of uniform sampling was driven by a few considerations. First, we need to ensure that points are sampled from both the safe and unsafe regions to ensure that the CLBF accurately separates these two regions (this means we cannot rely fully on a simulation-guided sampling strategy, since we need samples from the unsafe region). Second, we experimented with a hybrid sampling approach where we combined uniformly sampled points with points sampled along trajectories of the partially-trained controller, but we found that this approach did not significantly improve performance.\n\nOne strategy that we found can be helpful in some situations is to sample a subset of the training data uniformly from the region around the goal, another subset uniformly from the unsafe region, another from the safe region, and then sample the rest of the points uniformly from the state space at large. For example, first sampling 10% of the training points uniformly near the goal, then 10% uniformly from the unsafe region, then 10% uniformly from the safe region, and the remaining 70% uniformly from the entire state space. We have added some discussion of this sampling strategy in the implementation section of our supplementary materials.\n\nWe were able to sample uniformly from the state space by bounding the state space in each of our examples, and then sampling from the bounded space. To ensure that the controller did not leave the bounded region, we added safety constraints specifying that the system remain inside the training region (commonly in the form of a constraint limiting the L2 norm of the state). The full list of safety constraints for each example is given in the supplementary material, and we have added an explicit discussion of this “remain-in-distribution” safety constraint in the section of the supplementary materials covering training implementation (page 12-13).\n\n### Verification\nWe do not attempt to comprehensively verify our learned CLBF certificates in this paper, since scalable verification of neural network controllers for nonlinear systems remains an open research problem. However, we do present some preliminary results in this direction in our supplementary materials. Figures 6-12 include high-resolution plots of 2D slices of the state space for each system. For each slice, we solve the rCLBF-QP, with constraints in equation (4), at each point on a dense grid and plot the maximum violation of the rCLBF-QP constraints. For some systems, we found that the rCLBF-QP conditions hold everywhere except the region around the goal (reflecting the stead-state error we discuss above), while in other systems we found that the rCLBF-QP conditions hold everywhere except a sparse region of points where the violation is small (e.g. Fig. 8, where the maximum violation is on the order of 10^-4). To extend this approach to a comprehensive verification method, we would need to verify that equation (4) holds everywhere in the bounded state space, which (together with a safety constraint preventing the system from leaving the bounded space) would prove safety. This could be done with neural network reachability or output-optimization methods, some of which we reference in our discussion of verification strategies.\n", "role": "user" }, { "content": "Title: Response\nI thank the authors for detailed response to my comments. All the answers are reasonable and make sense, and I think it is a nice paper. I do still have some concerns about talking about \"safety and stability guarantees\" when both the sampling strategy and verification are somewhat ad-hoc and non-rigorous, but as long as these issues are acknowledged in the paper I think it is ok.", "role": "assistant" }, { "content": "Title: Response\nThank you for pointing out this issue; we agree that these are challenging issues that our approach does not fully address. We have added a paragraph on page 5 of our paper that acknowledges these issues and points the reader towards some theoretical tools that can help close the gap. The paragraph is quoted below for convenience.\n\n> It is important to note that this training strategy encourages satisfying (3a) only on the finite set of training points sampled uniformly from the state space; there is no learning mechanism that enforces dense satisfaction of (3a). In the supplementary materials, we include plots of 2D sections of the state space showing that (3a) is satisfied at the majority of points, but there is a relatively small violation on a sparse subset of the state space. Because these violation regions are sparse, the theory of almost Lyapunov functions applies [31]: small violation regions may induce temporary overshoots (requiring shrinking the certified invariant set), but they do not invalidate the safety and stability assurances of the certificate. Strong empirical results on controller performance in Section 6 support this conclusion, though we admit that good empirical performance is not a substitute for guarantees based on rigorous verification, which we hope to revisit in future work.\n\n[31] S. Liu, D. Liberzon, and V. Zharnitsky. Almost lyapunov functions for nonlinear systems. Automatica, 113:108758, 2020\n\nIntuitively, the theory of almost Lyapunov functions laid out in [31] provides support for the idea that a Lyapunov-style certificate can still provide meaningful guarantees even if the corresponding conditions are violated on a subset of the region of interest. Our motivation for including the $\\epsilon$ term in the various components of our loss function is to ensure that conditions like (3a) are satisfied with some margin, and this margin should encourage constraint satisfaction in a region around the sampled training points (due to the continuity of the network and condition 3a). Thus, our training process encourages learning an rCLBF that satisfies these conditions on a large portion of the region of interest, and we lean (admittedly informally) on almost Lyapunov theory, combined with our empirical results, to cover the gap.\n\nNone of this is to claim that our certificates are rigorously formally verified; you are right to point out this issue and we have highlighted this gap in our paper as both a shortcoming of our approach and an interesting area of future work. We simply hope to explain our reasoning process and provide some intuition for why our certificates yield good performance (in terms of safety and stability) even without formal verification.", "role": "user" }, { "content": "I am grateful for the opportunity to discuss these points with the author, which undoubtedly enhances the strength of this paper.", "role": "assistant" } ]
8ZL7Jh1r8WX
CoRL 2021 Conference
Reviewer_PvzK
[ { "content": "\nYou are an experienced academic paper reviewer. You will receive a conference paper in the field of computer science or AI. Please analyze the paper content carefully and output your review content.\nMore importantly, the author will further explain or refute the review comments you gave, and you need to further discuss with the author based on the author's response. \nThe purpose of this rebuttal and discussion is:\n- Clarification: During the review process, the reviewer (you) may not accurately understand the contribution or method of the paper due to unclear expression or misunderstanding of certain details. Through rebuttal, the author has the opportunity to clarify these misunderstandings and further illustrate the effectiveness of their innovations or methods.\n- Respond to criticisms and suggestions: The reviewer (you) may make criticisms or suggestions on the paper, and the author can use the discussion session to provide specific responses, explain why certain criticisms may not apply, or how to improve and optimize certain aspects of the paper.\nFinally, you and the author will work together to enhance the persuasiveness of the paper and improve the quality of the paper.\n", "role": "system" }, { "content": "Now your reviewer ID is assigned as Reviewer_PvzK, and the following are the paper you need to review:\n```<<8ZL7Jh1r8WX>>```", "role": "user" }, { "content": "Review Content: summary: This paper presents a method to detect OOD scenarios for robots. The method takes into account only changes that impact the robot’s performance, meaning that it neglects distribution shifts that do not affect task completion. This detection technique comes with guaranteed confidence bounds on performance, specifically on the expected cost of the policy. This bound is derived based on recently developed results on derandomized PAC-Bayes. The effectiveness of the method is shown on both simulated and real robotic experiments.\n\nstrengths_and_weaknesses: ### Strengths\nThe paper is very well written and structured. One can clearly see that the authors put a lot of care into defining everything thoroughly, and making sure that the readers do not have to go back and forth between sections. The experiments are also well designed and clearly organized. The results show an improvement over the baselines, which detect OOD even in cases with near-identical test expected cost (to the expected training cost), proving that the presented OOD detection is task-driven. \nThe task-driven formulation also helps when the robot’s sensor observations do not include possible disturbance factors as wind strength or direction.\n\n### Weaknesses\nAs already pointed out by the authors in the conclusion, when using this pipeline one still incurs the risk to fail on the test environments, which is exactly what one wants to avoid, especially when dealing with autonomous vehicles.\n\nsummary_of_recommendation: This paper presents an elegant way to detect OOD environments and training a deterministic policy with a guaranteed bound on the expected cost. When the bound is violated, it indicates that the robotic system is not able to maintain the same performance - up a threshold - on the test set.\nThey propose two methods which both work better than the presented baselines. The experiments on the drone also show that the environment is not considered OOD until the wind speed is increased to 75% of the maximum disturbance. The main advantage of their method is two fold:\n- not detecting OOD when the cost is unaffected by the changes, so in a way, not overestimating the proportion of OOD environments\n- detecting OOD in scenarios where not task-driven methods would fail, as in the wind disturbance example\n\nFor this reason, for the clarity of the exposition and for the quality of the experiments, I would recommend acceptance.\n\nissues: To better inform future practitioners, you could give more intuition on the two methods you proposed, as in, when is better to use p-values vs concentration inequalities.\nRating: 7 accept, but needs minor improvements\n", "role": "assistant" }, { "content": "Title: Response to Reviewer PvzK\nThank you for your thoughtful and positive feedback. We address your comments below. \n\n> As already pointed out by the authors in the conclusion, when using this pipeline one still incurs the risk to fail on the test environments, which is exactly what one wants to avoid, especially when dealing with autonomous vehicles.\n\nOur approach does not necessarily require the system to fail; deterioration of the costs is sufficient to perform OOD detection. Indeed, this is demonstrated by our drone experiments where we are able to detect OOD environments without collisions since we rely on a cost signal that captures distance from the obstacles. Similarly, for the grasping example, one could perform OOD detection without dropping objects if one has access to a tactile sensor -- the cost signal would then correspond to the distance of the ratio of the normal and tangential forces from the boundary of the friction cone. Analogously, a self-driving car can use its distance to nearby obstacles/agents as a cost.\n\nHowever, we do agree with the reviewer that OOD detection without performing entire rollouts in test environments is a problem of great importance for safety-critical applications and we are currently working on addressing it. The following provides an insight into our approach for tackling this challenge:\n\nTo achieve OOD detection with guaranteed false positive rate without performing entire rollouts, we are training a network that takes in a sensor measurement in a given environment and returns a prediction of the cost if the policy were to be deployed in this environment. We provide a PAC bound on the predicted cost; it is worth clarifying that the PAC bound is not on the true expected cost, but it is on the expected predicted cost for training environments. We leverage the insight that if the predicted cost for the test environments violate the PAC bound for the predicted cost on training environments, it indicates that the test environments are OOD. Finally, we note that we could perform this sort of OOD detection with a PAC bound on any scalar statistic, however, we use the predicted cost because it would allow us to embed task-relevance through the cost-predictor network. If a feature does not affect the cost of the policy, the cost predictor would ideally learn to discount it and focus on the task-relevant features.\n\n> To better inform future practitioners, you could give more intuition on the two methods you proposed, as in, when is better to use p-values vs concentration inequalities.\n\nIn our experimental implementations, both our approaches --- p-value and confidence interval (CI) on the difference between the test and the train cost --- perform very similarly. However, the two approaches have complementary interpretations and cannot be derived from one another (clarified in the paper in line 49). The p-value bounds the probability of drawing test environments with average cost larger than the observed test cost, assuming that the robot is operating in a distribution that has the same expected cost as the training distribution (i.e., the null hypothesis holds). A small p-value thus indicates an unlikely outcome (under the null hypothesis). In contrast, the confidence interval (CI) approach directly estimates the difference between the expected cost on the test distribution and the expected cost on the training distribution (if this difference is positive, we can conclude with high probability that the robot is operating OOD in a task-relevant sense). Both approaches are thus of independent interest and utility. ", "role": "user" }, { "content": "Title: Response to authors\nI thank the authors for their reply and for the additional clarifications.\nI find myself in line with Reviewer ev1V’s opinion.\nThey also pointed out a similar concern regarding the risk of failure and we received a common answer. This answer stressed the fact that it is not necessary for the agent to fail in order to detect OOD. Nevertheless, the first submitted video shows robot failure in case of strong wind disturbance. Since you need to perform entire rollouts, the probability of failure increases. This does not mean that failing is necessary to detect OOD, but that it could not be avoided - this is not ideal for safety-critical applications. \nI also had some doubts regarding missing SOTA, but I am not an expert on this field, so I would refer to the other reviewers’ opinion on this matter.\nNevertheless, I appreciate the author’s effort to clarify all the concerns and I will keep my score as it is.\n", "role": "assistant" } ]
8ZL7Jh1r8WX
CoRL 2021 Conference
Reviewer_orAU
[ { "content": "\nYou are an experienced academic paper reviewer. You will receive a conference paper in the field of computer science or AI. Please analyze the paper content carefully and output your review content.\nMore importantly, the author will further explain or refute the review comments you gave, and you need to further discuss with the author based on the author's response. \nThe purpose of this rebuttal and discussion is:\n- Clarification: During the review process, the reviewer (you) may not accurately understand the contribution or method of the paper due to unclear expression or misunderstanding of certain details. Through rebuttal, the author has the opportunity to clarify these misunderstandings and further illustrate the effectiveness of their innovations or methods.\n- Respond to criticisms and suggestions: The reviewer (you) may make criticisms or suggestions on the paper, and the author can use the discussion session to provide specific responses, explain why certain criticisms may not apply, or how to improve and optimize certain aspects of the paper.\nFinally, you and the author will work together to enhance the persuasiveness of the paper and improve the quality of the paper.\n", "role": "system" }, { "content": "Now your reviewer ID is assigned as Reviewer_orAU, and the following are the paper you need to review:\n```<<8ZL7Jh1r8WX>>```", "role": "user" }, { "content": "Review Content: summary: This paper introduces a PAC-Bayes theory-based out-of-distribution detection (OOD) framework. \nThe paper proposes to train a policy whose related expected cost on the training distribution is bounded. After training the policy, OOD on the test environments can be performed with two different, proposed methods. The paper contributions are two-fold: guaranteed confidence bounds on OOD detection and sensitivity against environmental changes which matter (i.e. which changes the expected cost under the current policy). \nstrengths_and_weaknesses: Strengths:\n\n- provided methods have a bound guarantee which is proven mathematically\n- paper is properly written, can be read fluently\n- interesting and convincing experiments\n\nWeaknesses:\n\n- I don't see any main weaknesses\n- Some more information regarding the policy training procedure would be nice (see Issues)\nsummary_of_recommendation: Even though I am not an expert in this field, I enjoyed reading the paper and learned a lot. The paper is clearly written and can be read fluently. The differences to prior work are made clear. The motivation and claims of the paper are proven via thorough mathematical derivations and experiments. \nissues: One major remark:\n\n- I think the layout of the paper was changed, especially the space between equations and text. This should be addressed. \n\nI have minor points that might be interesting to know for the reader:\n\n- It would be interesting to know if the sample complexity of the training algorithms change due to optimizing the bound/\"regularized cost\"\n\n- Theorem 1 requires the training algorithm to be deterministic, as stated in the Appendix. How does this influence the training procedure? Does this mean that usage of stochastic methods is restricted? \n\n- What exactly is meant by transforming the training procedure into a supervised learning setting for the drone experiment?\nRating: 9 strong accept, excellent work\n", "role": "assistant" }, { "content": "Title: Response to Reviewer orAU\nThank you for your positive remarks and feedback. We address your comments below. \n\n> Layout of the paper was changed especially the space between equations and text\n\nWe have fixed the layout and formatting of the paper. Additionally, to improve the flow of the paper we have moved some training-related technical details to the Appendix. We have also added further explanations and details as requested by reviewers (highlighted in blue in the revision and discussed here in our responses to reviewers).\n\n> It would be interesting to know if the sample complexity of the training algorithms change due to optimizing the bound/\"regularized cost\"\n\nThis is a very interesting topic to explore. Intuitively, we would expect the sample complexity to improve with the regularizer as it would prevent overfitting to the training dataset. Indeed, in alignment with our intuition, [43] observed better performance for policies trained with a PAC-Bayes regularizer for a grasping task. We have not deeply explored the sample complexity here since it is not the focus of the paper. Our primary use of the PAC-Bayes upper bound is to furnish a certificate of generalization which is then used for OOD detection.\n\n> Theorem 1 requires the training algorithm to be deterministic, as stated in the Appendix. How does this influence the training procedure? Does this mean that usage of stochastic methods is restricted?\n\nOn fixing the random seed, stochastic methods are in fact deterministic as the same input will always produce the same output. Hence, practically the requirement of a deterministic algorithm is not detrimental and still permits the use of stochastic methods, given that we fix the random seed a priori. We have clarified this in the paper in lines 175-177.\n\n> Some more information regarding the policy training procedure would be nice. What exactly is meant by transforming the training procedure into a supervised learning setting for the drone experiment?\n\nWe first recorded multiple rollouts of each primitive on the drone hardware. During training, which is performed entirely in simulation, the policy receives a depth map from its sensor for each environment in the training dataset. We leverage the simulation by generating a label for each depth map by recording the minimum distance to an obstacle achieved by each of the motion primitives (sampled uniformly from the set of recorded trajectories for that primitive) and passing the vector of distances through a softmax transformation. Note that we do not assume knowledge of the exact location of obstacles and record the closest distance as viewed by the robot's 120$^\\circ$ field of view depth sensor. These depth maps and softmax labels can then be used for training the prior using supervised learning (where the input is the sensor measurement, the output is a softmax vector, and we use the cross entropy loss between the softmax output and label). We have included this explanation for improved clarity of our training procedure in Appendix A.6.2.", "role": "user" }, { "content": "Title: Thanks for the response\nI appreciate that the authors addressed my questions an concerns. I will stay with my recommendation. ", "role": "assistant" } ]
8ZL7Jh1r8WX
CoRL 2021 Conference
Reviewer_ev1V
[ { "content": "\nYou are an experienced academic paper reviewer. You will receive a conference paper in the field of computer science or AI. Please analyze the paper content carefully and output your review content.\nMore importantly, the author will further explain or refute the review comments you gave, and you need to further discuss with the author based on the author's response. \nThe purpose of this rebuttal and discussion is:\n- Clarification: During the review process, the reviewer (you) may not accurately understand the contribution or method of the paper due to unclear expression or misunderstanding of certain details. Through rebuttal, the author has the opportunity to clarify these misunderstandings and further illustrate the effectiveness of their innovations or methods.\n- Respond to criticisms and suggestions: The reviewer (you) may make criticisms or suggestions on the paper, and the author can use the discussion session to provide specific responses, explain why certain criticisms may not apply, or how to improve and optimize certain aspects of the paper.\nFinally, you and the author will work together to enhance the persuasiveness of the paper and improve the quality of the paper.\n", "role": "system" }, { "content": "Now your reviewer ID is assigned as Reviewer_ev1V, and the following are the paper you need to review:\n```<<8ZL7Jh1r8WX>>```", "role": "user" }, { "content": "Review Content: summary: The paper presents a PAC-Bayes approach for out-of-distribution (OOD) detection within policy learning settings. The authors first apply derandomized PAC Bayes to train a policy, which provides a bound per hypothesis rather than averaged analysis over multiples hypothesis. Then, as a bound is provided per hypothesis, the paper proposes to check the violation of the PAC-Bayes guarantees at test time, i.e. if the PAC Bayes bound is violated, the authors attribute this to OOD scenario. Concretely, this is achieved via hypothesis testing and checking the confidence intervals. Theoretically, a bound is established for these two schemes, which holds within a pre-specified interval. The method is task driven, as the expected costs are used. Experiments with 2 simulations and 1 real robot - in particular, the drone performing vision-based obstacle avoidance - the authors validate the approach. Overall, the paper provides an interesting application of PAC-Bayes to OOD detection within the policy learning settings.\nstrengths_and_weaknesses: \n\nPros:\n\n- To my knowledge, the proposed application of PAC-Bayes to OOD detection within the policy learning settings is novel and interesting. Some of the derivation steps that the authors demonstrate, are non-trivial and thought involving.\n\n- The paper's focus on \"task-driven\" OOD detection - only figuring out the OOD samples that affect the performance of the policy - is relevant to safety-critical settings of robot learning, and the paper shows real robot experiments as well as some of the theoretical foundations associated with their method. This is likely to be appreciated at CoRL. \n\nCons\n\n- The paper has several rooms for improving the exposition.\n\nFirst, the margins seem to be somehow reduced, when compare to other CoRL submissions. This can be checked and corrected if inappropriate, during the rebuttal period. Second, while the insights are very clear, it might help to provide some remarks at the end of each theorems - ideally, in a common tongue or insights. Third, for the proofs in the Appendix, it might help to first state the proof paths, and provide the proofs, so that the work is more accessible. For the video, you may want to make it standalone. Currently, it is difficult to get the relevant information before reading the paper. For example, we see the drone crash at OOD settings, but there are no explanations.There are also minor comments which I list at the end of the review.\n\n- The comparisons to the existing approaches are kept minimal when compared to rational works on OOD detection. A compelling comparisons to other OOD methods can further show-case the strength of PAC-Bayes approaches within the considered scenario.\n\nTo back up, the paper compares to MSP - iclr 2017 and MaxLogit - arxiv 2019 (figure 3), which are both targeted for general settings, and it is unclear whether MSP and MaxLogit are the state-of-the-art alternatives. The paper should demonstrate how far the idea has advanced the state-of-the-art OOD detection literature, e.g. compared to other PAC-Bayes OOD detection methods (ref 14-16), as well as other task-driven OOD methods such as ref 18-22. \n\nThe reason for emphasizing the comparison to the state-of-the-art is that the provided bounds are statistical, and there are chances that the guarantees are violated. An interesting question is then, how meaningful it is to have such guarantees, when the resulting failures are catastrophic.\nsummary_of_recommendation: I recommend accepting this paper. The paper provides principled approach to OOD detection using PAC-Bayes bounds. It seems original, and technical quality is good - the approach is reasonably backed up by the existing theory, and the real robot experiments show-case the success of their method, which is likely to be appreciated at CoRL.\n\nMy main concern is on the clarity of presentation (which is good but still has rooms to improve - the bars are usually high with theory) and lack of rigorous comparisons to the state-of-the-art alternatives.\nissues: - eq (4) §\\hat{S}§ seems undefined.\n\n- eq (2), eq (3), eq (5), eq (6): P is undefined (though standard in PAC-Bayes, may not be for OOD detection communities).\n\n- figure 2 & 3: indicate what is better or worse, or what the data means intuitively.\n\n- other comments on writing above.\n\n- more comparisons to the state-of-the-art.\n\n- A.17 to A.20 and A.27 to A.30 needs more explanations.\n\n- figure 3 missing the plots of varying environmental difficulties and only shows wind conditions variations.\n\n- setting m bigger than 8, how does this influence the derandomized PAC Bayes? At testing, do you need a batch as well?\n\n- The paper trains a policy with derandomized PAC Bayes. Would this affect the performance of the trained policy over the previous PAC-Bayes policies OR even the state-of-the-art methods? How difficult is it to train as well? Also, how tight is the bound in practice? \n\n- In the appendix, the authors refer to different sources. For the researchers working on OOD detection, providing more background materials in the appendix can help in understanding the paper. For the researchers familiar with PAC-Bayes methods, it can help in not resorting to other papers. \n\n- An empirical validation of the proposed statistical guarantees can be meaningful, e.g. histogram analysis?\n\n\n-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------\n\nPost Rebuttal\n\n-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------\n\nI thank the authors for the detailed response. I have thoroughly read the comments from other reviewers, the author response and the revised manuscript. I am happy to see that the revised manuscript has improved in its clarity.\n\nHowever, I maintain my score; I find the paper to be a borderline due to the following reasons:\n\n- (On significance) more informative comparison to the state-of-the-art.\n\nThe provided use-case of the method is clearly on OOD detection for the policy learning, and yet, the advancements to the OOD literature is unclear.\n\nMy first point is on the unclear motivation behind the chosen baselines. As evidenced by Section 2, the authors state that the missing gaps in \"Anomaly/OOD detection in supervised learning\" is the need for the specific network outputs, e.g. softmax (classification) and perhaps covariance (regression). However, the authors still compare to the approaches for supervised learning: MSP and MaxLogit. Therefore, I found the motivation behind the chosen baselines unclear.\n\nMy second point is the need to choose other \"task-driven OOD detection approaches\" as the baselines. As evidenced by Section 2, the authors discuss other \"task-driven OOD detection\" approaches, and point out that the missing gaps are the statistical guarantees. However, the advancements to the literature is unclear as the authors do not provide any comparison to other \"task-driven OOD detection\" approaches. Therefore, I found the advancements to the state-of-the-art unclear.\n\nWhile the authors address my concerns to an extent, I still found the arguments not fully convincing. For example, the argument that MaxLogit (in 2017) has shown to outperform other alternatives is not convincing. This is because the settings of the experiments are different, and the comparisons of MaxLogit are limited to the approaches prior to 2017. Moreover, the reason behind not comparing to other \"task-driven OOD detection\" approaches is because the proposed method requires the \"roll-out\" in some test environments, which is the limitation of the proposed method over the existing methods. In this regard, the readers could appreciate more if the authors have resolved this limitation, and provided a comparison to the other task-driven OOD detection methods.\n\nThis is the reason why I rate the significance of the paper low; the paper doesnt have to outperform the other approaches, but should contain the required information for the readers to illustrate the advancements to the current approaches.\n\n- (On significance) the required roll-outs in test environments.\n\nTaking more global view, many existing approaches do not require the roll-outs in the test environments, which is the main point for developing OOD detectors (targeting at safety-critical applications). Simple examples are the baselines chosen by the authors - MSP [3] and MaxLogit [5] (and many others, e.g. reference [4, 17]). Therefore, my question still remains: how meaningful it is to have the provided method with some guarantees, when the resulting failures are catastrophic (over the existing task-driven methods despite the given drawback of the approach).\n\n- (On thoroughness) the analysis of the batch-size at testing.\n\nThe proposed method can be sensitive to the chosen batch-size at testing (as the authors provide the information). Then, perhaps, an ablation study that guides the choice of an optimal batch-size would be meaningful.\n\n- (On thoroughness) more data samples for varying environment difficulty.\n\nOnly 2 evaluation points for varying environment difficulty might also be limited in thoroughness, as oppose to more data points with wind variations. The paper could improve with more data samples for varying environment difficulty.\n\n\n-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------\n\nPost Rebuttal\n\n-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------\nRating: 7 accept, but needs minor improvements\n", "role": "assistant" }, { "content": "Title: Response to Reviewer ev1V\nThank you for your thorough review and valuable suggestions. We address your comments and suggestions below.\n\n> the margins seem to be somehow reduced, when compare to other CoRL submissions\n\nWe have fixed the layout and formatting of the paper. Additionally, to improve the flow of the paper we have moved some training-related technical details to the Appendix. We have also added further explanations and details as requested by reviewers (highlighted in blue in the revision and discussed here in our responses to reviewers).\n\n> while the insights are very clear, it might help to provide some remarks at the end of each theorems - ideally, in a common tongue or insights\n\nThank you for this suggestion. We have included remarks at the end of Theorem 2 as well to clarify its contribution.\n\n> for the proofs in the Appendix, it might help to first state the proof paths, and provide the proofs, so that the work is more accessible\n\nWe have included proof pathways in the beginning of the proofs provided in the Appendix. For your convenience, the pathways are presented below:\n\nProof pathway for Theorem 2:\n\nWe prove this theorem by considering two cases: when the PAC-Bayes cost inequality holds, i.e., $C_\\mathcal{D}(\\pi)$ $\\leq \\overline{C}_\\delta(\\pi,S)$, and when it does not, i.e., $C_\\mathcal{D}(\\pi)$ $> \\overline{C}_\\delta(\\pi,S)$; the two cases are considered in (A.7)-(A.9). In the latter case, we cannot say anything about the p-value, while in the former case, which holds with probability at least $1-\\delta$, we show in (A.10)-(A.21) that $p(S') \\leq \\exp(-2n\\overline{\\tau}(S)^2)$.\n\n\nProof pathway for Theorem 3:\n\nTo lower bound the difference between $C_{\\mathcal{D}'}(\\pi)$ and $C_{\\mathcal{D}}(\\pi)$ with high probability we obtain a lower bound on $C_{\\mathcal{D}'}(\\pi)$ which holds with probability at least $1-\\delta'$ using Hoeffding's inequality in (A.23)-(A.26). Then we use this bound with the PAC-Bayes bound (2) which holds with probability at least $1-\\delta$ to obtain (A.22) by following the steps in (A.27)-(A.32).\n\n> For the video, you may want to make it standalone. Currently, it is difficult to get the relevant information before reading the paper. For example, we see the drone crash at OOD settings, but there are no explanations.\n\nWe are creating a new self-contained video which communicates the message of the paper and better explains the hardware results. To allow more time for discussion of our responses, we are replying to these comments before the video is finished and will update the submission with the video prior to the end of the discussion period. \n\n> The comparisons to the existing approaches are kept minimal when compared to rational works on OOD detection. A compelling comparisons to other OOD methods can further show-case the strength of PAC-Bayes approaches within the considered scenario.\nTo back up, the paper compares to MSP - iclr 2017 and MaxLogit - arxiv 2019 (figure 3), which are both targeted for general settings, and it is unclear whether MSP and MaxLogit are the state-of-the-art alternatives. The paper should demonstrate how far the idea has advanced the state-of-the-art OOD detection literature, e.g. compared to other PAC-Bayes OOD detection methods (ref 14-16), as well as other task-driven OOD methods such as ref 18-22.\n\nWe believe that MSP and in particular MaxLogit are effective and widely-used baselines to compare to. In [5], the authors test MaxLogit against strong baselines and show that it greatly outperforms many existing baselines. We also compare against MSP since it is widely popular and provides a standard comparison. \n\nWe provide guarantees for task-relevant shifts (in the policy's cost) to the distribution from which test samples are drawn. The guarantees provided in [14-16] are on a somewhat different notion of OOD. These papers focus on guaranteed detection for any samples which do not come from the same distribution as the training data. Thus, we do not believe the two types of guarantees are easily reconciled or compared. \n\nA challenge with comparing against current task-driven OOD methods, which focus on reinforcement learning, is the requirement of an online reward. The problem of OOD detection within a rollout is important for safety-critical applications and work to address this will be part of future work (we expand upon this point below). \nWith such a method, comparing against existing methods for OOD detection given an online reward would be informative. \nHowever, we do not believe there is a clear way to both give task-driven OOD methods for reinforcement learning an online reward and provide a fair comparison with our method, where the reward is only received at the end of a rollout. \n> An interesting question is then, how meaningful it is to have such guarantees, when the resulting failures are catastrophic.\n\nOur approach does not necessarily require the system to fail; deterioration of the costs is sufficient to perform OOD detection. Indeed, this is demonstrated by our drone experiments where we are able to detect OOD environments without collisions since we rely on a cost signal that captures distance from the obstacles. Similarly, for the grasping example, one could perform OOD detection without dropping objects if one has access to a tactile sensor -- the cost signal would then correspond to the distance of the ratio of the normal and tangential forces from the boundary of the friction cone. Analogously, a self-driving car can use its distance to nearby obstacles/agents as a cost.\n\nHowever, we do agree with the reviewer that OOD detection without performing entire rollouts in test environments is a problem of great importance for safety-critical applications and we are currently working on addressing it. The following provides an insight into our approach for tackling this challenge:\n\nTo achieve OOD detection with guaranteed false positive rate without performing entire rollouts, we are training a network that takes in a sensor measurement in a given environment and returns a prediction of the cost if the policy were to be deployed in this environment. We provide a PAC bound on the predicted cost; it is worth clarifying that the PAC bound is not on the true expected cost, but it is on the expected predicted cost for training environments. We leverage the insight that if the predicted cost for the test environments violate the PAC bound for the predicted cost on training environments, it indicates that the test environments are OOD. Finally, we note that we could perform this sort of OOD detection with a PAC bound on any scalar statistic; however, we use the predicted cost because it would allow us to embed task-relevance through the cost-predictor network. If a feature does not affect the cost of the policy, the cost predictor would ideally learn to discount it and focus on the task-relevant features.\n\n> eq (4) $\\hat{S}$ seems undefined.\n\n$\\hat{S}$ is any dataset of cardinality $n$ drawn i.i.d. from the test distribution $\\mathcal{D}'^n$. On the other hand $S'$ is the observed test dataset which we must use for inference. We have included this clarification in lines 203-204.\n\n> eq (2), eq (3), eq (5), eq (6): P is undefined (though standard in PAC-Bayes, may not be for OOD detection communities).\n\nWe have included a more complete introduction to the posterior distribution in lines 149-150.\n\n> figure 2 and 3: indicate what is better or worse, or what the data means intuitively.\n\nWe have included the interpretation of the plots in the captions of Figures 2 and 3.\n\n> A.17 to A.20 and A.27 to A.30 needs more explanations.\n\nWe have included more detailed explanations for the equations mentioned by the reviewer.\n\n> figure 3 missing the plots of varying environmental difficulties and only shows wind conditions variations.\n\nThe hardware results for varying environment difficulty are described in the text on lines 331-333. Since there are only two data points, we did not include a plot. \n\n> Setting m bigger than 8, how does this influence the derandomized PAC Bayes?\n\nThe cardinality of the training dataset is denoted by $m$. For $m\\geq 8$, the derandomized PAC-Bayes bound presented in Theorem 1 holds. We have revised the statement of Theorem 1 to make this explicit. The larger the $m$, the tighter the PAC-Bayes bound is because the regularizer asymptotically converges to 0 as $m$ increases. For $m<8$ the result of Theorem 1 does not hold; however, this is not really a limitation because a training dataset with cardinality less than $8$ is highly unusual. We emphasize that the cardinality restriction is only on the training dataset used to obtain the PAC-Bayes bound and associated policy; the test dataset (using which OOD detection is performed) can have arbitrary cardinality (and indeed typically has small cardinality).\n\n> At testing, do you need a batch as well?\n\nTheoretically we could perform OOD detection with a single rollout instead of a batch during testing, but the detector and the corresponding bounds might be overly conservative. Hence, we use a batch during testing. \n> The paper trains a policy with derandomized PAC Bayes. Would this affect the performance of the trained policy over the previous PAC-Bayes policies OR even the state-of-the-art methods?\n\nThe derandomized PAC-Bayes bound allows us to perform OOD detection with a drastically smaller number of rollouts compared to the standard PAC-Bayes approaches (since the bound holds for a policy, not for a distribution on the policy space), thereby providing a significant advantage for OOD detection. For the manipulator, we obtained a bound of 0.1 with the derandomized PAC-Bayes compared to the standard PAC-Bayes bound of 0.07 reported in [42]; we do not have such a ready comparison available for the navigation example, but we expect the gap between the derandomized and standard PAC-Bayes to be small here as well.\n\n> How difficult is it to train as well? Also, how tight is the bound in practice?\n\nThe details of the training are provided in Appendix A.4 and A.5 and the code for the training algorithms is also provided in the supplementary material. In practice we found that the PAC-Bayes guarantees are relatively tight. The test cost $C_\\mathcal{D}(\\pi)$ is around 0.02 (estimated with $500$ held-out environments) for the manipulator while the derandomized PAC-Bayes bound is 0.1. For the navigation example, the approximate $C_\\mathcal{D}(\\pi)$ (estimated with $50,000$ held-out environments) is $0.149$, whereas the PAC-Bayes bound is $0.222$. \n\n> In the appendix, the authors refer to different sources. For the researchers working on OOD detection, providing more background materials in the appendix can help in understanding the paper. For the researchers familiar with PAC-Bayes methods, it can help in not resorting to other papers.\n\nWe have included an introduction the the PAC-Bayes framework in Appendix A.1.\n\n> An empirical validation of the proposed statistical guarantees can be meaningful, e.g. histogram analysis?\n\nWe provide a numerical validation of Theorem 3 at the end of Appendix A.6.2. Here we show that with many samples, it is possible to violate the lower bound provided by the confidence interval analysis. However, since the guarantee holds with high probability (in this case 90\\%) infrequent violations of the lower bound does not invalidate the theorem. We also show the 90th percentile line and that it is indeed below the lower bound as expected. ", "role": "user" }, { "content": "I value the authors' response. The response covers nearly all of the issues I raised.", "role": "assistant" } ]
8kbp23tSGYv
CoRL 2021 Conference
Reviewer_7L8N
[ { "content": "\nYou are an experienced academic paper reviewer. You will receive a conference paper in the field of computer science or AI. Please analyze the paper content carefully and output your review content.\nMore importantly, the author will further explain or refute the review comments you gave, and you need to further discuss with the author based on the author's response. \nThe purpose of this rebuttal and discussion is:\n- Clarification: During the review process, the reviewer (you) may not accurately understand the contribution or method of the paper due to unclear expression or misunderstanding of certain details. Through rebuttal, the author has the opportunity to clarify these misunderstandings and further illustrate the effectiveness of their innovations or methods.\n- Respond to criticisms and suggestions: The reviewer (you) may make criticisms or suggestions on the paper, and the author can use the discussion session to provide specific responses, explain why certain criticisms may not apply, or how to improve and optimize certain aspects of the paper.\nFinally, you and the author will work together to enhance the persuasiveness of the paper and improve the quality of the paper.\n", "role": "system" }, { "content": "Now your reviewer ID is assigned as Reviewer_7L8N, and the following are the paper you need to review:\n```<<8kbp23tSGYv>>```", "role": "user" }, { "content": "Review Content: summary: In the paper, authors have worked on enabling vision-based robotic systems to carry out novel manipulation tasks. With this goal in mind, authors have collected large robot imitation data with corresponding sentence instruction and human demonstration. Authors have used this data to train imitation learning agent to perform tasks in the real world. To make it possible to either use language instruction or video demonstration as input to define the task, authors conditioned policy on embedding learned from these inputs. They have also built infrastructure to collect data in an online fashion where human experts only jumped in when the policy went in the wrong direction for executing the task. They have shown that data collected in this fashion helped in executing tasks better compared to passive data.\nstrengths_and_weaknesses: Strengths\n* Collected a large amount of robot imitation data with vision and language instructions\n* Successfully able to learn policy conditioned on either vision or sentence instruction, which will generalize to novel tasks \n* Showed that language embedding pre-trained on some other task work well in conditioning imitation learning policy\n* Showed that system able to generalize to different objects as well as tasks based on language embedding\n\nWeakness\n* Incremental algorithmic improvement: Lots of research has already been done in imitation learning based on human video demonstration or language instruction. This work mainly combine both the input modality, language & vision, for conditioning the imitation learning policy.\nsummary_of_recommendation: * Collected big dateset for robot imitation learning with human video and language instructions. This dataset can be helpful to other researchers in the field of imitation learning.\n* Showed that pre-trained language embedding is good enough to encode task for imitation learning.\n* Able to show the learned system generalize well with the unseen task and objects based on language instructions\n* Able to show data collected in active manner, by involving expert human when the learned policy goes wrong, compared to passive data collection, helps in learning better policy. \n\nissues: * Author have showed that language embedding trained on some other task can be useful in conditioning the imitation learning policy, however for videos, authors have tried to learn embedding from collected video demonstration. It would interesting to know how the video embedding learned form other large video datasets works for conditioning imitation learning policy . Also large drop in the performance for unseen task based on video embedding, shown in table-3, shows that video embedding over-fitted to training videos.\nRating: 7 accept, but needs minor improvements\n", "role": "assistant" }, { "content": "Title: Response to reviewer 7L8N\nThank you for the helpful feedback in your review. We have revised the paper based on your comments (see blue text), which we believe have improved the paper. Please let us know if the revisions and following responses address your concerns or if you have any follow-up questions!\n\n> It would interesting to know how the video embedding learned form other large video datasets works for conditioning imitation learning policy .\n\nWe have added a new experiment in Appendix M, which reports performance on seven held-out tasks using a pre-trained video embedding (Miech et al., “End-to-end learning of visual representations from uncurated instructional videos”, CVPR 2020). The results are as follows:\n\n| Task | BC-0, video-conditioned from paper | BC-0 with pre-trained video embedding |\n| ----------- | ----------- | ----------- |\n| ‘place sponge in tray’ | 22% | 10% |\n| ‘place grapes in red bowl’ | 12% | 30% |\n| ‘place apple in paper cup’ | 14% | 0% |\n| ‘wipe tray with sponge’ | 28% | 15% |\n| ‘place banana in ceramic bowl’ | 7.5% | 0% |\n| ‘pick up bottle’ | 17.5% | 10% |\n| ‘push purple bowl across the table’ | 0% | 0% |\n| **average** | 14.4% | 9.3% |\n\nPre-trained video embeddings enable some generalization to held-out tasks, but do not perform quite as well as the learned video embedding in BC-0. In our visualizations, we find that pretrained video embeddings are quite similar across different tasks, which may have hurt multitask learning from those embeddings. We theorize that these pre-trained models tend to group videos more based on the background scene than based on actions taken.\n\n> Incremental algorithmic improvement: Lots of research has already been done in imitation learning based on human video demonstration or language instruction. \n\nWe agree that each isolated component of the system is not new, and that the paper’s primary contribution is not algorithmic. We clarify that there are substantial differences between this work and prior work on imitation from human video or language. Most saliently, prior conditional imitation learning works have shown generalization to novel objects [3,4] and novel descriptions of existing tasks [23,24]. However, to our knowledge, no prior imitation learning paper shows that a real robot can generalize to instructions of new tasks, including new tasks that involve previously-unseen combinations of objects in cluttered scenes.\n", "role": "user" }, { "content": "I'm grateful for the authors' response. The response addresses most of my concerns. I maintain my positive recommendation for this work.", "role": "assistant" } ]
8kbp23tSGYv
CoRL 2021 Conference
Reviewer_KYDU
[ { "content": "\nYou are an experienced academic paper reviewer. You will receive a conference paper in the field of computer science or AI. Please analyze the paper content carefully and output your review content.\nMore importantly, the author will further explain or refute the review comments you gave, and you need to further discuss with the author based on the author's response. \nThe purpose of this rebuttal and discussion is:\n- Clarification: During the review process, the reviewer (you) may not accurately understand the contribution or method of the paper due to unclear expression or misunderstanding of certain details. Through rebuttal, the author has the opportunity to clarify these misunderstandings and further illustrate the effectiveness of their innovations or methods.\n- Respond to criticisms and suggestions: The reviewer (you) may make criticisms or suggestions on the paper, and the author can use the discussion session to provide specific responses, explain why certain criticisms may not apply, or how to improve and optimize certain aspects of the paper.\nFinally, you and the author will work together to enhance the persuasiveness of the paper and improve the quality of the paper.\n", "role": "system" }, { "content": "Now your reviewer ID is assigned as Reviewer_KYDU, and the following are the paper you need to review:\n```<<8kbp23tSGYv>>```", "role": "user" }, { "content": "Review Content: summary: The main contribution of the paper is a VR based interactive imitation learning system for providing demonstrations (and feedback) to a robot. This system is used to collect a very large (> 25K) set of demonstrations across a variety of manipulation tasks. The authors then use this large set of demonstrations to train an imitation learning agent to perform these tasks (and generalize to new variants of these tasks). An important part of the system is that fact that it is interactive (the HG-Dagger component) which allows for providing feedback to the policy.\n\nOverall the paper demonstrates that with a sufficient number of demonstrations the agent is able to generalize to novel tasks with moderate success.\n\nstrengths_and_weaknesses: Overall I think that this paper can be considered as a “systems paper” where the main contribution is the interactive imitation learning system. The comments below should be considered in this context.\n\nStrengths:\nThe problem considered (language-conditioned robotic manipulation in 7-DOF) is both interesting, relevant and very challenging.\nUsing language (and to a lesser extent video) is an interesting modality for conditioning robot tasks.\nThe experimental evaluation is extensive\nThe authors are very honest about the strengths/weaknesses of their approach.\n\n\nWeaknesses:\n\nI am not sure what I have learned and/or what conclusions I should draw having read the paper. Overall I think it is accepted in the robotics community that with enough demonstrations (and a few other tricks, such as HG-Dagger, state differences as actions, etc.) you can achieve reasonable performance with an imitation learning agent. This seems to take that premise and test it out with a very large set of demonstrations on a variety of tasks. This is an interesting endeavor, but the conclusions aren’t particularly clear to me. Overall it seems that the method presented requires a very significant number of demonstrations (25K demonstrations collected over several months) to achieve moderate levels of performance (success rates are below 50% on the held-out tasks). Should we consider this as a negative result and discontinue this line of investigation? Do the authors learning/control approach might need to be reformulated instead of just “scaling up” and collecting another 25K demonstrations?\n\nThe “place the bottle in the ceramic bowl” task is an example of the very large number of demonstrations that this system requires. The single-task model trained with 1000 demonstrations was only able to achieve a 5% success rate. I think that 1000 demonstrations is quite a lot. so a system that isn’t able to learn with this number of demonstrations is a bit worrying. I think it is interesting that the multi-task model is able to achieve 50% on this task, but that relies on 25K demonstrations that took months to collect. Given the number of demonstrations required are we going to be able to scale this to get the robots to accomplish useful tasks in industrial or home settings?\n\n\nThe network architecture for the policy is simple and straightforward, which is a positive. However, coming back to the earlier point, the method is very data hungry and requires lots of demonstrations to achieve even moderate performance. The authors might consider other more data efficient approaches given the challenge of collecting robot demonstrations in the real world.\n\nIn Table 3 we see that the performance of the model conditioned on the one-hot encoding is effectively identical (40% vs. 42%) to the model conditioned on the language encoding. This makes it seem that what the language encoder is doing (at least on the train tasks) is effectively acting as a one-hot encoder. Thus is this architecture getting any value from using language? I agree with the authors that language is a flexible and general way of specifying tasks, but I would have maybe expected language to impart other benefits that would transfer across tasks in ways that one-hot encodings wouldn’t (e.g. an understanding of colors such as in the “red bowl” and “purple bowl” language instructions). I would be curious to hear the author’s thoughts on this.\n\n\nsummary_of_recommendation: Recommendation: weak reject\n\nOverall I think that the paper is well written and executed but that the underlying idea is not particularly novel and the performance of the method is not particularly good. I am not sure what exactly I learned from reading the paper. As such I am recommending weak reject, although the true rating is more somewhere in between weak reject and weak accept.\n\n\n**Updates post-rebuttal**\n\nI am updating my review to a **weak accept** (as selected in the Recommendation section) with my true rating being slightly higher than weak accept but below strong accept.\n\nThe authors have done an excellent and thorough job responding to reviewer concerns and updating the paper accordingly. I think the main improvement has been in clarifying the contribution of the work, namely a large scale empirical study. Given this I think that there is something to learn from the paper and think it merits the updated rating.\n\nThat being said I think that the actual method in question still has significant drawbacks/issues/challenges that culminate in low success rates. The approach is not the one you would necessarily take to get high reliability on a specific task, and the authors acknowledge this. The point of this paper is not to use task-specific tricks (like TransporterNetworks) to accomplish specific tasks effectively but rather to do an empirical study of a general purpose system. I also agree with the authors that the tasks and approach they are taking (e.g. continuous 7-DOF control) is very challenging. I want to make it clear that I understand this and am not trying to hold it against them for taking on this challenge and being honest about the performance of the method.\n\n\nInvestigating the relative merits of general purpose approaches (like the one presented) and more tailored/engineered solutions (e.g. TransporterNetworks) is an interesting direction for future work that I would like to see taken up and debated by the community.\n\nissues: When discussing demonstrations collected using HG-Dagger the authors should expand a bit on which policy was being executed when these HG-Dagger interventions were done. Did interventions from one-policy help a different policy to improve, or did different trained policies make different types of “mistakes”.\nRating: 7 accept, but needs minor improvements\n", "role": "assistant" }, { "content": "Title: Response to reviewer KYDU\nThank you for the helpful feedback in your review. We have revised the paper and supplement based on your comments (see blue text), which we believe have improved the paper. Please let us know if the revisions and following responses address your concerns or if you have any follow-up questions!\n\n> is this architecture getting any value from using language. I agree with the authors that language is a flexible and general way of specifying tasks, but I would have maybe expected language to impart other benefits that would transfer across tasks in ways that one-hot encodings wouldn’t\n\nThis may be an important misunderstanding. While the language encoder does not improve performance on the train tasks, it is critical to held-out task performance. The one-hot encoder cannot generalize to held-out tasks, leading to 0% performance on held-out tasks, whereas the language encoder lets us train a policy on train tasks (i.e. “place apple in metal cup”, “place eraser in paper cup”), then evaluate the policy on a held-out task (i.e. “place apple in paper cup”).\n\n> The single-task model trained with 1000 demonstrations was only able to achieve a 5% success rate. I think that 1000 demonstrations is quite a lot. so a system that isn’t able to learn with this number of demonstrations is a bit worrying.\n\nWe first clarify that this single-task approach is a baseline method that does not correspond to our system, and the inefficiency of this approach is precisely why multi-task approaches that can generalize zero-shot are important. We hypothesize that a large number of demonstrations were needed for this single-task baseline because there is a considerable degree of environment variety that is very often not present in prior works, including variation in robots, table positions, lighting conditions, object arrangements, and human demonstrators. The original paper did not do a good job at illustrating this variety, and we have revised the paper to illustrate this variety in Appendix B1 and include a new experiment as follows:\n\nThe new experiment aims to study whether the low performance of the single-task baseline in Table 4 is due to inherent sample-inefficiency of the algorithm or due to the need to generalize across a lot of variability in the training data. In a simulated version of the 21-task setup, we verify single-task policy performance on “place the bottle in the ceramic bowl'', where we can minimize noise across evaluations. When the scene is initialized deterministically with no randomization in initial object positions, just 37 expert demos are sufficient to learn the single-task policy with a maximum success rate of 97.2% (0.7). However, when only object positions (and not orientations or other factors) in the scene are randomized, a single-task BC baseline only learns a success rate of 56% (2.2) when trained on 40 expert demos.\n\n| Task | Number of Expert Demos | BC-0 Single-task Performance |\n| ----------- | ----------- | ----------- |\n| ‘place the bottle in the ceramic bowl’ (no randomization) | 37 | 97% (0.7) |\n| ‘place the bottle in the ceramic bowl’ (object position randomization) | 40 | 56% (2.2) |\n\nThese results provide some evidence to suggest that the low success rate of the single-task policies on the real robot is due to the substantial environment diversity shown in Figure 7, instead of a deficiency in the algorithm. If anything, these experiments highlight the importance of scaling imitation learning methods to the multi-task regime, if there is to be any hope of generalizing to a variety of scenarios even within a single task.\n\n> the method presented requires a very significant number of demonstrations (25K demonstrations collected over several months) to achieve moderate levels of performance (success rates are below 50% on the held-out tasks)\n\nWe emphasize that the proposed system actually **improves** data efficiency over standard single-task imitation learning: the system generalizes to entirely new tasks with zero additional robot data and requires much less data per task than a standard single-task approach that trains each task individually.\n\nWhile the success rates are not as high as some prior works, the diversity of scenarios that the robot is faced with in this paper is *substantially* higher than prior imitation learning works such as [1,2,3,4,23], including much greater variety in tasks, backgrounds, robots, and object arrangements.\n\n\n> I am not sure what I have learned and/or what conclusions I should draw having read the paper.\n\nWe have revised the conclusion of the paper to discuss the following lessons that the community can take away from the paper:\n\nThe key finding is that simple imitation learning approaches can be scaled in a way that facilitates generalization to new tasks with zero additional robot data. That is, we learn that we do not need more complex approaches to attain task-level generalization. Through the experiments, we also learn that 100 training tasks is sufficient for enabling generalization to new tasks, that HG-DAgger is important for good performance, and that frozen, pre-trained language embeddings make for excellent task conditioners without any additional training. The results also encourage future research in several directions, including improving the generalization of task conditioning and enhancing the performance of imitation learning algorithms, as low-level control errors were a bottleneck. Finally, we will publicly release the robot dataset and the model training code.\n\n> When discussing demonstrations collected using HG-Dagger the authors should expand a bit on which policy was being executed when these HG-Dagger interventions were done.\n\nWe use the best/most recent policy trained so far. New policies are trained on the aggregated dataset including interventions and redeployed periodically. We have revised Section 4 to include this information.", "role": "user" }, { "content": "Title: Reviewer Response on Language Encoding, Data Efficiency, and Method Tradeoffs\n## Language encoding\n>> is this architecture getting any value from using language. I agree with the authors that language is a flexible and general way of specifying tasks, but I would have maybe expected language to impart other benefits that would transfer across tasks in ways that one-hot encodings wouldn’t\n\n>This may be an important misunderstanding. While the language encoder does not improve performance on the train tasks, it is critical to held-out task performance. The one-hot encoder cannot generalize to held-out tasks, leading to 0% performance on held-out tasks, whereas the language encoder lets us train a policy on train tasks (i.e. “place apple in metal cup”, “place eraser in paper cup”), then evaluate the policy on a held-out task (i.e. “place apple in paper cup”).\n\nAgreed. In my view this is a sufficient justification of the value of the language encoding.\n\n## Data efficiency\n\n> We first clarify that this single-task approach is a baseline method that does not correspond to our system, and the inefficiency of this approach is precisely why multi-task approaches that can generalize zero-shot are important.\n\nThanks for the clarification, I agree that the fact that the method improves with more data (even though it is from a different task) is an interesting and valuable feature.\n\n\n> We hypothesize that a large number of demonstrations were needed for this single-task baseline because there is a considerable degree of environment variety that is very often not present in prior works, including variation in robots, table positions, lighting conditions, object arrangements, and human demonstrators. The original paper did not do a good job at illustrating this variety, and we have revised the paper to illustrate this variety in Appendix B1 and include a new experiment as follows:\n\n\n> The new experiment aims to study whether the low performance of the single-task baseline in Table 4 is due to inherent sample-inefficiency of the algorithm or due to the need to generalize across a lot of variability in the training data. In a simulated version of the 21-task setup, we verify single-task policy performance on “place the bottle in the ceramic bowl'', where we can minimize noise across evaluations. When the scene is initialized deterministically with no randomization in initial object positions, just 37 expert demos are sufficient to learn the single-task policy with a maximum success rate of 97.2% (0.7). However, when only object positions (and not orientations or other factors) in the scene are randomized, a single-task BC baseline only learns a success rate of 56% (2.2) when trained on 40 expert demos.\n\nI agree that this paper considers tasks that are substantially more challenging than prior work and that multi-task policies trained on the entire dataset are better than the single task policies trained only for a specific task (e.g. the 'place the bottle in the ceramic bowl task.'). That being said I stand by my assertion that the method is incredibly data inefficient. Let us consider the ‘place the bottle in the ceramic bowl task’ detailed in Table 4. This is a relatively simple tabletop pick and place task which is in the training set. Using 1000 demonstrations for this task, along with the entire rest of the dataset (amounting to 25K demonstrations) the method is **only able to achieve a 52% success rate.** Again I would like to ask the authors, should we consider this a positive or negative result? As a robot practitioner, if I see that a method with 1000 task specific demos + 25K multi-task demos is only able to achieve 52% on a training task this doesn’t inspire confidence that we can ever get this method to work with reasonable reliability (e.g. about 90%). The authors repeatedly state that this poor performance is not due to their method (i.e. specific policy parameterization) but rather the difficulty/variety of the task. So I would like to know, what do the authors think we need to get this method to somewhere in the 80-90% range? Do we need 2000 task-specific demos and 50K multi-task demos, 100K, etc.? \n\nThis method is attempting to do imitation learning with continuous 7-DOF control and I recognize that this is a difficult problem. I guess my question is whether this is the problem we should be solving given the difficulty and relative data inefficiency of the method? An alternative approach, which makes many simplifications but also achieves incredible data efficiency, is TransporterNetworks (Zeng et. al.). My intuition is that TransporterNetworks could solve the `place the bottle in the ceramic bowl` task quite effectively with 1000 demonstrations. TransporterNetworks takes advantage of robot-to-camera calibration, pick and place primitives, spatial equivariance etc. all of which allow it to achieve good data efficiency and real world performance. How do the authors view the tradeoff between a general approach such as theirs (e.g. 7-DOF continuous control, no robot camera calibration, etc.) with a more tailored/optimized approach (such as TransporterNetworks)?\n\n\n> However, when only object positions (and not orientations or other factors) in the scene are randomized, a single-task BC baseline only learns a success rate of 56% (2.2) when trained on 40 expert demos.\n\nI agree this makes the task harder. Do the authors think it is possible to deal with this via architectural/algorithmic improvements (e.g. taking advantage of some equivariance/invariance) rather than just more data?\n\n> We emphasize that the proposed system actually improves data efficiency over standard single-task imitation learning: the system generalizes to entirely new tasks with zero additional robot data and requires much less data per task than a standard single-task approach that trains each task individually.\n\nI agree with the authors on their claim that multi-task improves single-task generalization/efficiency of their method. This is not in dispute and I view it as a strong point of the paper. My point is that the method as a whole is incredibly data inefficient compared to other approaches.\n\n> The key finding is that simple imitation learning approaches can be scaled in a way that facilitates generalization to new tasks with zero additional robot data. That is, we learn that we do not need more complex approaches to attain task-level generalization. Through the experiments, we also learn that 100 training tasks is sufficient for enabling generalization to new tasks, that HG-DAgger is important for good performance, and that frozen, pre-trained language embeddings make for excellent task conditioners without any additional training. The results also encourage future research in several directions, including improving the generalization of task conditioning and enhancing the performance of imitation learning algorithms, as low-level control errors were a bottleneck. Finally, we will publicly release the robot dataset and the model training code.\n\nI agree with the authors that training on a diverse set of tasks does lead to some zero-shot generalization capability. However the general data inefficiency of the imitation learning approach leaves doubt in my mind as to whether this many demonstrations are needed to capture the semantic concepts (e.g. what “put” means or which objects words correspond to) or we need this many demonstrations so that the imitation learning controller can learn to reach to difference areas within the workspace using visual servoing (which is effectively what it is being asked to do since the policy takes an image as input). This is effectively throwing away information such as robot-camera calibration, forward kinematics etc. which could potentially make the problem easier and thus the method more data efficient if properly incorporated (again I cite TransporterNetworks as one approach that takes advantage of all these things).\n\n\nA few more questions that came up while I was re-reading the paper.\nThe method doesn’t use any proprioceptive information (as discussed in the appendix). What happens if the robot’s arm/gripper goes out of view of the camera frame during execution? Is the problem even solvable at that point?\nIs the network just expending a ton of time/effort trying to understand the mapping between its action space and what is actually going to happen in the image? Essentially it is having to learn hand-eye calibration. Is this a potential contributing factor to the data hungriness of the approach and why 25K demonstrations are needed? e.g. Moving the end-effector to a given place in the image is something that is shared across all tasks and thus maybe the robot needs this 25K dataset to learn this skill rather than needing 25K demonstrations to really learn the semantic part of the task (e.g. where to pick and place).\n\n", "role": "assistant" }, { "content": "Title: Author Response #2\nThank you for the quick response, and for acknowledging several of the clarifications and revisions! We respond to your further comments & questions below. Please let us know if these responses address your concerns about the paper.\n\n> I stand by my assertion that the method is incredibly data inefficient. Let us consider the ‘place the bottle in the ceramic bowl task’ detailed in Table 4. This is a relatively simple tabletop pick and place task which is in the training set. Using 1000 demonstrations for this task, along with the entire rest of the dataset (amounting to 25K demonstrations) the method is only able to achieve a 52% success rate. Again I would like to ask the authors, should we consider this a positive or negative result? \n\nIn light of how challenging the problem is, we view “44% success on 21 held-out tasks” as a significant positive result, particularly because of the complexity of the tasks. We make the case for that below. We disagree that the tasks are relatively simple; they also do not only consist of tabletop pick and place tasks. It’s often possible in robotics to make tasks much easier by structuring the environment carefully. Our environments are less structured, more realistic, and therefore harder:\n\n* We are training the policy to solve tasks in a variety of environment conditions, whereas many prior works evaluate models on a single robot with a fixed tabletop environment and few or no distractors [1, 2, 3, 4, 8, 17, 19, 23, 32, Zeng et al., etc]\n* Our expert demonstrations perform the task in an average of 110 timesteps, which is a challenging long-horizon problem by vision-based IL or RL standards. Supporting such task length enables our system to complete tasks such as picking up a pepper, reorienting it, and inserting it into a cup, and tasks such as picking up a brush and using it to wipe a table surface. This is more complex than the more commonly studied planar “pick and place” tasks. Many prior works on vision-based IL and RL often consider lower-frequency control with time horizons of around 10 timesteps, or even just one step [32, 33, 34, 36, 42, 43, Zeng et al., etc], and are not capable of the aforementioned tasks as a result (at least in terms of the results demonstrated in those prior papers).\n* The generic 7-DoF closed-loop action representation that we use, without any hard-coded assumptions of the pick-and-place task, makes the overall system applicable to a wide variety of skills, including those mentioned above. In contrast, e.g., to [Zeng et al.], we do not assume the task consists of a sequence of individual pick and place motions, allowing for tasks like wiping.\n* The policy is responsible not just for visuomotor control, but also for decoding the task embedding (obtained, e.g., from language commands) to perform the right behavior.\n\nGiven just how challenging the problem is and how general the system is, we believe that the zero-shot generalization performance is quite strong. (Though, there is of course plenty of room for improvement in future work.) We also believe that it is valuable to empirically validate general-purpose systems, and do not think that using a set of less restrictive assumptions should be grounds for rejecting a paper.\n\nIf our goal were to deliver a reliable industrial pick-and-place system today, we agree that this method would not be suitable (nor would many of the methods that have been published in CoRL papers). Moreover, the paper does not claim that it would be suitable for such a purpose. Our goal is to instead work towards the long-term promise of robots that can perform a variety of tasks, including tasks that they were not specifically trained to do. Obviously this paper does not fully accomplish this, but neither does any other paper – as is often the case in research. Nonetheless, we believe that this paper provides a valuable datapoint to the community towards this distant and ambitious goal.\n> the general data inefficiency of the imitation learning approach leaves doubt in my mind as to whether this many demonstrations are needed to capture the semantic concepts ... My intuition is that TransporterNetworks could solve the place the bottle in the ceramic bowl task quite effectively with 1000 demonstrations\n\nWe agree that our system requires a lot of data. Our point with the new experiments is that, because prior works (including transporter nets) typically evaluate in a single environment with very limited variation in background, object positions, table positions, distractors, etc, many prior approaches may be equally data inefficient when they are tested on environments with similar degrees of variety. Indeed, our approach can get *97% success with only 37 demonstrations* when there is no environment variety. We simply do not know the data efficiency of prior methods when substantial environment and task variety is introduced, because they do not test under such conditions.\n\nWith regard to transporter networks specifically, [this image](https://sites.google.com/corp/view/bc0-anon/transporternets) illustrates the environments considered in this paper and Zeng et al. side-by-side. The real robot experiments in the transporter networks paper involve 3 DoF control of a suction gripper with a fixed table and solid-colored background with no distractors. There is no closed loop control, just one choice for where to pick (with suction) and where to drop. In contrast, the experiments in this paper involve 7 DoF closed-loop control of a parallel-jaw gripper with varying table position, varying background, different robots, and varying distractors. The 7 DoF closed-loop control is necessary for several tasks such as “place pepper in metal cup” which involves grasping and re-orienting the pepper, and “wipe table surface with brush,” which requires tight closed-loop control. The transporter networks paper does **not** achieve such tasks on a real robot nor does it show that substantial variety in environments can be handled efficiently, hence providing little evidence that the method could solve the tasks in this paper with 1000 demonstrations. \n\n> Is the network just expending a ton of time/effort trying to understand the mapping between its action space and what is actually going to happen in the image? \n\nIt is unfortunately difficult to empirically validate how different aspects of the problem contribute to data needs. If you have any suggestions for experiments that might test this, please let us know! However, we would speculate that hand-eye coordination is not the primary bottleneck, since the system is able to learn tasks in narrow environments (which requires hand-eye coordination) using very little data, as shown in the new results in Appendix B.1. If hand-eye coordination is indeed not the primary bottleneck, as we speculate, then approaches that build in hand-eye coordination would not be significantly more efficient as the variety of environments grows.\n> Do the authors think it is possible to deal with this via architectural/algorithmic improvements (e.g. taking advantage of some equivariance/invariance) rather than just more data? ... what do the authors think we need to get this method to somewhere in the 80-90% range?\n\nWe absolutely think that architectural and algorithmic improvements, including methods that incorporate more structure as you suggest, could improve the performance of this system, without any additional data. At the same time, we also do not think that attaining 80-90% success rate should be a criteria for paper acceptance, and that this paper is a valuable contribution to the community despite success rates below 80%. (If CoRL publishes papers only if they get a success rate of 80%+, then authors will cherry-pick tasks to get a success rate of 80%+, which is not healthy for the community.)\n\nIf you want our candid opinion on how to improve the performance of the system, we think that efficient offline evaluation of multi-task, multi-environment policies remains the biggest barrier to improving task success rates. Selecting the right model or model checkpoint in a multi-task offline optimization problem is difficult because some checkpoints perform better on some tasks / scenarios and worse on others. For example, one of the checkpoints achieved an 82% (std= 9.2%) success rate on the “place the bottle in the ceramic bowl” task, but performed worse on other tasks (this result was not reported in the paper). Critically, the BC validation objective *does not correlate well with performance on the robot,* and evaluating the checkpoints on the real robot is laborious because we have to sample across many different environment configurations across multiple tasks. As a result, we believe that substantially higher performance across tasks may be possible with the same dataset if we had the capacity to efficiently tune algorithms and hyperparameters (including trying algorithms that incorporate structure!) in fully offline fashion. We hope that future work can help address this challenge.\n\n> How do the authors view the tradeoff between a general approach such as theirs (e.g. 7-DOF continuous control, no robot camera calibration, etc.) with a more tailored/optimized approach (such as TransporterNetworks)? \n\nThere are strengths and weaknesses of each approach. Transporter Networks achieve some improvements in data efficiency at the cost of being specific to semi-open-loop tabletop pick-and-place tasks with a suction cup, and being sensitive to camera calibration. If the desired problem falls under these constraints (e.g. perhaps in some factory settings), then it is an appealing approach. In contrast, our goal is to study how to build a more general-purpose system that can not only do pick-and-place, but *also* perform other skills like driving a base to open a door (see Fig 11) and wiping with a tool (see Fig 2). The use of a single RGB camera with 10 Hz 7-Dof position control ensures this generality, and we believe that the study of these kinds of more general systems is valuable to the community.\n\n> What happens if the robot’s arm/gripper goes out of view of the camera frame during execution?\nWe did not observe the arm or gripper going out of view in any of our experiments. If it did, the policy would fail, and we will discuss this as a potential limitation.", "role": "user" }, { "content": "Title: Response\n>If our goal were to deliver a reliable industrial pick-and-place system today, we agree that this method would not be suitable (nor would many of the methods that have been published in CoRL papers). Moreover, the paper does not claim that it would be suitable for such a purpose. Our goal is to instead work towards the long-term promise of robots that can perform a variety of tasks, including tasks that they were not specifically trained to do. Obviously this paper does not fully accomplish this, but neither does any other paper – as is often the case in research.\n\nI agree and thank the authors for this clarification.\n\n> Nonetheless, we believe that this paper provides a valuable datapoint to the community towards this distant and ambitious goal.\n\nI agree and have updated my review accordingly. \nI take your point on the differences between your approach and TransporterNetworks (TN). I have read both papers quite carefully and understand them well. My comment was meant to be more of a discussion starter on the relative merits/drawbacks of general purpose (e.g. 7-DOF) and specialized (TN) for accomplishing tasks (and I understand that the set of tasks they can accomplish is not exactly the same, with BC-0 encompassing a much broader variety of tasks at the expense of less data efficiency and performance).\n\n\n> It is unfortunately difficult to empirically validate how different aspects of the problem contribute to data needs. If you have any suggestions for experiments that might test this, please let us know! However, we would speculate that hand-eye coordination is not the primary bottleneck, since the system is able to learn tasks in narrow environments (which requires hand-eye coordination) using very little data, as shown in the new results in Appendix B.1. If hand-eye coordination is indeed not the primary bottleneck, as we speculate, then approaches that build in hand-eye coordination would not be significantly more efficient as the variety of environments grows.\n\nI liked the additional experiments in B.1 I agree that in the very narrow setting you can learn with limited demonstrations (97% using 37 demos in a setting with no pose variations) but then when \"objects in the scene are randomized\" the success rate drops to 52%. I am not clear exactly what was being randomized here (distractor objects, pose of toothpaste, pose of bowl, etc.). \n\nI think a good way to test the amount of data needed for hand-eye coordination is to run sim experiments on a single task simply varying the pose of objects in the scene (not adding background distractors etc.) and measure the performance as a function of number of demonstrations.\n> At the same time, we also do not think that attaining 80-90% success rate should be a criteria for paper acceptance, and that this paper is a valuable contribution to the community despite success rates below 80%. (If CoRL publishes papers only if they get a success rate of 80%+, then authors will cherry-pick tasks to get a success rate of 80%+, which is not healthy for the community.)\n\nAgreed. I have updated my review accordingly.\n\n> Critically, the BC validation objective does not correlate well with performance on the robot, and evaluating the checkpoints on the real robot is laborious because we have to sample across many different environment configurations across multiple tasks. As a result, we believe that substantially higher performance across tasks may be possible with the same dataset if we had the capacity to efficiently tune algorithms and hyperparameters (including trying algorithms that incorporate structure!) in fully offline fashion. We hope that future work can help address this challenge.\n\nI agree that this is an relevant and difficult problem that can lead to significant performance gains. It is very hard to predict performance of a BC agent by looking at training curves.\n\n", "role": "assistant" }, { "content": "Title: Thank you and response to suggestion\nThank you for thoughtfully engaging in the review process!\nThank you for the suggestion. We won’t have time to complete this experiment before the discussion ends tomorrow, but plan to add it to the next version of the paper.", "role": "user" }, { "content": "I appreciate the fruitful discussion with the author, which has positively impacted the strength of this work.", "role": "assistant" } ]
8kbp23tSGYv
CoRL 2021 Conference
Reviewer_aF8M
[ { "content": "\nYou are an experienced academic paper reviewer. You will receive a conference paper in the field of computer science or AI. Please analyze the paper content carefully and output your review content.\nMore importantly, the author will further explain or refute the review comments you gave, and you need to further discuss with the author based on the author's response. \nThe purpose of this rebuttal and discussion is:\n- Clarification: During the review process, the reviewer (you) may not accurately understand the contribution or method of the paper due to unclear expression or misunderstanding of certain details. Through rebuttal, the author has the opportunity to clarify these misunderstandings and further illustrate the effectiveness of their innovations or methods.\n- Respond to criticisms and suggestions: The reviewer (you) may make criticisms or suggestions on the paper, and the author can use the discussion session to provide specific responses, explain why certain criticisms may not apply, or how to improve and optimize certain aspects of the paper.\nFinally, you and the author will work together to enhance the persuasiveness of the paper and improve the quality of the paper.\n", "role": "system" }, { "content": "Now your reviewer ID is assigned as Reviewer_aF8M, and the following are the paper you need to review:\n```<<8kbp23tSGYv>>```", "role": "user" }, { "content": "Review Content: summary: The paper presents BC-0: a *one-shot* imitation learning system for vision-based robot manipulation; I will elaborate on the *one-shot* label (rather than the titles zero-shot) later in the review. As this is an imitation learning method, data collection is key in order to help elevate covariate shift. The data collection has two phases: (1) expert-only, where the agent is trained on full human-provided demos (from a VR system), and (2) a \"shared-autonomy\" mode, which uses HG-Dagger (where the human intervenes and temporarily take full control when they believe the policy is likely to make an error). Policy learning is done similarly to TECNets [2-3] where the paired examples of a human video/text and corresponding robot demo are trained to embed close together, while also training for a behaviour cloning loss. The action mode for the arm is 7 DoF: 6 DoF for the pose, and another for the gripper. Results show that when training on a 100-task demonstration dataset, the method generalises to 29 unseen tasks when given a single user-provided language or video commands.\n\nTLDR: It is a one-shot imitation learning system that is conditioned on either videos or natural language, where the data is collected via shared autonomy.\nstrengths_and_weaknesses: **Strengths**\n- Heavy use of real world experiments (with a caveat, see weaknesses).\n- Obvious that a lot of time and effort went into the data collection process.\n- The combination of language and video is a logical and appropriate next step from [1,2,3,4].\n- The shared autonomy data collection is a nice touch.\n\n**Weaknesses**\n- Although having real world results is great, it is also important for the sake of reproducibility, for the paper to supply some for of simulation results, perhaps even on a standard set of tasks, e.g. RLBench, MetaWorld, Robosuite, etc. This is very important for robotics, where comparing methods is difficult. \n- How does this method compare to others? The only baselines provided were ablations of their own method; the paper rightly point to a few works already in this area, and so comparison to these seems important. If someone wanted to reimplement this idea, then they could use your reported simulation results to ensure they had implemented your method correctly. \n- Following the president set by previous work [1-4], this is not zero-shot learning, and seems wrong to label the work as such. It is one-shot learning; as a demonstration must be given to give intent to the control agent. Of course, the lines become blurred when considering *only* text input to convey intent, but as the paper features an equal weighting of video intent, then it is misleading to identify the work as zero-shot. \n- The experimental results when comparing to other methods could be improved. The paper does not compare to other methods expect for ablations of itself. The paper rightly point to a few works already in this area, and so comparison to these seems important. How does this work compare to [3, 4] when trained on the same dataset (without the language component)?\n- The contributions seem minor; the work heavily uses methods from [2, 3, 4] and HG-Dagger [29]. I.e there is not too much to be gained/learned by reading this paper. \nsummary_of_recommendation: The contributions do seem minor (the work heavily uses methods from [2, 3, 4] and HG-Dagger [29]), however the work is still the first I am aware of to have the option to give either video or language intent (most use video). This, in addition to the poor reproducibility via no simulation results is the main reason for my weak accept. \n\n--------------\n\n***Post rebuttal***\n\nOverall, I am happy with the author response. After rereading, it is now much clearer what lessons the community can take away, and indeed, a study of this scale (in real world) has not been done before. I am happy to up my rating from a weak accept to a strong accept; I think many at CoRL would find this study interesting.\nissues: - Some form of simulation results; this will make reproducibility of the method easier, especially as the robot used in this paper seem like a custom robot. If someone wanted to reimplement this idea, then they could use your reported simulation results to ensure they had implemented your method correctly. \n\n**Questions for the authors:**\n- The success rate for using just video and just language were interesting. I wonder, what would be the results of supplying both at test time? I.e. receiving two embeddings z, taking the mean, and then conditioning on the control net?\nRating: 9 strong accept, excellent work\n", "role": "assistant" }, { "content": "Title: Response to reviewer aF8M\nThank you for the helpful feedback in your review. We have revised the paper and the supplement based on your comments (see blue text), which we believe have improved the paper. Please let us know if the revisions and following responses address your concerns or if you have any follow-up questions!\n\n> Although having real world results is great, it is also important for the sake of reproducibility, for the paper to supply some for of simulation results\n\nTo assist in reproducibility, we will release the full robot dataset and the training code. It is unfortunately very difficult to collect a similar breadth of demonstration data in simulation on top of the real-world efforts, but we broadly agree that simulated experiments would further enhance statistical significance and reproducibility. To that end, we modeled a simulated equivalent of the 21-task family, collected a modest number of teleoperated demos, and performed a simulated comparison to address a question from reviewer KYDU -- see Appendix B1. We plan to update the final version of the paper with additional simulated ablation studies. \n\n> How does this method compare to others? \n\nWe add a comparison to the TecNets video embedding [2,4] trained on our HG-DAgger dataset, and provide the results in the revised Appendix M. We ran the comparison on 7 held out tasks, with the results shown below.\n\n| Task | BC-0, video-conditioned | TecNets [2,4] |\n| ----------- | ----------- | ----------- |\n| ‘place sponge in tray’ | 22% | 0% |\n| ‘place grapes in red bowl’ | 12% | 20% |\n| ‘place apple in paper cup’ | 14% | 25% |\n| ‘wipe tray with sponge’ | 28% | 15% |\n| ‘place banana in ceramic bowl’ | 7.5% | 0% |\n| ‘pick up bottle’ | 17.5% | 0% |\n| ‘push purple bowl across the table’ | 0% | 0% |\n| **average, std error** | 14.4% $\\pm$ 3.5% | 8.6% $\\pm$ 4.2% |\n\nWe find that the TecNets video embedding leads to slightly worse video-conditioned performance on held-out tasks. In particular, the results show that TecNets has similar performance to video-conditioned BC-0 on the 4 held-out tasks that only use objects from the 79-task family, but that performance is worse on 3 held-out tasks that mixed objects between the 21-task family and 79-task family. Anecdotally, the TecNet training runs were less stable: in two runs only differing by random seed, one embedding collapsed and the other did not (and the table above reports performance of the training run that did not collapse).\n\n> Following the president set by previous work [1-4], this is not zero-shot learning\n\nWe have revised the paper to refer to the human video conditioning setting as one-shot, and only the language-conditioned setting as zero-shot.\n\n> The contributions seem minor; the work heavily uses methods from [2, 3, 4] and HG-Dagger [29].\n\nWe agree that the _algorithmic_ contributions are minor; however, the main contribution of the paper is not algorithmic. The main contribution of the paper is an empirical study of a large-scale system that brings together several existing components in a way that has not previously been done and at a scale that has not been done. We believe that the empirical results are of interest to the community, particularly since multi-task imitation learning methods have never, to our knowledge, been validated in robotic manipulation with this level of scale and diversity.\n\n> there is not too much to be gained/learned by reading this paper.\n\nWe have revised the conclusion of the paper to discuss the following lessons that the community can take away from the paper:\n\nThe key finding is that simple imitation learning approaches can be scaled in a way that facilitates generalization to new tasks with zero additional robot data. That is, we learn that we do not need more complex approaches to attain task-level generalization. Through the experiments, we also learn that 100 training tasks is sufficient for enabling generalization to new tasks, that HG-DAgger is important for good performance, and that frozen, pre-trained language embeddings make for excellent task conditioners without any additional training. The results also encourage future research in several directions, including improving the generalization of task conditioning and enhancing the performance of imitation learning algorithms, as low-level control errors were a bottleneck. Finally, we will publicly release the robot dataset and the model training code.\n", "role": "user" }, { "content": "Title: Reviewer Response\nThank you for your response. \n\n- I am happy with the additional sim experiments. Thank you.\n\n- Regarding the comparison to [2, 4]: Could you clarify how this was trained? In the appendix, you state: **\"First, since the pre-trained language embeddings showed considerable success, we consider a pre-trained video embedding [54] that was trained on a large set of instructional videos. Second, we also compare to the embedding approach introduced by [2], referred to as TecNets, which uses a contrastive loss between different videos and no language component.\"**\nFrom what I understand from [2], the embedding is jointly trained with the control, and not trained separately.\n\n- The additions clarifying the zero-shot language and one-shot video is much better. I would still urge the authors to somehow incorporate that you are also able to do one-shot in the title. E.g. Zero-Shot & One-Shot Task Generalization with Robotic Imitation Learning\n\n- Regarding contribution and what we learn. If this is an empirical study, then please make this more explicit in the contribution section. Right now, you have: **\"The main contribution of this work is a large-scale interactive imitation learning system that allows policies to solve a breadth of tasks, including tasks not seen during training\"**. Which implies to me an algorithmic contribution, rather than an empirical study. This could be simply changed to: **\"The main contribution of this work is an empirical study of zero-shot and one-shot imitation learning on a large-scale dataset...\"**, or similar. After rereading this and evaluating it as an empirical study, I feel much more positive about the paper, and the value to the community seems much clearer.\n\nOverall, I am happy with the author response. After rereading, it is now much clearer what lessons the community can take away, and indeed, a study of this scale (in real world) has not been done before. I am happy to up my rating from a weak accept to a strong accept; I think many at CoRL would find this study interesting. ", "role": "assistant" }, { "content": "Title: Response #2\nThank you for the quick response and further feedback!\n\n> Regarding the comparison to [2, 4]: Could you clarify how this was trained?\n\nThe comparison in the revised paper first trains the embedding with both the contrastive loss & the policy loss and then retrains the policy on top of that embedding. We suspect that joint training of the embedding and the policy without policy retraining as in [2] will perform worse because of the training instabilities that we have already observed when training the objectives separately and based on experience and iteration on BC-0. Nonetheless, we agree that it would be valuable to also evaluate a comparison to the exact training procedure from [2]. We will run this experiment and report the results in the final version of the paper (and report them in this discussion thread if time permits).\n\n**EDIT**: We have also revised Appendix M to make it more clear that the embedding is jointly trained with control, and that the policy is then re-trained on the frozen embedding.\n\n> I would still urge the authors to somehow incorporate that you are also able to do one-shot in the title. E.g. Zero-Shot & One-Shot Task Generalization with Robotic Imitation Learning\n\nWe agree that this title would better illustrate the full capabilities of the system at the cost of being slightly longer. We will consider some different alternative title options based on your suggestion and discuss with all of the authors.\n\n> If this is an empirical study, then please make this more explicit in the contribution section\n\nWe have revised the contribution statement in the paper (see blue text) to make it clear that the main contribution is a large-scale empirical study and also emphasize both the zero-shot and one-shot capabilities of the system, following your suggestion about the title:\n\n“The main contribution of this work is an empirical study of a large-scale interactive imitation learning system that allows policies to solve a breadth of tasks, including zero-shot and one-shot generalization to tasks *not seen* during training.”", "role": "user" }, { "content": "I am very happy to have the above discussion with the author, which undoubtedly enhances the strength of this paper.", "role": "assistant" } ]
8xC5NNej-l_
CoRL 2021 Conference
Reviewer_vBpT
[ { "content": "\nYou are an experienced academic paper reviewer. You will receive a conference paper in the field of computer science or AI. Please analyze the paper content carefully and output your review content.\nMore importantly, the author will further explain or refute the review comments you gave, and you need to further discuss with the author based on the author's response. \nThe purpose of this rebuttal and discussion is:\n- Clarification: During the review process, the reviewer (you) may not accurately understand the contribution or method of the paper due to unclear expression or misunderstanding of certain details. Through rebuttal, the author has the opportunity to clarify these misunderstandings and further illustrate the effectiveness of their innovations or methods.\n- Respond to criticisms and suggestions: The reviewer (you) may make criticisms or suggestions on the paper, and the author can use the discussion session to provide specific responses, explain why certain criticisms may not apply, or how to improve and optimize certain aspects of the paper.\nFinally, you and the author will work together to enhance the persuasiveness of the paper and improve the quality of the paper.\n", "role": "system" }, { "content": "Now your reviewer ID is assigned as Reviewer_vBpT, and the following are the paper you need to review:\n```<<8xC5NNej-l_>>```", "role": "user" }, { "content": "Review Content: summary: This paper aims to tackle the problem of offline reinforcement learning and presents an extension to existing methods via data augmentations. The method, S4RL: a Surprisingly Simple Self-Supervised offline RL method, assumes that the reward function is locally smooth and employs a range of data augmentation mechanisms to expand the offline dataset. The authors hope to improve the generalization ability of the RL agent in regions not well-supported by the original offline data.\n\nThe authors compare and benchmark the effectiveness of seven different data augmentation strategies from states in offline RL and then use the best-performing ones to compare against different self-supervised representation learning algorithms that have been proposed for pixel-based online RL.\nstrengths_and_weaknesses: === Strength\n\nThe proposed method, S4RL, is simple and easy to implement, making it compatible with many offline reinforcement learning algorithms that require Q-learning.\n\nThe authors show that the augmentation techniques can improve the performance over existing baselines.\n\n\n=== Weakness\n\nThis paper is not particularly novel. Augmentation is a widely-used technique in a range of applications. It is not surprising that applying data augmentation to offline RL can improve the performance in some scenarios. It would improve the significance of this paper if the authors can show some observations that are specific to offline RL. For example, what are some of offline RL's properties that make it more suitable for some data augmentation techniques and not the others?\n\nI also have concerns regarding the applicability of the proposed method. The authors make an assumption that the reward has to be smooth. However, many real-world tasks can involve discontinuous events like contacts. Considering grasping or pushing an object, the reward can be sharply different when the end effector is off by just a little bit. In cases where the end effector is close to the table, data augmentation could also lead to physically-infeasible states and incorrectly assign high value to these states. The authors may consider providing more theoretical justifications on where and when we should include the augmentation and to which extent does it help.\n\nI also have questions regarding the comparison with the baselines. CURL [1] and CQL [2] were designed or at least contain experimental results where the inputs to the agent are visual observations. What are the inputs to S4RL in each experimenting environment? Are they images or state information? The authors should include more detailed descriptions of the testing environments for the readers to better understand the context of the reported performance scores.\n\nRelated to my previous point, if the inputs to S4RL contain high-dimensional visual observations, why do the authors only apply augmentations to the state? What about the wide range of augmentation techniques that can be applied to images? If the inputs to S4RL are low-dimensional states, comparing it with techniques like CURL and CQL does not seem particularly convincing to me, as they are designed and have shown results in more challenging scenarios than this paper.\n\nTypo: the symbol for the dataset in equation 3 is not consistent with the text description.\n\n[1] Srinivas et al., CURL: Contrastive Unsupervised Representations for Reinforcement Learning\n[2] Kumar et al., Conservative Q-Learning for Offline Reinforcement Learning\n\n========\n\nPost-rebuttal\n\nI have read the reviews from other reviewers, the rebuttal from the authors, and the discussions. I appreciate the authors' efforts in providing detailed responses and the additional experiments, which have addressed my major concerns. The detailed comments from Reviewer oh9V and the revision from the authors also helped make the statements in the paper more precise at describing the contributions and related concepts.\n\nI'm now supportive of this paper to present at the conference and have updated my score from Weak Reject to Weak Accept.\nsummary_of_recommendation: I have concerns regarding the novelty and the applicability of the underlying assumptions of this paper. I also find the comparison with the baselines not particularly fair, as the baselines are designed to process high-dimensional visual observations, and this paper, S4RL, only seems to apply augmentation to the low-dimensional states.\nissues: Please see the weakness section for detailed descriptions of the issues.\nRating: 7 accept, but needs minor improvements\n", "role": "assistant" }, { "content": "Title: Thank you for your time!\nThank you for your time to review our draft! We address each point individually.\n\n> Not particularly novel… not surprising results… what are the properties of offline RL that makes it suitable for augmentation techniques?\n\n\n**The vital lesson for the community from this study is not just the novelty of yet another rl algorithmic, but a thorough analysis of data augmentations methods in state-spaces, and the unreasonable effectiveness of simple augmentations schemas in value function approximation**. \nWe have provided extensive experiments using over 35 different data distributions from 16 different environments for continuous control tasks with 3 strong baselines in a variety of settings: sparse & dense reward, easy vs hard control envs, robotics envs across a set of manipulation and locomotion tasks. \n\nOne of the major motivation and outcome of the paper is **a thorough analysis of the role of self-supervision and data augmentation techniques.** \nSimilar methods have become mainstay in computer vision and even in online pixel-based RL to an extent. \nThe valuable outcome to share with the community is that a battery of these methods do not work despite their complexity, while simpler ideas work **surprisingly robustly and consistently across many experimental domains.**\n\n\nOur framework is useful for Offline RL as demonstrated, but also in Online RL, as supported by additional experiments using a base SAC agent. We train on 3 OpenAI Gym environments @ 1M timesteps where we report the episodic rewards (the same as the ones present in the D4RL tasks). \n\nWe continue to see significant improvements in **online RL** as well. We will add these results in the experimental section in the final draft:\n\n| | SAC | SAC+S4RL-N | SAC+S4RL-Adv |\n|----------------|------|------------|--------------|\n| HalfCheetah-v2 | 9302 | **11039** | 10483 |\n| Hopper-v2 | 3341 | **3891** | 3614 |\n| Walker2d-v2 | 3620 | **4367** | 4007 |\n\n> The augmentations may lead to physically unrealisable states… some tasks have discontinuous reward distributions where augmentations may hurt\n\n\nThanks a lot and this is an indeed reasonable observation. \nCounterintuitively, we have observed that adding small perturbations to observed states results in regularization of the value/Q function approximations, despite some of them not being realizable. \nA similar effect is also observed in image space perturbations such as “color jitters” and “random crops”, which also result in unrealizable observations, yet improve performance nonetheless. \nA possible explanation for this effect could be the fact that perturbed states add support to the function approximator, thereby improving the lipschitz continuity of the fitted output, hence a better fit, especially in regions of state space with sparse coverage, which is often the case in large continuous state-action spaces in reinforcement learning. \nWe evaluate this argument in environments with non-smooth reward functions (as mentioned by the reviewer). \nFor instance, ant-maze (Table 2) has a reward function wherein the ant agent gets a +1 reward when it gets to the “goal” position in a maze, receiving a reward of 0 otherwise (highly sparse rewards). \nAnother environment with highly sparse rewards are the “Adroit” environments (Table 2) where Shadow Hand agent receives *a positive reward only when the pose of the object the hand is manipulating is oriented correctly* \nWe observe that S4RL augmentations are very useful in both of these environments (as listed in Table 2), even with discrete reward functions! \nWe note that the fitted Q-network is still continuous, hence the augmentations help in improving function approximation.\n\n\n> State or image input to the agents?\n\nAll the agents trained are trained using **state-information only**. \nWe will clarify and highlight this in the final version in Section 5 (Experiments).\n\n\n> If state info is the input, then do the baselines make sense?\n\nEven though all the agents are trained only with state-information (including CQL+CURL and CQL+VAE) the baselines are still reasonable, and were tuned specifically for the tasks. Furthermore, it is clear to see that these methods are effective even when working from states as CQL+VAE and CQL+CURL almost always improve the baseline CQL agent.\nWe will add the chosen hyperparameters in the final version for full clarity. \n\nWe have attempted to answer with a point-wise rebuttal. \nWe were wondering if you had a chance to look at the rebuttal and if there remain any questions/clarifications that we can answer. \nWe hope that your constructive feedback with lead to a technically stronger contribution.\n", "role": "user" }, { "content": "Thanks for the authors' response. It answers most of my concerns.", "role": "assistant" } ]
9uFiX_HRsIL
CoRL 2021 Conference
Reviewer_WZS2
[ { "content": "\nYou are an experienced academic paper reviewer. You will receive a conference paper in the field of computer science or AI. Please analyze the paper content carefully and output your review content.\nMore importantly, the author will further explain or refute the review comments you gave, and you need to further discuss with the author based on the author's response. \nThe purpose of this rebuttal and discussion is:\n- Clarification: During the review process, the reviewer (you) may not accurately understand the contribution or method of the paper due to unclear expression or misunderstanding of certain details. Through rebuttal, the author has the opportunity to clarify these misunderstandings and further illustrate the effectiveness of their innovations or methods.\n- Respond to criticisms and suggestions: The reviewer (you) may make criticisms or suggestions on the paper, and the author can use the discussion session to provide specific responses, explain why certain criticisms may not apply, or how to improve and optimize certain aspects of the paper.\nFinally, you and the author will work together to enhance the persuasiveness of the paper and improve the quality of the paper.\n", "role": "system" }, { "content": "Now your reviewer ID is assigned as Reviewer_WZS2, and the following are the paper you need to review:\n```<<9uFiX_HRsIL>>```", "role": "user" }, { "content": "Review Content: summary: The authors combine a large pre-trained CLIP vision-and-language model with a Transporter network in order to facilitate training a multi-task policy conditioned on natural language inputs with limited data. They compare against CLIP and Transporter baselines on both trained language-conditioned tasks and transferred languaged-conditioned tasks. They find that this method is able to generalize effectively to novel combinations of attributes (such as seperating the notions of 'blue' and 'cube', so that they can solve tasks involving blue cubes after having seen tasks with blue non-cubes and non-blue cubes). In tasks involving this kind of conceptual decomposition, they dramatically outperform other baselines. \nstrengths_and_weaknesses: Strengths: \nI find this particular kind of of generalization across attributes extremely interesting, especially considering that they achieve it solely through end-to-end training. Additionally, the demonstration that large pre-trained networks for non-robotics language and vision tasks can be used to enable more efficient training training for robotics seems significant, as data and pre-trained models for these domains are much more accessible. I was also pleasantly suprised at the amount of training time used to achieve this level of result -- 6 GPU days is a decent amount but feasible for most labs. \n\nWeaknesses: \nIt's not entirely clear how the authors get from the affordance prediction to the actual actions on the robot. \nsummary_of_recommendation: This result is both immediately useful and offers up new and promising opportunities for future research. The use of natural language is both incredibly convenient for use and adding new tasks, and suprisingly data-efficient. The work additionally offers interesting new avenues for how large pre-trained networks from other domains could be used to enable more efficient robot learning. \nissues: It's not entirely clear how the authors are moving from the affordance prediction to actions on the actual robot. Since the labelled data all seems to be labelled images rather than action sequences, my best guess would be that the authors are using the affordances to select pre-programmed manipulations to take, and what parameters to call those manipulations with. I'd like to understand this better though, so a little more clarification would be nice.\nRating: 9 strong accept, excellent work\n", "role": "assistant" }, { "content": "Title: Response to Reviewer WZS2\n_“It's not entirely clear how the authors get from the affordance prediction to the actual actions on the robot.”_\n\n_“It's not entirely clear how the authors are moving from the affordance prediction to actions on the actual robot. Since the labelled data all seems to be labelled images rather than action sequences, my best guess would be that the authors are using the affordances to select pre-programmed manipulations to take, and what parameters to call those manipulations with. I'd like to understand this better though, so a little more clarification would be nice.”_\n\nWe thank R-WZS2 for noting this. This is explained in Appendix Section C L657, but there were some details missing in the original submission. Accordingly, we have updated Section C with additional information on policy execution. \n\nAll actions (including for tasks like packing, sweeping etc.) are executed through a simple pick and place primitive. The output of CLIPort is (u, v, theta) for Pick and (u’, v’, theta’) for Place, which are argmax values from affordance predictions shown in Figure 4. We take a 32x32 crop of the depth-pointcloud around these points to compute two 3D-centroids for pick and place, respectively. With a known hand-eye calibration, these 3D centroids are used with a motion-planner (RRT*) to move the end-effector in a predefined up-down-up fashion to reach the 3D location, open/close the gripper, and then lift-up. Note that this is a technique frequently used in grasping settings such as DenseObjectNets (Florence et. al, 2018) and DexNet (Mahler et. al, 2017). Only the sweeping and folding controllers are slightly different in that the end-effector doesn’t raise-up from the pick position before moving to the place location. But again, both sweeping and folding actions executed through the same pick and place primitives predicted by the model. While this action-space is limited, it still allows for a wide range of useful tabletop tasks like packing and sorting, particularly in industrial settings. For all sequential tasks involving multiple steps, the model is purely reacting from RGB-D input to RGB-D input after executing each pick and place action without maintaining a history or belief across timesteps. \n\n Global/general Response:\n```\nRe-posting the original author's response to the meta-reviewer. Original comment date (8/23/2021)\n\n\n----------------------\nWe thank the reviewers for their insightful feedback. We are glad that all reviewers appreciate the novelty of using large-scale vision-language models for learning generalizable conditioning for manipulation policies. In particular R-WZS2 highlights the data-efficiency of our end-to-end approach along with the ability to “generalize [to] novel combinations of attributes”. R-HUJp highlights the use of a pre-trained CLIP model as “a promising direction for robotic control”. R-Hq8X notes the simplicity of the solution and the extensive evaluations conducted in both simulated and real-world settings.\n\n\n# Clarifying Problem Statement and Contributions:\n\nWe believe that there is some confusion, particularly with R-Hq8X, regarding our claims, problem scope, and our main contributions. These may not have been sufficiently clear in the paper so we briefly clarify these points before providing detailed responses to the comments from the reviewers and the meta-reviewer.\n\n\n## Problem Statement:\n\nThe problem we consider is that of _language-conditioned learning for precise robotic manipulation from demonstrations_ (see [cliport.github.io](http://cliport.github.io) for examples). Namely, given a small number of language-conditioned manipulation demonstrations we would like our robot to accomplish a manipulation task specified through a language command. This problem statement goes beyond the capabilities of Transporter (Zeng et. al, 2021), which only tackles learning from demonstration with no conditioning mechanism, or Goal-Transporter (Seita et. al, 2021) which relies on goal-images. We chose to focus on language as our conditioning modality since it is a general and flexible way to communicate goals. However, we want to explicitly clarify the things that we are **not attempting to solve**:\n\n\n\n* Grasping novel object types for which no relevant grasping demonstrations have been given.\n* Following arbitrary (out of distribution) language instructions, e.g. “clean the kitchen”, for which no demonstrations have been given.\n\nAlthough we would eventually like to achieve such capabilities, this work should be considered as a first step in that direction. We would like to point out that the only supervision that our system receives comes from the demonstrations, and thus we don’t attempt or claim to be able to generalize outside of this distribution. An interesting direction for future work would involve collecting a large number of diverse demonstrations, similar to how CLIP is trained with a diverse set of image-caption pairs, to investigate whether this enables zero shot generalization to novel objects and tasks. However, this is beyond the scope of the paper.\n\n\n## Reiterating Contributions\n\nHere we reiterate the capabilities of our framework to emphasize that (to the best our knowledge) there is no other existing end-to-end system that is comparable to CLIPort:\n\n\n\n* Language-conditioned policies for precise manipulation including sweeping particles, manipulating ropes, packing objects, and moving chess pieces.\n* An end-to-end framework without any object models, poses, segmentations, bounding boxes, language parser, or history. Particularly in the context of language-grounding for spatial manipulation, this hasn’t been done before.\n* A single, multi-task model for sweeping, manipulating ropes, packing boxes etc.\n* Works on a real-robot!\n* All 9 real-world tasks trained with just 179 image-action pairs.\n\nWe kindly urge the reviewers and the meta-reviewer to examine qualitative results on our project website: [cliport.github.io](http://cliport.github.io). The results at the bottom also showcase the complexity of the simulated tasks in both single-task and multi-task settings. In its current state, we believe CLIPort already provides new capabilities for a wide range of industrial and assistive robotics tasks that were simply not possible before. With these clarifications and qualitative results, we hope reviewers will share our excitement regarding the results presented in the paper.\n\n```\n\n Global/general Response:\n```\nRe-posting as this became hidden when meta-review was made private.\n\n# General Updates\n\nWe have updated the paper to address all the reviewers’ comments. A brief summary of these changes:\n\n\n\n* RN50-BERT baselines for all tasks in Table 1 and Figure 3.\n* No pre-training baselines in Appendix Table 4.\n* Added Appendix H – a dedicated section that discusses the limitations of our approach.\n* Added Figure 10 – a qualitative example to address R-Hq8X’s concern on the usefulness of CLIP for language-conditioned grasping.\n* More details on policy execution in Appendix Section C.\n* 3 new real-world tasks and results: cherry picking, rope manipulation, and reading text.\n* More related work.\n* Project website with qualitative results: [cliport.github.io](http://cliport.github.io)\n* Attached the appendix to the main PDF for easy-reading.\n```\n\n Global/general Response:\n```\nWe thank the reviewers and AC for their insightful feedback. The discussions have been very helpful in improving the paper.\n\nSome updates for the camera-ready version:\n- Following standard practice, we have added a separate validation and test set to avoid over-optimizing on evaluation tasks in future works. The test results are in the Results section, and the validation results are in the Appendix. All references in the prose to quantitative numbers have been updated accordingly. \n- Added more related work.\n- Minor edits to the introduction.\n- Fixed an error in the Full Architecture diagram in the appendix.\n- The benchmark, code, pre-trained models, and videos are available at: [cliport.github.io](https://cliport.github.io/)\n\nWe look forward to exciting future works at the intersection of Robotics, NLP, Vision, and ML. \n```\n", "role": "user" }, { "content": "Thanks to the authors for their clarification. Most of my concerns have been addressed. I continue to recommend this work positively.", "role": "assistant" } ]
A9P78VBwYKM
CoRL 2021 Conference
Reviewer_BbKQ
[ { "content": "\nYou are an experienced academic paper reviewer. You will receive a conference paper in the field of computer science or AI. Please analyze the paper content carefully and output your review content.\nMore importantly, the author will further explain or refute the review comments you gave, and you need to further discuss with the author based on the author's response. \nThe purpose of this rebuttal and discussion is:\n- Clarification: During the review process, the reviewer (you) may not accurately understand the contribution or method of the paper due to unclear expression or misunderstanding of certain details. Through rebuttal, the author has the opportunity to clarify these misunderstandings and further illustrate the effectiveness of their innovations or methods.\n- Respond to criticisms and suggestions: The reviewer (you) may make criticisms or suggestions on the paper, and the author can use the discussion session to provide specific responses, explain why certain criticisms may not apply, or how to improve and optimize certain aspects of the paper.\nFinally, you and the author will work together to enhance the persuasiveness of the paper and improve the quality of the paper.\n", "role": "system" }, { "content": "Now your reviewer ID is assigned as Reviewer_BbKQ, and the following are the paper you need to review:\n```<<A9P78VBwYKM>>```", "role": "user" }, { "content": "Review Content: summary: The paper aimed to tackle the problem that Multisensory object-centric perception is limited by the small set of objects available. It presented OBJECTFOLDER, a dataset of 100 virtualized objects with implicit visual, auditory, and tactile representations. The usefulness of the proposed dataset was evaluated on an array of benchmark for both perception and control.\n\nstrengths_and_weaknesses: Strengths:\n- For robotic applications, it is very expensive to obtain large-scale multisensory dataset, especially auditory and tactile data. The limitations have long been noticed. This paper proposed a novel method to obtain visual, auditory, and tactile sensory data of objects from virtual environments, which is well motivated.\n\n- The paper introduced OBJECTFOLDER, a dataset of 00 virtualized objects that makes multisensory learning with vision, audio, and touch easily accessible to the research community.\n\n- OBJECTFOLDER employs a uniform, object-centric, and implicit representation for each object’s visual textures, acoustic simulations, and tactile readings, making the dataset flexible to use and easy to share.\n\nWeaknesses:\n- Although the dataset contains100 object-centric visual, auditory, and tactile sensory data, the reviewer has doubts that whether such dataset can well represent auditory, and tactile attributes of the real objects. This should be discussed appropriately.\n\n- The paper mentioned that the rendered images, impact sounds, and touch readings well match the ground-truth simulations. If only based on the results in Figure 4, this conclusion may be too arbitrary. It needs more experimental analysis to support this conclusion. \n\n- The paper claims the contribution that all objects in the proposed dataset are platform agnostic, which may not be a valid contribution. As a testbed, it should be the basic requirement.\n\n- The paper adopted a variety of benchmark tasks to demonstrate the validity of the data set, which is unconvincing. The paper should verify whether the dataset is valid for robot perception and learning task in real-life scenarios. \n\nsummary_of_recommendation: Although the method of obtaining visual, auditory, and tactile sensory data of objects from virtual environments is helpful for robotic multimodal learning, the presented experimental analysis did not effectively demonstrate the contribution of the paper. The paper needs to be further modified by adding additional experiments to improve the quality. Therefore, it is not ready for acceptance.\n\nissues: - I have doubts that whether such dataset can well represent auditory, and tactile attributes of the real objects. Therefore, additional experimental analysis need to be presented to show that the multisensory data can well represent object attributes.\n\n- The paper mentioned that the rendered images, impact sounds, and touch readings well match the ground-truth simulations. It needs more experimental analysis to support this conclusion. \n\n- According to the focus of the paper, it needs to redesign the experiments to prove the validity of the dataset. In particular, some experiments need to be added to verify effectiveness of the dataset for robot perception and learning task in real scenarios.\n\n- The dataset is evaluated on four different benchmark tasks. This resulted in that experimental details are ignored and the experimental analysis is not sufficient. I think that focusing on one benchmark task can improve the clarity and completeness of the paper.\nRating: 7 accept, but needs minor improvements\n", "role": "assistant" }, { "content": "Title: Response to Reviewer BbKQ\nThank you for the constructive feedback!\n\n**(a) whether such dataset can well represent auditory and tactile attributes of the real objects:**\n\nOur audio simulation realistically models the impact sound of each object based on its shape, size, material type, external force, and contact location (L133-36). Prior work (Zhang et al. NeurIPS’17, Ren et al. TOG’13) has shown that such physics-based rigid-body sound synthesis pipeline renders sound that transfers well to real scenes, and the objects’ shape, material, and other auditory attributes can be successfully inferred from the simulated sound. Based on your feedback, in order to further demonstrate the realism of our audio simulation, we have performed a new user study that asks listeners to distinguish between the real and simulated audios for some everyday objects (e.g., a ceramic mug, a steel bowl). Results show that our simulated audio is preferred by 42% of the total responses, comparing closely to real audio recordings. See Sec. D in Supp. for details.\n\nOur tactile simulation is based on the SOTA tactile simulator—TACTO (Wang et al. NeurIPS’20), which uses ray-tracing to simulate high-quality tactile signals (L177-83). It can simulate realistic rendering for both contact surfaces and shadows with different contact geometry. See Fig. 9 in the TACTO paper for some examples of how the simulated tactile images well match the tactile readings of real objects.\n\n**(b) the rendered images, impact sounds, and touch readings well match the ground-truth simulations (GT)—more experimental analysis to support this conclusion:**\n\nThe comparisons in Fig. 4 in main and Fig. 3 in Supp. illustrate the high quality of our implicit representations qualitatively. Per request, we have performed a new experimental analysis to compare the sensory data obtained from Object Files with GT quantitatively: 1) For vision, we render 500 images for each object and compute the average PSNR w.r.t. GT; 2) For audio, we obtain 500 impact sounds for each object and compute the average PSNR of the spectrograms w.r.t. GT; 3) For touch, we render 500 tactile images at different surface locations and compute the average PSNR w.r.t. GT. For each modality, we compare with a baseline where GT is corrupted by negligible white Gaussian noise (AWGN, with mean=0 and variance=0.05) as a reference. The table below shows the results. We can see that the sensory data encoded by our implicit representation networks achieve very high PSNR values (in dB), and compare favorably against the baseline.\n\n||Implicit w.r.t. GT|AWGN w.r.t. GT|\n|:-:|:-:|:-:|\n|Vision|39.8|32.0|\n|Audio|53.6|26.2|\n|Touch|29.4|24.2|\n\n**(c) validity of the dataset, ...experiments need to be added to verify the effectiveness of the dataset for robot perception and learning task in real scenarios:**\n\nObjectFolder is the first benchmark that provides all three modalities—vision, audio, and touch in a simulated setup, which is very beneficial for benchmarking future works in detection, grasping, and dexterous manipulation (R-pXzd). We have evaluated four benchmark tasks to show the usefulness of our dataset for multisensory perception and control, including instance recognition, cross-sensory retrieval, 3D reconstruction, and robotic grasping. While our dataset is based on simulation, the results show that the learned models already benefit from it when transferring to real-world data for single image 3D reconstruction (Fig. 7), indicating the realism of our objects. \n\nNonetheless, it will be interesting future work to directly perform Sim2Real object transfer—learning with virtualized objects in simulation and then transferring to real-world counterparts for robotics tasks. Due to COVID-19, unfortunately we were not able to get access to these real objects or robots easily; however, per request, to further demonstrate the potential of using our dataset for real robotic manipulation tasks, we have performed an additional experiment on an object manipulation task using Meta-World (Yu et al. CoRL'19): reach. We followed their standard MT1 setting, and trained a policy for reach with three of our objects (cup, bowl, dice). We achieved a 100% success rate for each object, demonstrating the usefulness of our objects for robotic manipulation. See Sec. J in Supp. for details.\n\n**(d) experimental details and analysis …, … focusing on one task can improve the clarity and completeness of the paper:**\n\nThe experimental setup details for all four tasks are in Sec. I of Supp. ObjectFolder is a potential testbed for many perception and robotics tasks. Our goal is to demonstrate this dataset is generally useful for multisensory perception and control instead of achieving SOTA performance on one particular task. Therefore, the dataset is mainly evaluated on four different benchmark tasks (L208-11). Experiments across these tasks show that using multimodal representations results in significant performance gains over simple unimodal or bimodal baselines.\nDear Reviewer BbKQ,\n\nMany thanks again for your valuable feedback on our work! If you have any additional questions after reading our response, please don't hesitate to let us know. We are very grateful for your input to strengthen our work.\n\nThank you!\nObjectFolder Team", "role": "user" }, { "content": "Title: Thanks for the response.\nThanks for the response. The response has answered some of my concerns and the score has been updated. It is true that the idea of having a multimodal object dataset is good. And I'm still curious about how the dataset can benefit real robotic applications. ", "role": "assistant" }, { "content": "Title: Thanks!\nThank you so much for taking the time to read our response! We are glad to know that your concerns are addressed. We have evaluated four benchmark tasks and added one additional experiment on object manipulation in simulation, which demonstrates the potential of using our multisensory object dataset for real robotic applications. Our Sim2Real 3D reconstruction experiments also indicate the realism of our objects. Due to time and COVID constraints, we were not able to directly perform real robot experiments in rebuttal, which we leave as future work.\n\nAgain, we are very appreciative of your valuable input and support for our work.\n\n", "role": "user" }, { "content": "I am glad to have had the above discussion with the author, which has definitely improved the overall quality of the paper.", "role": "assistant" } ]
A9P78VBwYKM
CoRL 2021 Conference
Reviewer_arko
[ { "content": "\nYou are an experienced academic paper reviewer. You will receive a conference paper in the field of computer science or AI. Please analyze the paper content carefully and output your review content.\nMore importantly, the author will further explain or refute the review comments you gave, and you need to further discuss with the author based on the author's response. \nThe purpose of this rebuttal and discussion is:\n- Clarification: During the review process, the reviewer (you) may not accurately understand the contribution or method of the paper due to unclear expression or misunderstanding of certain details. Through rebuttal, the author has the opportunity to clarify these misunderstandings and further illustrate the effectiveness of their innovations or methods.\n- Respond to criticisms and suggestions: The reviewer (you) may make criticisms or suggestions on the paper, and the author can use the discussion session to provide specific responses, explain why certain criticisms may not apply, or how to improve and optimize certain aspects of the paper.\nFinally, you and the author will work together to enhance the persuasiveness of the paper and improve the quality of the paper.\n", "role": "system" }, { "content": "Now your reviewer ID is assigned as Reviewer_arko, and the following are the paper you need to review:\n```<<A9P78VBwYKM>>```", "role": "user" }, { "content": "Review Content: summary: The authors present ObjectFolder, a dataset containing 100 objects with implicit visual, audio and tactile representations. A novel method is proposed for representing the audio signals implicitly. Once this dataset is built, the implicit functions are evaluated in a series of passive benchmarks measuring 3D reconstruction quality, cross-modal instance recognition/retrieval and grasping stability prediction in simulation. \nstrengths_and_weaknesses: First of all, I must say, this paper was a joy to read and is very original. The approach is very novel and could potentially be useful for the robotics community which has traditionally focused on explicit data representations with mixed results.\n\nVisionNet and TouchNet seem to have limited contributions since they are mainly inspired from NERF. The representation for AudioNet on the other hand seems to be a novel contribution.\n\nThe biggest concern for the paper is that there is no comparison to explicit methods. For instance, a direct comparison to the network architecture in Calandra et al. [CoRL 2017] would be insightful for the grasp stability experiment. Without this comparison, as a reader I was still wondering why a implicit representation is functionally necessary over an explicit one.\n\nAlso it is challenging to understand if the implicit representation transfers well to real world tasks since the results were only passively tested (i.e. without contact-rich manipulation) or in simulation. \n\nTable 3 is very insightful. It shows that vision and audio are good modalities to capture global information (like the object instance or its category) compared to tactile (which mainly has local geometric information).\nsummary_of_recommendation: I support to accept this paper in its current form. Despite my reservations on the potential impact and widespread adoption of the dataset in the community, there are definitely novel contributions in the idea and architecture.\nissues: See above.\nRating: 9 strong accept, excellent work\n", "role": "assistant" }, { "content": "Title: Response to Reviewer arko\nThank you for the constructive feedback!\n\n**(a) comparison to explicit methods, a direct comparison to Calandra et al. 2017?**\n\nThanks for the suggestion. We wish to clarify that Calandra et al. CoRL’17 proposed a network architecture, which can leverage both the explicit and implicit representations as input; instead, our ObjectFolder is a new set of implicitly parameterized objects, which can be used together with Calandra et al. or any other architectures. \n\nTo demonstrate the effectiveness of our implicit representations, we have performed a new experiment that directly uses the explicit tactile representations (ground-truth simulations) as input for the grasp stability prediction experiment. All other settings are the same except the input to the network to directly compare the implicit and explicit methods in an apples-to-apples manner. Figure 5 in Supp. shows the results. Object Files in the form of compact implicit representations achieve similar results as using the explicit tactile representations while having the advantage of being flexible to use and easy to share.\n\n**(b) why an implicit representation is functionally necessary over an explicit one:**\n\nTable 1 and L194-206 show that using implicit representations is much more storage efficient than the original data format for each sensory modality, making the dataset easy to share. Object File in the form of an implicit neural network compactly encodes the multisensory data for each object, which through querying with the corresponding extrinsic parameters we can easily obtain the visual appearance of the object from different views, impact sounds of the object at each position, and tactile sensing of the object at every surface location, respectively.\n\n**(c) if the implicit representation transfers well to real-world tasks**\n\nAs pointed out by R3, ObjectFolder is the first benchmark that provides all three modalities—vision, audio, and touch in a simulated setup, which is very beneficial for benchmarking future works in detection, grasping, and dexterous manipulation. We have evaluated four benchmark tasks to show the usefulness of our dataset for multisensory perception and control, including instance recognition, cross-sensory retrieval, 3D reconstruction, and robotic grasping. While our dataset is based on simulation, the results show that the learned models already benefit from it when transferring to real-world data for single image 3D reconstruction (Fig. 7), indicating the realism of our objects. \n\nNonetheless, it will be interesting future work to directly perform Sim2Real object transfer—learning with virtualized objects in simulation and then transferring to real-world counterparts for robotics tasks. Due to COVID-19, unfortunately we were not able to get access to these real objects or robots easily; however, per request, to further demonstrate the potential of using our dataset for real robotic manipulation tasks, we perform an additional experiment on an object manipulation task using Meta-World (Yu et al. CoRL'19): reach. We follow the standard MT1 setting in the Meta-World paper and train a policy for reach with three of our objects (cup, bowl, dice). We have achieved a 100% success rate for each object, demonstrating the usefulness of our objects for robotic manipulation. See page 8 in the revised paper and Sec. J in Supp. for details.", "role": "user" }, { "content": "Title: Thanks for the comments\nThanks for the response. I am still concerned regarding the applicability of this implicit representation on a real robot task such as grasping (without a proper experiment). Nonetheless, I keep my original score.", "role": "assistant" }, { "content": "Title: Thank you!\nThank you so much for taking the time to read our response! We have evaluated four benchmark tasks and added one additional experiment on object manipulation in simulation, which demonstrates the potential of using our dataset (implicit representations) for real robotic manipulation tasks. Our Sim2Real 3D reconstruction experiments also indicate the realism of our objects. Due to time and COVID constraints, we were not able to directly perform robotic grasping on a real robot in rebuttal, which we leave as future work.\n\nAgain, we are very appreciative of your valuable input and strong support for our work.", "role": "user" }, { "content": "I am grateful for the opportunity to discuss these points with the author, which undoubtedly enhances the strength of this paper.", "role": "assistant" } ]
A9P78VBwYKM
CoRL 2021 Conference
Reviewer_pXzD
[ { "content": "\nYou are an experienced academic paper reviewer. You will receive a conference paper in the field of computer science or AI. Please analyze the paper content carefully and output your review content.\nMore importantly, the author will further explain or refute the review comments you gave, and you need to further discuss with the author based on the author's response. \nThe purpose of this rebuttal and discussion is:\n- Clarification: During the review process, the reviewer (you) may not accurately understand the contribution or method of the paper due to unclear expression or misunderstanding of certain details. Through rebuttal, the author has the opportunity to clarify these misunderstandings and further illustrate the effectiveness of their innovations or methods.\n- Respond to criticisms and suggestions: The reviewer (you) may make criticisms or suggestions on the paper, and the author can use the discussion session to provide specific responses, explain why certain criticisms may not apply, or how to improve and optimize certain aspects of the paper.\nFinally, you and the author will work together to enhance the persuasiveness of the paper and improve the quality of the paper.\n", "role": "system" }, { "content": "Now your reviewer ID is assigned as Reviewer_pXzD, and the following are the paper you need to review:\n```<<A9P78VBwYKM>>```", "role": "user" }, { "content": "Review Content: summary: This paper presents a dataset of 100 virtual objects with visual, auditory, and tactile sensory input for learning multi-modal object representations. The dataset is constructed from scanned real-world objects available from ModelHaven, YCB, and Google Scanned Objects. The audio is synthesized through rigid-body sound simulation and touch is simulated with TACTO for emulating a DIGIT sensor. To investigate the usefulness of multimodal representations, the paper presents a model for learning neural representations with three subnetworks – VisionNet, AudioNet, and TouchNet. Evaluations on downstream tasks such as instance recognition, cross-sensory retrieval, and grasping, show that using multimodal representations result in significant performance gains over simple unimodal or bimodal baselines.\nstrengths_and_weaknesses: Strengths: \n- This paper makes an important resource contribution to robotics. Most robot learning methods heavily rely on vision for perception. There has been overwhelming evidence that perception for manipulation is inherently multimodal and to learn robust and dexterous skills, robotic systems need to go beyond just visual perception. \n- Benchmarking and reproducibility are crucial for evaluating progress in various robotic domains. Having a standardized set of objects for multimodal perception, particularly in a simulation, is very beneficial for benchmarking future works in detection, grasping, and dexterous manipulation. To the best of my knowledge, this is the first benchmark that provides all three modalities – vision, audio, and tactile, in a simulated setup.\n- The evaluations on downstream tasks are insightful. In all cases from detection to grasping, the multimodal representations outperform unimodal and bimodal baselines. \n\nWeaknesses: \n- One concern, although relatively minor, is the quality of the audio and tactile simulation and their fidelity to real-world sensors. While the visual rendering of scanned objects is near photorealistic, the audio simulation uses rigid-body simulation to emulate audio sensors. For this simulation, each object is modelled with a single material since individual parts of the scanned objects are unknown. This could be an issue for some objects, for example, striking a hammer on the plastic handle might produce a different sound than striking it on the metallic head. This might also explain why the Audio-only baseline in Table 2 performs so well. Similarly, the simulated tactile sensor uses the geometric structure of scanned objects which could have some imperfections and sharp edges from 3D reconstruction. Ideally, both these issues can be addressed by evaluating the simulated sound and tactile inputs against real-world sensor data. This can be done by picking a few objects from the dataset, collecting data with real-world objects, and comparing it against the simulated audio and tactile sensors.\n- Another concern, noticeable in the supplementary video, is that the dataset contains a lot of cups or cup-like objects of cylindrical shapes. Was this a specific design choice? Or a symptom of what was available/feasible for robot grasping? Since the audio and tactile inputs are automatically simulated, is there anything preventing the dataset from containing more than 100 objects? Perhaps all of Google Scanned Objects and ModelHaven objects? Benchmarks need to be careful not to induce biases in the dataset that might result in models overfitting or exploiting biased data without learning how to solve the task. \n\nsummary_of_recommendation: This paper makes an important resource contribution with a multimodal dataset of virtual objects. Experimental evaluations on various downstream robotics tasks indicate that multimodal representations are crucial for going the last mile in detection, grasping, and related tasks. \n\n**Post Rebuttal** \nI am happy with the authors' response and followup experiments, so I am keeping my original score. I'd encourage the authors to add more diverse objects to the dataset, if possible.\nissues: Minor comments:\n- From the supplementary video, the center-of-mass (COM) of Google Scanned Objects seem to be incorrect, leading to wobbly objects that never fall down. This is a known issue with Google Scanned Objects where the COM is at the bottom of the object rather than it’s geometric center or true center. Accordingly, you probably need to re-run the grasping experiments with the corrected COMs.\n- How many training images were used to train the NeRF? How long does it take to train a NeRF per object?\nRating: 9 strong accept, excellent work\n", "role": "assistant" }, { "content": "Title: Response to Reviewer pXzD\nThank you for the constructive feedback!\n\n**(a) quality of the audio and tactile simulation and their fidelity to real-world sensors; a single material … could be an issue for some objects; the simulated tactile sensor … could have some imperfections and sharp edges.**\n\nOur audio simulation realistically models the impact sound of each object based on its shape, size, material type, external force, and contact location (L133-36). Prior work (Zhang et al. NeurIPS’17, Ren et al. TOG’13) has shown that such physics-based rigid-body sound synthesis pipeline renders sound that transfers well to real scenes, and the objects’ shape, material, and other auditory attributes can be successfully inferred from the simulated sound. To further show the realism of our audio simulation, we have performed a new user study that asks listeners to distinguish between the real and simulated audios for some everyday objects (e.g., a ceramic mug, a steel bowl). Results show that our simulated audio is preferred by 42% of the total responses, comparing closely to real audio recordings. See Sec. D in Supp. for details.\n\nWe select objects that are of approximately homogeneous material property (L103) because our physics-based rigid-body sound synthesis pipeline assumes a single material type for each object. There are some approximations made for a few objects of non-homogeneous material such as a bell with a wood handle, a fork with a plastic handle, etc. Sound simulation with multiple or complex material types is a hard and unsolved problem on its own (Liu & Manocha arXiv’21, Sterling et al. TVCG’19), which we leave as future work to improve the realism of the sound simulation for these objects.\n\nOur tactile simulation is based on SOTA tactile simulator—TACTO (Wang et al. NeurIPS’20), which uses ray-tracing to simulate high-quality tactile signals (L171-75). It can simulate realistic rendering for both contact surfaces and shadows with different contact geometry. See Fig. 9 in the TACTO paper for some examples of how the simulated tactile images well match the tactile readings of real objects.\n\n**(b) a lot of cups or cup-like objects:**\n\nThese cups or cup-like objects come from the shape items in the YCB dataset. These objects are useful for object manipulation tasks that require shape analysis. For example, these objects are of the same material type and are very visually similar. The differences in shape make their acoustic characteristics different in modal analysis, making these objects distinguishable from each other in multisensory object identification and manipulation tasks.\n\n**(c) anything preventing the dataset from containing more than 100 objects?**\n\nNone. It would be straightforward and interesting to expand our dataset to cover a wider range of objects (e.g., more Google Scanned Objects). In this first version, we have selected the 100 objects from existing repositories that contain realistic visual textures, approximately homogeneous material properties, and with a material type that is mappable to a known category (L101-07). The raw sensory data for each object takes large storage space (Table 1), and therefore we focus on 100 high-quality objects in our dataset. Using implicit representations to represent each object’s visual textures, acoustic simulations, and tactile readings makes the dataset flexible to use and easy to share. \n\n**(d) the center-of-mass (COM) of Google Scanned Objects seem to be incorrect?**\n\nThanks for pointing this out. We have fixed this issue and updated the results in the paper. See Supp. for the new video where we have fixed the COM of the wobbly objects.\n\n**(e) How many training images were used to train NeRF?**\n\n500 images for each object are used for training. See L32-36 in Supp. for details.", "role": "user" }, { "content": "Title: Thanks for response.\nThank you for the detailed response. As stated above, I am keeping my original score.", "role": "assistant" }, { "content": "Title: Thank you!\nThank you so much for taking the time to read our response! We are very grateful for your valuable feedback and strong support for our work.", "role": "user" }, { "content": "I am pleased to have had the opportunity to discuss the points above with the author, which has added considerable value to this work.", "role": "assistant" } ]
AL4FPs84YdQ
CoRL 2021 Conference
Reviewer_u6cx
[ { "content": "\nYou are an experienced academic paper reviewer. You will receive a conference paper in the field of computer science or AI. Please analyze the paper content carefully and output your review content.\nMore importantly, the author will further explain or refute the review comments you gave, and you need to further discuss with the author based on the author's response. \nThe purpose of this rebuttal and discussion is:\n- Clarification: During the review process, the reviewer (you) may not accurately understand the contribution or method of the paper due to unclear expression or misunderstanding of certain details. Through rebuttal, the author has the opportunity to clarify these misunderstandings and further illustrate the effectiveness of their innovations or methods.\n- Respond to criticisms and suggestions: The reviewer (you) may make criticisms or suggestions on the paper, and the author can use the discussion session to provide specific responses, explain why certain criticisms may not apply, or how to improve and optimize certain aspects of the paper.\nFinally, you and the author will work together to enhance the persuasiveness of the paper and improve the quality of the paper.\n", "role": "system" }, { "content": "Now your reviewer ID is assigned as Reviewer_u6cx, and the following are the paper you need to review:\n```<<AL4FPs84YdQ>>```", "role": "user" }, { "content": "Review Content: summary: The submission proposes a method for predicting dense traversability maps from LIDAR/pointcloud inputs. The method applies a deep model, various tricks for handling sparse data and is trained via supervised learning. The evaluation is performed on variants of 2 benchmarks (SemanticKITTI and RELLIS-3D) and includes the comparison against one external baseline and a set of variations of the proposed method.\nstrengths_and_weaknesses: The paper is mostly clearly written and structured. The proposed method outperforms the introduced baseline and additional ablations are useful to understand various parts of the method. In particular, the questions addressed in section 5.2.1 help the reader to better disentangle the individual contributions of various modelling choices.\n\nThere are a couple of open questions regarding this paper. A key point in the method seems to be the reduction to 4 traversability categories instead of the original set of categories in existing datasets. It is not clear to me why the presented method could not be applied to the full set of categories and, related, be compared against the full set of methods which have been applied to these datasets. This would not need to replace the main evaluation but would be an important extension for comparing against the existing state of the art in semantic segmentation in these domains. It is even more important as the evaluation only uses a variant of a single external baseline. It would be easy to make space in the paper for an additional comparison by moving the implementation details to the appendix (section 4).\n\nFor the method itself there remain some unclear aspects of which I’ve added most under minor issues below. One specific question is how the unknown class is treated. The paper describes its use for evaluation, but couldn’t we also use it for training the network? Since the unknown class depends on what happens in the future, my intuition would be that it is impossible (or at least very hard) to predict as it will depend on driving behaviour. In addition, if predicting the unknown class is never informative for evaluation, it might make sense to not train the model in the first place on cells which are labelled as unknown. \n\nAnother question regarding the evaluation is the test with noisy odometry, a key area where the proposed method outperforms the external baseline. Since you control the noise during training of your model and during evaluation, it would be important to ablate this aspect. In particular if you have defined the noise to be the same across both. Real odometry noise would be out of your control and it would be good to see how good predictions are if your training noise exceeds or is exceeded by the evaluation noise.\n\nMinor issues:\n- L35: ‘efficient backbone’ could be described in a more informative way; how does inpainting work here. Short description would suffice. \n- L38: It would help to start with stating that this relies on ground-truth labels in the datasets. There has been a good share of related work which simply uses trajectories (ie odometry) and inverse reinforcement learning to determine traversability maps [1,2]\n- Section 4: why do the different datasets require very different numbers of frames and stride? Were these collected at different frequencies? If so it would be good to add that information to justify changes in hyperparameters.\n- L176: referring to the subsection would be helpful (instead of just Sec. 5)\n- L179: Out of curiosity: Would it be possible to train a single model on both datasets?\n- L205: ‘C3D-TA’ Please use the same abbreviations in table and text.\n\n[1] Kris M. Kitani, Brian D. Ziebart, James Andrew Bagnell, and Martial Hebert. Activity Forecasting. Computer Vision ECCV 2012\n[2] Wulfmeier, Markus, Dominic Zeng Wang, and Ingmar Posner. \"Watch this: Scalable cost-function learning for path planning in urban environments.\" 2016 IEEE/RSJ International Conference on Intelligent Robots and Systems (IROS). IEEE, 2016.\n\nsummary_of_recommendation: The submission presents a mostly well-written and intuitively structured paper. The method is new but close to existing approaches and the application is relevant. The overall impact of the paper is likely within limits but could be considerably increased by extending the comparison wrt more baselines (currently only one) and the use of further semantic classes by using the full version of both applied benchmarks.\n\n(rebuttal response: For reasons described during the rebuttal discussion, I will increase the score.)\nissues: - extremely limited external baselines.\n- not evaluated on complete versions of the applied benchmarks (if there is a good argument for why this is not feasible, I can drop this point).\n- further issues in evaluation as described in the main review.\nRating: 7 accept, but needs minor improvements\n", "role": "assistant" }, { "content": "Title: Response to Reviewer u6cx\nWe thank the reviewer for taking the time to write a detailed and insightful review of our paper. Applying your suggestions indeed improves the quality of our paper. We will update our paper to incorporate all your comments. In light of that, we would greatly appreciate it if you would consider increasing your score to “accept”.\n\n> It is not clear to me why the presented method could not be applied to the full set of categories and, related, be compared against the full set of methods which have been applied to these datasets. \n\n### Why we prefer 4-level traversability classification\n\nWhen using the full set of categories, BEV projection can be ambiguous when more than one category is present in a single location (e.g. person driving a bike) of the BEV map. To solve this ambiguity most methods (Han et al. [7]) do a top-down projection in which the point with the highest z value is used to label the map. Although this method is simple and does not require learning, it is not suitable for traversability analysis in off-road scenarios because the highest point does not necessarily specify the traversability. In our 4 class traversability ontology, this ambiguity can be easily addressed by giving priority to the class with the highest traversability cost.\n\nCategorization by traversability cost rather than semantic classes is common in terrain traversability analysis literature [R1]. Most of the works utilize a binary classification ontology (traversable/ non-traversable). Schilling et al. [R2] propose 3 categories: safe, risky, and obstacle. Given the context application of navigation of Warthog the parsimonious categorization is seen to be free (e.g. road), low-cost (e.g. low vegetation), medium cost (e.g. bush, traversable but potentially risky), obstacle. \n\n[R1] Guastella et al. \"Learning-Based Methods of Perception and Navigation for Ground Vehicles in Unstructured Environments: A Review.\" Sensors 2021.\n\n[R2] Schilling et al. \"Geometric and visual terrain classification for autonomous mobile navigation.\" IROS 2017.\n\n### Comparison in the full set of categories\n\nFollowing is the response to the request comparing with the SOTA baselines on the original set of categories. We are providing the results (Table 8 in the supplementary) for the SOTA semantic segmentation Cylinder-3D (CVPR21) in full categories along with the SOTA inpainting methods JS3CNet (AAAI21), and Han et al. [7] BEV map inpainting method (CoRL20). The implementation details can be found in Sec.4 of the supplementary. An off-road autonomous navigation system should additionally detect overhanging structures, and perform time aggregation. To highlight this, we also show the tasks each model does in the table. Note that these baselines produce much smaller maps than ours, so we need to tailor our model to their settings.\n\n|Method(\\#classes)|Segmentation|Inpainting|Projection|Temporal Aggregation|seen|unseen|\n|--------------------|--------------|------------|------------|----------------------|------------|------------|\n|Cylinder3D-TA(19)|Yes|No|TopDown|Yes|**0.316**|0.181|\n|Han et al.(19)|No|Yes|TopDown|No|-|0.131|\n|JS3C-Net(19)|Yes|Yes|TopDown|No|-|**0.258**|\n|BEVNet-S(19)|Yes|Yes|TopDown|No|0.313|0.253|\n|JS3C-Net(4)|Yes|Yes|Complex|No|-|0.549|\n|BEVNet-R(4)|Yes|Yes|Complex|Yes|-|**0.608**|\n\n**Results**: When testing on full categories and using top-down projection, JS3CNet is slightly better than our method, specifically for classes within the lethal obstacles group. Note that in our approach, the projection is learned from the data and not hand-engineered as in top-down projection. We hypothesize for simple top-down projection, it is more data-efficient to code the projection method instead of learning it from the data. However, in complex projection, our learning-based approach in the 4 category ontology significantly outperforms JS3CNet.\n\nSpeedwise, JS3C-Net is significantly slower than ours since it predicts a dense voxel grid. On a 51.2m x 51.2m map, JS3C-Net runs less than 2 fps whereas BEVNet-S runs at 12 fps on a 1080 Ti. It will be hard to scale JS3C-Net to larger maps with recurrency (note that in our main results we use 102.4m x 102.4m maps). In comparison, BEVNet maintains a latent 2D feature map for cost reasoning, which is more memory-efficient.\n\nCylinder 3D's predictions are limited to the seen area of the map. It is surprising that our method performs as well as the Cylinder 3D on the seen area while being able to inpaint the entire map. Finally, we emphasize that our network is designed to perform multiple tasks simultaneously (semantic segmentation, inpainting, complex projection, time aggregation). It is not surprising that its performance does not exceed Cylinder-3D or JS3CNet which perform a subset of these tasks using a network with a similar capacity. \n\n> One specific question is how the unknown class is treated.\n\nWe agree the definition of unknown class mostly depends on the driving behavior and it is impossible to be learned if driving trajectories do not have a predominant pattern. In practice, we observe a lane following behavior by the driver, either on the road or on the trail, in KITTI/RELLIS datasets and the points that are close to the driver’s trajectory are more likely to be seen in the future. Thus, the network output can be visualized better by marking the points that are far from the future trajectory as unknown. Han et al. [7] also utilize this for better visualization and further applies convex hull on the current LiDAR scan to mark regions outside the fit to mark as unknown, based on the realization that regions without any nearby points are difficult for an inpainting algorithm to accurately estimate as no contextual information is provided.\n\nIn our implementation, we represent this by marking unobserved locations from LiDAR data along the driven trajectory, following a similar but simpler methodology than the semantic scene completion benchmark in SemanticKITTI [12]. We remark that the unknown class is only used for visualization.\n\n> Real odometry noise would be out of your control and it would be good to see how good predictions are if your training noise exceeds or is exceeded by the evaluation noise.\n\nAs the reviewer requested, we evaluate our model on different levels of odometry noise during testing and include the results in Sec.4 of the revised supplementary. Based on the suggestion we use various scales of noise (0%, 50%, 100%, 200%, 500%) to consider evaluation noise exceeding the training noise and vice versa. The model is trained at 100% noise level. Performance of BEVNet-R degrades gracefully as odometry noise increases compared to the training odometry noise. For qualitative results, we have uploaded videos to the project website showing the predictions at different levels of odometry noise.\n\n| | 0\\% | 50\\% | 100\\% | 200\\% | 500\\% |\n| --------------- | ------- | ------- | ------- | ------- | ------- |\n| SemanticKITTI | 0.480 | 0.474 | 0.468 | 0.458 | 0.431 |\n| RELLIS-3D | 0.618 | 0.616 | 0.614 | 0.611 | 0.600 |\n\n> why do the different datasets require very different numbers of frames and strides?\n\nFor the ground-truth labels, we choose the number of frames for accumulation such that it covers the whole area of the map (~100x100 meters) while setting a stride for efficiency. The number of frames we need to cover the map depends on the speed of the vehicle, the height of the LiDAR, and the number of points in each scan so we chose different settings for each dataset. \n\n> Would it be possible to train a single model on both datasets?\n\nWe agree it is possible to train a single model on both datasets. When doing so, we also need to make sure that the remission values in both datasets are normalized to be in the same range as different LiDAR sensors are used in each dataset. With the two datasets combined, we get similar mIoUs (KITTI: 0.531, RELLIS: 0.624)) compared to the models trained on each dataset separately (KITTI: 0.535, RELLIS: 0.644). \n", "role": "user" }, { "content": "Title: Rebuttal discussion\nThank you for addressing the feedback. I highly appreciate the additional experiments on noise, combined datasets and semantic classes as well as additional information. In particular, the inclusion of the original semantic classes which considerably extends the set of related work and baselines to correctly integrate this work into the field is highly appreciated. I'm uncertain about the described shortcomings and would render the emphasised challenges as more of minor impact. The increased score can be found in the main review.", "role": "assistant" } ]
AL4FPs84YdQ
CoRL 2021 Conference
Reviewer_dzpe
[ { "content": "\nYou are an experienced academic paper reviewer. You will receive a conference paper in the field of computer science or AI. Please analyze the paper content carefully and output your review content.\nMore importantly, the author will further explain or refute the review comments you gave, and you need to further discuss with the author based on the author's response. \nThe purpose of this rebuttal and discussion is:\n- Clarification: During the review process, the reviewer (you) may not accurately understand the contribution or method of the paper due to unclear expression or misunderstanding of certain details. Through rebuttal, the author has the opportunity to clarify these misunderstandings and further illustrate the effectiveness of their innovations or methods.\n- Respond to criticisms and suggestions: The reviewer (you) may make criticisms or suggestions on the paper, and the author can use the discussion session to provide specific responses, explain why certain criticisms may not apply, or how to improve and optimize certain aspects of the paper.\nFinally, you and the author will work together to enhance the persuasiveness of the paper and improve the quality of the paper.\n", "role": "system" }, { "content": "Now your reviewer ID is assigned as Reviewer_dzpe, and the following are the paper you need to review:\n```<<AL4FPs84YdQ>>```", "role": "user" }, { "content": "Review Content: summary: The authors propose a method for LiDAR semantic information aggregation and completion. The target application of their method is for off-road traversability prediction. \nstrengths_and_weaknesses: Strengths:\n\nThe authors have constructed a fairly complex system for aggregating semantic information from LiDAR data. The odometry integration is differentiable so that gradients can be backpropagated through time to perform the aggregation. The sparsity of the LiDAR data is overcome partially through this aggregation but also through an in-painting network. The results show that they are able to produce semantic maps over their 4-class ontology that are stable could be useful for off-road robot navigation. \n\nWeaknesses:\n\n[W1] I feel the largest weakness of the work is that the approach is designed for predicting terrain traversability, but the work never deploys the model to evaluate navigation on a mobile robot. Some of the choices that are made about what classes should be deemed \"traversible\" and which classes not will be traversible depends heavily on the specific robot. I'm not sure it will always be clear that some classes should be traversible and others not in fact. It would seem that a requirement for demonstration of the value of their traversability prediction is that it is in fact traversible for some specific robot. Without this, the method is just aggregating semantic information and fusing it with odometry. \n\n[W2] I'm not clear on whether geometry is being used to determine traversability at all. On line \"For the remaining points, we take the point with the lowest traversability at each x, y location as the final traversability label\" it seems not. It would seem that for traversability we need a mix of geometry and semantic information. For example, if grass is a steep hill then it may not be traversible but if it is flat it will be. \n\n[W3] I'm somewhat confused about how the aggregation is accounting for odometry error both in the dataset generation and at inference time. On L 211 you claim that \"BEVNet-R uses learned recurrency to “fix” the errors in odometry\" but I don't understand what this means or even how this is possible. Please clarify/elaborate. \n\n[W4] I find the 3rd claim of contribution overstated. The claim is \" 3) filtering out irrelevant obstacles like overhanging tree branches that do not affect traversability\" which is achieved in the methodology by \"we filter out overhanging obstacles by remov- ing points that are above the ground plane by a certain threshold because they will not collide with the robot.\" This doesn't seem to me to warrant a claim of novelty. \n\n[W5] I would have like to have seen a comparison against a more traditional SLAM-based fusion approach. \nsummary_of_recommendation: It is difficult to assess the true usefulness of this approach for real robotics navigation since the model is never shown to work in this setting. The ontology that is used to define traversability is hand-constructed and it is not clear (at least to me) to what degree this output actually maps to traversability of a real robot in a practical setting. It is possible that the work could be re-framed as an approach for semantic fusion and completion for LiDAR data, but as it stands it is hard to evaluate on the use-case that it sets out to achieve, which is traversability. \n\n-----------------------\n\nPost-rebuttal comments. \n\nThe authors have done an exceptional job trying to address the comments that I raised in the first round. I particularly appreciate the new comparisons with a SLAM-based baseline. I have correspondingly updated my recommendation to \"Weak accept\". \n\nA few further suggestions for the camera-ready version if the paper is accepted. I would suggest to move some of the responses to my (and other reviewers') comments out of the supplementary and into the main manuscript. For example, in my opinion, the comparison with the traditional SLAM approach is much more valuable/insightful than the discussion about early/late aggregation in the ConvGRU. I would also suggest that they update the description of the third claim of novelty to include more of the details in the response here since as stated in the manuscript currently it seems kind of trivial, but only now do I understand that it is really not. Additionally, if the authors' have performed experiments on the Warthog (as evidenced by the project page), it would strengthen the paper to include at least some qualitative evidence of this to strengthen this as a truly applicable and battle-tested method for robotics. \n\n\nissues: Please address/comment on/rebut the weakness listed above or reframe the work as squarely on semantic information fusion, or demonstrate the applicability of the approach by deploying it on a real robot (probably not possible in the rebuttal time frame).\nRating: 7 accept, but needs minor improvements\n", "role": "assistant" }, { "content": "Title: Response to Reviewer dzpe W1, W2, W3, W4, W5\n> [W1] I feel the largest weakness of the work is that the approach is designed for predicting terrain traversability, but the work never deploys the model to evaluate navigation on a mobile robot.\n\nWe thank the reviewer for pointing this out. For offroad traversability analysis we base our experiments on the RELLIS-3D dataset, which is collected using a Warthog robot that is \"a large all-terrain unmanned ground vehicle capable of brief periods of locomotion in water. It can handle tough environments with its rugged build, low ground pressure, and traction tires, which allow effortless mobility through soft soils, vegetation, thick muds, and steep grades\" [R1]. Traversability classification is typically done at binary level (traversable/ non-traversable), while several works use fine-grained categories to define traversability costs. Schilling et al.[R2] proposes 3 categories: safe, risky, and obstacle. Maturana et. al.[R3] uses a more varied set of semantic classes: void, vegetation, tree, trail, etc. Given the context application of navigation on the Warthog, the parsimonious categorization can be free (e.g. road), low-cost (e.g. low vegetation), medium cost (e.g. bush, traversable but potentially risky), obstacle. As we show in our response to [W2], this categorization can be modified or expanded based on the robot requirements and using geometric features, if necessary.\n\nThrough several experiments on the Warthog, we realized that 4 categories are sufficient for successful navigation in many on-road and off-road scenarios. For better illustration and showing the testing conditions of the Warthog, we have included several videos on the project website showing the testing condition of the proposed system on the Warthog (https://sites.google.com/view/terrain-traversability/home#h.esrg71olrgxo\"). \n\nIn one of the videos (weeds), we highlight the fact that the robot can traverse over dense vegetation that is categorized as the medium-cost group. While it is still traversable, it is naturally less preferable and is a potentially risky terrain to drive over. This additional level of traversability allows the robot to decide if it prefers to traverse through the medium-cost area to get to the target quickly or find an alternative route at a lower risk.\n\n[R1] Clearpath Warthog unmanned ground vehicle description page, https://clearpathrobotics.com/warthog-unmanned-ground-vehicle-robot/\n\n[R2] Schilling et al. \"Geometric and visual terrain classification for autonomous mobile navigation.\" IROS 2017.\n\n[R3] Maturana et al. “Real-Time Semantic Mapping for Autonomous Off-Road Navigation.” FSR 2017.\n\n\n> [W2] I'm not clear on whether geometry is being used to determine traversability at all.\n\nWe chose 4 levels to represent traversability because 1) it is easier to evaluate and compare with existing methods, and 2) the current publicly available datasets do not contain complex terrains like steep hills. However, the proposed model can be used to learn geometric features in more complex terrains as well. Note that in the labeling process we have access to the complete scene, which is created by aggregating LiDAR scans, and hence the steepness of the terrain at each point can be estimated accurately. Using this information one can define fine-grained categories like flat grass, steep grass, etc. and use these labels to train the BEV net to predict these classes given a single LiDAR scan.\n\nTo illustrate this process, we run a simple experiment to utilize the geometric features in the RELLIS-3D dataset. Since the terrain is mostly flat in this dataset, we focus on another useful geometric feature: the height of the vegetation. As the reviewer mentioned, the definition of traversability depends on the robot; vegetation with a certain height might be traversable for a large vehicle such as Warthog while it is not traversable for a smaller robot. With this in mind, we measure the height of bushes during the labeling process. Parts that are taller than a threshold H are marked as lethal obstacles while shorter parts are labeled as medium cost. The height is measured from the closest ground level to the bush. Recall that these measurements are done on the full pointcloud and are relatively accurate but the network needs to learn to predict the correct labels from a single LiDAR scan, which only provides a sparse partial observation.\n\nWe train 2 different networks with different thresholding: one where the medium cost class is kept whatever its height is, and one where the bush class taller than 0.5m above the ground estimate is determined non-traversable and hence remapped to lethal. We visualize the network predictions on the test set, example predictions provided in Sec.6 of the revised supplementary and on the project website (https://sites.google.com/view/terrain-traversability/home#h.5c7sml45lt56). The results show that as we decrease the height the model becomes more conservative in marking bushes as medium cost traversable.\n> [W3] I'm somewhat confused about how the aggregation is accounting for odometry error both in the dataset generation and at inference time.\n\nIn both KITTI and RELLIS, the scans are accurately aligned via the poses computed by a SLAM pipeline. We use these accurate poses to generate the ground truth traversability maps, so the ground truth has minimal odometry error. During training, we optionally inject noise to the odometry (part of the input), but still supervise the model with error-free ground truth traversability maps. To minimize the loss, the network has to learn to be robust to noisy odometry. For small odometry errors, the network can learn to correct that since both the ConvGRU and the Inpainting Network have convolutional kernels which look at the neighborhood of each pixel to fix small misalignment. For large odometry errors, the network can decide to forget part of the history. Our quantitative results in the paper show that with noisy odometry, BEVNet-R outperforms BEVNet-S, BEVNet-S-TA and Cylinder3D-TA. This shows that BEVNet-R is capable of adaptively retaining the history. We additionally provide ablation studies on the different levels of odometry noise during testing for BEVNet-R, included in Sec.4 of the revised supplementary (also in the table below) with visualization videos uploaded to the project website (https://sites.google.com/view/terrain-traversability/home#h.4osy9hqyfe79). We observe that BEVNet-R is robust to various levels of noise, and the alignment correction and forgetting history can be observed from the visualizations.\n\n| | 0\\% | 50\\% | 100\\% | 200\\% | 500\\% |\n| --------------- | ------- | ------- | ------- | ------- | ------- |\n| SemanticKITTI | 0.480 | 0.474 | 0.468 | 0.458 | 0.431 |\n| RELLIS-3D | 0.618 | 0.616 | 0.614 | 0.611 | 0.600 |\n\nOne thing we would like to point out is that BEVNet-R trained on noisy odometry tends to retain less history than BEVNet-R trained on clean odometry. This is not surprising because under noisy odometry the history is less reliable. One future direction we would like to pursue is to improve the amount of information retained under noisy odometry.\n\n> [W4] I find the 3rd claim of contribution overstated (filtering out irrelevant obstacles)\n\nWe disagree with the reviewer about the novelty of this approach. First note that the filtering mechanism that removes the irrelevant obstacles like overhanging branches does not work well if it is applied on a single parse LiDAR scan as the ground level can not be accurately estimated. We do the filtering in the ground truth label generation process where the complete scene is available and therefore the ground level estimation can be done accurately. By using such ground truth labels without the actual filtering mechanism, BEVNet learns to perform the necessary inpainting, pattern recognition, and removal of overhanging structures from sparse LiDAR scans to predict accurate BEV maps that match the ground truth. \n\n\nthe network has to learn to filter such obstacles in the 3D space to predict accurate BEV maps that match the ground truth. For this, we expect the network to do a lot of inpainting and pattern recognition to successfully identify and remove the overhanging structures from a sparse LiDAR scan. We believe that the novelty is in the learning process that allows BEVNet to filter such obstacles without the actual mechanism or information provided.\n\n\n> [W5] I would have like to have seen a comparison against a more traditional SLAM-based fusion approach.\n\nWe are in the process of implementing a traditional SLAM-fusion baseline and will add the result once it is completed.\n\nWe thank the reviewer for taking the time to write a detailed and insightful review of our paper. Applying your suggestions indeed improves the quality of our paper. Here is our response to the last concern [W5]:\n\n> [W5] I would have like to have seen a comparison against a more traditional SLAM-based fusion approach.\n\nAs the reviewer requested, we provide comparison results of our model against a 3D SLAM-fusion baseline (called Cylinder3D-TA-3D). Here is how this baseline works:\n\n1. We first perform semantic segmentation on the LiDAR scans with Cylinder3D to generate segmented point clouds.\n\n2. We aggregate the segmented point clouds in 3D using a voxel grid similar to how Octomap [R1] works using calibrated poses from SemanticKITTI and RELLIS-3D.\n\n3. When aggregating the point clouds, we optionally apply ray tracing to remove the trace of moving objects as much as possible.\n\n4. For the points falling into a voxel, we normalize the counts of their predicted labels into a categorical distribution. This is how Bayesian statistics estimates the parameter of a categorical distribution via a uniform Dirichlet prior. This produces a labeled voxel grid.\n\n5. We project this labeled voxel grid down to 2D using the same rule as how we generate the groundtruth BEV costmaps.\n\nWe refer the reviewer to Sec.7 of the supplementary for complete results and detailed analysis. We summarize the main points here:\n\n1. Compared to Cylinder3D+TA baseline that aggregates in the 2D BEV space, 3D aggregation with raytracing exhibits considerable improvement in the seen area: +8 points in RELLIS (+5.9 points in SemanticKITTI), respectively. However, while 2D aggregation time in TA is negligible, 3D aggregation is the computational bottleneck in the pipeline as it takes ~1 sec to aggregate a single scan into the octomap and perform ray tracing.\n\n2. When evaluating on the whole map, BEVNet outperforms Cylinder3D-TA-3D by more than 20 points in RELLIS (5 points in SemanticKITTI) because Cylinder3D-TA-3D does not predict the future.\n\n3. When limiting the comparison to the seen area, Cylinder3D-TA-3D outperforms BEVNet-R up to 3 points in RELLIS (6 points in SemanticKITTI).\n\nIn conclusion, there is a trade-off between prediction area and accuracy. While combining state-of-the-art semantic segmentation with SLAM-based fusion produces better results on the seen area, it falls short of predicting a more complete map, is prone to odometry noise, and is computationally expensive. Our network is optimized to perform multiple tasks simultaneously (semantic segmentation, inpainting, complex projection, time aggregation) efficiently in a single forward pass.\n\n[R1] Hornung, Armin, et al. \"OctoMap: An efficient probabilistic 3D mapping framework based on octrees.\" Autonomous robots 2013", "role": "user" }, { "content": "Thanks for the authors' clarification. It addresses most of my concerns.", "role": "assistant" } ]
AL4FPs84YdQ
CoRL 2021 Conference
Reviewer_2yv4
[ { "content": "\nYou are an experienced academic paper reviewer. You will receive a conference paper in the field of computer science or AI. Please analyze the paper content carefully and output your review content.\nMore importantly, the author will further explain or refute the review comments you gave, and you need to further discuss with the author based on the author's response. \nThe purpose of this rebuttal and discussion is:\n- Clarification: During the review process, the reviewer (you) may not accurately understand the contribution or method of the paper due to unclear expression or misunderstanding of certain details. Through rebuttal, the author has the opportunity to clarify these misunderstandings and further illustrate the effectiveness of their innovations or methods.\n- Respond to criticisms and suggestions: The reviewer (you) may make criticisms or suggestions on the paper, and the author can use the discussion session to provide specific responses, explain why certain criticisms may not apply, or how to improve and optimize certain aspects of the paper.\nFinally, you and the author will work together to enhance the persuasiveness of the paper and improve the quality of the paper.\n", "role": "system" }, { "content": "Now your reviewer ID is assigned as Reviewer_2yv4, and the following are the paper you need to review:\n```<<AL4FPs84YdQ>>```", "role": "user" }, { "content": "Review Content: summary: The paper considers traversability estimation for autonomous off-road driving, and develops Bird-eye View Network (BEVNet) which predicts traversability map from sparse Lidar inputs with semantic information (semantic objects are mapped to labels: free, low-cost, med-cost, lethal). The architecture consists of 3d sparse cnn for point cloud processing, ConvGRU for temporal aggregation of scans, and 2d encoder/decoder to produce traversability birds-eye-view map. As parts of the framework, unseen areas of the map can also be predicted. The traversability map can be converted into a cost map for planning purposes. \n\nThe proposed algorithmic aggregates scans, points are semantically mapped to labels, ground plane is estimated, and used as reference for the final projection, before which points of a certain theshold above the ground plane are filtered. For the remaining points, the one with lowest traversability is used as the final 2d projected point label. The vehicle odometry is used to transform and aggregate scans over time. \nThe network is also trained using noisy perturbed inputs, which might help explain why it is later more robust to noise from odometry (and hence the map aggregation). \n\nThe authors include comparisons to Cylinder3d network on two standard datasets -- Kitti and Rellis, demonstrating improved performance. \n\nOther comments:\nWould be useful to explain what Cylinder3d does -- it's not clear from the name that it is an appropriate comparison network. \nHow is the ground truth constructed in the Figures? It seems noiser (and more incomplete) than BEVNet ?\nstrengths_and_weaknesses: Strengths:\n+ general method for semantics+lidar+odometry-based traversability estimation\n+ the qualitative results demonstrate that the method is promising\n+ the authors have performed comparisons using standard data-sets\n\nWeaknesses:\n- the paper claims to address off-road traversability but by explicitly relying on semantics it is extremely difficult to address offroad navigation where aspects such as slope, surface roughness, tire-surface interaction, etc... are not easy to label semantically; the authors might want to limit the scope and be clear that it only applies to a class of environments that can be semantically labeled\n- the dependence on a single ground plane might limit the applications to planar environments\n- is Cylinder3d the only/best comparison framework?\nsummary_of_recommendation: The paper has interesting ideas about combining geometry and semantics for traversability.\nissues: Would be useful to limit the scope when referring to \"off-road\" as noted above. \nPlease clarify and address the comments under Weaknesses above.\nRating: 7 accept, but needs minor improvements\n", "role": "assistant" }, { "content": "Title: Response to Reviewer 2yv4\nWe thank the reviewer for taking the time to write a detailed and insightful review of our paper! Below are our responses to the concerns:\n\n> How is the ground truth constructed in the Figures? It seems noiser (and more incomplete) than BEVNet ?\n\nThe groundtruth is constructed by aggregating the labeled LiDAR scans and projecting them to 2D using the rule described in Sec.3.2. The “noise” may come from the labeled scans themselves as the labels are not perfect (but mostly correct) or the ground plane being unstable (due to sparse LiDAR points). The “incompleteness” is due to the driving pattern of the vehicle and occlusion. BEVNet may look more “complete” because it is free to give predictions to the unknown area. However, when doing the evaluation, we only consider the region where the groundtruth BEV maps have a valid label.\n\n> the paper claims to address off-road traversability but by explicitly relying on semantics it is extremely difficult to address offroad navigation where aspects such as slope, surface roughness, tire-surface interaction, etc... are not easy to label semantically; the authors might want to limit the scope and be clear that it only applies to a class of environments that can be semantically labeled\n\nWe agree with the reviewer, and Reviewer 2 (dzpe) shares the same concern. Please see our response (copied below):\n\nWe chose 4 levels to represent traversability because 1) it is easier to evaluate and compare with existing methods, and 2) the current publicly available datasets do not contain complex terrains like steep hills. However, the proposed model can be used to learn geometric features in more complex terrains as well. Note that in the labeling process we have access to the complete scene, which is created by aggregating LiDAR scans, and hence the steepness of the terrain at each point can be estimated accurately. Using this information one can define fine-grained categories like flat grass, steep grass, etc., and use these labels to train the BEV net to predict these classes. If necessary, the costmap can contain continuous cost values instead of discrete labels, and BEVNet can be used to directly regress that.\n\nTo illustrate this process, we run a simple experiment to utilize the geometric features in the RELLIS-3D dataset. Since the terrain is mostly flat in this dataset, we focus on another useful geometric feature: the height of the vegetation. As the reviewer mentioned, the definition of traversability depends on the robot; vegetation with a certain height might be traversable for a large vehicle such as Warthog while it is not traversable for a smaller robot. With this in mind, we measure the height of bushes during the labeling process. Parts that are taller than a threshold H are marked as lethal obstacles while shorter parts are labeled as medium cost. The height is measured from the closest ground level to the bush. Recall that these measurements are done on the full point cloud and are relatively accurate but the network needs to learn to predict the correct labels from a single LiDAR scan, which only provides a sparse partial observation.\n\nWe train 2 different networks with different thresholding: one where the medium cost class is kept whatever its height is, and one where the bush class taller than 0.5m above the ground estimate is determined non-traversable and hence remapped to lethal. We visualize the network predictions on the test set, example predictions provided in Sec.6 of the revised supplementary and on the project website (https://sites.google.com/view/terrain-traversability/home#h.5c7sml45lt56). The results show that as we decrease the height the model becomes more conservative in marking bushes as medium-cost traversable.\n\n> the dependence on a single ground plane might limit the applications to planar environments\n\nWe do not assume a single ground plane when generating the ground truth BEV maps. The local ground level is estimated by averaging the traversable points with the lowest z values at each x, y location (see Sec. 3.2, Points Binning and Ground Plane Estimation). Hence the ground level can vary between different locations. We have revised L128-L132 in the section for clarity.\n\n> is Cylinder3d the only/best comparison framework?\n\nCylinder3D is a neural network for LiDAR segmentation, and it was specifically chosen as the segmentation method to represent the semantic segmentation component of the pipeline. It is also the most recent SOTA (CVPR21) with code available. The segmented point cloud from Cylinder3D is then postprocessed based on our projection rule and aggregated in 2D to generate the BEV costmap.\n\nPer the request of Reviewer 2 (dzpe) we also include an additional baseline that does 3D semantic aggregation. Please see our response to Reviewer 2 [W5] and also Sec. 7 of the supplementary material for the results and discussions.\n\nWe also make additional comparisons against other baselines on the full categories per the request of Reviewer 1 (u6cx). Note that we have to compare with these baselines by tailoring our model to their settings (smaller maps, full categories, topdown projection), and the results do not fully translate to our task of terrain traversability estimation.\n", "role": "user" }, { "content": "Thanks to the authors for their clarification. The reply answers almost all of my questions. I keep my recommendation for this paper to be accepted.", "role": "assistant" } ]
AL4FPs84YdQ
CoRL 2021 Conference
Reviewer_vtKE
[ { "content": "\nYou are an experienced academic paper reviewer. You will receive a conference paper in the field of computer science or AI. Please analyze the paper content carefully and output your review content.\nMore importantly, the author will further explain or refute the review comments you gave, and you need to further discuss with the author based on the author's response. \nThe purpose of this rebuttal and discussion is:\n- Clarification: During the review process, the reviewer (you) may not accurately understand the contribution or method of the paper due to unclear expression or misunderstanding of certain details. Through rebuttal, the author has the opportunity to clarify these misunderstandings and further illustrate the effectiveness of their innovations or methods.\n- Respond to criticisms and suggestions: The reviewer (you) may make criticisms or suggestions on the paper, and the author can use the discussion session to provide specific responses, explain why certain criticisms may not apply, or how to improve and optimize certain aspects of the paper.\nFinally, you and the author will work together to enhance the persuasiveness of the paper and improve the quality of the paper.\n", "role": "system" }, { "content": "Now your reviewer ID is assigned as Reviewer_vtKE, and the following are the paper you need to review:\n```<<AL4FPs84YdQ>>```", "role": "user" }, { "content": "Review Content: summary: This paper proposes a deep learning architecture for off-road terrain traversability. The BEVNet architecture is based on Birds Eye View Network that contains 3 stages; 3D sparse convolutions, a recurrent network and an inpainting network to estimate current and forecast future traversability. The 3D sparse convolutions process voxelized point clouds, the recurrent network accumulates and fuses data over time and the inpatining network completes the traversability map. \nTwo main datasets are used to evaluate the proposed network, SemanticKITTI and RELLIS-3D. Quantitative, qualitative and ablation study results are presented and benchmarked with state of the art approaches.\nstrengths_and_weaknesses: Strengths:\nThe paper is well written and well structured. The related work seems complete. The methodology is quite clear as well and the results are very well presented.\nThe authors tackle the problem of semantic mapping and traversability in off-road scenarios, which differs of most of the related research that have focused on on-road developments.\nExploiting geometric and temporal constrains is the key feature of the proposed BEVNet.\nThe thoroughness of the results is one of the highlights of this paper. The results show very clearly the performance of the network with respect to SOTA and the proposed stages.\nThe supplementary material helps to a great extent to make results reproducible and to demonstrate the performance.\n\nWeakness\nThe main weakness in my view is that the network purely rely in data-driven models. Despite the relatively good performance, the authors had to train a separate model per dataset, thus the models have a hard time to generalized. In many circumstances such as data fusion, well established \"hand-engineered\" models will produce more accurate and robust results in none observed datasets.\n\n\n\nsummary_of_recommendation: The authors tackle the relevant problem of off-road navigation, which has been largely overlooked by the community. The proposed network is well justified and explained. The methodology is easy to follow. The analysis of the results show the proposed network performs well in the intended off-road scenarios. The thoroughness of the validation benchmarks very well the network with respect to its variations and the SOTA.\nissues: Please define \"r\" of the feature vector (line 138).\nThe noise added to odometry is realistic, but it would be good to see how the network behaves with more noise.\nIn the results I am missing the comparison of BEVNet-S with the vanilla Cylinder-3D. Results could be added to Table 1.\nAre the results of Table 2 obtained with the network \"full\"?\nIs there any difference with the end-to-end trained network vs the two-stage training?\nIn the videos, I noticed there is a flickering issue near the borders in the traversability output of the network. It would good to explain this issue in the RELLIS-3D dataset, where is quite evident.\nFinally, it would be relevant for the community if the authors make the network open-source.\nRating: 9 strong accept, excellent work\n", "role": "assistant" }, { "content": "Title: Response to Reviewer vtKE\nWe thank the reviewer for taking the time to write a detailed and insightful review of our paper! Below are our responses to the concerns:\n\n> Weakness The main weakness in my view is that the network purely rely in data-driven models. Despite the relatively good performance, the authors had to train a separate model per dataset, thus the models have a hard time to generalized. In many circumstances such as data fusion, well established \"hand-engineered\" models will produce more accurate and robust results in none observed datasets.\n\nWe agree that the model is very much data-dependent in learning all the geometric/semantic features for the task of traversability map generation, and given certain scenarios can (and sometimes expected) be less data efficient compared to hand-engineered methods. For instance, as we compare our model against baseline JS3C-Net (See our response to Reviewer u6cx Part 1) for simple top-down projection, we observe it is more data-efficient to code the projection method instead of learning it. In more challenging settings such as complex projection, we show our learning-based approach in the 4 category ontology significantly outperforms JS3CNet. Additionally, we want to highlight that our model can use history to better predict the future, whereas traditional SLAM is not able to do so. This is useful in practice as LiDAR scans can get very sparse as distance increases. \n\nWe train one model for each dataset mostly for evaluation. In practice, it is possible to combine multiple datasets so that the model can be deployed on a variety of terrains. We trained a model with the two datasets combined and got similar mIoUs (KITTI: 0.531, RELLIS: 0.624) compared to the models trained on each dataset separately (KITTI: 0.535, RELLIS: 0.644).\n\nAdditionally, using the model trained on combined datasets we conducted additional experiments where we ran BEVNet-R on data collected with our Warthog platform in various conditions. While the model was not trained in these environments, it shows good generalization capabilities. Please check out the videos on the project website (https://sites.google.com/view/terrain-traversability/home#h.esrg71olrgxo)\n\n> Please define \"r\" of the feature vector (line 138). \n\nr is the remission value of the LiDAR (see line 139).\n\n> The noise added to odometry is realistic, but it would be good to see how the network behaves with more noise.\n\nAs reviewer u6cx and other reviewers have requested, we provide a more detailed ablation study on odometry noise to represent the out-of-control odometry noise condition possible in real robot experiments, included in sec.5 of revised supplementary. We also provide the results here:\n\n| | 0\\% | 50\\% | 100\\% | 200\\% | 500\\% |\n| --------------- | ------- | ------- | ------- | ------- | ------- |\n| SemanticKITTI | 0.480 | 0.474 | 0.468 | 0.458 | 0.431 |\n| RELLIS-3D | 0.618 | 0.616 | 0.614 | 0.611 | 0.600 |\n\nWhile BEVNet-R relatively maintains its performance with increased noise, it tends to retain less history than BEVNet-R trained on clean odometry. This is not surprising because under noisy odometry the history is less reliable. One future direction we would like to pursue is to improve the amount of information retained under noisy odometry. Visualizations of this ablation study are also available on our project website(https://sites.google.com/view/terrain-traversability/home#h.4osy9hqyfe79).\n\n> In the results I am missing the comparison of BEVNet-S with the vanilla Cylinder-3D. Results could be added to Table 1. Are the results of Table 2 obtained with the network \"full\"? Is there any difference with the end-to-end trained network vs the two-stage training? \n\nSince vanilla Cylinder-3D does not perform any inpainting or temporal aggregation, its mIoU is very poor (mIoU on SemanticKITTI is only 0.11).\n\nThe results of Table 2 were obtained when evaluated on the full groundtruth map with clean odometry.\n\nWe expect the difference between end-to-end training and two-stage training to be not large. The two-stage training is mainly to save GPU memory. If we train the whole network end-to-end, there will not be enough memory to train with a sufficiently long sequence. Currently, with a RTX-3090 we can train with a sequence of 5 with two-stage training. We expect the performance of our network to improve if trained with a longer sequence.\n\n> In the videos, I noticed there is a flickering issue near the borders in the traversability output of the network. It would be good to explain this issue in the RELLIS-3D dataset, where is quite evident. \n\nThe “flickering” is likely due to the LiDAR points being extremely sparse at the border. These seemingly random LiDAR hits at the border would alter how the network inpaints this region. In the RELLIS dataset, the LiDAR was mounted at a lower height (1.2m above the ground) whereas in SemanticKITTI the LiDAR was 1.7m above the ground. Hence, in RELLIS the LiDAR points are more concentrated near the robot, which makes the flickering more noticeable. One potential solution is to add a feedback loop from the output of the network to the recurrent layer so that the network can learn to use the current inpainted map to guide the prediction at the next time step. This would be an interesting future direction to improve BEVNet.\n\n> Finally, it would be relevant for the community if the authors make the network open-source.\n\nWe thank the reviewer for their interest. We will open-source our code upon acceptance of our paper.\n", "role": "user" }, { "content": "Thank you for the authors' feedback. The response covers nearly all of the issues I raised. I continue to recommend this work for acceptance.", "role": "assistant" } ]
AlJXhEI6J5W
CoRL 2021 Conference
Reviewer_SrrQ
[ { "content": "\nYou are an experienced academic paper reviewer. You will receive a conference paper in the field of computer science or AI. Please analyze the paper content carefully and output your review content.\nMore importantly, the author will further explain or refute the review comments you gave, and you need to further discuss with the author based on the author's response. \nThe purpose of this rebuttal and discussion is:\n- Clarification: During the review process, the reviewer (you) may not accurately understand the contribution or method of the paper due to unclear expression or misunderstanding of certain details. Through rebuttal, the author has the opportunity to clarify these misunderstandings and further illustrate the effectiveness of their innovations or methods.\n- Respond to criticisms and suggestions: The reviewer (you) may make criticisms or suggestions on the paper, and the author can use the discussion session to provide specific responses, explain why certain criticisms may not apply, or how to improve and optimize certain aspects of the paper.\nFinally, you and the author will work together to enhance the persuasiveness of the paper and improve the quality of the paper.\n", "role": "system" }, { "content": "Now your reviewer ID is assigned as Reviewer_SrrQ, and the following are the paper you need to review:\n```<<AlJXhEI6J5W>>```", "role": "user" }, { "content": "Review Content: summary: The authors attempted to address the challenge posed by distribution shift to fine tuning policies learned through offline RL. The proposed solution includes two parts: (1) a method called “balanced replay” that uses a density approximation of how similar the old offline samples are to the new online samples and accordingly determines how offline and online samples in the replay buffer should be mixed during fine tuning; and (2) an ensemble of “pessimistic” Q functions (trained with conservative deep Q learning) to further strengthen the stability of the fine tuning.\nstrengths_and_weaknesses: Strengths\n\ni.\tThe case for the need to address distribution shift in fine tuning policies learned through offline RL is well motivated: Section 3 and Figure 1 are well structured and well presented. Kudos to the authors!\n\nii.\tBalanced replay is a relatively novel approach.\n\niii.\tThe ensemble of pessimistic Q functions is empirically effective.\n\nWeaknesses\n\ni.\tThe relationship between the two parts of the solution is unclear. The pessimistic ensemble seems to be an extra add-on. It seems to be an afterthought for better performance rather than an integrated part of an architecturally cohesive solution.\n\nii.\tDiscussion of the ensemble, about why and how it works, stopped at vague allusions to “resolution” without detail. (Technical Issue v below).\n\niii.\tThe treatment of BCQ as a baseline seems quite unfair. See Technical Issues (vi) below for more detail.\n\niv.\tThe effectiveness of the method in the real world is doubtful. See Technical Issues (ix and x) below for more detail.\n\nsummary_of_recommendation: a.\tThere is an interesting idea that is worth discussing by the RL community: “balanced replay”. Also, the analysis of distribution shift through a careful study of one concrete case is quite helpful and illuminating.\n\nb.\tThe relationship between the pessimistic ensemble and distribution shift is not clearly established. From the experiments, it seems that the ensemble is mainly contributing towards stabilizing training. Overall, the ensemble part seems to be a separate proposal.\n\nc.\tThe effectiveness of the approach for real-world robotics is doubtful. See below in \"Issues\".\n\nd.\tThere are multiple technical issues that need to be fixed, addressed or discussed. See below in “Issues”.\n\nissues: Technical issues\n\ni.\tSection 3 and Figure 1: Can the discussion and presentation here be used to motivate the necessity of the use of ensemble in the solution resolution? How should the discussion and Figure 1 (or experiments therein) be changed?\n\nii.\tShould we also consider offline RL approaches (e.g. model-based) that learn the structure more explicitly before fine-tuning? How would that affect the distribution shift situation? Should we also consider model-based baselines? (No need to actually include such baselines. Just theoretically speaking.)\n\niii.\tHow does our analysis (e.g. in Section 3) inform about data collection & selection for the offline phase itself? Should we also compare with approaches that do data collection differently for the offline phase to improve fine-tuning? Note that the injection of uniform random policy rollouts (Line 291) seems to be an example. Should we also consider this in our theoretical treatment at least?\n\niv.\tLine 155: In the design space here, other than d^on / d^off used in the paper, d^on / d^(on union off) also seems a sensible choice that might have the added benefit of trending towards 1 asymptotically.\n\nv.\t“Ensemble methods” (paragraph starting on Line 207): it is not clear that “obtain a high-resolution pessimism” is mutually exclusive. I.e. it is not clear “instead” is warranted.\n\nvi.\tLine 236-237: Is it justified to apply the same update rules as offline training when using BCQ as a baseline? Why not transfer/fine-tune using e.g. SAC? That seems to be a much more fair comparison. This is so especially in light of Figure 3 in which BCQ is barely learning during online fine-tuning. But BCQ was not designed for fine tuning. To do justice to BCQ, the comparison should presumably be about the quality of policy initialization.\n\nvii.\tLine 268: “Interpreting Q(s, a) as the confidence value for classifying real and fake transitions” -- How is this justifiable at all? Are we making a category mistake here? Action value and confidence about real vs. fake are radically different kinds of things.\n\nviii.\tFigure 5: “eight runs” and everywhere else is 4 runs. Why do we need to go up to eight runs here? What’s the reason behind this shift from the practice elsewhere in the paper.\n\nix.\tFigure 13 and 14: the main expected effect or phenomenon -- stable and efficient fine-tuning -- seems highly unstable. All methods see big drops during the first 100 episodes. This raises questions about whether the method is going to be truly effective when used with physical robots. Of course, an alternative conclusion here could be that the method is good but that these environments are inadequate for testing the new architecture. It seems that adequate discussion of these curves is missing.\n\nx.\tLine 291: “we replace a subset of the original dataset with uniform random policy rollouts.” Is this justified? In real world applications, data are more likely from medium-level policies, less likely from uniform random policies. In fact, it could be the case that in the real world it’s much harder to obtain data with uniform random policy rollouts. That this sort of uniform random rollouts are needed at all seems worrying, especially if offline RL is supposed to use real world data.\n\nWriting issues\n\ni.\tLine 83-84 “dataset of random halfcheetah transitions”. The notion of a “random dataset” should be more appropriately introduced. More detail was provided later around Line 123. But it is more desirable if the notion is explained before it is used.\n\nii.\tLine 131-133: It may be more helpful to say right there and then positively and explicitly that that’s what the balanced replay approach is intended to do. That wrap up Section 3 more adequately.\n\niii.\tFigure 2: Diagram is good. But it is misleading to have labels of the parts of the diagram in shaded boxes. Consider remove the boxes around “Pessimistic Online Training”, “Environment Interaction” and “Balanced Replay”.\n\niv.\tLine 196: the acronym AWAC should be introduced here rather than later on Line 233.\n\nv.\tFigure 1 and Figure 5: It will be helpful and make the figures more self-contained if the environments used in the experiments are explicitly identified in the caption.\n\nvi.\tFigure 13: should “CQL objective” in the caption be “SAC objective”?\nRating: 7 accept, but needs minor improvements\n", "role": "assistant" }, { "content": "Title: Response to Reviewer SrrQ\nDear Reviewer SrrQ,\n\nWe sincerely appreciate your valuable and insightful comments. We found them very helpful for improving our manuscript. We address each comment in detail, one by one below.\n\n---\n\n**Q1. Section 3 and Figure 1: Can the discussion and presentation here be used to motivate the necessity of the use of ensemble in the solution resolution? How should the discussion and Figure 1 (or experiments therein) be changed?**\n\n**A1.** We argue that the discussion in section 3.3 naturally motivates our ensemble method, for it shows that leveraging a pessimistic Q-function is essential for preventing distribution shift, and ensembling such Q-functions provides a more accurate, “high-resolution” pessimism (please see our response to **Q2** for a clarification on what we mean by high-resolution pessimism). We made this more explicit in the revised manuscript. \n\n---\n\n**Q2. “Interpreting Q(s,a) as the confidence value for classifying real and fake transitions” -- how is this justifiable at all? Are we making a category mistake here? Action value and confidence about real vs. fake are radically different kinds of things.**\n\n**A2.** As explained in Section 3, to prevent distribution shift, Q-values must be distinguishably lower for unseen actions than for seen actions during fine-tuning. \nWhile this is not strictly a classification problem, viewing Q-values for seen vs unseen actions as proxy for the agent’s high vs low confidence is a good way to quantitatively measure the discriminative ability of Q-function. Based on this, AUROC values during fine-tuning were provided thereof, and indeed, pessimistic Q-ensemble was shown to provide a more discriminative value estimate. By high-resolution pessimism, we were referring to such superior discriminative ability of the Q-ensemble. \n\n---\n\n**Q3. “Ensemble methods” (paragraph starting on Line 207): it is not clear that “obtain a high-resolution pessimism” is mutually exclusive. I.e., it is not clear “instead” is warranted.**\n\n**A3.** Thank you for pointing this out. We initially wanted to emphasize that prior methods leverage Q-functions trained to estimate the ground-truth Q-functions; whereas our method leverages Q-functions pre-trained to estimate a lower bound of the ground-truth Q-function. However, we realize that various overestimation bias reduction methods [1-5] and SUNRISE [6] can be seen as performing a more conservative bellman backup. We reflected this point in the revised manuscript accordingly. \n\n---\n\n**Q4. Why does BCQ use the same update rule as offline training and not transfer/fine-tune using SAC? Is this fair?**\n\n**A4.** We remark that the current comparison is fair due to the following reasons: BCQ crucially relies on a conditional VAE for action selection, and $\\pi$ merely adds noise to the actions output by the VAE decoder. Hence, it is unnatural to apply SAC updates for a BCQ agent. Nair, et al. [7] also pointed out that such reliance on a behavior model (VAE) is a bottleneck in fine-tuning. \n\nMeanwhile, CQL objective is identical to the SAC objective except for the added CQL regularization term (and the maximum-entropy term for bellman backup) for policy evaluation, which makes it natural to exclude it during fine-tuning. \n---\n**Q5. Figure 13 and 14: the main expected effect or phenomenon -- stable and efficient fine-tuning -- seems highly unstable. All methods see big drops during the first 100 episodes. This raises questions about whether the method is going to be truly effective when used with physical robots. Of course, an alternative conclusion here could be that the method is good but that these environments are inadequate for testing the new architecture. It seems that adequate discussion of these curves is missing.**\n\n**A5.** The vision-based robotic manipulation tasks are challenging, for its high-dimensional, pixel observation space implies only a narrow coverage of the state-action space by the offline dataset. Additionally, these tasks only provide sparse rewards upon task completion. Hence, initial performance degradation is understandable during early exploration. However note that it only takes our method \\~200 episodes (around 8~16K environment steps) to recover the initial score after an initial phase of exploration, and reaches high score in all cases asymptotically. \n\nAlso, we note that for manipulation tasks, both ensemble and balanced replay were essential for good performance. First, due to reward sparsity, there were individual offline agents that, while producing meaningful trajectories that resemble some trajectories in the offline dataset, were nonetheless not good enough to receive reward signals online. In this case, the ensemble agent becomes more robust than these individual agents, and was more likely to see enough reward signals for fine-tuning. Second, even with ensemble, updating with online samples only results in severe distribution shift, and balanced replay was essential to facilitate fine-tuning. \n\nWe added a relevant discussion in Section E.2 of the revised manuscript. \n\n---\n\n**Q6. “We replace a subset of the original dataset with uniform random policy rollouts.” Is this justified? In real world applications, data are more likely from medium-level policies, less likely from uniform random policies. In fact, it could be the case that in the real world it’s much harder to obtain data with uniform random policy rollouts. That this sort of uniform random rollouts are needed at all seems worrying, especially if offline RL is supposed to use real world data.**\n\n**A6.** We would like to first point out that random policy rollouts were not *needed* to achieve good performance. Rather, we *replaced* half the original dataset with random policy rollouts, in order to showcase our method’s capability to retrieve relevant offline samples for fine-tuning. \nAlso, in many robotics tasks, samples generated by random policy provide various advantages: For instance, many prior works in robotic manipulation [8,9] collect random policy rollouts, for random policy rollouts (1) enable simple task/reward-agnostic exploration of the environment, and as a result (2) enable superior generalization and better performance in downstream tasks. All and all, it is a realistic scenario for offline datasets to contain random rollouts, and an offline-to-online RL method must be able to handle them just as well. \n\n---\n\n**Q7. Line 155: In the design space here, other than $d^{\\texttt{on}}/d^{\\texttt{off}}$ used in the paper, $d^{\\texttt{on}}/d^{\\texttt{on}\\cup\\texttt{off}}$ also seems a sensible choice that might have the added benefit of trending towards 1 asymptotically.**\n\n**A7.** Thank you for the suggestion. We additionally experimented with this scheme, and provided the results in Section E.1 of the revised manuscript (Figure 14). With the same hyperparameters, we observed similar performance across most setups. However, as you mentioned, the alternative scheme may have the potential benefit of trending towards 1.0 asymptotically. \n\n---\n\n**Q8 Should we also consider offline RL approaches (e.g., model-based) that learn the structure more explicitly before fine-tuning? How would that affect the distribution shift situation? Should we also consider model-based baselines? (No need to actually include such baselines. Just theoretically speaking)**\n\n**A8.** Dynamics model training does not involve regression to a bootstrapped target, hence may be easier to fine-tune -- possibly by oversampling near-online transitions via balanced replay, in order to enable timely fine-tuning. We expect that a model-based method such as MOPO [10], which also trains a pessimistic Q-function, may also be amenable to online fine-tuning. Looking into whether the fictitious samples generated near online, novel samples are reliable would be an interesting direction to explore. \n---\n**Q9. How does our analysis (e.g. in Section 3) inform about data collection & selection for the offline phase itself? Should we also compare with approaches that do data collection differently for the offline phase to improve fine-tuning? Note that the injection of uniform random policy rollouts (Line 291) seems to be an example. Should we also consider this in our theoretical treatment at least?**\n\n**A9.** While our task of interest was offline-to-online RL with a dataset given a priori, it is certainly interesting to also consider the data collection process itself that would benefit downstream online tasks. \n\nDiscussion from Section 3 suggests that diverse (and large) dataset with a wide coverage of the state-action space are less likely to lead to distribution shift. \n\nTo further investigate the relationship between dataset composition and fine-tuning performance, we measured the online asymptotic performance of our method. As shown in Figure 13 of the revised manuscript, our method performed best for halfcheetah-random (15k score), while reaching suboptimal scores for medium and medium-replay tasks (12k score). We conjecture that observing a wide-support data may be essential not just for avoiding distribution shift, but also for asymptotic performance online. \n\nGiven this, while the inclusion of uniform random policy rollouts in our robotic manipulation experiments was not for boosting performance (see response to **Q6**), it is likely that such random rollouts may benefit fine-tuning by providing a diverse set of exploratory transitions. \n\n---\n\n**Q10. Figure 5: “Eight runs” and everywhere else is 4 runs.**\n\n**A10.** We wanted to show that the high variance of CQL-ft (Online only) does not come from the lack of random seeds. Trends are similar for 4 vs 8 random seeds, as seen in the following [plot](https://imgur.com/a/9YHjJWm).\n\n---\n\n**Q11. Editorial comments**\n\n**A11.** We have addressed the issues and revised the manuscript accordingly (written in red in the revised manuscript). Thank you for your comments and suggestions. \n\n---\n\n**References**\n\n[1] H. V. Hasselt. Double q-learning. NeurIPS, 2010.\n\n[2] H. v. Hasselt, A. Guez, and D. Silver. Deep reinforcement learning with double q-learning. AAAI, 2016.\n\n[3] O. Anschel, N. Baram, and N. Shimkin. Averaged-dqn: Variance reduction and stabilization for deep reinforcement learning. ICML, 2017.\n\n[4] S. Fujimoto, H. Hoof, and D. Meger. Addressing function approximation error in actor-critic methods. ICML, 2018.\n\n[5] Q. Lan, Y. Pan, A. Fyshe, and M. White. Maxmin q-learning: Controlling the estimation bias of q-learning. ICML, 2020. \n\n[6] K. Lee, M. Laskin, A. Srinivas, and P. Abbeel. Sunrise: A simple unified framework for ensemble learning in deep reinforcement learning. ICML, 2021.\n\n[7] A. Nair, M. Dalal, A. Gupta, and S. Levine. Awac: Accelerating online reinforcement learning with offline datasets. arXiv preprint arXiv:2006.09359, 2021\n\n[8] C. Finn and S. Levine. Deep visual foresight for planning robot motion. ICRA, 2017.\n\n[9] F. Ebert, C. Finn, S. Dasari, A. Xie, A. Lee, and S. Levine. Visual foresight: Model-based deep reinforcement learning for vision-based robotic control. arXiv preprint arXiv:1812.00568,4022018\n\n[10] T. Yu, G. Thomas, L. Yu, S. Ermon, J. Zou, S. Levine, C. Finn, and T. Ma. Mopo: Model-based offline policy optimization. NeurIPS, 2020.\n Global/general Response:\n```\nDear reviewers,\n\nWe sincerely appreciate your insightful comments and constructive suggestions to help us improve the manuscript. We are grateful for all positive comments: clear presentation (R1-4), well-motivated (R1-4), novelty (R1), and strong experimental results (R2-4). \n\nIn response to the questions and concerns raised, we have carefully revised and improved the manuscript with the following additional experiments and discussions:\n\n- Improved figures for better readability (Figure 1, 2, 4)\n- Clearer presentation on balanced replay (Section 4.1)\n- Additional experiments and discussions regarding the relationship between dataset composition and performance (Section E.1, Figure 13)\n- Additional experiments with an alternative density ratio (Section E.1, Figure 14)\n- More detailed discussion on robotic manipulation task results (Section E.2)\n- Other minor revisions (clearer motivation for method, clarification on prior works, typo corrections, etc.)\n\nThe revisions made are marked with “red” in the revised manuscript.\n\nWe also appreciate your continued effort to provide further feedback until the very end of response/discussion phase. We will make sure to reflect the comments in the final version.\n\nBest regards,\n\nAuthors.\n\n```\n", "role": "user" }, { "content": "Title: Response to Rebuttal\nI would like to thank the authors for a thorough rebuttal. I found the explanation of the relationship between pessimistic Q ensemble and the balanced replay to be adequate. I also found the discussion about performance during initial online fine-tuning to be helpful. I have accordingly adjusted my recommendation.", "role": "assistant" } ]
AlJXhEI6J5W
CoRL 2021 Conference
Reviewer_rPXZ
[ { "content": "\nYou are an experienced academic paper reviewer. You will receive a conference paper in the field of computer science or AI. Please analyze the paper content carefully and output your review content.\nMore importantly, the author will further explain or refute the review comments you gave, and you need to further discuss with the author based on the author's response. \nThe purpose of this rebuttal and discussion is:\n- Clarification: During the review process, the reviewer (you) may not accurately understand the contribution or method of the paper due to unclear expression or misunderstanding of certain details. Through rebuttal, the author has the opportunity to clarify these misunderstandings and further illustrate the effectiveness of their innovations or methods.\n- Respond to criticisms and suggestions: The reviewer (you) may make criticisms or suggestions on the paper, and the author can use the discussion session to provide specific responses, explain why certain criticisms may not apply, or how to improve and optimize certain aspects of the paper.\nFinally, you and the author will work together to enhance the persuasiveness of the paper and improve the quality of the paper.\n", "role": "system" }, { "content": "Now your reviewer ID is assigned as Reviewer_rPXZ, and the following are the paper you need to review:\n```<<AlJXhEI6J5W>>```", "role": "user" }, { "content": "Review Content: summary: This main contribution of this paper is a balanced replay scheme to balance the offline and online data. It uses an offline policy evaluation method to compute the importance sampling ratio between offline samples and online samples, which is further used to prioritize experience replay of offline samples. The motivation is clear and experimental results are promising. Overall, it's a good paper. \nstrengths_and_weaknesses: Strengths:\n (1) The idea of Leveraging offline samples which relate to the current policy to boost online policy evaluation and improvement is reasonable since offline dataset may consist of samples with different styles and quality, some of which may harm the currently learned policy, let alone the policy improvement.\n (2) Extensive experimental results demonstrate the effectiveness of the proposed balanced replay scheme.\n\n\nWeaknesses:\n(1) Though the authors claim that their method can prevent the policy from being destroyed by online OOD samples, we can still observe a severe performance drop at the early period of online interaction in most cases, why?\n(2) While pessimism protects the policy from severe bootstrapping error, it may also prevent the online policy from efficiently exploring the unknown environment (in fact, there have been many works using pessimism for online exploration). In other words, the online policy may be too conservative for online policy improvement. I think it's necessary to provide such ablation studies telling if pessimism is helpful for the ultimate online policy performance\nsummary_of_recommendation: Overall, this is a good paper. But If the authors could provide with more experiments to clarify the two weaknesses, I will raise my score.\nissues: As mentioned in \"Strengths and Weaknesses\".\nRating: 7 accept, but needs minor improvements\n", "role": "assistant" }, { "content": "Title: Response to Reviewer rPXZ\nDear Reviewer rPXZ,\n\nWe sincerely appreciate your valuable comments for improving our manuscript. We address each comment in detail, one by one as below.\n\n---\n\n**Q1. Though the authors claim that their method can prevent the policy from being destroyed by online OOD samples, we can still observe a severe performance drop at the early period of online interaction in most cases. Why?**\n\n**A1.** As the offline data distribution becomes narrow, it becomes much easier for the agent to drift away from the seen, familiar state-action regime. For this reason, we observe performance drop due to distribution shift for e.g., (1) medium-expert MuJoCo tasks, where highly selective behavior policy leads to a narrow coverage of the state-action space; and (2) manipulation tasks, where high-dimensional, pixel observation space implies only a narrow coverage of the state-action space by the offline dataset. However, note that only our method succeeds to recover the good performance quickly in most cases where there is a performance degradation (with the exception of hopper-medium-expert, 10K~20K steps suffice for recovery for both MuJoCo and manipulation domains). This problem could potentially be solved by regularizing the policy to be close to the behavior policy (e.g., a behavior cloning term), and would be an interesting future direction to explore. \n\n---\n\n**Q2. While pessimism protects the policy from severe bootstrapping error, it may also prevent the online policy from efficiently exploring the unknown environment. In other words, the online policy may be too conservative for online policy improvement. I think it’s necessary to provide such ablation studies telling if pessimism is helpful for the ultimate online policy performance.**\n\n**A2.** Thank you for pointing this out. We performed additional experiments in the halfcheetah domain -- where the trends are most visible -- in order to compare the asymptotic performances of FQE-ft (neutral Q-function) and CQL-ft (pessimistic Q-function). As seen in Figure 13 of the revised manuscript, we observed that CQL-ft and FQE-ft had more or less similar asymptotic performances with the exception of halfcheetah-random, where CQL-ft noticeably outperforms FQE-ft. This shows that initial pessimism does not harm the asymptotic online performance, for our method gradually loses such pessimism over the course of fine-tuning. A relevant discussion can be found in Section E.1 of the revised manuscript. \n\n Global/general Response:\n```\nDear reviewers,\n\nWe sincerely appreciate your insightful comments and constructive suggestions to help us improve the manuscript. We are grateful for all positive comments: clear presentation (R1-4), well-motivated (R1-4), novelty (R1), and strong experimental results (R2-4). \n\nIn response to the questions and concerns raised, we have carefully revised and improved the manuscript with the following additional experiments and discussions:\n\n- Improved figures for better readability (Figure 1, 2, 4)\n- Clearer presentation on balanced replay (Section 4.1)\n- Additional experiments and discussions regarding the relationship between dataset composition and performance (Section E.1, Figure 13)\n- Additional experiments with an alternative density ratio (Section E.1, Figure 14)\n- More detailed discussion on robotic manipulation task results (Section E.2)\n- Other minor revisions (clearer motivation for method, clarification on prior works, typo corrections, etc.)\n\nThe revisions made are marked with “red” in the revised manuscript.\n\nWe also appreciate your continued effort to provide further feedback until the very end of response/discussion phase. We will make sure to reflect the comments in the final version.\n\nBest regards,\n\nAuthors.\n\n```\n", "role": "user" }, { "content": "Thank you for the detailed response from the authors. The response addresses most of my concerns. I keep my recommendation for this paper to be accepted.", "role": "assistant" } ]
AlJXhEI6J5W
CoRL 2021 Conference
Reviewer_Jt9W
[ { "content": "\nYou are an experienced academic paper reviewer. You will receive a conference paper in the field of computer science or AI. Please analyze the paper content carefully and output your review content.\nMore importantly, the author will further explain or refute the review comments you gave, and you need to further discuss with the author based on the author's response. \nThe purpose of this rebuttal and discussion is:\n- Clarification: During the review process, the reviewer (you) may not accurately understand the contribution or method of the paper due to unclear expression or misunderstanding of certain details. Through rebuttal, the author has the opportunity to clarify these misunderstandings and further illustrate the effectiveness of their innovations or methods.\n- Respond to criticisms and suggestions: The reviewer (you) may make criticisms or suggestions on the paper, and the author can use the discussion session to provide specific responses, explain why certain criticisms may not apply, or how to improve and optimize certain aspects of the paper.\nFinally, you and the author will work together to enhance the persuasiveness of the paper and improve the quality of the paper.\n", "role": "system" }, { "content": "Now your reviewer ID is assigned as Reviewer_Jt9W, and the following are the paper you need to review:\n```<<AlJXhEI6J5W>>```", "role": "user" }, { "content": "Review Content: summary: This paper identifies state-action distribution shift as the major problem in offline-to-online RL, and proposes two mechanisms, balanced replay buffer and pessimistic Q-ensemble to solve it. Through well-organized experiments, the paper shows that the balance experience replay can effectively balance the usage of online data and offline data and the pessimistic Q-ensemble is able to mitigate distributions shift. The proposed method obtains good empirical results on D4RL Mujoco locomotion tasks and vision-based robotic manipulation tasks.\nstrengths_and_weaknesses: Strengths: \n1. The motivation of this paper is strong and the proposed method effectively solves the identified state-action distribution shift problem. \n2. The empirical results are good. It outperforms previous methods in most cases. \n3. The paper is well written and easy to follow. \n4. The experiments are well-designed and show the benefits of the proposed methods.\n\nWeaknesses: \n1. In section 3.3, the author compares the choice of CQL and FQE and shows that the CQL is more suitable for offline-to-online RL. But according to the CQL paper, for many offline datasets, directly using non-pessimistic Q-function suffers from distribution shift and can’t learn well during offline training. Thus, I think it will be good to compare CQL with another offline RL method, e.g. BCQ etc. \n2. In section 4.1, the training details are not very clear for me. For example, the author uses P, Q to represent d^{off} and d^{on}, thus the density ratio w(s,a):=d^{on}(s,a)/d^{off}(s,a) = Q/P, but in the last sentence of page 4, the author uses ”estimate the density ratio dP/dQ with a parametric model w_{phi}(x)”, which is inconsistent.\n\nsummary_of_recommendation: My recommendation is \"Weak Accept\".\n\nThis paper identifies state-action distribution shift as the major problem in offline-to-online RL, and proposes two mechanisms, balanced replay buffer and pessimistic Q-ensemble to solve it. The motivation of this paper is strong and the proposed method effectively solves the identified state-action distribution shift problem. The proposed method obtains good empirical results on D4RL Mujoco locomotion tasks and vision-based robotic manipulation tasks. But the description of the training details can be more clear. Thus, my recommendation is \"Weak Accept\".\nissues: 1. In section 3.3, the author compares the choice of CQL and FQE and shows that the CQL is more suitable for offline-to-online RL. But according to the CQL paper, for many offline datasets, directly using non-pessimistic Q-function suffers from distribution shift and can’t learn well during offline training. Thus if possible, I think it will be good to compare CQL with another offline RL method, e.g. BCQ etc. \n\n2. In section 4.1, the training details are not very clear for me. For example, the author uses P, Q to represent d^{off} and d^{on}, thus the density ratio w(s,a):=d^{on}(s,a)/d^{off}(s,a) = Q/P, but in the last sentence of page 4, the author uses ”estimate the density ratio dP/dQ with a parametric model w_{phi}(x)”, which is inconsistent.\nRating: 7 accept, but needs minor improvements\n", "role": "assistant" }, { "content": "Title: Response to Reviewer Jt9W\nDear Reviewer Jt9W,\n\nWe sincerely appreciate your helpful comments for improving our manuscript. We address each comment in detail, one by one as below.\n\n---\n\n**Q1. In section 3.3, the authors compare the choice of CQL and FQE and show that the CQL is more suitable for offline-to-online RL. But according to the CQL paper, for many offline datasets, directly using non-pessimistic Q-function suffers from distribution shift, and can’t learn well during offline training.**\n\n**A1.** We would like to clarify that the offline training for both FQE-ft and CQL-ft are done via CQL (as indicated in lines 118-122 of the manuscript), but they differ in that CQL-ft fine-tunes the Q-function obtained via offline training, whereas FQE-ft fine-tunes a newly trained, neutral Q-value function for the policy obtained via FQE. What we showed is that even with successful offline training (hence a good offline policy), a non-pessimistic Q-function can lead to distribution shift during fine-tuning. We further clarified this detail. \n\n---\n\n**Q2. In section 4.1, the training details are not very clear for me. For example, the author uses P, Q to represent $d^{\\texttt{off}}$ and $d^{\\texttt{on}}$, thus the density ratio $w(s,a):=d^{\\texttt{on}}(s,a)/d^{\\texttt{off}}(s,a) = Q/P,$ but in the last sentence of page 4, the author uses ”estimate the density ratio $dP/dQ$ with a parametric model $w_{\\phi}(x)$”, which is inconsistent.**\n\n**A2.** We are very grateful for this catch. $P$ and $Q$ should be probability distributions whose densities are given by $d^{\\texttt{on}}$, $d^{\\texttt{off}}$, respectively. We corrected the mistakes in notations and revised the manuscript accordingly. Please also refer to [1] and [2] for a more detailed explanation. \n\n---\n\n**References**\n\n[1] X. Nguyen, M. J. Wainwright, and M. I. Jordan. Estimating divergence functionals and the likelihood ratio by penalized convex risk minimization. NeurIPS, 2008.\n\n[2] S. Sinha, J. Song, A. Garg, and S. Ermon. Experience replay with likelihood-free importance weights, 2021. URL https://openreview.net/forum?id=ioXEbG_Sf-a.\n\n Global/general Response:\n```\nDear reviewers,\n\nWe sincerely appreciate your insightful comments and constructive suggestions to help us improve the manuscript. We are grateful for all positive comments: clear presentation (R1-4), well-motivated (R1-4), novelty (R1), and strong experimental results (R2-4). \n\nIn response to the questions and concerns raised, we have carefully revised and improved the manuscript with the following additional experiments and discussions:\n\n- Improved figures for better readability (Figure 1, 2, 4)\n- Clearer presentation on balanced replay (Section 4.1)\n- Additional experiments and discussions regarding the relationship between dataset composition and performance (Section E.1, Figure 13)\n- Additional experiments with an alternative density ratio (Section E.1, Figure 14)\n- More detailed discussion on robotic manipulation task results (Section E.2)\n- Other minor revisions (clearer motivation for method, clarification on prior works, typo corrections, etc.)\n\nThe revisions made are marked with “red” in the revised manuscript.\n\nWe also appreciate your continued effort to provide further feedback until the very end of response/discussion phase. We will make sure to reflect the comments in the final version.\n\nBest regards,\n\nAuthors.\n\n```\n", "role": "user" }, { "content": "Title: Reviewer comment\nThanks for the author's detailed answer. My questions are answered, but after reading the author's responses to other reviewers, I still have one main concern about this paper. The paper argued that the performance drop in medium-expert datasets and manipulation tasks is because of the narrow data distribution (see the response to reviewer rPXZ Q1). This is one possible reason, but it might be also caused by the change of the objective function of the Q. Overall, this paper points out the distribution shift problem in offline-to-online RL and the proposed method shows its advantages via lots of experiments. But consider that the existence of the instability problem, I will keep my recommendation as **Weak Accept**. ", "role": "assistant" } ]
AlJXhEI6J5W
CoRL 2021 Conference
Reviewer_yjtU
[ { "content": "\nYou are an experienced academic paper reviewer. You will receive a conference paper in the field of computer science or AI. Please analyze the paper content carefully and output your review content.\nMore importantly, the author will further explain or refute the review comments you gave, and you need to further discuss with the author based on the author's response. \nThe purpose of this rebuttal and discussion is:\n- Clarification: During the review process, the reviewer (you) may not accurately understand the contribution or method of the paper due to unclear expression or misunderstanding of certain details. Through rebuttal, the author has the opportunity to clarify these misunderstandings and further illustrate the effectiveness of their innovations or methods.\n- Respond to criticisms and suggestions: The reviewer (you) may make criticisms or suggestions on the paper, and the author can use the discussion session to provide specific responses, explain why certain criticisms may not apply, or how to improve and optimize certain aspects of the paper.\nFinally, you and the author will work together to enhance the persuasiveness of the paper and improve the quality of the paper.\n", "role": "system" }, { "content": "Now your reviewer ID is assigned as Reviewer_yjtU, and the following are the paper you need to review:\n```<<AlJXhEI6J5W>>```", "role": "user" }, { "content": "Review Content: summary: The paper presents a method for off-line to on-line reinforcement learning. First, given a dataset of behavior in a task, an ensemble of \"pessimistic\" Q-functions and policies is trained off-line where the Q-function is learned conservatively to avoid over-estimation of Q-values in out of distribution state-action samples. Subsequently, on-line fine-tuning is done using a Balanced Experience Replay. This replay buffer consists of old samples from the off-line learning phase and new samples collected during on-line learning. Transitions are sampled based on their \"online-ness\", a value proportional to the density ratio between on-line samples and off-line samples. The further traning progresses and moves away from the initial data, the fewer off-line samples are chosen to update the policy.\nThe method is evaluated on simulated locomotion tasks from open-ai gym, as well as vision based manipulation tasks. It performs especially well in terms of learning speed if the intial policy is random.\nstrengths_and_weaknesses: Strenghts:\n- The overall method seems very intuitive and well motivated\n- The efficacy of each component is shown via ablation studies\n\nWeaknesses:\n- Especially on halfcheetah, the asymptotic performance seems to stay well below what SAC achieves alone (12k vs 15k). An intuition why this is the case would be interesting.\nsummary_of_recommendation: First of all, I am not an expert in off-line RL, so I'm not familiar with all the work that is out there on the topic. Most of the parts like CQL, ensembles, and prioritzed replay based on likelihoods is not entirely new but the parts are modified nicely to fit the off-line to on-line RL scheme and put together well and results look promising. Therefore, I would recommend accept but put my confidence score rather low.\nissues: - I don't fully get the definition of the behavior policy in line 69. It looks like it is the number of times an action a_0 is taken in state s_0 divided by how often state s_0 occurs in the replay buffer. But, given states and actions are continuous, how often will this be different from 1?\n- Why is the performance of half cheetah worse, if the policy is initially trained with the medium dataset?\n- Why does the performance using the medium-expert dataset on hopper and walker2d not reach the performance of AWAC and partially BCQ-ft?\n- Is there a difference in the entropy of the policy after off-line training with a random, medium or expert data set? For example does the policy not explore enough if trained on an expert data set?\n- Why are the manipulation tasks only compared to [10]?\nRating: 7 accept, but needs minor improvements\n", "role": "assistant" }, { "content": "Title: Response to Reviewer yjtU\nDear Reviewer yjtU,\n\nWe sincerely appreciate your valuable comments and efforts helpful for improving our manuscript. We address each comment in detail, one by one as below.\n\n---\n\n**Q1. Especially on halfcheetah, the asymptotic performance seems to stay well below what SAC achieves alone (12k vs 15k). An intuition why this is the case would be interesting.**\n\n**A1.** We used [rlkit](https://github.com/rail-berkeley/rlkit) for our implementation where SAC reaches the asymptotic performance of 12k ~ 13k for the HalfCheetah-v2 environment (see a relevant [discussion](https://github.com/rail-berkeley/rlkit/issues/128)). Also, note that D4RL [1] halfcheetah expert trajectories also achieve the score of 12k.\nHence, we emphasize that our results on halfcheetah-random and halfcheetah-medium-expert achieves similar asymptotic performance to SAC, while interacting with the environment for 0.25 mil steps -- only a fraction of samples required to reach asymptotic performance for halfcheetah, 3 mil. As for the performance on halfcheetah-medium, see our response to **Q2**.\n\n---\n\n\n**Q2. Why is the performance of halfcheetah worse, if the policy is initially trained with the medium dataset?**\n\n**A2.** Thank you for pointing this out. We also noticed this while preparing for the initial draft, and in order to investigate it further, we additionally ran our method on halfcheetah tasks for 1mil steps. As shown in Figure 13 of the revised manuscript, our method performed best on random dataset, reaching 15k average return, while reaching only \\~12k for medium and medium-replay datasets. We conjecture this is because the agent sees the most diverse set of samples when trained from scratch, and thus its Q-function extrapolates better, leading to more efficient exploration. While the medium-replay dataset also contains diverse samples, it asymptotically performs worst possibly because it contains significantly less data compared to the other datasets -- random and medium contain 1mil transitions, respectively, and medium-expert contains 2mil transitions. We provided a discussion on this in Section E.1 of the revised manuscript. \n\n---\n\n**Q3. Is there a difference in the entropy of the policy after offline training with a random, medium or expert dataset?**\n\n**A3.** We provide a plot for expected policy entropy over the visited states during fine-tuning in the following [link](https://imgur.com/a/LcToSjh). \nIndeed, the starting policy entropies are different; in particular, highest for halfcheetah-random, naturally so given the high-entropy behavior policy used to generate the data. However, they quickly converge to the same target entropy value of -6.0, due to use of automatic temperature tuning in SAC [2], and it is difficult to draw a meaningful observation from this. \nHaving said that, we do agree that dataset composition may have a profound impact on the agent’s ability to explore, and a relevant discussion was provided in response to **Q2**. \n\n---\n\n**Q4. I don’t fully get the definition of the behavior policy in line 69.**\n\n**A4.** The definition is from the original CQL paper [3]. As pointed out, when the state and action spaces are continuous, there is only one such action for a given state in the dataset almost surely. In practice, this just means that when one calculates the term \n\n$ \\mathbb{E}_{s \\sim \\mathcal{B}, a \\sim {\\hat{\\pi}}_\\beta }[Q(s,a)], $ \n\none samples a state-action pair from the offline dataset. \n\n---\n\n**Q5. Why does the performance using the medium-expert dataset on hopper and walker2d not reach the performance of AWAC and partially BCQ-ft?**\n\n\n**A5.** AWAC and BCQ essentially perform (selective) imitation learning via constrained updates. Therefore when the dataset contains a significant amount of expert trajectories, they tend to perform well. However, note that our method still performs almost on par with AWAC and BCQ-ft in medium-expert, and outperforms them significantly in most other setups. \n\n---\n\n**Q6. Why are the manipulation tasks only compared to [4]?**\n\n**A6.** For the D4RL MuJoCo dataset [1], baseline methods such as AWAC and BCQ are well-tested, at least in the offline setup. However, for the manipulation tasks from COG [4], no methods have been tested other than COG and naive baselines such as SAC followed by behavior cloning initialization. As a preliminary experiment, we performed experiments with BC + SAC, which is shown to significantly underperform our method even for the easiest task of pick-place (see [here](https://imgur.com/a/gzi2sBG) for the results). We will continue our effort to provide results for other baselines during the discussion phase or in the final draft. \n---\n**References**\n\n[1] J. Fu, A. Kumar, O. Nachum, G. Tucker, and S. Levine. D4rl: Datasets for deep data-driven reinforcement learning. arXiv preprint arXiv:2004.07219, 2020.\n\n[2] Haarnoja, T., Zhou, A., Hartikainen, K., Tucker, G., Ha, S., Tan, J., Kumar, V., Zhu, H., Gupta, A., Abbeel, P. and Levine, S., 2018. Soft actor-critic algorithms and applications. arXiv preprint arXiv:1812.05905.\n\n[3] A. Kumar, A. Zhou, G. Tucker, and S. Levine. Conservative q-learning for offline reinforce-ment learning. NeurIPS, 2020\n\n[4] A. Singh, A. Yu, J. Yang, J. Zhang, A. Kumar, and S. Levine. Cog: Connecting new skills to past experience with offline reinforcement learning. CoRL, 2020.\n\n Global/general Response:\n```\nDear reviewers,\n\nWe sincerely appreciate your insightful comments and constructive suggestions to help us improve the manuscript. We are grateful for all positive comments: clear presentation (R1-4), well-motivated (R1-4), novelty (R1), and strong experimental results (R2-4). \n\nIn response to the questions and concerns raised, we have carefully revised and improved the manuscript with the following additional experiments and discussions:\n\n- Improved figures for better readability (Figure 1, 2, 4)\n- Clearer presentation on balanced replay (Section 4.1)\n- Additional experiments and discussions regarding the relationship between dataset composition and performance (Section E.1, Figure 13)\n- Additional experiments with an alternative density ratio (Section E.1, Figure 14)\n- More detailed discussion on robotic manipulation task results (Section E.2)\n- Other minor revisions (clearer motivation for method, clarification on prior works, typo corrections, etc.)\n\nThe revisions made are marked with “red” in the revised manuscript.\n\nWe also appreciate your continued effort to provide further feedback until the very end of response/discussion phase. We will make sure to reflect the comments in the final version.\n\nBest regards,\n\nAuthors.\n\n```\n", "role": "user" }, { "content": "Title: Response to Author Rebuttal\nThis comment is to acknowledge that I have read the authors' revisions and responses to the reviewers. The authors did a good job in answering my questions. After reading the other reviewers comments, my recommendation for weak accept stays.", "role": "assistant" } ]