跳到正文
研踪PaperTrail

论文库

检索计算机领域论文,按研究方向、作者或关键词筛选。

部分采集异常
正在读取账号与研究记录…

全站更新概况

+0新增论文
+0其中 AI 相关
+0已有论文修订
+95新增 AI 导读

arXiv 最近完成扫描:2026-11-16 00:32 · 全站最近入库:2026-11-14 15:09各信源进度 →

统计口径与数据新鲜度

统计 2026-11-15 01:26 — 2026-11-16 01:26(北京时间) · 点击数字查看对应简报;AI 相关包含在新增论文内。

最近完成检查:2026-11-16 00:32最近发现新增版本:2026-11-14 15:09库内论文最新更新时间:2026-11-13 02:59

每分钟刷新已保存的数据。空检查不代表采集异常;新收录可能包含历史论文。AI 导读按新增版本计数。

23,348 已收录论文19,580 AI 相关6,729 有修订112 HF 社区发现

浏览论文库

时间范围跟随排序:版本更新、本站收录或首次发表。最新收录可能包含历史论文。部分信源异常,查看状态 →

找到 2 篇论文 · 按版本更新时间排序上轮扫描起点 2026-11-16 00:31(北京时间)
新论文 · v1arXiv:2611.13810

Camera equalisation of an 11.5x drop in environmental illuminance: four imitation-learning policies on an SO-101 arm

Simon Cowling

原文摘要

Real-robot benchmarks of learned visuomotor policies often record room illuminance as the lighting condition. We show that, on a typical low-cost rig, room light and image light can be almost unrelated. Four imitation-learning policies (ACT, SmolVLA, Diffusion Policy and pi0.5) were trained on the same 50 demonstrations of a pick-and-place task on an SO-101 arm. Each was run for ten rollouts at about 520 lux and again at about 45 lux, an 11.5x reduction. Success was 20/40 in normal light and 19/40 in low light: a change of -2.5 percentage points (95% CI -23 to +19), with no evidence that the policies differed in sensitivity (interaction p = 0.86). The recorded video shows why: mean image brightness was only 3% lower in low light on the front camera and 19% lower on the wrist camera. Both cameras were set to automatic exposure and white balance, which most likely absorbed the difference; exposure was not locked in this experiment. An accidental repeat of one 10-rollout block reproduced its success count (7/10) but matched the first block at only 6 of 10 placements, consistent with chance. We conclude that lux alone does not describe what a policy sees. Camera settings, and image statistics compared with the training recordings, are the quantities to report and control. Data and code are public.

cs.RO

新论文 · v1arXiv:2610.37170

From 12 to 200 Demonstrations: How ACT, Diffusion Policy, SmolVLA and $π_{0.5}$ Scale on a Low-Cost Arm

Simon Cowling

原文摘要

We trained four widely used imitation-learning policies, ACT, Diffusion Policy, SmolVLA and $π_{0.5}$, on nested subsets of 12, 25, 50, 100 and 200 teleoperated demonstrations of one pick-and-place task with distractor objects, using one fixed training recipe per policy. Every trained model was then run on a physical SO-101 arm on a fixed set of object placements: 1,340 scored episodes in 126 blocks. ACT, trained from scratch, rose from 1 success in 40 episodes at 12 demonstrations to 37 in 40 at 100. $π_{0.5}$ with its action expert fine-tuned was the best policy when data was scarce (16 of 40 at 12 demonstrations, 28 of 40 at 25) and then stayed near 70%; from 100 demonstrations ACT was ahead, by a margin this study does not fully resolve. SmolVLA and Diffusion Policy peaked near 50%, and both were affected by a failure to start: SmolVLA's arm never started moving in 47% of episodes, and Diffusion Policy hardly ever started until an idle lead-in was trimmed from the demonstrations. For $π_{0.5}$ the fine-tuning recipe mattered more than the amount of data: low-rank adaptation succeeded in 4 of 110 episodes, against 130 of 200 for action-expert fine-tuning. From the joint and camera recordings we place every episode on a four-stage ladder (started, reached the ball, carried it, delivered it) and show that for ACT more data moves failures from reaching, to grasping, to none, while the failures $π_{0.5}$ retains are in grasping. We also measure how weak a ten-episode block is as a measurement (the same checkpoint tested twice differs by 2 successes in 10 on average), separate seed-to-seed variation from that noise, and audit the human scoring against the recordings. Training length was fixed within each recipe, so the amount of data and the number of times it was seen change together; we state which conclusions survive that confound and which do not.

cs.RO