跳到正文
研踪PaperTrail
← 研踪 PaperTrail

arXiv:2610.32888 · v2

When Human Corrections Travel: Safety in Federated VLA Adaptation

首次提交 2026-10-24 00:56
版本更新 2026-11-03 00:47
雷达观测 2026-11-04 23:41
arXiv ↗PDF ↗

摘要

Vision-language-action (VLA) policies can adapt to local human intervention, while federated learning can combine distributed robot experience without pooling raw records. We examine their prospective intersection: sharing adaptations derived from diverse human corrections across tasks, environments, people, and robot embodiments. Corrections differ in modality, safety semantics(urgency, behavioral scope, etc.), and privacy sensitivity. A shared update that improves mean task success may suppress a rare safety intervention or produce an unsafe response on another robot. We argue for three requirements: preserve the context and uncertainty of multimodal corrections when deciding what to share; assess candidate updates in each receiving robot's closed loop before deployment; and evaluate leakage alongside retention of safety-critical evidence. Immediate, legible defensive behavior remains necessary during human interaction. We offer counterexamples and a falsifiable evaluation agenda, not experimental results.

作者备注:Accepted for presentation at SPAIS workshop in CoRL 2026

AI 论文解读

基于摘要 · 非全文审阅

此版本尚未生成 AI 解读。解读由后台任务生成并按论文版本保存,登录后共享已有结果。

版本差异

目前只观测到一个版本,无法比较变化。之后收录新版本时,会在这里对照标题、作者、分类和摘要。

观测到的版本

相邻记录可能跳过中间版本;首次发现 v2 及以上也会标为版本更新。

v2 · 2026-11-03 00:47 · 最新观测版本

When Human Corrections Travel: Safety in Federated VLA Adaptation

Vision-language-action (VLA) policies can adapt to local human intervention, while federated learning can combine distributed robot experience without pooling raw records. We examine their prospective intersection: sharing adaptations derived from diverse human corrections across tasks, environments, people, and robot embodiments. Corrections differ in modality, safety semantics(urgency, behavioral scope, etc.), and privacy sensitivity. A shared update that improves mean task success may suppress a rare safety intervention or produce an unsafe response on another robot. We argue for three requirements: preserve the context and uncertainty of multimodal corrections when deciding what to share; assess candidate updates in each receiving robot's closed loop before deployment; and evaluate leakage alongside retention of safety-critical evidence. Immediate, legible defensive behavior remains necessary during human interaction. We offer counterexamples and a falsifiable evaluation agenda, not experimental results.

查看此版本解读 →查看此版本原文 ↗