跳到正文
研踪PaperTrail
← 研踪 PaperTrail

arXiv:2611.08654 · v1

CS-Pi: Constraint-Satisfying Flow Policy Sampling

首次提交 2026-11-06 04:01
版本更新 2026-11-06 04:01
雷达观测 2026-11-09 10:16
arXiv ↗PDF ↗

摘要

A flow-matching policy deployed in the field must often satisfy a constraint that was absent from its demonstrations, such as avoiding an obstacle it has never seen. Retraining for every new constraint is impractical, so the constraint must be enforced at inference time. Enforcing it must not discard what the policy learned: an action the policy would rarely sample may avoid the obstacle yet fail the task. We therefore want actions that are both safe, satisfying the constraint, and plausible, remaining likely under the policy. Gradient guidance, the most common approach, steers noisy states, so it must evaluate its cost on the policy's running estimate of the clean action; when the policy is uncertain between passing left or right of an obstacle, this estimate is their average and can pass straight through it. We instead build on rejection and projection. Rejection redraws actions until one is safe: every output is plausible, but the wait is intractable when safe actions are rare. Projection moves an action to the nearest safe one: it is efficient, but the result need not be plausible. Our key insight is that flow-matching sampling lets us combine the two, keeping projection's efficiency and rejection's plausibility. CS-Pi, our draw-project-renoise sampler, projects each draw to the nearest safe action, adds noise back scaled to how far the projection moved it, and re-runs the unmodified policy until a draw is safe. Replacing only the projection step extends CS-Pi to continuous costs. Across a 2D diagnostic, a 7-DoF shelf pick-and-place, an orientation preference, and a zero-shot Franka deployment, CS-Pi reaches 81% safe success on the shelf and 55% on hardware, against 55% and 40% for projection, while staying plausible.

作者备注:Accepted to CoRL 2026. Project page: https://sumo048.github.io/CS-pi_site/

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。

v1 · 2026-11-06 04:01 · 最新观测版本

CS-Pi: Constraint-Satisfying Flow Policy Sampling

A flow-matching policy deployed in the field must often satisfy a constraint that was absent from its demonstrations, such as avoiding an obstacle it has never seen. Retraining for every new constraint is impractical, so the constraint must be enforced at inference time. Enforcing it must not discard what the policy learned: an action the policy would rarely sample may avoid the obstacle yet fail the task. We therefore want actions that are both safe, satisfying the constraint, and plausible, remaining likely under the policy. Gradient guidance, the most common approach, steers noisy states, so it must evaluate its cost on the policy's running estimate of the clean action; when the policy is uncertain between passing left or right of an obstacle, this estimate is their average and can pass straight through it. We instead build on rejection and projection. Rejection redraws actions until one is safe: every output is plausible, but the wait is intractable when safe actions are rare. Projection moves an action to the nearest safe one: it is efficient, but the result need not be plausible. Our key insight is that flow-matching sampling lets us combine the two, keeping projection's efficiency and rejection's plausibility. CS-Pi, our draw-project-renoise sampler, projects each draw to the nearest safe action, adds noise back scaled to how far the projection moved it, and re-runs the unmodified policy until a draw is safe. Replacing only the projection step extends CS-Pi to continuous costs. Across a 2D diagnostic, a 7-DoF shelf pick-and-place, an orientation preference, and a zero-shot Franka deployment, CS-Pi reaches 81% safe success on the shelf and 55% on hardware, against 55% and 40% for projection, while staying plausible.

查看此版本解读 →查看此版本原文 ↗