PDDL-ART: デモンストレーションからの自律的シンボリック抽象化による長期的ロボット操作のための視覚言語モデル
PDDL-ART: Autonomous Symbolic Abstraction From Demonstration For Long-Horizon Robotic Manipulation Using Vision-Language Models
本論文は、単一の専門家デモと自然言語タスク記述からPDDLドメインと問題記述を自動生成するVLMベースのフレームワークPDDL-ARTを提案する。構文・意味・実行レベルの多段階補正パイプラインと、幾何・時間推論のためのツール使用を導入し、長期的操作タスクで有効性を示した。
詳しい要約
1. どんなもの?
2. 先行研究と比べてどこがすごい?
3. 技術・手法の肝は?
4. どうやって有効だと検証した?
5. 議論はある?
6. 次に読むべき論文は?
※ AIが要旨から生成した要約です。正確性は原文をご確認ください。
著者: Disha Kamale, Dmitry Berenson
分類: cs.RO
原文アブストラクト
Symbolic planning with PDDL offers a principled framework for long-horizon robot manipulation, but constructing accurate PDDL domain and problem descriptions remains a significant bottleneck, typically requiring substantial domain expertise. We present a Vision-Language Model (VLM)-based approach called PDDL-ART, a framework that autonomously generates task-specific PDDL domain and problem descriptions from a single expert demonstration, a natural language task description, and a library of available high-level action names. PDDL-ART does not require any domain templates, action signatures, or fine-tuning. To ensure the generated descriptions are not only syntactically valid but semantically aligned with the demonstrated task, PDDL-ART introduces a multi-stage correction pipeline operating at syntactic, semantic, and execution levels. A key component of execution-guided correction is symbolic predicate grounding. Instead of relying solely on visual observations, PDDL-ART leverages the tool-use capabilities of modern VLMs to incorporate geometric and temporal reasoning for evaluating relational predicates that are not directly discernible from images alone. Critically, the model autonomously determines when to invoke these tools and how to interpret their outputs. We evaluate PDDL-ART on challenging manipulation tasks in engine maintenance and household domains, including tasks that require memory, abstract predicate inference, and goal states that are visually indistinguishable from the initial state. PDDL-ART achieves an average success rate of 93.3%, compared to 78.3% for a baseline VLM-based planner.