Search arXivSearch

arXiv · 2209.05255

A Causal-based Approach to Explain, Predict and Prevent Failures in Robotic Tasks

Abstract

Robots working in real environments need to adapt to unexpected changes to avoid failures. This is an open and complex challenge that requires robots to timely predict and identify the causes of failures to prevent them. In this paper, we present a causal method that will enable robots to predict when errors are likely to occur and prevent them from happening by executing a corrective action. First, we propose a causal-based method to detect the cause-effect relationships between task executions and their consequences by learning a causal Bayesian network (BN). The obtained model is transferred from simulated data to real scenarios to demonstrate the robustness and generalization of the obtained models. Based on the causal BN, the robot can predict if and why the executed action will succeed or not in its current state. Then, we introduce a novel method that finds the closest state alternatives through a contrastive Breadth-First-Search if the current action was predicted to fail. We evaluate our approach for the problem of stacking cubes in two cases; a) single stacks (stacking one cube) and; b) multiple stacks (stacking three cubes). In the single-stack case, our method was able to reduce the error rate by 97%. We also show that our approach can scale to capture multiple actions in one model, allowing to measure timely shifted action effects, such as the impact of an imprecise stack of the first cube on the stacking success of the third cube. For these complex situations, our model was able to prevent around 75% of the stacking errors, even for the challenging multiple-stack scenario. Thus, demonstrating that our method is able to explain, predict, and prevent execution failures, which even scales to complex scenarios that require an understanding of how the action history impacts future actions.

Explore related subjects

Keep this discovery

BibTeXRIS

Maximilian Diehl, Karinne Ramirez-Amaro. 2022-09-12. A Causal-based Approach to Explain, Predict and Prevent Failures in Robotic Tasks. https://arxiv.org/abs/2209.05255

Cite the original work for its findings. Save a collection to share your selection of sources.

KEEP EXPLORING

Related papers

IMLE-VLA: Fast Single-Step Action Generation for Vision-Language-Action Policies

Vision-language-action (VLA) policies leverage pretrained vision-language backbones to achieve strong cross-task generalization. A leading design couples this backbone with a dedicated continuous action head trained via diffusion or flow matching. However, such heads rely on iterative multi-step sampling, for example 10 Euler steps in $\pi_{0.5}$. This creates an inference bottleneck that produces stop-and-go movement in the robot and slower task completion. We introduce IMLE-VLA, which replaces the iterative action head with a single-step conditional generator trained via conditional Implicit Maximum Likelihood Estimation (cIMLE). The cIMLE objective promotes multimodal action coverage, avoiding the mode collapse of naive regression heads while eliminating multi-step sampling entirely. When IMLE-VLA is applied to $\pi_{0.5}$, it increases inference frequency 3.67x (55 Hz vs. 15 Hz), enabling up to 11x higher action throughput. On the 40-task LIBERO benchmark, IMLE-VLA achieves the highest average success rate (98.0%) among all baselines while leading in inference frequency. Under the test-time perturbations of LIBERO-plus, IMLE-VLA retains $\pi_{0.5}$'s robustness while other baselines degrade sharply, confirming that the cIMLE head preserves generalization. Real-world experiments on a Franka Emika Panda across four tasks demonstrate smoother motion (2.2x to 3.0x lower jerk) and faster task completion, with IMLE-VLA outperforming $\pi_{0.5}$ on every task and reducing average VLA inference time per episode by 3.9x to 6.6x. Videos and code are available at https://kianhk6.github.io/IMLE-VLA/

cs.RO

ObstaDiff: Generalizable Diffusion Policy Learning via Obstacle-aware Representations

Imitation learning has achieved impressive results in robotic manipulation, yet most existing approaches assume clean backgrounds and lack explicit mechanisms for obstacle-aware motion generation. Extending such policies to cluttered, real-world scenes with unstructured obstacles remains a key generalization challenge. We present ObstaDiff, a decomposed diffusion-policy framework with a lightweight obstacle-aware visual encoder. ObstaDiff extracts a structured target-obstacle-background representation, enabling the downstream alignment policy to generate end-effector trajectories toward a target-centered bottleneck pose while reasoning about surrounding obstacles. We evaluate ObstaDiff on 61 real-robot greenhouse trials per method (366 executions in total). ObstaDiff achieves 75.41% average task success and 8.20% average obstacle collision rate, outperforming representative imitation-learning baselines and improving generalization in cluttered agricultural scenes.

cs.RO

Testing Between the Test Cases: Proving End-to-End Steering in Conditions You Never Drove

AI-based automated vehicle testing is challenging because a model that passes every test condition can still fail in the real world. Formal verification offers a way to directly address this gap. On a simulated highway and an arterial road we trained two small end-to-end steering networks each in CARLA, one on clear conditions alone and one on clear, fog, night and low sun. All four models were driven against a 2.19 ft lane-departure budget. Without driving again, we used bound propagation, a formal method that reads the trained weights, to compute how far steering can drift at every disturbance strength between two captured images. One calculation covers more than a campaign could drive: on the arterial it spans 133 poses, where ten intensities each would be 10^133 combinations, in minutes on one GPU. Not only did formal verification find conditions that broke the clear-trained policy without simulation testing, it provided some preliminary evidence for potential failures between the test cases. Our overall conclusion is that formal verification is a viable complement to simulation, and could be adopted as a part of verification and validation for automated driving.

cs.RO