Enhancing Goal Inference via Correction Timing
Not on the map. Why?
Abstract (arXiv)
Corrections offer a natural modality for people to provide feedback to a robot, by (i) intervening in the robot's behavior when they believe the robot is failing (or will fail) the task objectives and (ii) modifying the robot's behavior to successfully fulfill the task. Each correction offers information on what the robot should and should not do, where the corrected behavior is more aligned with task objectives than the original behavior. Most prior work on learning from corrections involves interpreting a correction as a new demonstration (consisting of the modified robot behavior), or a preference (for the modified trajectory compared to the robot's original behavior). However, this overlooks one essential element of the correction feedback, which is the human's decision to intervene in the robot's behavior in the first place. This decision can be influenced by multiple factors including the robot's task progress, alignment with human expectations, dynamics, motion legibility, and optimality. In this work, we investigate whether the timing of this decision can offer a useful signal for inferring these task-relevant influences. In particular, we investigate three potential applications for this learning signal: (1) identifying features of a robot's motion that may prompt people to correct it, (2) quickly inferring the final goal of a human's correction based on the timing and initial direction of their correction motion, and (3) learning more precise constraints for task objectives. Our results indicate that correction timing results in improved learning for the first two of these applications. Overall, our work provides new insights on the value of correction timing as a signal for robot learning.
Key facts. Cited by 1 paper in the map (data through 7 Oct 2026). Builds on 20 of its 54 references that are in the map. First posted on arXiv 20 Feb 2026.
Builds on
20 of 54 references.
References · 20
- 2017Attention Is All You Needcited by 59,932
- 2014Adam: A Method for Stochastic Optimizationcited by 36,960
- 2017Trial without Error: Towards Safe Reinforcement Learning via Human Interventioncited by 102
- 2017Shared Autonomy via Hindsight Optimization for Teleoperation and Teamingcited by 39
- 2025A Survey of Sim-to-Real Methods in RL: Progress, Prospects and Challenges with Foundation Modelscited by 36
- 2013Learning Trajectory Preferences for Manipulators via Iterative Improvementcited by 31
- 2016Learning Preferences for Manipulation Tasks from Online Coactive Feedbackcited by 31
- 2022The Boltzmann Policy Distribution: Accounting for Systematic Suboptimality in Human Modelscited by 31
- 2020Quantifying Hypothesis Space Misspecification in Learning from Human-Robot Demonstrations and Physical Correctionscited by 19
- 2021Physical Interaction as Communication: Learning Robot Objectives Online from Human Correctionscited by 19
- 2018Learning under Misspecified Objective Spacescited by 14
- 2023What Matters to You? Towards Visual Representation Alignment for Robot Learningcited by 14
8 more
- 2019Improving User Specifications for Robot Behavior through Active Preference Learning: Framework and Evaluationcited by 7
- 2020Active Intent Disambiguation for Shared Control Robotscited by 6
- 2023Learning Failure Prevention Skills for Safe Robot Manipulationcited by 5
- 2025Effects of Robot Competency and Motion Legibility on Human Correction Feedbackcited by 4
- 2019Model-free Friction Observers for Flexible Joint Robots with Torque Measurementscited by 3
- 2020Anticipatory Human-Robot Collaboration via Multi-Objective Trajectory Optimizationcited by 3
- 2019Autonomous Interpretation of Demonstrations for Modification of Dynamical Movement Primitivescited by 2
- 2021Defining Preferred and Natural Robot Motions in Immersive Telepresence from a First-Person Perspectivecited by 1
Built on by
Citing papers per year: 2026: 1.
1 paper.