Evidence map›Paper›PMID 34805287›Full record

ArticleFrontiers in robotics and AI2021

Modeling and Learning Constraints for Creative Tool Use.

Tesca Fitzgerald, Ashok Goel, Andrea Thomaz

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Frontiers in robotics and AI, 2021. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
1citing papers in PubMed
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from it

What it found

Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.

The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.

2 · The registry

The trial behind it

Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.

Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

1 citing paper in PubMed.

  1. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

3 authors.

Tesca FitzgeraldRobotics Institute, Carnegie Mellon University, Pittsburgh, PA, United States.
Ashok GoelSchool of Interactive Computing, Georgia Institute of Technology, Atlanta, GA, United States.
Andrea ThomazDepartment of Electrical and Computer Engineering, University of Texas at Austin, Austin, TX, United States.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Improvisation is a hallmark of human creativity and serves a functional purpose in completing everyday tasks with novel resources. This is particularly exhibited in tool-using tasks: When the expected tool for a task is unavailable, humans often are able to replace the expected tool with an atypical one. As robots become more commonplace in human society, we will also expect them to become more skilled at using tools in order to accommodate unexpected variations of tool-using tasks. In order for robots to creatively adapt their use of tools to task variations in a manner similar to humans, they must identify tools that fulfill a set of task constraints that are essential to completing the task successfully yet are initially unknown to the robot. In this paper, we present a high-level process for tool improvisation (tool identification, evaluation, and adaptation), highlight the importance of tooltips in considering tool-task pairings, and describe a method of learning by correction in which the robot learns the constraints from feedback from a human teacher. We demonstrate the efficacy of the learning by correction method for both within-task and across-task transfer on a physical robot.

Indexed as

cognitive roboticshuman-robot interactionlearning from correctionstool manipulationtool transfer

Identifiers

PMID34805287
PMCPMC8602113

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.