arXiv subjects

Caro Strickland

Publications and source records attributed to Caro Strickland.

3 recordsLinked to original sources

arXiv2026

Which Hand Was Late? Diagnosis for Robot Failure Recovery in Bimanual Tool Use

Failure diagnosers for robot manipulation are increasingly vision--language models (VLMs), trained and evaluated on single-arm failures produced by perturbing a successful demonstration. Bimanual tool use adds failures of other kinds: a tool that slips out of its socket while still held, two correct gestures made at different times, and attempts that fail for two reasons at once. On a simulated bimanual tool-use task whose failure causes are read from the recorded trace, we measure what each sensing channel lets a diagnoser tell. The tool's slip is read on the tool hand; which hand was late is read on both arms, while a sensor on one hand reads its own hand's delay and at most part of the other's; and whether a late attempt was also pushed too weakly is not identifiable from passive sensing when the tool hand is late. Within two attempts, a repair policy that escalates when the cause is not identifiable repairs as many failures as one told the true cause. A VLM's internal state carries the late hand almost perfectly, along a direction no closer to the one its answer reads than a random one; whether the answer reports it depends on the wording of the question.

cs.RO↗

arXiv2026

Kinematic Constraint-Referenced Evaluation for Articulated Object Manipulation

Manipulation policies are evaluated predominantly by binary task success, which cannot tell whether the commanded gesture is the one the object's kinematics admit. We introduce Constraint-Referenced Strategy (CRS), which projects the commanded end-effector twist onto the object's joint axis, separating progress along the joint from off-constraint waste. CRS requires a joint model and a joint-following scripted controller derived from it, but no recorded demonstration or learned judge. On 74 simulated articulated objects, success registers three transfer failures as lower rates but attributes none, while the two CRS channels give each a distinct signature. A door-trained behavior-cloning policy opens drawers in 59 of 110 episodes, and in these passes it commands about $40\times$ the off-axis rotation of a drawer-trained policy's passes ($1.27$ vs.\ $0.032$~rad/s). Relative to a scripted controller scored with the same axis, CRS verdicts are unchanged under joint-axis errors up to $30^\circ$; absolute thresholds tolerate about $8^\circ$.

cs.RO↗

arXiv2026

On Preference Coverage Collapse from Hindsight Relabeling in Multi-Objective Reinforcement Learning

Hindsight relabeling which retroactively replacing a transition's goal with the outcome the agent actually achieved is an effective tool for improving sample-efficiency in Reinforcement Learning (RL). A natural extension to preference-conditioned multi-objective RL (MORL) relabels transitions with the preference direction the agent achieved rather than the one asked for. We show that this extension is frequently harmful: across four preference-conditioned off-policy algorithms spanning two critic backbones and two preference-sampling schemes on the continuous-control MO-Gymnasium suite, it degrades 19 of 36 algorithm-environment settings by as much as four standard deviations, improves only one, and leaves the rest unaffected. The harm is not a symptom of noisy relabels; denoising the target recovers almost nothing, and neither prioritized sampling nor any buffer-structural choice reproduces it. Instead, repeated relabeling collapses the critic's coverage onto whatever narrow region of the preference space the agent happened to visit. We name this failure mode \emph{Preference Coverage Collapse}, and quantify it with abandoned preference mass (APM), a value-aware statistic that tracks the harm ($ρ= -0.73$) where a purely structural coverage count does not. We then introduce \texttt{her\_mix}, a single-parameter convex combination pulling the achieved direction back towards the requested preference. At one fixed value across every algorithm and environment, it returns 16 of the 19 harmed settings to baseline, preserves and even improves the one setting in which relabeling helps, and cuts abandoned preference mass from $69\%$ to $6\%$. Protecting coverage over the preference simplex, not filtering noisy relabels, is what makes hindsight relabeling safe for MORL.

cs.LG↗