Joshua Tobin

RO
h-index4
3papers
481citations
Novelty58%
AI Score31

3 Papers

12.4CVOct 28, 2019Code
Geometry-Aware Neural Rendering

Josh Tobin, OpenAI Robotics, Pieter Abbeel · openai

Understanding the 3-dimensional structure of the world is a core challenge in computer vision and robotics. Neural rendering approaches learn an implicit 3D model by predicting what a camera would see from an arbitrary viewpoint. We extend existing neural rendering to more complex, higher dimensional scenes than previously possible. We propose Epipolar Cross Attention (ECA), an attention mechanism that leverages the geometry of the scene to perform efficient non-local operations, requiring only $O(n)$ comparisons per spatial dimension instead of $O(n^2)$. We introduce three new simulated datasets inspired by real-world robotics and demonstrate that ECA significantly improves the quantitative and qualitative performance of Generative Query Networks (GQN).

32.6ROOct 17, 2017
Domain Randomization and Generative Models for Robotic Grasping

Joshua Tobin, Lukas Biewald, Rocky Duan et al.

Deep learning-based robotic grasping has made significant progress thanks to algorithmic improvements and increased data availability. However, state-of-the-art models are often trained on as few as hundreds or thousands of unique object instances, and as a result generalization can be a challenge. In this work, we explore a novel data generation pipeline for training a deep neural network to perform grasp planning that applies the idea of domain randomization to object synthesis. We generate millions of unique, unrealistic procedurally generated objects, and train a deep neural network to perform grasp planning on these objects. Since the distribution of successful grasps for a given object can be highly multimodal, we propose an autoregressive grasp planning model that maps sensor inputs of a scene to a probability distribution over possible grasps. This model allows us to sample grasps efficiently at test time (or avoid sampling entirely). We evaluate our model architecture and data generation pipeline in simulation and the real world. We find we can achieve a $>$90% success rate on previously unseen realistic objects at test time in simulation despite having only been trained on random objects. We also demonstrate an 80% success rate on real-world grasp attempts despite having only been trained on random simulated objects.

36.2ROOct 11, 2016
Transfer from Simulation to Real World through Learning Deep Inverse Dynamics Model

Paul Christiano, Zain Shah, Igor Mordatch et al.

Developing control policies in simulation is often more practical and safer than directly running experiments in the real world. This applies to policies obtained from planning and optimization, and even more so to policies obtained from reinforcement learning, which is often very data demanding. However, a policy that succeeds in simulation often doesn't work when deployed on a real robot. Nevertheless, often the overall gist of what the policy does in simulation remains valid in the real world. In this paper we investigate such settings, where the sequence of states traversed in simulation remains reasonable for the real world, even if the details of the controls are not, as could be the case when the key differences lie in detailed friction, contact, mass and geometry properties. During execution, at each time step our approach computes what the simulation-based control policy would do, but then, rather than executing these controls on the real robot, our approach computes what the simulation expects the resulting next state(s) will be, and then relies on a learned deep inverse dynamics model to decide which real-world action is most suitable to achieve those next states. Deep models are only as good as their training data, and we also propose an approach for data collection to (incrementally) learn the deep inverse dynamics model. Our experiments shows our approach compares favorably with various baselines that have been developed for dealing with simulation to real world model discrepancy, including output error control and Gaussian dynamics adaptation.