Robotics

Teaching robots to plan with uncertainty

Embodied AI research that helps robots perceive, reason, and act with safer feedback loops.

scopeperception · planning · controlled real-world handoff
postureuncertainty lives in perception, not in the planner's blind spot
loopsim → real → sim, every surprise folded back in
top-down scene · detection confidence + planned path box · 92% human · 78% unknown · 41% high confidence medium confidence low confidence
What changes in embodied AI

Uncertainty is part of the perception, not part of the planner

Robots that act in the real world have to recognise when they are wrong. Our embodied work pushes uncertainty back into perception so planners can react to it, then validates everything against carefully controlled real environments before feeding the surprises back into the simulator.

conventional split

perception emits point estimates, the planner is supposed to be robust to whatever they get wrong.

our split

perception emits doubt directly — confidence intervals on detections, covariance on tracks — and the planner is wired to react to that doubt.

three commitments

Where the embodied loop earns its safety

E1

perception that admits doubt

Every detection reports a confidence interval, every track a covariance. The planner sees the doubt directly.

point + 2σ ellipse
rewards planners that react to uncertainty in real time punishes point estimates that look confident until something hits the floor
E2

sim → real → sim

We train in simulation, validate in a carefully controlled real environment, and feed every surprise back into the simulator.

i1 0.62 i2 0.41 i3 0.27 i4 0.16 i5 0.09 reality gap by iteration
rewards loops that shrink the reality gap on every cycle punishes sim-only metrics treated as a proxy for the real world
E3

a safer feedback loop

A robot that does not know it is wrong is the dangerous one. We reward systems that stop, ask, and replan when uncertainty crosses a written threshold.

confident execute uncertain pause · ask unsafe stop
rewards controllers that yield under doubt punishes controllers that bulldoze through uncertain states
sim → real → sim

The loop tightens until the gap is small

Train in simulation, validate in a controlled real environment, feed every surprise back into the simulator. Each cycle the reality gap shrinks.

SIM trained policy unit-test surface REAL controlled environment measured surprise SIM′ surprise folded in next training round cycle: each iteration shrinks the reality gap deploy log surprises
scene policy

The detection table is the action table

The same scene from the hero, broken down into the controller's view: detection, confidence, decision, policy class. A low-confidence unknown does not become an executed plan.

detection confidence decision policy class urgency
d1 · box 0.92 pick execute low
d2 · human 0.78 stop & yield override high
d3 · unknown 0.41 pause · ask escalate medium

Perception that admits doubt

Robots that act in the real world have to recognise when they are wrong. Our perception stack reports uncertainty alongside every detection so planners can react.

Sim, then real, then sim

We train in simulation, validate in carefully controlled real environments, and feed the surprises back into the simulator. The loop tightens until the gap is small.

cross-cuts

Embodied uncertainty is just calibration with a deadline

The same calibration discipline that surfaces in our climate forecasts and our evaluation library lands here as a control law: when the band is wide, the robot yields.