Education
D-CODA: Diffusion for Coordinated Dual-Arm Data Augmentation
Liu, I-Chun Arthur, Chen, Jason, Sukhatme, Gaurav, Seita, Daniel
Learning bimanual manipulation is challenging due to its high dimensionality and tight coordination required between two arms. Eye-in-hand imitation learning, which uses wrist-mounted cameras, simplifies perception by focusing on task-relevant views. However, collecting diverse demonstrations remains costly, motivating the need for scalable data augmentation. While prior work has explored visual augmentation in single-arm settings, extending these approaches to bimanual manipulation requires generating viewpoint-consistent observations across both arms and producing corresponding action labels that are both valid and feasible. In this work, we propose Diffusion for COordinated Dual-arm Data Augmentation (D-CODA), a method for offline data augmentation tailored to eye-in-hand bimanual imitation learning that trains a diffusion model to synthesize novel, viewpoint-consistent wrist-camera images for both arms while simultaneously generating joint-space action labels. It employs constrained optimization to ensure that augmented states involving gripper-to-object contacts adhere to constraints suitable for bimanual coordination. We evaluate D-CODA on 5 simulated and 3 real-world tasks. Our results across 2250 simulation trials and 300 real-world trials demonstrate that it outperforms baselines and ablations, showing its potential for scalable data augmentation in eye-in-hand bimanual manipulation. Our project website is at: https://dcodaaug.github.io/D-CODA/.
EvalAgent: Discovering Implicit Evaluation Criteria from the Web
Wadhwa, Manya, Sprague, Zayne, Malaviya, Chaitanya, Laban, Philippe, Li, Junyi Jessy, Durrett, Greg
Evaluation of language model outputs on structured writing tasks is typically conducted with a number of desirable criteria presented to human evaluators or large language models (LLMs). For instance, on a prompt like "Help me draft an academic talk on coffee intake vs research productivity", a model response may be evaluated for criteria like accuracy and coherence. However, high-quality responses should do more than just satisfy basic task requirements. An effective response to this query should include quintessential features of an academic talk, such as a compelling opening, clear research questions, and a takeaway. To help identify these implicit criteria, we introduce EvalAgent, a novel framework designed to automatically uncover nuanced and task-specific criteria. EvalAgent first mines expert-authored online guidance. It then uses this evidence to propose diverse, long-tail evaluation criteria that are grounded in reliable external sources. Our experiments demonstrate that the grounded criteria produced by EvalAgent are often implicit (not directly stated in the user's prompt), yet specific (high degree of lexical precision). Further, EvalAgent criteria are often not satisfied by initial responses but they are actionable, such that responses can be refined to satisfy them. Finally, we show that combining LLM-generated and EvalAgent criteria uncovers more human-valued criteria than using LLMs alone.
AI Is a Mass-Delusion Event
It is a Monday afternoon in August, and I am on the internet watching a former cable-news anchor interview a dead teenager on Substack. This dead teenager--Joaquin Oliver, killed in the mass shooting at Marjory Stoneman Douglas High School, in Parkland, Florida--has been reanimated by generative AI, his voice and dialogue modeled on snippets of his writing and home-video footage. The animations are stiff, the model's speaking cadence is too fast, and in two instances, when it is trying to convey excitement, its pitch rises rapidly, producing a digital shriek. How many people, I wonder, had to agree that this was a good idea to get us to this moment? I feel like I'm losing my mind watching it. Jim Acosta, the former CNN personality who's conducting the interview, appears fully bought-in to the premise, adding to the surreality: He's playing it straight, even though the interactions are so bizarre. Acosta asks simple questions about Oliver's interests and how the teenager died.