atlas

Research map / Large language models / Agents, code and math

Unified Human-Scene Interaction via Prompted Chain-of-Contacts

ICLR 2024 · Large language models › Agents, code and math · approach: LLM-driven embodied and driving agents · 4 citations (OpenAlex)

Read the paperCheck your idea against 108,967 papers

AI-extracted summary. Written by AI from the paper's full text. Numbers and claims can be wrong or missing context, so check the paper before you cite or build on it.

Proposes UniHSI, which uses an LLM planner to convert language commands into Chain-of-Contacts plans and a unified AMP-based physics controller to execute them, trained on a new ScenePlan dataset.

Problem

Human-scene interaction (HSI) control is typically limited to specific interactions with separate policies per task and relies on annotated motion data; a user-friendly, versatile, language-driven interface is lacking.

Approach

Defines interactions as Chain of Contacts (ordered steps of human joint-object part contact pairs), generated by prompting an LLM planner from language commands, and executes all of them with one unified AMP-based controller via a TaskParser that converts contacts into uniform observations and rewards, without interaction annotations.

Key results

Measured effects reported in the paper

What was changedWhereMeasuredEffect
Add Adaptive Weights to the controller (ablation)UniHSI · ScenePlan PartNetSuccess Rate (%): 21.2 -> 85.5 (Simple); 5.3 -> 67.9 (Mid); 0.1 -> 40.5 (Hard)Helped
Add Ego-centric Heightmap (ablation)UniHSI · ScenePlan PartNetSuccess Rate (%): 61.6 -> 85.5 (Simple); 45.7 -> 67.9 (Mid); 0.0 -> 40.5 (Hard)Helped
Use UniHSI's unified task representation and controller instead of vanilla task combinationAMP · SitSuccess Rate (%): 62.5 -> 94.3Helped
Use UniHSI's unified task representation and controller instead of vanilla task combinationAMP · Lie DownSuccess Rate (%): 20.1 -> 81.5Helped
Use UniHSI's unified task representation and controller instead of vanilla task combinationAMP · ReachSuccess Rate (%): 90.3 -> 97.5Helped
Use GPT-4 instead of GPT-3.5 for planningLLM Planner · Language-command task planningExecution Success Rate (ESR, %): 35.6 -> 57.3Helped
Replace GPT-3.5 with human planningLLM Planner · Language-command task planningExecution Success Rate (ESR, %): 35.6 -> 73.2Helped

Surprising findings

Limitations

Experimental setup

Datasets: ScenePlan PartNet ScanNet SAMP CIRCLE

Benchmarks: ScenePlan ScanNet scenes single-task sit/lie down/reach comparisons

Metrics: success rate contact error success steps planning correctness naturalness score

Baselines: AMP NSM SAMP InterPhys AMP-Vanilla Combination PartNet scenes ScanNet scenes

Builds on: AMP InterPhys PPO IsaacGym

Closest papers by meaning

Writing a paper in this area? scime draft is a free LaTeX editor with AI included, real-time co-authors and a check of your references and venue rules before you submit. It also imports OpenAI Prism projects.

Open scime draft

Get the next scime Dispatch and a monthly field update

Free. We send a confirmation link first; every email has a one-click unsubscribe. Privacy