A Survey of Robotic Language Grounding: Tradeoffs Between Symbols and Embeddings

Overview

• This paper surveys recent research on using large language models to enable robots to understand language more flexibly and capably than ever before.

• It situates the research into a spectrum with two main approaches:

1. Mapping language to a manually defined formal representation of meaning
2. Mapping language directly to high-dimensional vector spaces that translate to low-level robot policies

• The formal representation approach allows precise meaning representation, limits the learning problem, and enables interpretability and safety guarantees.

• The high-dimensional vector space approach avoids manual symbolic structure and has potential for greater generalization, but requires more data and compute to train.

• The paper discusses the tradeoffs of each approach and suggests future directions that could combine the best of both.

Plain English Explanation

Large language models are revolutionizing how robots understand and interact with human language. This survey paper examines two main ways researchers are using these models to give robots more flexible and capable language skills.

The first approach maps language to a formal, manually-defined representation of meaning. This allows the robot to precisely understand the intent behind the language, which limits the learning problem and supports interpretability and safety. However, this formal structure can make the system less flexible.

The second approach skips the formal representation and instead maps language directly to high-dimensional vector spaces. These vector spaces then translate directly to the robot's low-level control policies. This avoids the manual symbolic structure, potentially making the system more general and adaptable. But it requires significantly more data and computing power to train.

The paper discusses the tradeoffs of these two approaches and suggests future research could find ways to combine their respective strengths. This could lead to language-enabled robots that are both highly capable and trustworthy.

Technical Explanation

The paper reviews recent research on using large language models to enable more flexible and capable language understanding in robotics. It situates the research into a spectrum with two main approaches:

1. Mapping language to a manually defined formal representation of meaning. This formal representation allows the meaning of the language to be precisely captured, which limits the size of the learning problem and provides a framework for interpretability and formal safety guarantees. However, this manually specified symbolic structure can make the system less adaptable.

2. Mapping language directly to high-dimensional vector spaces that then translate to low-level robot policies. This approach avoids the manually-specified symbolic structure, potentially enabling greater generalization when given enough training data. But it requires significantly more data and computing power to train effectively.

The paper discusses the benefits and tradeoffs of each approach. The formal representation allows for precise meaning capture and safety assurances, but may limit flexibility. The high-dimensional vector space mapping can be more general, but is more opaque and data-hungry.

The paper concludes by suggesting future research directions that could combine the strengths of both approaches, potentially leading to language-enabled robots that are both highly capable and trustworthy.

Critical Analysis

The paper provides a valuable high-level perspective on two major paradigms in using large language models for robot language understanding. However, it acknowledges several key limitations and areas for further research.

For example, the paper notes that the high-dimensional vector space approach "requires more data and computing to train" compared to the formal representation methods. This raises questions about the scalability and accessibility of such approaches, especially for resource-constrained real-world robot applications.

Additionally, while the paper highlights the potential for the formal representation approach to provide "interpretability and formal safety guarantees," it does not delve into the specific technical challenges of implementing such guarantees in practice. Further research may be needed to fully realize these benefits.

The paper also doesn't address potential biases or errors that could be introduced by large language models, and how these issues could be mitigated in safety-critical robot applications. This is an important consideration that future work should explore in depth.

Overall, the paper provides a thoughtful framework for understanding the tradeoffs in this active area of research. But continued technical advances and rigorous testing will be needed to develop truly robust, reliable, and trustworthy language-enabled robots.

Conclusion

This survey paper examines two main approaches to using large language models to enable more flexible and capable language understanding in robotics. The first approach maps language to a manually defined formal representation of meaning, while the second maps language directly to high-dimensional vector spaces that translate to robot control policies.

Each approach has its own set of benefits and drawbacks. The formal representation allows for precise meaning capture and safety guarantees, but may limit flexibility. The high-dimensional vector space mapping can be more general, but requires significantly more data and compute to train effectively.

The paper suggests that future research could find ways to combine the strengths of both approaches, potentially leading to language-enabled robots that are highly capable while also being trustworthy and interpretable. Addressing challenges around scalability, safety, and bias will be critical to realizing this vision and deploying such systems in the real world.