Affective State Estimation for Human–Robot Interaction
Why this work is in the frame
A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
<para xmlns:mml="http://www.w3.org/1998/Math/MathML" xmlns:xlink="http://www.w3.org/1999/xlink"> In order for humans and robots to interact in an effective and intuitive manner, robots must obtain information about the human affective state in response to the robot's actions. This secondary mode of interactive communication is hypothesized to permit a more natural collaboration, similar to the “body language” interaction between two cooperating humans. This paper describes the implementation and validation of a hidden Markov model (HMM) for estimating human affective state in real time, using robot motions as the stimulus. Inputs to the system are physiological signals such as heart rate, perspiration rate, and facial muscle contraction. Affective state was estimated using a two-dimensional valence-arousal representation. A robot manipulator was used to generate motions expected during human–robot interaction, and human subjects were asked to report their response to these motions. The human physiological response was also measured. Robot motions were generated using both a nominal potential field planner and a recently reported safe motion planner that minimizes the potential collision forces along the path. The robot motions were tested with 36 subjects. This data was used to train and validate the HMM model. The results of the HMM affective estimation are also compared to a previously implemented fuzzy inference engine. </para>
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it