An Human-Robot Interaction Control Architecture for an Intelligent Assistive Robot
Bibliographic record
Abstract
As the first round of baby boomers turn 65 in 2011, we must be prepared for the largest demographic group in history that could need long term care from nursing homes and home health providers. The development of socially assistive robots for health care applications can provide measurable improvements in patient safety, quality of care, and operational efficiencies by playing an increasingly important role in patient care in the fast pace of crowded clinics, hospitals and nursing/veterans homes. However, there are a number of research issues that need to be addressed in order to design such robots. In this paper, we address one of the main limitations to the development of intelligent socially assistive robots for health care applications: Robotic control architecture design and implementation with explicit social and assistive task functionalities. In particular, we present the design of a unique learning-based multi-layer decision making control architecture for utilization in determining the appropriate behavior of the robot. Herein, we explore and compare two different learning-based techniques that can be utilized as the main decision-making module of the controller. Preliminary experiments presented show the potential of the integration of the aforementioned techniques into the overall design of such robots intended for assistive scenarios.
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.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 0.001 |
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 itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".