MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2117198064 · doi:10.1109/icra.2011.5980426

A learning-based control architecture for an assistive robot providing social engagement during cognitively stimulating activities

2011· article· en· W2117198064 on OpenAlexaff
Jeanie Chan, Goldie Nejat

Bibliographic record

Venuenot available
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldPsychology
TopicSocial Robot Interaction and HRI
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Toronto
Fundersnot available
KeywordsReinforcement learningRobotArchitectureComputer scienceControl (management)Cognitive architectureHuman–computer interactionSocial robotPsychologyCognitionArtificial intelligenceRobot controlMobile robot

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Recent studies have shown that sustained engagement in cognitively stimulating activities has had positive effects on the cognitive functioning of humans. The objective of our work is to develop an intelligent socially assistive robot that can engage individuals in person-centered cognitively stimulating activities. In this paper, we present the design of a novel learning-based control architecture that enables the robot to act as a social motivator by providing assistance, encouragement and celebration during the course of an activity. A hierarchical reinforcement learning (HRL) approach is used to provide the robot with the ability to: (i) learn appropriate assistive behaviors based on the structure of the activity and (ii) personalize the interaction based on the person's affective state during the activity. Preliminary experiments show that the proposed learning-based control architecture is effective in determining the optimal assistive behaviors of the robot during a memory game interaction.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.001
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Bench or experimental · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.003
Threshold uncertainty score0.007

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0010.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0020.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.116
GPT teacher head0.376
Teacher spread0.260 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designBench or experimental
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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".

Quick stats

Citations14
Published2011
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same topicSocial Robot Interaction and HRIFrench-language works237,207