A learning from demonstration system architecture for robots learning social group recreational activities
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Group-based recreational activities have shown to have a number of health benefits for people of all ages. The handful of social robots designed to facilitate such activities are currently only able to implement a priori known recreational activities that have been pre-programmed by human experts. Once deployed in their intended facility, these robots are not able to learn new activities from non-expert humans. In this paper, we present the development of a novel learning from demonstration (LfD) system architecture for a social robot in order for it to learn from non-expert teachers the structure of an activity and monitor the execution of the new activity. In order to obtain user compliance, personalized persuasive strategies are also learned by the robot to use while implementing the activity during human-robot interactions (HRI) with the intended users. The architecture has been integrated into our socially assistive robot Tangy to learn the group-based activity Bingo. System performance experiments were conducted with Tangy to first learn to facilitate Bingo from non-expert teachers and then use the learned activity to physically facilitate Bingo with multiple users. The results showed Tangy was able to effectively and efficiently learn the new Bingo activity structure as well as personalize its persuasive strategies to individual users in order to obtain activity compliance.
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 | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.009 | 0.002 |
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".