Robot Cooperative Behavior Learning Using Single-Shot Learning From Demonstration and Parallel Hidden Markov Models
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
For robots to become collaborative assistants, they need to be capable of naturally interacting with users in real environments. They also need to be able to learn new skills from non-expert users. In this letter, we present a novel parallel hidden Markov model (PaHMM) architecture for learning from demonstration (LfD), which allows a robot to learn a sequence of cooperative and non-cooperative behaviors from a single demonstration (single-shot) of a task-based human-robot interaction from two interacting teachers. During teaching, the robot learns both a human-robot interaction model and an object interaction model in order to be able to effectively determine its own behaviors. Experiments with a Baxter robot and several teachers were conducted to validate the ability of the robot to learn both cooperative and non-cooperative behaviors during a task-based interaction. Comparison experiments also show the robustness of our approach to spatial variations from the demonstrated behaviors and tracking errors when compared to other approaches.
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 | 0.001 |
| 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