Bayesian Active Learning for Collaborative Task Specification Using Equivalence Regions
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
Specifying complex task behaviors while ensuring good robot performance may be difficult for untrained users. We study a framework for users to specify rules for acceptable behavior in a shared environment such as industrial facilities. As non-expert users might have little intuition about how their specification impacts the robot's performance, we design a learning system that interacts with users to find an optimal solution. Using active preference learning, we iteratively show alternative paths that the robot could take on an interface. From the user feedback on ranking the alternatives, we learn about the weights that users place on each part of their specification. We extend the user model from our previous work to a discrete Bayesian learning model and introduce a greedy algorithm for proposing alternative that operates on the notion of equivalence regions of user weights. We prove that using this algorithm, the revision active learning process converges on the user-optimal path. Using simulations performed in realistic industrial environments, we demonstrate the convergence and robustness of our approach.
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