Learning and Personalizing Socially Assistive Robot Behaviors to Aid with Activities of Daily Living
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Socially assistive robots can autonomously provide activity assistance to vulnerable populations, including those living with cognitive impairments. To provide effective assistance, these robots should be capable of displaying appropriate behaviors and personalizing them to a user's cognitive abilities. Our research focuses on the development of a novel robot learning architecture that uniquely combines learning from demonstration ( LfD ) and reinforcement learning ( RL ) algorithms to effectively teach socially assistive robots personalized behaviors. Caregivers can demonstrate a series of assistive behaviors for an activity to the robot, which it uses to learn general behaviors via LfD . This information is used to obtain initial assistive state-behavior pairings using a decision tree. Then, the robot uses an RL algorithm to obtain a policy for selecting the appropriate behavior personalized to the user's cognition level. Experiments were conducted with the socially assistive robot Casper to investigate the effectiveness of our proposed learning architecture. Results showed that Casper was able to learn personalized behaviors for the new assistive activity of tea-making, and that combining LfD and RL algorithms significantly reduces the time required for a robot to learn a new activity.
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 | 0.002 |
| 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 | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 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 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".