Learning and Personalizing Socially Assistive Robot Behaviors to Aid with Activities of Daily Living
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
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.
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 | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.005 | 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