Improving user specifications for robot behavior through active preference learning: Framework and evaluation
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
An important challenge in human–robot interaction (HRI) is enabling non-expert users to specify complex tasks for autonomous robots. Recently, active preference learning has been applied in HRI to interactively shape a robot’s behavior. We study a framework where users specify constraints on allowable robot movements on a graphical interface, yielding a robot task specification. However, users may not be able to accurately assess the impact of such constraints on the performance of a robot. Thus, we revise the specification by iteratively presenting users with alternative solutions where some constraints might be violated, and learn about the importance of the constraints from the users’ choices between these alternatives. We demonstrate our framework in a user study with a material transport task in an industrial facility. We show that nearly all users accept alternative solutions and thus obtain a revised specification through the learning process, and that the revision leads to a substantial improvement in robot performance. Further, the learning process reduces the variances between the specifications from different users and, thus, makes the specifications more similar. As a result, the users whose initial specifications had the largest impact on performance benefit the most from the interactive learning.
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 | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| 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 | 0.001 |
| 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