Reinforcement Learning based Embodied Agents Modelling Human Users Through Interaction and Multi-Sensory Perception
Bibliographic record
Abstract
This paper extends recent work in interactive machine learning (IML) focused on effectively incorporating human feedback. We show how control and feedback signals complement each other in systems which model human reward. We demonstrate that simultaneously incorporating human control and feedback signals can improve interactive robotic systems' performance on a self-mirrored movement control task where an RL-agent controlled right arm attempts to match the preprogrammed movement pattern of the left arm. We illustrate the impact of varying human feedback parameters on task performance by investigating the probability of giving feedback on each time step and the likelihood of given feedback being correct. We further illustrate that varying the temporal decay with which the agent incorporates human feedback has a significant impact on task performance. We found that smearing human feedback over time steps improves performance and we show varying the probability of feedback at each time step, and an increased likelihood of those feedbacks being 'correct' can impact agent performance. We conclude that understanding latent variables in human feedback is crucial for learning algorithms acting in human-machine interaction domains.
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 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 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 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 itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, 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".