MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2964107636 · doi:10.1145/3326462

Curiosity Did Not Kill the Robot

2019· article· en· W2964107636 on OpenAlex

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.

affAt least one author lists a Canadian institution in the pinned OpenAlex snapshot.

Bibliographic record

VenueACM Transactions on Human-Robot Interaction · 2019
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldPsychology
TopicSocial Robot Interaction and HRI
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Waterloo
FundersExploratory Research for Advanced Technology
KeywordsCuriosityDialog boxRobotHuman–computer interactionComputer scienceArtificial intelligenceAdaptation (eye)PsychologySocial psychology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Learning from human interaction data is a promising approach for developing robot interaction logic, but behaviors learned only from offline data simply represent the most frequent interaction patterns in the training data, without any adaptation for individual differences. We developed a robot that incorporates both data-driven and interactive learning. Our robot first learns high-level dialog and spatial behavior patterns from offline examples of human--human interaction. Then, during live interactions, it chooses among appropriate actions according to its curiosity about the customer's expected behavior, continually updating its predictive model to learn and adapt to each individual. In a user study, we found that participants thought the curious robot was significantly more humanlike with respect to repetitiveness and diversity of behavior, more interesting, and better overall in comparison to a non-curious robot.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesMeta-epidemiology (narrow), Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)
Consensus categoriesInsufficient payload (model declined to judge)
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.606
Threshold uncertainty score1.000

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0010.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.001
Open science0.0010.000
Research integrity0.0000.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0380.016

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.

Opus teacher head0.125
GPT teacher head0.428
Teacher spread0.303 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it