A multi-layer artificial intelligence and sensing based affective conversational embodied agent
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Building natural and conversational virtual humans is a task of formidable complexity. We believe that, especially when building agents that affectively interact with biological humans in real-time, a cognitive science-based, multilayered sensing and artificial intelligence (AI) systems approach is needed. For this demo, we show a working version (through human interaction with it) our modular system of natural, conversation 3D virtual human using AI or sensing layers. These including sensing the human user via facial emotion recognition, voice stress, semantic meaning of the words, eye gaze, heart rate, and galvanic skin response. These inputs are combined with AI sensing and recognition of the environment using deep learning natural language captioning or dense captioning. These are all processed by our AI avatar system allowing for an affective and empathetic conversation using an NLP topic-based dialogue capable of using facial expressions, gestures, breath, eye gaze and voice language-based two-way back and forth conversations with a sensed human. Our lab has been building these systems in stages over the years.
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 | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.011 | 0.003 |
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; both teacher heads agree on what is shown here.
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".