Learning User Preferences from Corrections on State Lattices
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Enabling a broader range of users to efficiently deploy autonomous mobile robots requires intuitive frameworks for specifying a robot's task and behaviour. We present a novel approach using learning from corrections (LfC), where a user is iteratively presented with a solution to a motion planning problem. Users might have preferences about parts of a robot's environment that are suitable for robot traffic or that should be avoided as well as preferences on the control actions a robot can take. The robot is initially unaware of these preferences; thus, we ask the user to provide a correction to the presented path. We assume that the user evaluates paths based on environment and motion features. From a sequence of corrections we learn weights for these features, which are then considered by the motion planner, resulting in future paths that better fit the user's preferences. We prove completeness of our algorithm and demonstrate its performance in simulations. Thereby, we show that the learned preferences yield good results not only for a set of training tasks but also for test tasks, as well as for different types of user behaviour.
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) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
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".