Learning to Engage with Interactive Systems
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
Physical agents that can autonomously generate engaging, life-like behavior will lead to more responsive and user-friendly robots and other autonomous systems. Although many advances have been made for one-to-one interactions in well-controlled settings, physical agents should be capable of interacting with humans in natural settings, including group interaction. To generate engaging behaviors, the autonomous system must first be able to estimate its human partners’ engagement level. In this article, we propose an approach for estimating engagement during group interaction by simultaneously taking into account active and passive interaction, and use the measure as the reward signal within a reinforcement learning framework to learn engaging interactive behaviors. The proposed approach is implemented in an interactive sculptural system in a museum setting. We compare the learning system to a baseline using pre-scripted interactive behaviors. Analysis based on sensory data and survey data shows that adaptable behaviors within an expert-designed action space can achieve higher engagement and likeability.
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 | 0.000 | 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 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 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 it