MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort

Self-supervised learning framework for speaker localisation with a humanoid robot

2021· article· en· W3195116327 on OpenAlexaff
Jonas Gonzalez-Billandon, Giulia Belgiovine, Matthew S. Tata, Alessandra Sciutti, Giulio Sandini, Francesco Rea

Bibliographic record

Venuenot available
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldComputer Science
TopicSpeech and Audio Processing
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Lethbridge
FundersEuropean Research Council
KeywordsComputer scienceHumanoid robotRobotExploitArtificial intelligenceHuman–robot interactionHuman–computer interactionLeverage (statistics)Software portabilityBinaural recordingSocial robotMobile robotSpeech recognitionRobot control

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Locating a speaker in the space is a skill that plays an essential role in conducting smooth and natural social interactions. Equipping robots with this ability could lead to more fluid human-robot interaction, also by facilitating voice recognition in noisy environments. Most recently proposed sound localisation systems rely on model-based approaches. However, their performances depend on carefully chosen parameters, especially in the binaural and noisy settings typical of humanoids setups. The need for fine-tuning and for adaptation when facing new environments represents a considerable obstacle to the use and portability of such systems in real human-robot interaction scenarios. To overcome these limitations we propose to rely on data-driven approaches (i.e., deep learning) and exploit multi-sensory mechanisms to leverage the direct experience sensed by the robot during an interaction. Taking inspiration from how humans use vision to calibrate their auditory space representation through experiences, we enabled the robot to learn to localize a speaker in a self-supervised way. Our results show that this approach is suitable to learn to localise speakers in the challenging environments typical of human-robot collaboration.

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 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 categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Bench or experimental · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Methods · Consensus signal: Methods
Teacher disagreement score0.681
Threshold uncertainty score0.331

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 studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.017
GPT teacher head0.249
Teacher spread0.232 · 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

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designBench or experimental
Domainnot available
GenreMethods

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".

Quick stats

Citations8
Published2021
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same topicSpeech and Audio ProcessingFrench-language works237,207