Design and Analysis of a Collaborative Story Generation Game for Social Robots
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Storytelling plays a central role in human socializing and entertainment, and research on conducting storytelling with robots is gaining interest. However, much of this research assumes that story content is curated. In this paper, we introduce the task ofcollaborative story generation, where an artificial intelligence agent, or a robot, and a person collaborate to create a unique story by taking turns adding to it. We present a collaborative story generation system which works with a human storyteller to create a story by generating new utterances based on the story so far. Our collaborative story generation system consists of a publicly-available large scale language model that was tuned on a dataset of writing prompts and short stories, and a ranker that samples from the language model and chooses the best possible output. We improve storytelling quality by optimizing the ranker’s sample size to strike a balance between quality and computational cost. Since latency can be detrimental to human-robot interaction, we examine the performance-latency trade-offs of our approach and find the optimal ranker sample size that strikes the best balance between quality and computational cost. We evaluate our system by having human participants play the collaborative story generation game and comparing the stories they create with our system to a naive baseline. Next, we conduct a detailed elicitation survey that sheds light on issues to consider when adapting our collaborative story generation system to a social robot. Finally, in a first step towards allowing human players to control the genre or mood of stories generated, we present preliminary work on steering story generation sentiment polarity with a sentiment analysis model. We find that our proposed method achieves a good balance of steering capability and text coherence. Our evaluation shows that participants have a positive view of collaborative story generation with a social robot and consider rich, emotive capabilities to be key to an enjoyable experience.
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 machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.002 | 0.007 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.007 | 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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), 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".