MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort

Fuzzy Object Ambiguity Determination and Human Attention Assessment for Domestic Service Robots

2022· article· en· W4352981306 on OpenAlexaff
Kevin Fan, Mélanie Jouaiti, Kerstin Dautenhahn, Chrystopher L. Nehaniv

Bibliographic record

Venuenot available
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldComputer Science
TopicGaze Tracking and Assistive Technology
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Waterloo
Fundersnot available
KeywordsAmbiguityService robotComputer scienceRobotFuzzy logicArtificial intelligenceObject (grammar)Service (business)InferenceContext (archaeology)Human–computer interactionMachine learningProgramming language

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Domestic service robots have the promising potential of bringing significant services to the general population, and more importantly, successful applications of universal domestic service robots can potentially help mitigate critical societal issues such as senior care. In order to do so, domestic service robots need to integrate seamlessly into home environments. However, home environments are dynamic, complex and filled with personal items. Therefore, ambiguity can quickly arise for robots operating in such rich environments. In this paper, we propose an object ambiguity determination system that can determine the level of ambiguity in robot object selection tasks with fuzzy logic data integration. Additionally, we propose a functional human attention assessment system with fuzzy logic that enables the robot to determine user attention before committing to general disambiguation processes. Our preliminary results show that the proposed fuzzy logic inference systems can reliably estimate the robot object selection task ambiguity from object confidence level and the number of potential target objects that satisfy the user's command. Furthermore, fuzzy inference is applied to decide human eye gaze direction robustly. These subsystems can be utilized in the context of human-robot interaction to guide the robot when to seek feedback from a human partner in order to disambiguate reference in domestic service tasks. The source code of all proposed systems is available publicly on GitHub. <sup xmlns:mml="http://www.w3.org/1998/Math/MathML" xmlns:xlink="http://www.w3.org/1999/xlink">1</sup>

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: Observational · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.818
Threshold uncertainty score0.369

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 head0.024
GPT teacher head0.323
Teacher spread0.298 · 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 designObservational
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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

Citations2
Published2022
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same topicGaze Tracking and Assistive TechnologyFrench-language works237,207