Adaptive Robot Assistance: Expertise and Influence in Multi-User Task Planning
Bibliographic record
Abstract
This paper addresses the challenge of enabling a single robot to effectively assist multiple humans in decision-making for task planning domains. We introduce a comprehensive framework designed to enhance overall team performance by considering both human expertise in making the optimal decisions and robot influence on human decision-making. Our model integrates these factors seamlessly within the task-planning domain, formulating the problem as a partially observable Markov decision process (POMDP) while treating expertise and influence as unobservable components of the system state. To solve for the robot's actions in such systems, we propose an efficient Attention-Switching policy. This policy capitalizes on the inherent structure of such systems, solving multiple smaller POMDPs to generate heuristics for prioritizing interactions with different human teammates, thereby reducing the state space and improving scalability. Our empirical results on a simulated kit fulfillment task demonstrate improved team performance when the robot's policy accounts for both expertise and influence. This research represents a significant step forward in the field of adaptive robot assistance, paving the way for integration into cost-effective small and mid-scale industries, where substantial investments in robotic infrastructure may not be economically viable.
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 | 0.001 | 0.006 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 0.000 |
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.
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".