A Personalized Household Assistive Robot that Learns and Creates New Breakfast Options through Human-Robot Interaction
Bibliographic record
Abstract
For robots to assist users with household tasks, they must first learn about the tasks from the users. Further, performing the same task every day, in the same way, can become boring for the robot’s user(s), therefore, assistive robots must find creative ways to perform tasks in the household. In this paper, we present a cognitive architecture for a household assistive robot that can learn personalized breakfast options from its users and then use the learned knowledge to set up a table for breakfast. The architecture can also use the learned knowledge to create new breakfast options over a longer period of time. The proposed cognitive architecture combines state-of-the-art perceptual learning algorithms, computational implementation of cognitive models of memory encoding and learning, a task planner for picking and placing objects in the household, a graphical user interface (GUI) to interact with the user and a novel approach for creating new breakfast options using the learned knowledge. The architecture is integrated with the Fetch mobile manipulator robot and validated, as a proof-of-concept system evaluation in a large indoor environment with multiple kitchen objects. Experimental results demonstrate the effectiveness of our architecture to learn personalized breakfast options from the user and generate new breakfast options never learned by the robot
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 | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 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 | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| 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".