MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort

Bootstrapping Adaptive Human-Machine Interfaces with Offline Reinforcement Learning

2023· article· en· W4389665459 on OpenAlexfundno aff
Jensen Gao, Siddharth Reddy, Glen Berseth, Anca D. Dragan, Sergey Levine

Bibliographic record

Venuenot available
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldNeuroscience
TopicEEG and Brain-Computer Interfaces
Canadian institutionsnot available
FundersArmy Research OfficeCanadian Institute for Advanced ResearchUniversity of California BerkeleySemiconductor Research Corporation
KeywordsComputer scienceHuman–computer interactionReinforcement learningTeleoperationTask (project management)Interface (matter)Artificial intelligenceBaseline (sea)User interfaceRobotBrain–computer interfaceMachine learningTrajectory

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Adaptive interfaces can help users perform sequential decision-making tasks like robotic teleoperation given noisy, high-dimensional command signals (e.g., from a brain-computer interface). Recent advances in human-in-the-loop machine learning enable such systems to improve by interacting with users, but tend to be limited by the amount of data that they can collect from individual users in practice. In this paper, we propose a reinforcement learning algorithm to address this by training an interface to map raw command signals to actions using a combination of offline pre-training and online fine-tuning. To address the challenges posed by noisy command signals and sparse rewards, we develop a novel method for representing and inferring the user's long-term intent for a given trajectory. We primarily evaluate our method's ability to assist users who can only communicate through noisy, high-dimensional input channels through a user study in which 12 participants performed a simulated navigation task by using their eye gaze to modulate a 128-dimensional command signal from their webcam. The results show that our method enables successful goal navigation more often than a baseline directional interface, by learning to denoise user commands signals and provide shared autonomy assistance. We further evaluate on a simulated Sawyer pushing task with eye gaze control, and the Lunar Lander game with simulated user commands, and find that our method improves over baseline interfaces in these domains as well. Extensive ablation experiments with simulated user commands empirically motivate each component of our method.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.007
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation 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: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.002
Threshold uncertainty score0.006

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.007
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.001
Scholarly communication0.0000.001
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.000

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 head0.056
GPT teacher head0.299
Teacher spread0.243 · 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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

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

Citations1
Published2023
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same topicEEG and Brain-Computer InterfacesFrench-language works237,207