A Human-Centered View of Continual Learning: Understanding Interactions, Teaching Patterns, and Perceptions of Human Users Toward a Continual Learning Robot in Repeated Interactions
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Continual learning (CL) has emerged as an important avenue of research in recent years, at the intersection of Machine Learning (ML) and Human–Robot Interaction (HRI), to allow robots to continually learn in their environments over long-term interactions with humans. Most research in CL, however, has been robot-centered to develop CL algorithms that can quickly learn new information on systematically collected static datasets. In this article, we take a human-centered approach to CL, to understand how humans interact with, teach, and perceive CL robots over the long term, and if there are variations in their teaching styles. We developed a socially guided CL system that integrates CL models for object recognition with a mobile manipulator robot and allows humans to directly teach and test the robot in real time over multiple sessions. We conducted an in-person study with 60 participants who interacted with the CL robot in 300 sessions with 5 sessions per participant. In this between-participant study, we used three different CL models deployed on a mobile manipulator robot. An extensive qualitative and quantitative analysis of the data collected in the study shows that there is significant variation among the teaching styles of individual users indicating the need for personalized adaptation to their distinct teaching styles. Our analysis shows that the constrained experimental setups that have been widely used to test most CL models are not adequate, as real users interact with and teach CL robots in a variety of ways. Finally, our analysis shows that although users have concerns about CL robots being deployed in our daily lives, they mention that with further improvements CL robots could assist older adults and people with disabilities in their homes.
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 | 0.003 | 0.012 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 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".