MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort

Interactive Continual Learning Architecture for Long-Term Personalization of Home Service Robots

2024· article· en· W4401414043 on OpenAlexaff
Ali Ayub, Chrystopher L. Nehaniv, Kerstin Dautenhahn

Bibliographic record

Venuenot available
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEngineering
TopicRobotics and Automated Systems
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Waterloo
Fundersnot available
KeywordsComputer sciencePersonalizationTerm (time)ArchitectureService (business)RobotHome automationHuman–computer interactionMultimediaArtificial intelligenceWorld Wide WebTelecommunicationsBusiness

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

For robots to perform assistive tasks in unstructured home environments, they must learn and reason on the semantic knowledge of the environments. Despite a resurgence in the development of semantic reasoning architectures, these methods assume that all the training data is available a priori. However, each user’s environment is unique and can continue to change over time, which makes these methods unsuitable for personalized home service robots. Although research in continual learning develops methods that can learn and adapt over time, most of these methods are tested in the narrow context of object classification on static image datasets. In this paper, we combine ideas from continual learning, semantic reasoning, and interactive machine learning literature and develop a novel interactive continual learning architecture for continual learning of semantic knowledge in a home environment through human-robot interaction. The architecture builds on core cognitive principles of learning and memory for efficient and real-time learning of new knowledge from humans. We integrate our architecture with a physical mobile manipulator robot and perform extensive system evaluations in a laboratory environment over two months. Our results demonstrate the effectiveness of our architecture to allow a physical robot to continually adapt to the changes in the environment from limited data provided by the users (experimenters), and use the learned knowledge to perform object fetching tasks.

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)0.001
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Simulation or modeling · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.004
Threshold uncertainty score0.014

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0010.001
Scholarly communication0.0010.002
Open science0.0030.002
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0040.001

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.

Opus teacher head0.009
GPT teacher head0.240
Teacher spread0.231 · 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 designSimulation or modeling
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

Citations10
Published2024
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same topicRobotics and Automated SystemsFrench-language works237,207