Towards Text-based Human Search and Approach using a Robot Dog
Bibliographic record
Abstract
In this paper, we propose a SOCratic model for Robots Approaching humans based on TExt System (SOCRATES) focusing on the human search and approach based on free-form textual description; the robot first searches for the target user, then the robot proceeds to approach in a human-friendly manner. We present a Socratic human search model that connects large pre-trained foundation models to solve the downstream task of searching for the target person based on textual descriptions. In particular, textual descriptions used for searching are composed of appearance (e.g., wearing white shirt with black hair) and location clues (e.g., a student that works with robots). Additionally, we propose a hybrid learning-based framework for generating human-friendly robotic motion to approach a person, consisting of a learning-from-demonstration module and a knowledge distillation module utilizing LLMs. We evaluate the search performance of the proposed method in both simulation and real-world environments using the Boston Dynamics Spot robot. Moreover, we evaluate the effectiveness of our proposed framework through analysis involving human participants and investigate the perceived warmth of our system.
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 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.004 | 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".