Enabling Embodied Human-Robot Co-Learning: Requirements, Method, and Test With Handover Task
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Despite a large body of research on robot learning, it has not yet been thoroughly studied how collaborating humans and robots learn reciprocally. In such situations, both humans and robots continuously learn about each other and the task through interaction. This letter addresses the research question: <italic xmlns:mml="http://www.w3.org/1998/Math/MathML" xmlns:xlink="http://www.w3.org/1999/xlink">“How can human-robot co-learning be facilitated in physically embodied collaborative tasks?”</i>. First, we derived five requirements for successful human-robot co-learning from literature: shared goal, synchrony, interdependence, adaptability, and transparency. Based on these requirements, we designed a collaborative human-robot handover task and a robot Q-learning method. In an evaluation with six human participants co-learning was indeed found to emerge in the hand-over task. Particularly, for three of the human-robot dyads, our designed setup proved to facilitate co-learning in a way that met all five requirements. The task and robot learning method presented in this letter demonstrate how human-robot co-learning can be enabled in physically embodied 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 distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 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 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 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 teacher head, 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".