Learning Nonverbal Cues in Multiparty Social Interactions for Robotic Facilitators
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Conventional behavior cloning (BC) models often struggle to replicate the subtleties of human actions. Previous studies have attempted to address this issue through the development of a new BC technique: Implicit Behavior Cloning (IBC). This new technique consistently outperformed the conventional Mean Squared Error (MSE) BC models in a variety of tasks. Our goal is to replicate the performance of the IBC model by Florence [in Proceedings of the 5th Conference on Robot Learning, 164:158–168, 2022], for social interaction tasks using our custom dataset. While previous studies have explored the use of large language models (LLMs) for enhancing group conversations, they often overlook the significance of non-verbal cues, which constitute a substantial part of human communication. We propose using IBC to replicate nonverbal cues like gaze behaviors. The model is evaluated against various types of facilitator data and compared to an explicit, MSE BC model. Results show that the IBC model outperforms the MSE BC model across session types using the same metrics used in the previous IBC paper. Despite some metrics showing mixed results which are explainable for the custom dataset for social interaction, we successfully replicated the IBC model to generate nonverbal cues. Our contributions are (1) the replication and extension of the IBC model, and (2) a nonverbal cues generation model for social interaction. These advancements facilitate the integration of robots into the complex interactions between robots and humans, e.g., in the absence of a human facilitator.
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 | 0.004 | 0.011 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 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".