MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4412352782 · doi:10.1109/tro.2025.3588455

Baseline Policy Adapting and Abstraction of Shared Autonomy for High-Level Robot Operations

2025· article· en· W4412352782 on OpenAlexaff
Ehsan Yousefi, Mo Chen, Inna Sharf

Bibliographic record

VenueIEEE Transactions on Robotics · 2025
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldComputer Science
TopicDistributed systems and fault tolerance
Canadian institutionsSimon Fraser UniversityMcGill University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsBaseline (sea)AutonomyAbstractionRobotComputer scienceRoboticsArtificial intelligenceHuman–computer interactionPolitical science

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

This paper presents a novel shared autonomy and baseline policy adapting framework for human-robot interactions in high-level context-aware robotic tasks. With a unique methodology that leverages hierarchies in decision-making as well as variational analysis of human policy, we propose a mathematical model of shared autonomy policy. The framework aims at interpretable high-level decision-making for efficient robot operation with human in the loop. We modeled the decision-making process using hierarchical Markov decision processes (MDPs) in an algorithm we called <italic xmlns:mml="http://www.w3.org/1998/Math/MathML" xmlns:xlink="http://www.w3.org/1999/xlink">policy adapting</i>, where the autonomous system policy is adapted, and hence, shaped by incorporating design variables contextual to the robot, human, task, and pre-training. By integrating deep reinforcement learning within a multi-agent hierarchical context, we present an end-to-end algorithm to train a baseline policy designed for shared autonomy. We showcase the effectiveness of our framework, and particularly the interplay between different design elements and human's skill level, in a pilot study with a human user in a simulated sequence of high-level pick-and-place tasks. The proposed framework advances the state-of-the-art in shared autonomy for robotic tasks, but can also be applied to other domains of autonomous operation.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Simulation or modeling · Consensus signal: Simulation or modeling
GenreCandidate signal: Methods · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.758
Threshold uncertainty score0.550

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

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

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.

Opus teacher head0.029
GPT teacher head0.283
Teacher spread0.253 · 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 teacher head, not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designSimulation or modeling
Domainnot available
GenreMethods

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

Citations1
Published2025
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueIEEE Transactions on RoboticsSame topicDistributed systems and fault toleranceFrench-language works237,207