Pith. sign in

REVIEW

Improving Robot-Centric Learning from Demonstration via Personalized Embeddings

Not yet reviewed by Pith; the record is open.

This paper has not been read by Pith yet. Machine review is queued; the pith claim, tier, and objections will appear here once it completes.

SPECIMEN: schema-true, not a live event

T0 review · schema-true

One-sentence machine reading of the paper's core claim.

pith:XXXXXXXX · record.json · timestamp

arxiv 2110.03134 v1 pith:XCWK4YES submitted 2021-10-07 cs.RO

classification cs.RO
keywords humanlabelsapproachdemonstrationimprovinguponapproachescorrective
verification ladder T0 review T1 audit T2 compute T3 formal

Signed reviews

No signed human review yet.

0 comments
read the original abstract

Learning from demonstration (LfD) techniques seek to enable novice users to teach robots novel tasks in the real world. However, prior work has shown that robot-centric LfD approaches, such as Dataset Aggregation (DAgger), do not perform well with human teachers. DAgger requires a human demonstrator to provide corrective feedback to the learner either in real-time, which can result in degraded performance due to suboptimal human labels, or in a post hoc manner which is time intensive and often not feasible. To address this problem, we present Mutual Information-driven Meta-learning from Demonstration (MIND MELD), which meta-learns a mapping from poor quality human labels to predicted ground truth labels, thereby improving upon the performance of prior LfD approaches for DAgger-based training. The key to our approach for improving upon suboptimal feedback is mutual information maximization via variational inference. Our approach learns a meaningful, personalized embedding via variational inference which informs the mapping from human provided labels to predicted ground truth labels. We demonstrate our framework in a synthetic domain and in a human-subjects experiment, illustrating that our approach improves upon the corrective labels provided by a human demonstrator by 63%.

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Pith tools