The DOI matches its DataCite record; 2 of the 2 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.
Integrating Diverse Knowledge Sources for Online One-shot Learning of Novel Tasks
Abstract
Autonomous agents are able to draw on a wide variety of potential sources of task knowledge; however current approaches invariably focus on only one or two. Here we investigate the challenges and impact of exploiting diverse knowledge sources to learn online, in one-shot, new tasks for a simulated office mobile robot. The resulting agent, developed in the Soar cognitive architecture, uses the following sources of domain and task knowledge: interaction with the environment, task execution and search knowledge, human natural language instruction, and responses retrieved from a large language model (GPT-3). We explore the distinct contributions of these knowledge sources and evaluate the performance of different combinations in terms of learning correct task knowledge and human workload. Results show that an agent's online integration of diverse knowledge sources improves one-shot task learning overall, reducing human feedback needed for rapid and reliable task learning.
Overview
The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.
Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
Statistics
Verification
Claims the paper makes
The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.
Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.
Self-check
Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.
The self-check needs the paper’s full text.
Citations
Cites
Ethical and social risks of harm from Language Models
Weidinger, L., Mellor, J., Rauh, M., Griffin, C., Uesato, J., Huang, P.-S., Cheng, M., Glaese, M., Balle, B., Kasirzadeh, A., et al. (2021) · arXiv · doi:10.48550/arxiv.2112.04359 · Cited by 477
Inner Monologue: Embodied Reasoning through Planning with Language Models
Huang, W., Xia, F., Xiao, T., Chan, H., Liang, J., Florence, P., Zeng, A., Tompson, J., Mordatch, I., Chebotar, Y., et al. (2022) · arXiv · doi:10.48550/arxiv.2207.05608 · Cited by 287 · cited 3×
“Huang et al. [8] explore using LLMs for planning of multiple tasks in embodied robotic environments, but not task learning.”
BackgroundMethod
Flagged first, then by citations
Cited by
Sorted by citations
Memory Matters: The Need to Improve Long-Term Memory in LLM-Agents
Hatalis, K., Christou, D., Myers, J., Jones, S., Lambert, K., Amos-Binks, A., Dannenhauer, Z., & Dannenhauer, D. (2024) · Proceedings of the AAAI Symposium Series · doi:10.1609/aaaiss.v2i1.27688 · Cited by 42
Metadata
- Authors
- Kirk, J. R., Wray, R. E., Lindes, P., & Laird, J. E.
- Venue
- arXiv
- Publisher
- arXiv
- Published
- 2022
- arXiv
- 2208.09554
- References
- 2
- Type
- Preprint
About these checks
Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.
Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.
Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.
What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›
Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review
