CoChat
Sign Up
PreprintCited by 9Speech and dialogue systemsNatural Language Processing TechniquesReinforcement Learning in Robotics

The DOI matches its DataCite record; the references it cites are not checked yet.

Improving Grounded Language Understanding in a Collaborative Environment by Interacting with Agents Through Help Feedback

Open access
Mehta, Nikhil, Teruel, Milagro, Sanz, Patricio Figueroa, Deng, Xin, Awadallah, Ahmed Hassan, Kiseleva, Julia·2023·arXiv
DOI 10.48550/arxiv.2304.10750arXiv 2304.10750
Open this paper in CoChat — free accountOpen PDF

Abstract

Many approaches to Natural Language Processing (NLP) tasks often treat them as single-step problems, where an agent receives an instruction, executes it, and is evaluated based on the final outcome. However, human language is inherently interactive, as evidenced by the back-and-forth nature of human conversations. In light of this, we posit that human-AI collaboration should also be interactive, with humans monitoring the work of AI agents and providing feedback that the agent can understand and utilize. Further, the AI agent should be able to detect when it needs additional information and proactively ask for help. Enabling this scenario would lead to more natural, efficient, and engaging human-AI collaborations. In this work, we explore these directions using the challenging task defined by the IGLU competition, an interactive grounded language understanding task in a MineCraft-like world. We explore multiple types of help players can give to the AI to guide it and analyze the impact of this help in AI behavior, resulting in performance improvements.

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.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Integrity signals

Registry

DataCite · 10.48550/arxiv.2304.10750

Cites

0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

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.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Claims other papers make about this one

Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?

  • Realworld simulation evaluates agents within immersive environments like games and interactive simulators, using metrics like task success rate and human similarity based on trajectories and completed objectives.

    “In this method, the agents are evaluated within immersive environments like games and interactive simulators.The agents are required to perform tasks autonomously, and then metrics like task success rate and human similarity are leveraged to evaluate the capability of the agents based on their trajectories and completed objectives [16,22,33,38,59,80,122,162,163,164].”

    From A survey on large language model based autonomous agents (2024) · cites this paper as [122]

    Section 3 (Task-Specific Models; page unavailable) describes an AI agent building a target structure in a 3-D Minecraft world, supporting the game-environment example. Section 5.2 (Evaluation Metrics; page unavailable) evaluates predicted blocks against the target grid, but does not report task success rate, human similarity, or trajectory-based evaluation. The paper's setup is language-based and involves simulated human help, rather than autonomous performance in an immersive simulator. (LLM, conf=0.86)

    Experimental — accuracy not yet measured

  • Common task success metrics for LLM-based agents include success rate, reward/score, coverage, and accuracy.

    “Common metrics include success rate [12,22,57,59], reward/score [22,59,122], coverage [16], and accuracy [18,40,102].”

    From A survey on large language model based autonomous agents (2024) · cites this paper as [122]

    Section 5.2, Evaluation Metrics, identifies IGLU Reward as a primary task metric, supporting reward/score. The paper also reports accuracy for generated help (Table 2), but the cited passages do not establish success rate or coverage as task-success metrics, or task accuracy in the same sense. (LLM, conf=0.85)

    Experimental — accuracy not yet measured

  • Many researchers use simulation environments like ALFWorld, IGLU, and Minecraft as benchmarks to evaluate agent capabilities.

    “For example, many researchers use simulation environments like ALFWorld [59], IGLU [122], and Minecraft [16, 33,38] as benchmarks to evaluate the agent capabilities.”

    From A survey on large language model based autonomous agents (2024) · cites this paper as [122]

  • In civil engineering, LLM-based agents can be used to design and optimize complex structures such as buildings, bridges, dams, and roads.

    “In civil engineering, LLM-based agents can be used to design and optimize complex structures such as buildings, bridges, dams, roads.[122] proposes an interactive framework”

    From A survey on large language model based autonomous agents (2024) · cites this paper as [122]

    The Target Structure Chat Interface and §3 Task-Specific Models describe an interactive agent that places blocks in Minecraft in response to a human architect. Our copy does not address civil engineering or the design and optimization of buildings, bridges, dams, or roads (searched for those structures and for design and optimization). (LLM, conf=0.76)

    Experimental — accuracy not yet measured

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

The publisher hasn’t deposited this paper’s reference list.

Research works printed but not linked: 45

  1. Mohammad Aliannejadi, Julia Kiseleva, Aleksandr Chuklin, Jeff Dalton, and Mikhail Burtsev. 2020. Convai3: Generating clarifying questions for open- domain dialogue systems (clariq). arXiv preprint arXiv:2009.11352. · arXiv
  2. Negar Arabzadeh, Mahsa Seifikar, and Charles LA Clarke. 2022. Unsupervised question clarity pre- diction through retrieved item coherency. In Pro- ceedings of the 31st ACM International Conference on Information & Knowledge Management, pages 3811-3816.
  3. Luciana Benotti, Tessa Lau, and Martín Villalba. 2014. Interpreting natural language instructions using lan- guage, vision, and behavior. ACM Transactions on Interactive Intelligent Systems (TiiS), 4(3):1-22.
  4. Yonatan Bisk, Deniz Yuret, and Daniel Marcu. 2016. Natural language communication with robots. In Proceedings of the 2016 Conference of the North American Chapter of the Association for Computa- tional Linguistics: Human Language Technologies, pages 751-761.
  5. Beatriz Borges, Niket Tandon, Tanja Käser, and An- toine Bosselut. 2023. Let me teach you: Pedagogical foundations of feedback for language models. arXiv preprint arXiv:2307.00279. · arXiv
  6. Okko Buß and David Schlangen. 2011. Dium-an in- cremental dialogue manager that can produce self- corrections. Proceedings of SemDial 2011 (Los An- gelogue).
  7. Herbert H Clark. 1996. Using language. Cambridge university press.
  8. Bhavana Dalvi, Oyvind Tafjord, and Peter Clark. 2022. Towards teachable reasoning systems. arXiv preprint arXiv:2204.13074. · arXiv
  9. Ahmed Elgohary, Christopher Meek, Matthew Richardson, Adam Fourney, Gonzalo Ramos, and Ahmed Hassan Awadallah. 2021. Nl-edit: Correcting semantic parse errors through natural language interaction. arXiv preprint arXiv:2103.14540. · arXiv
  10. Linxi Fan, Guanzhi Wang, Yunfan Jiang, Ajay Man- dlekar, Yuncong Yang, Haoyi Zhu, Andrew Tang, De-An Huang, Yuke Zhu, and Anima Anandkumar. 2022. Minedojo: Building open-ended embodied agents with internet-scale knowledge. In Thirty-sixth Conference on Neural Information Processing Sys- tems Datasets and Benchmarks Track.
  11. Kevin A Gluck and John E Laird. 2018. Interactive task learning: Humans, robots, and agents acquiring new tasks through natural interactions. The MIT Press.
  12. Prashant Jayannavar, Anjali Narayan-Chen, and Julia Hockenmaier. 2020. Learning to execute instructions in a minecraft dialogue. In Proceedings of the 58th annual meeting of the association for computational linguistics, pages 2589-2602.
  13. Joo-Kyung Kim, Guoyin Wang, Sungjin Lee, and Young-Bum Kim. 2021. Deciding whether to ask clarifying questions in large-scale spoken language understanding. In 2021 IEEE Automatic Speech Recognition and Understanding Workshop (ASRU), pages 869-876. IEEE.
  14. Diederik P Kingma and Jimmy Ba. 2014. Adam: A method for stochastic optimization. arXiv preprint arXiv:1412.6980. · arXiv
  15. Julia Kiseleva, Ziming Li, Mohammad Aliannejadi, Shrestha Mohanty, Maartje ter Hoeve, Mikhail Burtsev, Alexey Skrynnik, Artem Zholus, Alek- sandr Panov, Kavya Srinet, Arthur Szlam, Yuxuan Sun, Katja Hofmann, Marc-Alexandre Côté, Ahmed Awadallah, Linar Abdrazakov, Igor Churin, Putra Manggala, Kata Naszadi, Michiel van der Meer, and Taewoon Kim. 2022a. Interactive grounded language understanding in a collaborative environment: Iglu 2021. In Proceedings of the NeurIPS 2021 Com- petitions and Demonstrations Track, volume 176 of Proceedings of Machine Learning Research, pages 146-161.
  16. PMLR.
  17. Julia Kiseleva, Alexey Skrynnik, Artem Zholus, Shrestha Mohanty, Negar Arabzadeh, Marc- Alexandre Côté, Mohammad Aliannejadi, Milagro Teruel, Ziming Li, Mikhail Burtsev, Maartje ter Hoeve, Zoya Volovikova, Aleksandr Panov, Yuxuan Sun, Kavya Srinet, Arthur Szlam, Ahmed Awadallah, Seungeun Rho, Taehwan Kwon, Daniel Wontae Nam, Felipe Bivort Haiek, Edwin Zhang, Linar Abdraza- kov, Guo Qingyam, Jason Zhang, and Zhibin Guo. 2022b. Interactive grounded language understanding in a collaborative environment: Retrospective on iglu 2022 competition. In Proceedings of the NeurIPS 2022 Competitions Track, volume 220 of Proceedings of Machine Learning Research, pages 204-216.
  18. PMLR.
  19. Julia Kiseleva, Kyle Williams, Jiepu Jiang, Ahmed Has- san Awadallah, Aidan C Crook, Imed Zitouni, and Tasos Anastasakos. 2016. Understanding user satis- faction with intelligent assistants. In Proceedings of the 2016 ACM on conference on human information interaction and retrieval, pages 121-130.
  20. Alexander Koller, Kristina Striegnitz, Andrew Gar- gett, Donna Byron, Justine Cassell, Robert Dale, Jo- hanna D Moore, and Jon Oberlander. 2010. Report on the second nlg challenge on generating instruc- tions in virtual environments (give-2). In Proceed- ings of the 6th international natural language gener- ation conference.
  21. Mike Lewis, Yinhan Liu, Naman Goyal, Marjan Ghazvininejad, Abdelrahman Mohamed, Omer Levy, Ves Stoyanov, and Luke Zettlemoyer. 2019. Bart: De- noising sequence-to-sequence pre-training for natural language generation, translation, and comprehension. arXiv preprint arXiv:1910.13461. · arXiv
  22. Aman Madaan, Niket Tandon, Prakhar Gupta, Skyler Hallinan, Luyu Gao, Sarah Wiegreffe, Uri Alon, Nouha Dziri, Shrimai Prabhumoye, Yiming Yang, et al. 2023. Self-refine: Iterative refinement with self-feedback. arXiv preprint arXiv:2303.17651. · arXiv
  23. Aman Madaan, Niket Tandon, Dheeraj Rajagopal, Yim- ing Yang, Peter Clark, Keisuke Sakaguchi, and Ed Hovy. 2021. Improving neural model perfor- mance through natural language feedback on their explanations. arXiv preprint arXiv:2104.08765. · arXiv
  24. Putra Manggala and Christof Monz. 2023. Aligning predictive uncertainty with clarification questions in grounded dialog. In Findings of the Association for Computational Linguistics: EMNLP 2023, pages 14988-14998.
  25. Nikhil Mehta and Dan Goldwasser. 2019. Improving natural language interaction with robots using advice. arXiv preprint arXiv:1905.04655. · arXiv
  26. Stephanie Milani, Anssi Kanervisto, Karolis Ra- manauskas, Sander Schulhoff, Brandon Houghton, and Rohin Shah. 2023. Bedd: The minerl basalt eval- uation and demonstrations dataset for training and benchmarking agents that solve fuzzy tasks. arXiv preprint arXiv:2312.02405. · arXiv
  27. Shrestha Mohanty, Negar Arabzadeh, Julia Kiseleva, Artem Zholus, Milagro Teruel, Ahmed Awadallah, Yuxuan Sun, Kavya Srinet, and Arthur Szlam. 2023. Transforming human-centered ai collaboration: Re- defining embodied agents capabilities through in- teractive grounded language instructions. arXiv preprint arXiv:2305.10783. · arXiv
  28. Shrestha Mohanty, Negar Arabzadeh, Milagro Teruel, Yuxuan Sun, Artem Zholus, Alexey Skrynnik, Mikhail Burtsev, Kavya Srinet, Aleksandr Panov, Arthur Szlam, et al. 2022. Collecting interactive multi-modal datasets for grounded language under- standing. arXiv preprint arXiv:2211.06552. · arXiv
  29. Anjali Narayan-Chen, Colin Graber, Mayukh Das, Md Rakibul Islam, Soham Dan, Sriraam Natarajan, Janardhan Rao Doppa, Julia Hockenmaier, Martha Palmer, and Dan Roth. 2017. Towards problem solv- ing agents that communicate and learn. In Proceed- ings of the First Workshop on Language Grounding for Robotics, pages 95-103.
  30. Aishwarya Padmakumar, Jesse Thomason, Ayush Shri- vastava, Patrick Lange, Anjali Narayan-Chen, Span- dana Gella, Robinson Piramuthu, Gokhan Tur, and Dilek Hakkani-Tur. 2022. Teach: Task-driven em- bodied agents that chat. In Proceedings of the AAAI Conference on Artificial Intelligence, volume 36, pages 2017-2025.
  31. Debjit Paul, Mete Ismayilzada, Maxime Peyrard, Beat- riz Borges, Antoine Bosselut, Robert West, and Boi Faltings. 2023. Refiner: Reasoning feedback on intermediate representations. arXiv preprint arXiv:2304.01904. · arXiv
  32. Colin Raffel, Noam Shazeer, Adam Roberts, Katherine Lee, Sharan Narang, Michael Matena, Yanqi Zhou, Wei Li, Peter J Liu, et al. 2020. Exploring the limits of transfer learning with a unified text-to-text trans- former. J. Mach. Learn. Res., 21(140):1-67.
  33. Allen Z Ren, Anushri Dixit, Alexandra Bodrova, Sumeet Singh, Stephen Tu, Noah Brown, Peng Xu, Leila Takayama, Fei Xia, Jake Varley, et al. 2023. Robots that ask for help: Uncertainty alignment for large language model planners. arXiv preprint arXiv:2307.01928. · arXiv
  34. Pengzhen Ren, Yun Xiao, Xiaojun Chang, Po-Yao Huang, Zhihui Li, Brij B Gupta, Xiaojiang Chen, and Xin Wang. 2021. A survey of deep active learning. ACM computing surveys (CSUR), 54(9):1-40.
  35. Rohin Shah, Cody Wild, Steven H Wang, Neel Alex, Brandon Houghton, William Guss, Sharada Mo- hanty, Anssi Kanervisto, Stephanie Milani, Nicholay Topin, et al. 2021. The minerl basalt competition on learning from human feedback. arXiv preprint arXiv:2107.01969. · arXiv
  36. Ori Shapira, Ramakanth Pasunuru, Hadar Ronen, Mohit Bansal, Yael Amsterdamer, and Ido Dagan. 2021. Extending multi-document summarization evaluation to the interactive setting. In Proceedings of the 2021 Conference of the North American Chapter of the Association for Computational Linguistics: Human Language Technologies, pages 657-677. 1316
  37. Zhengxiang Shi, Yue Feng, and Aldo Lipani. 2022. Learning to execute actions or ask clarification ques- tions. In Findings of the Association for Computa- tional Linguistics: NAACL 2022, pages 2060-2070.
  38. Mohit Shridhar, Jesse Thomason, Daniel Gordon, Yonatan Bisk, Winson Han, Roozbeh Mottaghi, Luke Zettlemoyer, and Dieter Fox. 2020. Alfred: A bench- mark for interpreting grounded instructions for ev- eryday tasks. In Proceedings of the IEEE/CVF con- ference on computer vision and pattern recognition, pages 10740-10749.
  39. Alexey Skrynnik, Zoya Volovikova, Marc-Alexandre Côté, Anton Voronov, Artem Zholus, Negar Arabzadeh, Shrestha Mohanty, Milagro Teruel, Ahmed Awadallah, Aleksandr Panov, et al. 2022. Learning to solve voxel building embodied tasks from pixels and natural language instructions. arXiv preprint arXiv:2211.00688. · arXiv
  40. Niket Tandon, Aman Madaan, Peter Clark, and Yiming Yang. 2022. Learning to repair: Repairing model out- put errors after deployment using a dynamic memory of feedback. NAACL Findings.(to appear).
  41. Guanzhi Wang, Yuqi Xie, Yunfan Jiang, Ajay Man- dlekar, Chaowei Xiao, Yuke Zhu, Linxi Fan, and Anima Anandkumar. 2023. Voyager: An open-ended embodied agent with large language models. arXiv preprint arXiv:2305.16291. · arXiv
  42. Julia White, Gabriel Poesia, Robert Hawkins, Dorsa Sadigh, and Noah Goodman. 2021. Open-domain clarification question generation without question ex- amples. In Proceedings of the 2021 Conference on Empirical Methods in Natural Language Processing, pages 563-570.
  43. Terry Winograd. 1972. Understanding natural language. Cognitive psychology, 3(1):1-191.
  44. Thomas Wolf, Lysandre Debut, Victor Sanh, Julien Chaumond, Clement Delangue, Anthony Moi, Pier- ric Cistac, Tim Rault, Rémi Louf, Morgan Funtowicz, Joe Davison, Sam Shleifer, Patrick von Platen, Clara Ma, Yacine Jernite, Julien Plu, Canwen Xu, Teven Le Scao, Sylvain Gugger, Mariama Drame, Quentin Lhoest, and Alexander M. Rush. 2020. Transform- ers: State-of-the-art natural language processing. In Proceedings of the 2020 Conference on Empirical Methods in Natural Language Processing: System Demonstrations, pages 38-45, Online. Association for Computational Linguistics.
  45. Artem Zholus, Alexey Skrynnik, Shrestha Mohanty, Zoya Volovikova, Julia Kiseleva, Artur Szlam, Marc- Alexandre Coté, and Aleksandr I Panov. 2022. Iglu gridworld: Simple and fast environment for embod- ied dialog agents. arXiv preprint arXiv:2206.00142. · arXiv

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Related

Metadata

Authors
Mehta, N., Teruel, M., Sanz, P. F., Deng, X., Awadallah, A. H., & Kiseleva, J.
Affiliations
  • Purdue University West Lafayette (US)
  • Universidad Nacional de Córdoba (AR)
  • Microsoft (United States) (US)
ORCID
Venue
arXiv
Publisher
arXiv
Published
2023
Pages
1306-1321
DOI
10.48550/arxiv.2304.10750
arXiv
2304.10750
OpenAlex
W7126406734
Cited by
7
References
0
Citations by year
2026: 4 · 2025: 1 · 2024: 1 · 2023: 1
FWCI
1.73
Type
conference paper
Language
en
Open access
Licence
Locations
  • Findings of the Association for Computational Linguistics: EACL (publishedVersion, cc-by)
  • arXiv (Cornell University) (submittedVersion)
  • arXiv (Cornell University)
Topics
  • Physical Sciences › Computer Science › Artificial Intelligence › Speech and dialogue systems
  • Physical Sciences › Computer Science › Artificial Intelligence › Natural Language Processing Techniques
  • Physical Sciences › Computer Science › Artificial Intelligence › Reinforcement Learning in Robotics
Keywords
human-AI collaboration, human-AI interaction

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