The DOI matches its DataCite record; 1 of the 1 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.
Improving Knowledge Extraction from LLMs for Task Learning through Agent Analysis
Open accessAbstract
Large language models (LLMs) offer significant promise as a knowledge source for task learning. Prompt engineering has been shown to be effective for eliciting knowledge from an LLM, but alone it is insufficient for acquiring relevant, situationally grounded knowledge for an embodied agent learning novel tasks. We describe a cognitive-agent approach, STARS, that extends and complements prompt engineering, mitigating its limitations and thus enabling an agent to acquire new task knowledge matched to its native language capabilities, embodiment, environment, and user preferences. The STARS approach is to increase the response space of LLMs and deploy general strategies, embedded within the autonomous agent, to evaluate, repair, and select among candidate responses produced by the LLM. We describe the approach and experiments that show how an agent, by retrieving and evaluating a breadth of responses from the LLM, can achieve 77-94% task completion in one-shot learning without user oversight. The approach achieves 100% task completion when human oversight (such as an indication of preference) is provided. Further, the type of oversight largely shifts from explicit, natural language instruction to simple confirmation/discomfirmation of high-quality responses that have been vetted by the agent before presentation to a user.
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.
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?
Researchers have begun to use LLMs within cognitive architectures, leveraging their implicit world knowledge to augment traditional symbolic approaches.
“Recognizing this, researchers have begun to use LLMs within cognitive architectures, leveraging their implicit world knowledge (Wray et al., 2021) to augment traditional symbolic approaches (Kirk et al., 2023; Romero et al., 2023).”
From Cognitive Architectures for Language Agents (2023) · cites this paper as Kirk et al., 2023
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
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 2×
“Inner Monologue (Huang et al. 2022) modifies its prompts based on feedback from the environment, agent, and user to elicit new responses when an action fails.”
Background
Flagged first, then by citations
Research works printed but not linked: 21
- Cobbe, K.; Kosaraju, V.; Bavarian, M.; Chen, M.; Jun, H.; Kaiser, L.; Plappert, M.; Tworek, J.; Hilton, J.; Nakano, R.; Hesse, C.; and Schulman, J. 2021. Training Verifiers to Solve Math Word Problems. ArXiv:2110.14168 [cs], arXiv:2110.14168. · arXiv
- Diao, S.; Wang, P.; Lin, Y.; and Zhang, T. 2023. Ac- tive Prompting with Chain-of-Thought for Large Language Models. ArXiv:2302.12246 [cs]. · arXiv
- Gluck, K.; and Laird, J., eds. 2019. Interactive Task Learn- ing: Agents, Robots, and Humans Acquiring New Tasks through Natural Interactions, volume 26 of Strüngmann Fo- rum Reports. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
- Kim, G.; Baldi, P.; and McAleer, S. 2023. Language Models can Solve Computer Tasks. ArXiv:2303.17491 [cs]. · arXiv
- Kirk, J. R.; and Laird, J. E. 2016. Learning General and Ef- ficient Representations of Novel Games Through Interactive Instruction. In Proceedings of the Advances in Cognitive Systems Conference. ISBN 0021-9967.
- Kirk, J. R.; and Laird, J. E. 2019. Learning Hierarchi- cal Symbolic Representations to Support Interactive Task Learning and Knowledge Transfer. In Proceedings of IJ- CAI 2019, 6095-6102. International Joint Conferences on Artificial Intelligence.
- Kirk, J. R.; Wray, R. E.; Lindes, P.; and Laird, J. E. 2022. Improving Language Model Prompting in Support of Semi- autonomous Task Learning. In Proceedings of the Advances in Cognitive Systems (ACS) Conference.
- Kirk, J. R.; Wray, R. E.; Lindes, P.; and Laird, J. E. 2023. Integrating Diverse Knowledge Sources for Online One- shot Learning of Novel Tasks. ArXiv:2208.09554 [cs], arXiv:2208.09554. · arXiv
- Laird, J. E.; Gluck, K.; Anderson, J. R.; Forbus, K.; Jenk- ins, O.; Lebiere, C.; Salvucci, D.; Scheutz, M.; Thomaz, A.; Trafton, G.; Wray, R. E.; Mohan, S.; and Kirk, J. R. 2017. Interactive Task Learning. IEEE Int. Sys., 32(4): 6-21.
- Logeswaran, L.; Fu, Y.; Lee, M.; and Lee, H. 2022. Few-shot Subgoal Planning with Language Models. In Proceedings of the 2022 Conference of the North American Chapter of the Association for Computational Linguistics: Human Lan- guage Technologies (NAACL), 5493-5506. Association for Computational Linguistics.
- Mohan, S.; and Laird, J. E. 2014. Learning Goal-Oriented Hierarchical Tasks from Situated Interactive Instruction. In Proceedings of the 28 th AAAI Conference on Artificial In- telligence, volume 2, 113-130. AAAI Press.
- Olmo, A.; Sreedharan, S.; and Kambhampati, S. 2021. GPT3-to-plan: Extracting plans from text using GPT-3. In Proceedings of ICAPS FinPlan. ArXiv: 2106.07131 [cs]. OpenAI. 2023. GPT-4 Technical Report. arXiv:2303.08774. · arXiv
- Park, J. S.; O'Brien, J.; Cai, C. J.; Morris, M. R.; Liang, P.; and Bernstein, M. S. 2023. Generative Agents: Interac- tive Simulacra of Human Behavior. In Proceedings of the 36th Annual ACM Symposium on User Interface Software and Technology, 1-22.
- Reynolds, L.; and McDonell, K. 2021. Prompt Program- ming for Large Language Models: Beyond the Few-Shot Paradigm. In Extended Abstracts of the 2021 CHI Confer- ence on Human Factors in Computing Systems, CHI EA '21. New York, NY, USA: ACM. ISBN 9781450380959.
- Sarch, G.; Fang, Z.; Harley, A. W.; Schydlo, P.; Tarr, M. J.; Gupta, S.; and Fragkiadaki, K. 2022. TIDEE: Tidying Up Novel Rooms using Visuo-Semantic Commonsense Priors. In Computer Vision-ECCV 2022, 480-496. Springer.
- Singh, I.; Blukis, V.; Mousavian, A.; Goyal, A.; Xu, D.; Tremblay, J.; Fox, D.; Thomason, J.; and Garg, A. 2022. ProgPrompt: Generating Situated Robot Task Plans using Large Language Models. arXiv:2209.11302. · arXiv
- Sumers, T. R.; Yao, S.; Narasimhan, K.; and Griffiths, T. L. 2023. Cognitive Architectures for Language Agents. ArXiv:2309.02427 [cs. · arXiv
- Valmeekam, K.; Sreedharan, S.; Marquez, M.; Olmo, A.; and Kambhampati, S. 2023. On the Planning Abilities of Large Language Models (A Critical Investigation with a Pro- posed Benchmark). arXiv:2302.06706. · arXiv
- Wang, X.; Wei, J.; Schuurmans, D.; Le, Q.; Chi, E.; Narang, S.; Chowdhery, A.; and Zhou, D. 2023. Self-Consistency Improves Chain of Thought Reasoning in Language Mod- els. In The Eleventh International Conference on Learning Representations (ICLR 2023).
- Weidinger, L.; Mellor, J.; Rauh, M.; Griffin, C.; Uesato, J.; Huang, P.-S.; Cheng, M.; Glaese, M.; Balle, B.; Kasirzadeh, A.; Kenton, Z.; Brown, S.; Hawkins, W.; Stepleton, T.; Biles, C.; Birhane, A.; Haas, J.; Rimell, L.; Hendricks, L. A.; Isaac, W.; Legassick, S.; Irving, G.; and Gabriel, I. 2021. Ethical and social risks of harm from Language Models. ArXiv:2112.04359 · arXiv
- Wu, J.; Antonova, R.; Kan, A.; Lepert, M.; Zeng, A.; Song, S.; Bohg, J.; Rusinkiewicz, S.; and Funkhouser, T. 2023. TidyBot: Personalized Robot Assistance with Large Lan- guage Models. ArXiv:2305.05658 [cs], arXiv:2305.05658. · arXiv
Cited by
Sorted by citations
Cognitive Architectures for Language Agents
Sumers, T. R., Yao, S., Narasimhan, K., & Griffiths, T. L. (2023) · arXiv · doi:10.48550/arxiv.2309.02427 · Cited by 72
“It also enables agents to iteratively improve candidate solutions – for example, by using the LLM to simulate them, identifying defects, and proposing modifications that address those defects (Kirk et al., 2023; Shinn et al., 2023).”
BackgroundMethod
Metadata
- Authors
- Kirk, J. R., Wray, R. E., Lindes, P., & Laird, J. E.
- Venue
- arXiv
- Publisher
- arXiv
- Published
- 2023
- Volume
- 38
- Issue
- 16
- Pages
- 18390-18398
- ISSN
- 2159-5399 (ISSN-L)
- arXiv
- 2306.06770
- OpenAlex
- W4393147141
- Cited by
- 21
- References
- 1
- Citations by year
- 2026: 5 · 2025: 8 · 2024: 8
- FWCI
- 6.20
- Type
- conference paper
- Language
- en
- Open access
- diamond
- doi.org
- Locations
- Proceedings of the AAAI Conference on Artificial Intelligence (publishedVersion)
- arXiv (Cornell University) (submittedVersion, cc-by-nc-sa)
- AAAI Publications (The Association for the Advancement of Artificial Intelligence (AAAI)) (submittedVersion)
- arXiv (Cornell University)
- Funders
- U.S. Department of Defense
- Office of Naval Research (N00014)
- Topics
- Physical Sciences › Computer Science › Artificial Intelligence › AI-based Problem Solving and Planning
- Physical Sciences › Engineering › Control and Systems Engineering › Robot Manipulation and Learning
- Physical Sciences › Computer Science › Artificial Intelligence › Topic Modeling
- Keywords
- large language models, knowledge extraction, prompt engineering, embodied agents, task learning, one-shot learning, treatment response assessment, response selection, human oversight, preference feedback, cognitive agents, stars
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
