Jong-Hyuk Park

Jonghyuk Park, Alex Lascarides, Subramanian Ramamoorthy

In this paper, we offer a learning framework in which the agent's knowledge gaps are overcome through corrective feedback from a teacher whenever the agent explains its (incorrect) predictions. We test it in a low-resource visual processing scenario, in which the agent must learn to recognize distinct types of toy truck. The agent starts the learning process with no ontology about what types of trucks exist nor which parts they have, and a deficient model for recognizing those parts from visual input. The teacher's feedback to the agent's explanations addresses its lack of relevant knowledge in the ontology via a generic rule (e.g., "dump trucks have dumpers"), whereas an inaccurate part recognition is corrected by a deictic statement (e.g., "this is not a dumper"). The learner utilizes this feedback not only to improve its estimate of the hypothesis space of possible domain ontologies and probability distributions over them, but also to use those estimates to update its visual interpretation of the scene. Our experiments demonstrate that teacher-learner pairs utilizing explanations and corrections are more data-efficient than those without such a faculty.

Jonghyuk Park, Alex Lascarides, Subramanian Ramamoorthy

Interactive Task Learning (ITL) concerns learning about unforeseen domain concepts via natural interactions with human users. The learner faces a number of significant constraints: learning should be online, incremental and few-shot, as it is expected to perform tangible belief updates right after novel words denoting unforeseen concepts are introduced. In this work, we explore a challenging symbol grounding task--discriminating among object classes that look very similar--within the constraints imposed by ITL. We demonstrate empirically that more data-efficient grounding results from exploiting the truth-conditions of the teacher's generic statements (e.g., "Xs have attribute Z.") and their implicatures in context (e.g., as an answer to "How are Xs and Ys different?", one infers Y lacks attribute Z).