arXiv Science⌕ Search

arXiv · 2610.10275

Active Inference for Interaction-Mediated Control of a High-Dimensional Robotic Arm

Abstract

We propose interaction-mediated control via Active Inference as a general architectural approach to high-dimensional control problems in Human--Computer Interaction (HCI). This architecture recasts user interaction as the provision of evidence about a latent task objective, rather than the direct specification of plant-control inputs. The mediating function is distributed between an interaction broker, which selects informative user queries and performs Bayesian inference over user preferences, and an Active Inference controller, which autonomously plans and acts under the resulting preference information to control the plant. This division of labour decouples the semantics of user interaction from those of low-level plant control. We instantiate the architecture in a simulated, multi-link robotic arm to perform a simultaneous whole-arm target-coverage task. A simulated user communicates exclusively through a clutch-style binary evaluative channel, without specifying joint-torque commands. Across increasing arm dimensionalities, the architecture achieves successful interaction-mediated control, although task success is lower than when the controller receives the true target preferences directly. Exact target-subset identification also remains imperfect, highlighting the distinction between preference inference and successful task completion. The experimental findings provide an initial computational demonstration of the proposed architecture under controlled, matched-model assumptions and motivate its further investigation in broader HCI applications.

Explore related subjects

Keep this discovery

Explore connections, maps & timelines

BibTeXRIS

Fraser C. Paterson, Sebastian Stein, Markus Klar, John H. Williamson, Roderick Murray-Smith. 2026-10-07. Active Inference for Interaction-Mediated Control of a High-Dimensional Robotic Arm. https://arxiv.org/abs/2610.10275

Cite the original work for its findings. Save a collection to share your selection of sources.

KEEP EXPLORING

Related papers

Knowledge-Certainty Diversity Predicts Human-Human and Human-AI Open-Ended Discussion Synergy and Reveals Pure-AI Discussion Shortfalls

Conversations transform individual knowledge into collective insight, enabling collaborators to solve problems more accurately than they could alone. Whether dialogues among large language models (LLMs) can replicate the synergistic gains observed in human discussion remains unclear. We systematically compared four interaction settings, LLM-LLM pairs, LLM trios, human trios, and human-LLM pairs, using validated medical multiple-choice questions. Agents answered individually, engaged in open-ended discussion, then re-answered, allowing us to quantify conversational gains. Interactions that included humans consistently yielded synergy (post-discussion accuracy increased for both stronger and weaker participants), whereas purely LLM groups did not improve and often declined. To explain and anticipate when open-ended dialogue helps, we introduce an agent-agnostic knowledge-certainty framework that models each participant by performance (accuracy) and confidence. This framework quantifies knowledge-certainty diversity, the degree to which one agent tends to be correct when another is uncertain, and yields an upper bound on the gain available from choosing between the agents' answers on the basis of confidence, which we term Potential Conversation Synergy. Computed before any discussion, this metric was low in both settings where discussion did not help and high in both where it did: When knowledge-certainty diversity is low (as in LLM-only groups), discussion doesn't improve performance; when it is present (as in human or human-LLM groups), open-ended dialogue reliably lifts accuracy. These findings suggest a diagnostic for AI collaboration: knowledge-certainty diversity can be measured from pre-discussion responses and provides a configuration-level indicator of conversational gains across the settings studied.

cs.HC↗

Large Language Models Can Explain Experts Better Than Experts Themselves

Capturing tacit knowledge, or the "know-how" embedded in individual experiences and contexts, is a central challenge that limits the preservation and transfer of valuable expertise. Traditional methods rely on experts' ability to articulate their own reasoning, even though much of tacit knowledge is difficult to verbalize. Here, we show that Large Language Models (LLMs) can uncover tacit knowledge from expert behavior and support knowledge transfer from experts to novices. We first identify prompting strategies that improve LLMs' ability to externalize tacit knowledge (i.e., transform tacit into explicit knowledge), and then evaluate the downstream utility of the resulting LLM-externalized tacit knowledge. Our analysis reveals that LLM-externalized tacit knowledge incorporating expert behavior improves decision quality and helps reduce the expert-novice score gap, outperforming knowledge articulated by human experts. We further show that LLMs meaningfully learn and extract knowledge from expert behavior rather than simply mimicking expert responses, and that these findings generalize across different LLMs and information retrieval methods. These findings reaffirm Polanyi's Paradox---that "we can know more than we can tell"---and suggest that LLMs can help overcome human experts' articulation bottleneck that has long challenged tacit knowledge externalization.

cs.HC↗

From AI-Free Gates to AI-First Work: How Engineering Students in India Navigate University Education and Campus Placements Without AI Guidelines

Engineering graduates in India enter a technology sector that is being reshaped by generative AI, yet the route into that sector runs through examinations and campus placement screens that largely exclude AI. Institutions in India have an approved intake of nearly 2.9 million seats in engineering and technology for 2026-2027, but HCI research on how students prepare for AI-mediated work has drawn mostly on Western and East Asian settings. We interviewed 23 students and recent graduates of Indian engineering and computing programmes about how they used generative AI across coursework, examinations and placements, and how they judged their own readiness for work. Using reflexive thematic analysis, we report five themes, covering AI-first workplaces and AI-free placement screens, how participants prepared for placement, how they used AI in coursework, the role of faculty authority and enforcement, and participants' concerns about their readiness for work. Drawing on signaling theory, we discuss what grades and screen scores certify once AI can help produce them, and we offer recommendations for employers, institutions and AI tool designers.

cs.HC↗