Abstract
Human behaviour models are increasingly used to provide simulated human interactions for training robots via reinforcement learning (RL). Existing approaches primarily evaluate these models according to how closely their generated behaviours resemble real human data, while their usefulness as training partners is less commonly assessed. This creates a potential objective mismatch: a model that performs well according to behavioural evaluation metrics may not necessarily provide useful training experiences for downstream robot policy learning. Across two human-robot interaction (HRI) domains, highway driving and object handover, we evaluate different types of human behaviour models using common generative-model evaluation metrics. We consider multiple human trajectory representations and compare the resulting evaluations with the downstream performance of RL policies trained using the corresponding models. We find that existing behavioural evaluation metrics do not consistently predict downstream policy performance across domains and trajectory representations, while their evaluations are sensitive to the choice of trajectory representation. We also show that even when the true testing behaviour distribution is known, training against a different distribution may yield better downstream performance than training directly against the true distribution.
Abstract (translated)
URL
https://arxiv.org/abs/2610.34839
