Intelligent Assistant Model Adaptation via Human Feedback

Resolve Bottlenecks,
Find Innovative Solutions
Generate Solutions

Solution Overview

Problem

Existing intelligent automated assistant systems rely on static training data and require manual correction for evolution, limiting their ability to adapt and improve in real-time, especially in dynamic human-machine interactions.

Innovation Solution

The system incorporates an interaction management module that infers user intent, receives feedback from human advisors, and adapts models based on this feedback, allowing for continuous learning and improvement by providing targeted corrections to internal decisions.

Engineering Contradictions & Design Principles

VSEngineering Contradiction Analysis

1Ease of manufacture

If static training data is used for model training, then system implementation is simpler, but system adaptability and continuous improvement capability deteriorate

Engineering Contradiction:
Improvesystem implementation simplicityVSAvoidsystem adaptability
Core Design Contradiction:
Ease of manufactureVSAdaptability or versatility

Solution Approach 1:

The patent transforms the static training data approach into a dynamic system where models are continuously adapted through feedback loops. Human advisors provide corrections that are immediately incorporated into model updates, enabling the system to evolve from a fixed implementation to an adaptive learning system that improves over time without requiring complete retraining.

Inventive Principle:
Principle #15Dynamics

Solution Approach 2:

The patent implements a feedback mechanism where human advisors review and correct system responses. This feedback is then used to adapt and improve the underlying models. The feedback loop enables continuous system improvement by capturing expert knowledge and incorporating it into model updates, resolving the contradiction between implementation simplicity and adaptability.

Inventive Principle:
Principle #23Feedback

2Device complexity

If manual correction and periodic retraining is used, then system complexity is reduced, but productivity and response time deteriorate

Engineering Contradiction:
Improvesystem complexityVSAvoidsystem response time
Core Design Contradiction:
Device complexityVSProductivity

Solution Approach 1:

The patent applies preliminary action by having human advisors provide corrections in real-time during system operation. Rather than waiting for periodic retraining cycles, the feedback is captured and used to adapt models immediately or in near-real-time. This preliminary correction approach eliminates waiting periods and accelerates the improvement process while maintaining manageable system complexity.

Inventive Principle:
Principle #10Preliminary action

Solution Approach 2:

The patent enables continuous learning by maintaining an ongoing feedback loop between human advisors and the system models. Instead of discontinuous periodic retraining, the system continuously incorporates new feedback to adapt models. This continuous action improves productivity by eliminating idle retraining periods while keeping system complexity manageable through incremental updates.

Inventive Principle:
Principle #20Continuity of useful action

3Adaptability or versatility

If human feedback is incorporated in real-time, then system adaptability improves, but device complexity increases

Engineering Contradiction:
Improvesystem adaptabilityVSAvoidsystem complexity
Core Design Contradiction:
Adaptability or versatilityVSDevice complexity

Solution Approach 1:

The patent introduces human advisors as intermediaries between the system and the feedback loop. These advisors serve as a bridge that translates user interactions into actionable corrections for model adaptation. This intermediary layer simplifies the overall system architecture by externalizing the complex adaptation logic to human experts, allowing the automated system to remain relatively simple while still achieving high adaptability through the mediator's guidance.

Inventive Principle:
Principle #24Intermediary (Mediator)

Data Source

PatentUS10366336B2Method and apparatus for exploiting human feedback in an intelligent automated assistant
Publication Date: 2019.07.30 GLENEAGLE INNOVATIONS LP
  • US10366336B2 patent drawing
  • US10366336B2 patent drawing
  • US10366336B2 patent drawing

AI summary

The present invention relates to a method and apparatus for exploiting human feedback in an intelligent automated assistant. One embodiment of a method for conducting an interaction with a human user includes inferring an intent from data entered by the human user, formulating a response in accordance with the intent, receiving feedback from a human advisor in response to at least one of the inferring and the formulating, wherein the human advisor is a person other than the human user, and adapting at least one model used in at least one of the inferring and the formulating, wherein the adapting is based on the feedback.