Abstract
Collaboration requires coordination, and we coordinate by anticipating our teammates’ future actions and adapting to their plan. In some cases, our teammates’ actions early on can give us a clear idea of what the remainder of their plan is, i.e. what action sequence we should expect. In others, they might leave us less confident, or even lead us to the wrong conclusion. Our goal is for robot actions to fall in the first category: we want to enable robots to select their actions in such a way that human collaborators can easily use them to correctly anticipate what will follow. While previous work has focused on finding initial plans that convey a set goal, here we focus on finding two portions of a plan such that the initial portion conveys the final one.We introduce t-predictability: a measure that quantifies the accuracy and confidence with which human observers can predict the remaining robot plan from the overall task goal and the observed initial t actions in the plan. We contribute a method for generating t-predictable plans: we search for a full plan that accomplishes the task, but in which the first t actions make it as easy as possible to infer the remaining ones. The result is often different from the most efficient plan, in which the initial actions might leave a lot of ambiguity as to how the task will be completed. Through an online experiment and an in-person user study with physical robots, we find that our approach outperforms a traditional efficiency-based planner in objective and subjective collaboration metrics.
J. F. Fisac, C. Liu, and J. B. Hamrick—These authors contributed equally.
Access this chapter
Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout
Purchases are for personal use only
Preview
Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.
Similar content being viewed by others
References
R Alami et al. “Safe and Dependable Physical Human-Robot Interaction in Anthropic Domains : State of the Art and Challenges". Society 6.1 (2006).
C. L. Baker, R. Saxe, and J. B. Tenenbaum. “Action understanding as inverse planning". Cognition 113.3 (2009).
E. Charniak and R. P. Goldman. “A Bayesian Model of Plan Recognition". Artificial Intelligence 64.1 (1993).
M. B. Dias et al. “Sliding autonomy for peer-to-peer human-robot teams". Intelligent Conference on Intelligent Autonomous Systems (IAS) (2008).
A. D. Dragan, K. C. T. Lee, and S. S. Srinivasa. “Legibility and predictability of robotmotion". International Conference on Human-Robot Interaction (HRI) (2013).
A. D. Dragan and S. Srinivasa. “Integrating human observer inferences into robot motion planning". Autonomous Robots (2014).
A. D. Dragan et al. “Effects of Robot Motion on Human-Robot Collaboration". InternationalConference on Human-Robot Interaction (HRI) (2015).
T. Fong et al. “The peer-to-peer human-robot interaction project". AIAA Space (2005).
M. J. Gielniak and A. L. Thomaz. “Generating anticipation in robot motion". International Workshop on Robot and Human Interactive Communication (2011).
T. M. Gureckis et al. “psiTurk: An open-source framework for conducting replicable behavioral experiments online". Behavioral Research Methods (2015).
C. Liu, J. B. Hamrick, J. F. Fisac, et al. “Goal Inference Improves Objective and Perceived Performance in Human-Robot Collaboration". International Conference on Autonomous Agents and Multiagent Systems (AAMAS) (2016).
D. T. McRuer. “Pilot-Induced Oscillations and Human Dynamic Behavior" (1995).
S. Nikolaidis and J. Shah. “Human-robot cross-training: Computational formulation, modeling and evaluation of a human team training strategy". International Conference on Human-Robot Interaction (HRI) (2013).
G. Pezzulo, F. Donnarumma, and H. Dindo. “Human sensorimotor communication: A theory of signaling in online social interactions". PLoS One 8.11 (2013).
E. S. Van der Poort et al. “Solving the k-best traveling salesman problem". Computers & operations research 26.4 (1999).
M. Saffarian, J. C. F. de Winter, and R. Happee. “Automated Driving: Human-Factors Issues and Design Solutions". Proceedings of the Human Factors and Ergonomics Society Annual Meeting 56.1 (2012).
N. B. Sarter and D. D. Woods. “Team play with a powerful and independent agent: operational experiences and automation surprises on the Airbus A-320." Human factors 39.4 (1997).
J. Shah and C. Breazeal. “An empirical analysis of team coordination behaviors and action planning with application to human-robot teaming." Human factors 52.2 (2010).
D. Szafir, B. Mutlu, and T. Fong. “Communication of Intent in Assistive Free Flyers". International Conference on Human-Robot Interaction (HRI) (2014).
L. Takayama, D. Dooley, and W. Ju. “Expressing thought: improving robot readability with animation principles". International Conference on Human-Robot Interaction (HRI) (2011).
M. Tomasello et al. “Understanding and sharing intentions: the origins of cultural cognition". Behavioral and brain sciences 28.05 (2005).
C. Vesper et al. “A minimal architecture for joint action". Neural Networks 23.8 (2010).
Y. Zhang et al. “Plan Explicability for Robot Task Planning". RSS Workshop on Planningfor Human-Robot Interaction: Shared Autonomy and Collaborative Robotics (2016).
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Corresponding author
Editor information
Editors and Affiliations
Rights and permissions
Copyright information
© 2020 Springer Nature Switzerland AG
About this chapter
Cite this chapter
Fisac, J.F. et al. (2020). Generating Plans that Predict Themselves. In: Goldberg, K., Abbeel, P., Bekris, K., Miller, L. (eds) Algorithmic Foundations of Robotics XII. Springer Proceedings in Advanced Robotics, vol 13. Springer, Cham. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-43089-4_10
Download citation
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-43089-4_10
Published:
Publisher Name: Springer, Cham
Print ISBN: 978-3-030-43088-7
Online ISBN: 978-3-030-43089-4
eBook Packages: Intelligent Technologies and RoboticsIntelligent Technologies and Robotics (R0)