The Purpose of HART(Hedonism, Autonomy, Responsibility, Trust)

Maria Gini, Seyed Waqar Jaffry, Niranjan Suri,

Janneke van der Zwaan, Arnoud Visser

Trust Hard to gain, easy to lose

How do robots gain and maintain human trust Do robots need to trust humans?

Predictability of system is key to trust Prescriptive notion – if the system is performing as specified by the

objective, then it can be trusted Another indicator – “normal” communication between team members Effective conveyance of performance and limitations to humans How does the human recognize and convey to the robot detrimental

environmental conditions Analogy to Coaching – need to understand the limits, why something is going

wrong, and convey options / direction to the robots Dynamics of Human Trust – key role in team building Teaming is something that is perceived by humans, not the robots Robots must adapt their behavior based on their perception of the

human trust model Robots must be able to interpret indirect human expression / communication

Autonomy and Responsibility “A Robot without a battery is a very autonomous robot” – Visser “A Robot that can say no is a very autonomous robot” - Gini Meta question – what qualifies as a robot? Is Autonomy Required?

Bulldozer?, Robonaut? Jackhammer? Car? Behavior-based Robotics – two goals:

Invariants that should not be violated (do not run into walls, kill anyone, including self, etc.)

Attainable goals – related to task or objective How does teaching (e.g., by demonstration) / learning fit into this?

How does learning for a robot differ from learning for humans? Awareness of the human team member(s) is paramount To what extent, if at all, do we need to anthropomorphize robots? Not just

from a physical perspective, but from the notions of trust, behavior, etc. Responsibility – four types?

Responsibility for the given / assigned / delegated tasks Responsibility to communicate with team members for shared SA Responsibility to the other team members / task (e.g., help other team members) Responsibility for the greater good (e.g., not polluting the environment, etc.)

Applications Search and Rescue

UAV – Mountain Search (Brown University) RoboCup City-Level Search and Rescue for Disaster Recovery

Persistent Surveillance Fixed and mobile assets

Cooperative Medicine Nurse’s aid Operating room Rehabilitation

Assistants for Elderly Citizens Warfighting Useful to categorize applications into good targets for teams of

size 2, 5, and 10 members Nurse’s aid, Elderly Citizen Assistants (2) Mountain Search and Rescue, Persistent Surveillance (5) Warfighting (10)

Metrics What are appropriate metrics to measure success of teamwork?

We don’t want a Turing Test, but some test One Approach is to show that Human + Robot can do more than Human

+ Human or Robot + Robot Scalability with respect to numbers

What are the best domains to show HART? Meta metric – how “much” teamwork is there in a solution? Metric – how well is the solution working? Is there a notion of a local (i.e., individual) objective or metric

versus a global (i.e., systemwide) objective or metric? How does robustness play into this? Should robustness be an

independent metric? “Types” of robustness – flexibility to deal with novel/different situations

(opposite of brittleness) Role substitution – humanoid robots substituting for humans Fit – how well do robots fit in an environment constructed by and for

humans

Questions What is essential for teamwork?

Human-level communication (gestures, facial expressions)?