Legible and Proactive Robot Planning for Prosocial Human-Robot Interactions (2404.03734v1)
Abstract: Humans have a remarkable ability to fluently engage in joint collision avoidance in crowded navigation tasks despite the complexities and uncertainties inherent in human behavior. Underlying these interactions is a mutual understanding that (i) individuals are prosocial, that is, there is equitable responsibility in avoiding collisions, and (ii) individuals should behave legibly, that is, move in a way that clearly conveys their intent to reduce ambiguity in how they intend to avoid others. Toward building robots that can safely and seamlessly interact with humans, we propose a general robot trajectory planning framework for synthesizing legible and proactive behaviors and demonstrate that our robot planner naturally leads to prosocial interactions. Specifically, we introduce the notion of a markup factor to incentivize legible and proactive behaviors and an inconvenience budget constraint to ensure equitable collision avoidance responsibility. We evaluate our approach against well-established multi-agent planning algorithms and show that using our approach produces safe, fluent, and prosocial interactions. We demonstrate the real-time feasibility of our approach with human-in-the-loop simulations. Project page can be found at https://uw-ctrl.github.io/phri/.
- A. Rudenko, L. Palmieri, M. Herman, K. M. Kitani, D. M. Gavrila, and K. O. Arras, “Human motion trajectory prediction: A survey,” Int. Journal of Robotics Research, vol. 39, no. 8, pp. 895–935, 2020.
- M. Mayer, R. Bell, and A. Buchner, “Self-protective and self-sacrificing preferences of pedestrians and passengers in moral dilemmas involving autonomous vehicles,” PLoS ONE, 2021.
- D. Helbing and P. Molnár, “Social force model for pedestrian dynamics,” Physical Review E, vol. 51, no. 5, pp. 4282–4286, 1995.
- J. Van den Berg, M. Lin, and D. Manocha, “Reciprocal velocity obstacles for real-time multi-agent navigation,” in Proc. IEEE Conf. on Robotics and Automation, 2008.
- R. A. Knepper and D. Rus, “Pedestrian-inspired sampling-based multi-robot collision avoidance,” in Proc. IEEE Int. Conf. on Robot and Human Interactive Communication, 2012.
- C. Mavrogiannis, F. Baldini, A. Wang, D. Zhao, P. Trautman, A. Steinfeld, and J. Oh, “Core challenges of social robot navigation: A survey,” ACM Transactions on Human-Robot Interaction, vol. 12, no. 3, pp. 1–39, 2023.
- A. Francis, C. Perez-D’Arpino, C. Li, F. Xia, A. Alahi, R. Alami, A. Bera, A. Biswas, J. Biswas, R. Chandra, H.-T. L. Chiang, M. Everett, S. Ha, J. Hart, J. P. How, H. Karnan, T.-W. E. Lee, L. J. Manso, R. Mirksy, S. Pirk, P. T. Singamaneni, P. Stone, A. V. Taylor, P. Trautman, N. Tsoi, M. Vazquez, X. Xiao, P. Xu, N. Yokoyama, A. Toshev, and R. Martın-Martın, “Principles and guidelines for evaluating social robot navigation algorithms,” Available at https://arxiv.org/abs/2306.16740, 2023.
- D. Sadigh, S. Sastry, S. A. Seshia, and A. D. Dragan, “Planning for autonomous cars that leverage effects on human actions,” in Robotics: Science and Systems, 2016.
- H. Kretzschmar, M. Spies, C. Sprunk, and W. Burgard, “Socially compliant mobile robot navigation via inverse reinforcement learning,” Int. Journal of Robotics Research, vol. 35, no. 11, pp. 1289–1307, 2016.
- L. Sun, W. Zhan, M. Tomizuka, and A. Dragan, “Courteous autonomous cars,” in IEEE/RSJ Int. Conf. on Intelligent Robots & Systems, 2018.
- B. D. Ziebart, A. Maas, J. A. Bagnell, and A. K. Dey, “Maximum entropy inverse reinforcement learning,” in Proc. AAAI Conf. on Artificial Intelligence, 2008.
- S. Levine and V. Koltun, “Continuous inverse optimal control with locally optimal examples,” in Int. Conf. on Machine Learning, 2012.
- C. Finn, S. Levine, and P. Abbeel, “Guided cost learning: Deep inverse optimal control via policy optimization,” in Int. Conf. on Machine Learning, 2016.
- D. Carton, W. Olszowy, and D. Wollherr, “Measuring the effectiveness of readability for mobile robot locomotion,” Int. Journal of Social Robotics, vol. 8, pp. 721–741, 2016.
- W. B. G. Liebrand and C. G. McClintock, “The ring measure of social values: A computerized procedure for assessing individual differences in information processing and social value orientation.” European Journal of Personality, vol. 2, no. 3, pp. 217–230, 1988.
- W. Schwarting, A. Pierson, J. Alonso-Mora, S. Karaman, and D. Rus, “Social behavior for autonomous vehicles,” Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, vol. 116, no. 50, pp. 24 972–24 978, 2019.
- L. Crosato, H. P. H. Shum, E. S. L. Ho, and C. Wei, “Interaction-aware decision-making for automated vehicles using social value orientation,” IEEE Transactions on Intelligent Vehicles, vol. 8, no. 2, pp. 1339–1349, 2023.
- B. Toghi, R. Valiente, D. Sadigh, R. Pedarsani, and Y. P. Fallah, “Cooperative autonomous vehicles that sympathize with human drivers,” in IEEE/RSJ Int. Conf. on Intelligent Robots & Systems, 2021.
- B. Toghi, R. Valiente, D. Sadigh, R. Pedarsani, and Y. Fallah, “Social coordination and altruism in autonomous driving,” IEEE Transactions on Intelligent Vehicles, vol. 23, no. 12, pp. 24 791–24 804, 2022.
- S. Schaefer, K. Leung, B. Ivanovic, and M. Pavone, “Leveraging neural network gradients within trajectory optimization for proactive human-robot interactions,” in Proc. IEEE Conf. on Robotics and Automation, 2021.
- P. Trautman and A. Krause, “Unfreezing the robot: Navigation in dense, interacting crowds,” in IEEE/RSJ Int. Conf. on Intelligent Robots & Systems, 2010.
- A. D. Dragan, K. C. L. Lee, and S. S. Srinivasa, “Legibility and predictability of robot motion,” in Proc. ACM/IEEE Int. Conference on Human Robot Interaction, 2013.
- A. D. Dragan and S. S. Srinivasa, “Generating legible motion,” in Robotics: Science and Systems, 2013.
- T. Kruse, P. Basili, S. Glasauer, and A. Kirsch, “Legible robot navigation in the proximity of moving humans,” in Proc. IEEE Workshop on Advanced Robotics and its Social Impacts, 2012.
- C. I. Mavrogiannis, P. Alves-Olivera, W. Thomason, and R. A. Knepper, “Social momentum: Design and evaluation of a framework for socially competent robot navigation,” ACM Transactions on Human-Robot Interaction, vol. 37, no. 4, 2021.
- C. Lichtenthäler, T. Lorenzy, and A. Kirsch, “Influence of legibility on perceived safety in a virtual human-robot path crossing task,” in Proc. IEEE Int. Conf. on Robot and Human Interactive Communication, 2012.
- B. Busch, J. Grizou, M. Lopes, and F. Stulp, “Learning legible motion from human–robot interactions,” Int. Journal of Social Robotics, vol. 9, pp. 765–779, 2017.
- C. Schöller, A. V., L. F., and A. Knoll, “What the constant velocity model can teach us about pedestrian motion prediction,” IEEE Robotics and Automation Letters, vol. 5, no. 2, pp. 1696–1703, 2020.
- M. Wang, Z. Wang, J. Talbot, J. C. Gerdes, and M. Schwager, “Game-theoretic planning for self-driving cars in multivehicle competitive scenarios,” IEEE Transactions on Robotics, vol. 37, no. 4, pp. 1313–1325, 2021.
- E. Schmerling, K. Leung, W. Vollprecht, and M. Pavone, “Multimodal probabilistic model-based planning for human-robot interaction,” in Proc. IEEE Conf. on Robotics and Automation, 2018.
- K. Leung, E. Schmerling, M. Zhang, M. Chen, J. Talbot, J. C. Gerdes, and M. Pavone, “On infusing reachability-based safety assurance within planning frameworks for human-robot vehicle interactions,” Int. Journal of Robotics Research, vol. 39, pp. 1326–1345, 2020.
- J. F. Fisac, A. K. Akametalu, M. N. Zeilinger, S. Kaynama, J. Gillula, and C. J. Tomlin, “A general safety framework for learning-based control in uncertain robotic systems,” IEEE Transactions on Automatic Control, vol. 64, no. 7, pp. 2737–2752, 2018.
- K. Kitazawa and T. Fujiyama, “Pedestrian vision and collision avoidance behavior: Investigation of the information process space of pedestrians using an eye tracker,” Pedestrian and Evacuation Dynamics, pp. 95–108, 2010.
- S. Topan, K. Leung, Y. Chen, P. Tupekar, E. Schmerling, J. Nilsson, M. Cox, and M. Pavone, “Interaction-dynamics-aware perception zones for obstacle detection safety evaluation,” in IEEE Intelligent Vehicles Symposium, 2022.
- E. Tolstaya, R. Mahjourian, C. Downey, B. Varadarajan, B. Sapp, and D. Anguelov, “Identifying driver interactions via conditional behavior prediction,” in Proc. IEEE Conf. on Robotics and Automation, 2021.
- J. Bezanson, A. Edelman, S. Karpinski, and V. B. Shah, “Julia: A fresh approach to numerical computing,” SIAM Review, vol. 59, no. 1, pp. 65–98, 2017.
- I. Dunning, J. Huchette, and M. Lubin, “JuMP: A Modeling Language for Mathematical Optimization,” SIAM Review, vol. 59, no. 2, pp. 295–320, 2017.
- M. Lubin, O. Dowson, J. Dias Garcia, J. Huchette, B. Legat, and J. P. Vielma, “JuMP 1.0: Recent improvements to a modeling language for mathematical optimization,” Mathematical Programming Computation, 2023.
- A. Domahidi, E. Chu, and S. Boyd, “ECOS: An SOCP solver for embedded systems,” in European Control Conference, 2013.
- J. Revels, M. Lubin, and T. Papamarkou, “Forward-mode automatic differentiation in julia,” Available at https://arxiv.org/abs/1607.07892, 2016.
- I. M. Mitchell, A. M. Bayen, and C. J. Tomlin, “A time-dependent Hamilton-Jacobi formulation of reachable sets for continuous dynamic games,” IEEE Transactions on Automatic Control, vol. 50, no. 7, pp. 947–957, 2005.
- E. Schmerling, “HJ Reachability in JAX,” Available at https://github.com/StanfordASL/hj_reachability.
- J. Guzzi, A. Giusti, L. M. Gambardella, G. Theraulaz, and G. A. Di Caro, “Human-friendly robot navigation in dynamic environments,” in Proc. IEEE Conf. on Robotics and Automation, 2013.
Sponsored by Paperpile, the PDF & BibTeX manager trusted by top AI labs.
Get 30 days freePaper Prompts
Sign up for free to create and run prompts on this paper using GPT-5.
Top Community Prompts
Collections
Sign up for free to add this paper to one or more collections.