The long-standing research challenges of Human-AI Teaming(HAT) and Zero-shot Cooperation(ZSC) have been tackled by applying multi-agent reinforcement learning(MARL) to train an agent by optimizing the environment reward function and evaluating their performance through task performance metrics such as task reward. However, such evaluation focuses only on task completion, while being agnostic to `how' the two agents work with each other. Specifically, we are interested in understanding the cooperation arising within the team when trained agents are paired with humans. To formally address this problem, we propose the concept of interdependence to measure how much agents rely on each other's actions to achieve the shared goal, as a key metric for evaluating cooperation in human-agent teams. Towards this, we ground this concept through a symbolic formalism and define evaluation metrics that allow us to assess the degree of reliance between the agents' actions. We pair state-of-the-art agents trained through MARL for HAT, with learned human models for the the popular Overcooked domain, and evaluate the team performance for these human-agent teams. Our results demonstrate that trained agents are not able to induce cooperative behavior, reporting very low levels of interdependence across all the teams. We also report that teaming performance of a team is not necessarily correlated with the task reward.

As the applicability of Large Language Models (LLMs) extends beyond traditional text processing tasks, there is a burgeoning interest in their potential to excel in planning and reasoning assignments, realms traditionally reserved for System 2 cognitive competencies. Despite their perceived versatility, the research community is still unraveling effective strategies to harness these models in such complex domains. The recent discourse introduced by the paper on LLM Modulo marks a significant stride, proposing a conceptual framework that enhances the integration of LLMs into diverse planning and reasoning activities. This workshop paper delves into the practical application of this framework within the domain of travel planning, presenting a specific instance of its implementation. We are using the Travel Planning benchmark by the OSU NLP group, a benchmark for evaluating the performance of LLMs in producing valid itineraries based on user queries presented in natural language. While popular methods of enhancing the reasoning abilities of LLMs such as Chain of Thought, ReAct, and Reflexion achieve a meager 0%, 0.6%, and 0% with GPT3.5-Turbo respectively, our operationalization of the LLM-Modulo framework for TravelPlanning domain provides a remarkable improvement, enhancing baseline performances by 4.6x for GPT4-Turbo and even more for older models like GPT3.5-Turbo from 0% to 5%. Furthermore, we highlight the other useful roles of LLMs in the planning pipeline, as suggested in LLM-Modulo, which can be reliably operationalized such as extraction of useful critics and reformulator for critics.

Reinforcement Learning (RL) suffers from sample inefficiency in sparse reward domains, and the problem is pronounced if there are stochastic transitions. To improve the sample efficiency, reward shaping is a well-studied approach to introduce intrinsic rewards that can help the RL agent converge to an optimal policy faster. However, designing a useful reward shaping function specific to each problem is challenging, even for domain experts. They would either have to rely on task-specific domain knowledge or provide an expert demonstration independently for each task. Given, that Large Language Models (LLMs) have rapidly gained prominence across a magnitude of natural language tasks, we aim to answer the following question: Can we leverage LLMs to construct a reward shaping function that can boost the sample efficiency of an RL agent? In this work, we aim to leverage off-the-shelf LLMs to generate a guide policy by solving a simpler deterministic abstraction of the original problem that can then be used to construct the reward shaping function for the downstream RL agent. Given the ineffectiveness of directly prompting LLMs, we propose MEDIC: a framework that augments LLMs with a Model-based feEDback critIC, which verifies LLM-generated outputs, to generate a possibly sub-optimal but valid plan for the abstract problem. Our experiments across domains from the BabyAI environment suite show 1) the effectiveness of augmenting LLMs with MEDIC, 2) a significant improvement in the sample complexity of PPO and A2C-based RL agents when guided by our LLM-generated plan, and finally, 3) pave the direction for further explorations of how these models can be used to augment existing RL pipelines.

The reasoning abilities of Large Language Models (LLMs) remain a topic of debate. Some methods such as ReAct-based prompting, have gained popularity for claiming to enhance sequential decision-making abilities of agentic LLMs. However, it is unclear what is the source of improvement in LLM reasoning with ReAct based prompting. In this paper we examine these claims of ReAct based prompting in improving agentic LLMs for sequential decision-making. By introducing systematic variations to the input prompt we perform a sensitivity analysis along the claims of ReAct and find that the performance is minimally influenced by the "interleaving reasoning trace with action execution" or the content of the generated reasoning traces in ReAct, contrary to original claims and common usage. Instead, the performance of LLMs is driven by the similarity between input example tasks and queries, implicitly forcing the prompt designer to provide instance-specific examples which significantly increases the cognitive burden on the human. Our investigation shows that the perceived reasoning abilities of LLMs stem from the exemplar-query similarity and approximate retrieval rather than any inherent reasoning abilities.

There is considerable confusion about the role of Large Language Models (LLMs) in planning and reasoning tasks. On one side are over-optimistic claims that LLMs can indeed do these tasks with just the right prompting or self-verification strategies. On the other side are perhaps over-pessimistic claims that all that LLMs are good for in planning/reasoning tasks are as mere translators of the problem specification from one syntactic format to another, and ship the problem off to external symbolic solvers. In this position paper, we take the view that both these extremes are misguided. We argue that auto-regressive LLMs cannot, by themselves, do planning or self-verification (which is after all a form of reasoning), and shed some light on the reasons for misunderstandings in the literature. We will also argue that LLMs should be viewed as universal approximate knowledge sources that have much more meaningful roles to play in planning/reasoning tasks beyond simple front-end/back-end format translators. We present a vision of {\bf LLM-Modulo Frameworks} that combine the strengths of LLMs with external model-based verifiers in a tighter bi-directional interaction regime. We will show how the models driving the external verifiers themselves can be acquired with the help of LLMs. We will also argue that rather than simply pipelining LLMs and symbolic components, this LLM-Modulo Framework provides a better neuro-symbolic approach that offers tighter integration between LLMs and symbolic components, and allows extending the scope of model-based planning/reasoning regimes towards more flexible knowledge, problem and preference specifications.

Large Language Models have shown exceptional generative abilities in various natural language and generation tasks. However, possible anthropomorphization and leniency towards failure cases have propelled discussions on emergent abilities of Large Language Models especially on Theory of Mind (ToM) abilities in Large Language Models. While several false-belief tests exists to verify the ability to infer and maintain mental models of another entity, we study a special application of ToM abilities that has higher stakes and possibly irreversible consequences : Human Robot Interaction. In this work, we explore the task of Perceived Behavior Recognition, where a robot employs a Large Language Model (LLM) to assess the robot's generated behavior in a manner similar to human observer. We focus on four behavior types, namely - explicable, legible, predictable, and obfuscatory behavior which have been extensively used to synthesize interpretable robot behaviors. The LLMs goal is, therefore to be a human proxy to the agent, and to answer how a certain agent behavior would be perceived by the human in the loop, for example "Given a robot's behavior X, would the human observer find it explicable?". We conduct a human subject study to verify that the users are able to correctly answer such a question in the curated situations (robot setting and plan) across five domains. A first analysis of the belief test yields extremely positive results inflating ones expectations of LLMs possessing ToM abilities. We then propose and perform a suite of perturbation tests which breaks this illusion, i.e. Inconsistent Belief, Uninformative Context and Conviction Test. We conclude that, the high score of LLMs on vanilla prompts showcases its potential use in HRI settings, however to possess ToM demands invariance to trivial or irrelevant perturbations in the context which LLMs lack.

Preference-based Reinforcement Learning (PbRL) is an active area of research, and has made significant strides in single-agent actor and in observer human-in-the-loop scenarios. However, its application within the co-operative multi-agent RL frameworks, where humans actively participate and express preferences for agent behavior, remains largely uncharted. We consider a two-agent (Human-AI) cooperative setup where both the agents are rewarded according to human's reward function for the team. However, the agent does not have access to it, and instead, utilizes preference-based queries to elicit its objectives and human's preferences for the robot in the human-robot team. We introduce the notion of Human-Flexibility, i.e. whether the human partner is amenable to multiple team strategies, with a special case being Specified Orchestration where the human has a single team policy in mind (most constrained case). We propose a suite of domains to study PbRL for Human-AI cooperative setup which explicitly require forced cooperation. Adapting state-of-the-art single-agent PbRL algorithms to our two-agent setting, we conduct a comprehensive benchmarking study across our domain suite. Our findings highlight the challenges associated with high degree of Human-Flexibility and the limited access to the human's envisioned policy in PbRL for Human-AI cooperation. Notably, we observe that PbRL algorithms exhibit effective performance exclusively in the case of Specified Orchestration which can be seen as an upper bound PbRL performance for future research.

However, much of the successes reinforces the fact that much of the explored trajectories have also been attributed to well specified reward functions do not actually participate in the reward learning process which ground the agent's behavior and subsequent task in and in fact their best change to affect the reward function the expected manner. As prior works have argued, the specification is once they get sampled and queried to the human in the of low level reward functions for seemingly easy loop. We posit that this untapped data source can greatly tasks could be quite difficult and may still result in inexplicable improve reward recovery and reduce the feedback sample and unexpected results (Verma et al. 2019, 2021; complexity. Our second observation notes that the reward Gopalakrishnan, Verma, and Kambhampati 2021a,b) potentially function being learnt may not conform to the structure of affecting trust between Human-AI (Zahedi et al. 2021, the state space simply because it doesn't get exposed to as 2022). For example, works like (Krakovna et al. 2020; Vamplew many data points (in comparison to, say, the policy approximation et al. 2018) have raised the issues of reward hacking function). We utilize our observations to improve and reward exploitation where the RL agents would discover performance of RL agents in recovering the underlying behaviors that seems to be "cheating" or incorrect and reward function and learn a good policy by exploiting the yet maximize the expected cumulative reward. This has also rich unlabeled trajectory data. Although works like SURF gotten attention from the explainable AI community where (Park et al. 2022) have proposed a semi-supervised learning they attempt to analyze whether the agent is actually behaving approach to utilize unlabeled trajectory data, they would in the intended manner (Verma, Kharkwal, and Kambhampati generate labels for unlabeled trajectories and use these 2022; Sreedharan et al. 2020; Kambhampati et al. data points as if they were given by the human in the loop.

In this paper, we discuss a Reinforcement Learning (RL) approach towards a class of sequential decision problems, exemplified for the popular Wordle puzzle that appears daily in the New York Times. Wordle involves a list of 5-letter mystery words, which is a subset of a larger list of guess words. A word is selected at random from the mystery list, and the objective is to find that word by sequentially selecting no more than six words from the guess list. Each guess word selection provides information about the letters contained in the hidden mystery word according to a given set of rules, which involves color coding of letters shared by the guess word and the mystery word. We will adopt a more general point of view, by considering a broad class of problems that include Wordle as a special case. In particular, the problems that we consider include sequential search situations, where the objective is to guess correctly an unknown object from a given finite set of objects (the set of mystery words in the Wordle context), by using a sequence of decisions from a finite set (the set of guess words in Wordle), which result in a sequence of corresponding observations (the information outcomes of the guesses in Wordle). We aim to minimize some cost function, such as the expected number of observations required to determine the unknown object. Within the search context just described, some basic information theory concepts are relevant, which have already been applied to Wordle, and are important for our methodology.

Conventional works that learn grasping affordance from demonstrations need to explicitly predict grasping configurations, such as gripper approaching angles or grasping preshapes. Classic motion planners could then sample trajectories by using such predicted configurations. In this work, our goal is instead to integrate the two objectives of affordance discovery and affordance-aware policy learning in an end-to-end imitation learning framework based on deep neural networks. From a psychological perspective, there is a close association between attention and affordance. Therefore, with an end-to-end neural network, we propose to learn affordance cues as visual attention that serves as a useful indicating signal of how a demonstrator accomplishes tasks. To achieve this, we propose a contrastive learning framework that consists of a Siamese encoder and a trajectory decoder. We further introduce a coupled triplet loss to encourage the discovered affordance cues to be more affordance-relevant. Our experimental results demonstrate that our model with the coupled triplet loss achieves the highest grasping success rate.