The Artificial Intelligence (AI) for Human-Robot Interaction (HRI) Symposium has been a successful venue of discussion and collaboration since 2014. During that time, these symposia provided a fertile ground for numerous collaborations and pioneered many discussions revolving trust in HRI, XAI for HRI, service robots, interactive learning, and more. This year, we aim to review the achievements of the AI-HRI community in the last decade, identify the challenges facing ahead, and welcome new researchers who wish to take part in this growing community. Taking this wide perspective, this year there will be no single theme to lead the symposium and we encourage AI-HRI submissions from across disciplines and research interests. Moreover, with the rising interest in AR and VR as part of an interaction and following the difficulties in running physical experiments during the pandemic, this year we specifically encourage researchers to submit works that do not include a physical robot in their evaluation, but promote HRI research in general. In addition, acknowledging that ethics is an inherent part of the human-robot interaction, we encourage submissions of works on ethics for HRI. Over the course of the two-day meeting, we will host a collaborative forum for discussion of current efforts in AI-HRI, with additional talks focused on the topics of ethics in HRI and ubiquitous HRI.

A desirable goal for autonomous agents is to be able to coordinate on the fly with previously unknown teammates. Known as "ad hoc teamwork", enabling such a capability has been receiving increasing attention in the research community. One of the central challenges in ad hoc teamwork is quickly recognizing the current plans of other agents and planning accordingly. In this paper, we focus on the scenario in which teammates can communicate with one another, but only at a cost. Thus, they must carefully balance plan recognition based on observations vs. that based on communication. This paper proposes a new metric for evaluating how similar are two policies that a teammate may be following - the Expected Divergence Point (EDP). We then present a novel planning algorithm for ad hoc teamwork, determining which query to ask and planning accordingly. We demonstrate the effectiveness of this algorithm in a range of increasingly general communication in ad hoc teamwork problems.

The AAAI-18 workshop program included 15 workshops covering a wide range of topics in AI. Workshops were held Sunday and Monday, February 2–7, 2018, at the Hilton New Orleans Riverside in New Orleans, Louisiana, USA. This report contains summaries of the Affective Content Analysis workshop; the Artificial Intelligence Applied to Assistive Technologies and Smart Environments; the AI and Marketing Science workshop; the Artificial Intelligence for Cyber Security workshop; the AI for Imperfect-Information Games; the Declarative Learning Based Programming workshop; the Engineering Dependable and Secure Machine Learning Systems workshop; the Health Intelligence workshop; the Knowledge Extraction from Games workshop; the Plan, Activity, and Intent Recognition workshop; the Planning and Inference workshop; the Preference Handling workshop; the Reasoning and Learning for Human-Machine Dialogues workshop; and the the AI Enhanced Internet of Things Data Processing for Intelligent Applications workshop.

Plan recognition is  one of the fundamental problems of AI, applicable to many domains, from user interfaces to cyber security. We focus on a class of algorithms that use plan libraries as input to the recognition process. Despite the prevalence of these approaches, they lack a standard representation, and have not been compared to each other on common test bed. This paper directly addresses this gap by providing a standard plan library representation and evaluation criteria to consider. Our representation is comprehensive enough to describe a variety of known plan recognition problems, yet it can be easily applied to existing algorithms, which can be evaluated using our defined criteria. We demonstrate this technique on two known algorithms, SBR and PHATT. We provide meaningful insights both about the differences and abilities of the algorithms. We show that SBR is superior to PHATT both in terms of computation time and space, but at the expense of functionality and compact representation. We also show that depth is the single feature of a plan library that increases the complexity of the recognition, regardless of the algorithm used.

Reports of the Workshops of the Thirty-First AAAI Conference on Artificial Intelligence

The AAAI-17 workshop program included 17 workshops covering a wide range of topics in AI. Workshops were held Sunday and Monday, February 4-5, 2017 at the Hilton San Francisco Union Square in San Francisco, California, USA. This report contains summaries of 12 of the workshops, and brief abstracts of the remaining 5

Goal Recognition Design (GRD) is the problem of designing a domain in a way that will allow easy identification of agents' goals. This work extends the original GRD problem to the Plan Recognition Design (PRD) problem which is the task of designing a domain using plan libraries in order to facilitate fast identification of an agent's plan. While GRD can help to explain faster which goal the agent is trying to achieve, PRD can help in faster understanding of how the agent is going to achieve its goal. We define a new measure that quantifies the worst-case distinctiveness of a given planning domain, propose a method to reduce it in a given domain and show the reduction of this new measure in three domains from the literature.

Goal Recognition Design (GRD) is the problem of designing a domain in a way that will allow easy identification of agents' goals. This work extends the original GRD problem to the Plan Recognition Design (PRD) problem which is the task of designing a domain using plan libraries in order to facilitate fast identification of an agent's plan. While GRD can help to explain faster which goal the agent is trying to achieve, PRD can help in faster understanding of how the agent is going to achieve its goal. we define a new measure that quantifies the worst-case distinctiveness of a given planning domain, propose a method to reduce it in a given domain and show the reduction of this new measure in three domains from the literature.