Trust between team members is an essential requirement for any successful cooperation. Thus, engendering and maintaining the fellow team members' trust becomes a central responsibility for any member trying to not only successfully participate in the task but to ensure the team achieves its goals. The problem of trust management is particularly challenging in mixed human-robot teams where the human and the robot may have different models about the task at hand and thus may have different expectations regarding the current course of action and forcing the robot to focus on the costly explicable behavior. We propose a computational model for capturing and modulating trust in such longitudinal human-robot interaction, where the human adopts a supervisory role. In our model, the robot integrates human's trust and their expectations from the robot into its planning process to build and maintain trust over the interaction horizon. By establishing the required level of trust, the robot can focus on maximizing the team goal by eschewing explicit explanatory or explicable behavior without worrying about the human supervisor monitoring and intervening to stop behaviors they may not necessarily understand. We model this reasoning about trust levels as a meta reasoning process over individual planning tasks. We additionally validate our model through a human subject experiment.

Human-robot teaming is one of the most important applications of artificial intelligence in the fast-growing field of robotics. For effective teaming, a robot must not only maintain a behavioral model of its human teammates to project the team status, but also be aware that its human teammates' expectation of itself. Being aware of the human teammates' expectation leads to robot behaviors that better align with human expectation, thus facilitating more efficient and potentially safer teams. Our work addresses the problem of human-robot cooperation with the consideration of such teammate models in sequential domains by leveraging the concept of plan explicability. In plan explicability, however, the human is considered solely as an observer. In this paper, we extend plan explicability to consider interactive settings where human and robot behaviors can influence each other. We term this new measure as Interactive Plan Explicability. We compare the joint plan generated with the consideration of this measure using the fast forward planner (FF) with the plan created by FF without such consideration, as well as the plan created with actual human subjects. Results indicate that the explicability score of plans generated by our algorithm is comparable to the human plan, and better than the plan created by FF without considering the measure, implying that the plans created by our algorithms align better with expected joint plans of the human during execution. This can lead to more efficient collaboration in practice.

There has been significant interest of late in generating behavior of agents that is interpretable to the human (observer) in the loop. However, the work in this area has typically lacked coherence on the topic, with proposed solutions for "explicable", "legible", "predictable" and "transparent" planning with overlapping, and sometimes conflicting, semantics all aimed at some notion of understanding what intentions the observer will ascribe to an agent by observing its behavior. This is also true for the recent works on "security" and "privacy" of plans which are also trying to answer the same question, but from the opposite point of view -- i.e. when the agent is trying to hide instead of revealing its intentions. This paper attempts to provide a workable taxonomy of relevant concepts in this exciting and emerging field of inquiry.

In order to have effective human AI collaboration, it is not simply enough to address the question of autonomy; an equally important question is, how the AI's behavior is being perceived by their human counterparts. When AI agent's task plans are generated without such considerations, they may often demonstrate inexplicable behavior from the human's point of view. This problem arises due to the human's partial or inaccurate understanding of the agent's planning process and/or the model. This may have serious implications on human-AI collaboration, from increased cognitive load and reduced trust in the agent, to more serious concerns of safety in interactions with physical agent. In this paper, we address this issue by modeling the notion of plan explicability as a function of the distance between a plan that agent makes and the plan that human expects it to make. To this end, we learn a distance function based on different plan distance measures that can accurately model this notion of plan explicability, and develop an anytime search algorithm that can use this distance as a heuristic to come up with progressively explicable plans. We evaluate the effectiveness of our approach in a simulated autonomous car domain and a physical service robot domain. We provide empirical evaluations that demonstrate the usefulness of our approach in making the planning process of an autonomous agent conform to human expectations.