Adapting Robot's Explanation for Failures Based on Observed Human Behavior in Human-Robot Collaboration Andreas Naoum 1, Parag Khanna 1, Elmira Y adollahi 2, M arten Bj orkman 1, and Christian Smith 1 Abstract -- This work aims to interpret human behavior to anticipate potential user confusion when a robot provides explanations for failure, allowing the robot to adapt its explanations for more natural and efficient collaboration. Using a dataset [1] that included facial emotion detection, eye gaze estimation, and gestures from 55 participants in a user study [2], we analyzed how human behavior changed in response to different types of failures and varying explanation levels. Our goal is to assess whether human collaborators are ready to accept less detailed explanations without inducing confusion. We formulate a data-driven predictor to predict human confusion during robot failure explanations. We also propose and evaluate a mechanism, based on the predictor, to adapt the explanation level according to observed human behavior . The promising results from this evaluation indicate the potential of this research in adapting a robot's explanations for failures to enhance the collaborative experience. I NTRODUCTION Recent advancements in robotics have enabled robots to collaborate with humans in a variety of tasks [3]. However, the uncertain nature of environments in which robots operate often leads to failures [4], [5]. In instances where robots encounter failures, human intervention in certain cases can easily troubleshoot the problem efficiently and effectively [2], [4], [6]. Therefore, a crucial aspect of this collaboration is the robot's ability to communicate when a failure occurs, explain why the failure happened, and, if possible, suggest a course of action for resolution. This communication ability is not only essential for successful collaboration but also for building rapport and trust [7], [8] in robots.

Understanding robot behaviors and experiences through natural language is crucial for developing intelligent and transparent robotic systems. Recent advancement in large language models (LLMs) makes it possible to translate complex, multi-modal robotic experiences into coherent, human-readable narratives. However, grounding real-world robot experiences into natural language is challenging due to many reasons, such as multi-modal nature of data, differing sample rates, and data volume. We introduce RONAR, an LLM-based system that generates natural language narrations from robot experiences, aiding in behavior announcement, failure analysis, and human interaction to recover failure. Evaluated across various scenarios, RONAR outperforms state-of-the-art methods and improves failure recovery efficiency. Our contributions include a multi-modal framework for robot experience narration, a comprehensive real-robot dataset, and empirical evidence of RONAR's effectiveness in enhancing user experience in system transparency and failure analysis.

The ability to detect and analyze failed executions automatically is crucial for an explainable and robust robotic system. Recently, Large Language Models (LLMs) have demonstrated strong reasoning abilities on textual inputs. To leverage the power of LLMs for robot failure explanation, we introduce REFLECT, a framework which queries LLM for failure reasoning based on a hierarchical summary of robot past experiences generated from multisensory observations. The failure explanation can further guide a language-based planner to correct the failure and complete the task. To systematically evaluate the framework, we create the RoboFail dataset with a variety of tasks and failure scenarios. We demonstrate that the LLM-based framework is able to generate informative failure explanations that assist successful correction planning.

Robot failures in human-centered environments are inevitable. Therefore, the ability of robots to explain such failures is paramount for interacting with humans to increase trust and transparency. To achieve this skill, the main challenges addressed in this paper are I) acquiring enough data to learn a cause-effect model of the environment and II) generating causal explanations based on that model. We address I) by learning a causal Bayesian network from simulation data. Concerning II), we propose a novel method that enables robots to generate contrastive explanations upon task failures. The explanation is based on setting the failure state in contrast with the closest state that would have allowed for a successful execution. This state is found through breadth-first search and is based on success predictions from the learned causal model. We assessed our method in two different scenarios I) stacking cubes and II) dropping spheres into a container. The obtained causal models reach a sim2real accuracy of 70% and 72%, respectively. We finally show that our novel method scales over multiple tasks and allows real robots to give failure explanations like 'the upper cube was stacked too high and too far to the right of the lower cube.'

Scientists form hypotheses and experimentally test them. If a hypothesis fails (is refuted), scientists try to explain the failure to eliminate other hypotheses. We introduce similar explanation techniques for inductive logic programming (ILP). We build on the ILP approach learning from failures. Given a hypothesis represented as a logic program, we test it on examples. If a hypothesis fails, we identify clauses and literals responsible for the failure. By explaining failures, we can eliminate other hypotheses that will provably fail. We introduce a technique for failure explanation based on analysing SLD-trees. We experimentally evaluate failure explanation in the Popper ILP system. Our results show that explaining failures can drastically reduce learning times.

Engineering complete planning domain descriptions is often very costly because of human error or lack of domain knowl- edge. Learning complete domain descriptions is also very challenging because many features are irrelevant to achieving the goals and data may be scarce. We present a planner and agent that respectively plan and act in incomplete domains by i) synthesizing plans to avoid execution failure due to ignorance of the domain model, and ii) passively learning about the domain model during execution to improve later re-planning attempts. Our planner DeFault is the first to reason about a domain’s incompleteness to avoid potential plan failure. DeFault computes failure explanations for each action and state in the plan and counts the number of interpretations of the incomplete domain where failure will occur. We show that DeFault performs best by counting prime implicants (failure diagnoses) rather than propositional models. Our agent Goalie learns about the preconditions and effects of incompletely-specified actions while monitoring its state and, in conjunction with DeFault plan failure explanations, can diagnose past and future action failures. We show that by reasoning about incompleteness (as opposed to ignoring it) Goalie fails and re-plans less and executes fewer actions.