Increased robot deployment, such as in warehousing, has revealed a need for seamless collaboration among heterogeneous robot teams to resolve unforeseen conflicts. To address this challenge, we propose a novel, decentralized framework for robots to request and provide help. The framework begins with robots detecting conflicts using a Vision Language Model (VLM), then reasoning over whether help is needed. If so, it crafts and broadcasts a natural language (NL) help request using a Large Language Model (LLM). Potential helper robots reason over the request and offer help (if able), along with information about impact to their current tasks. Helper reasoning is implemented via an LLM grounded in Signal Temporal Logic (STL) using a Backus-Naur Form (BNF) grammar to guarantee syntactically valid NL-to-STL translations, which are then solved as a Mixed Integer Linear Program (MILP). Finally, the requester robot chooses a helper by reasoning over impact on the overall system. We evaluate our system via experiments considering different strategies for choosing a helper, and find that a requester robot can minimize overall time impact on the system by considering multiple help offers versus simple heuristics (e.g., selecting the nearest robot to help).

The accurate classification of student help requests with respect to the type of help being sought can enable the tailoring of effective responses. Automatically classifying such requests is non-trivial, but large language models (LLMs) appear to offer an accessible, cost-effective solution. This study evaluates the performance of the GPT-3.5 and GPT-4 models for classifying help requests from students in an introductory programming class. In zero-shot trials, GPT-3.5 and GPT-4 exhibited comparable performance on most categories, while GPT-4 outperformed GPT-3.5 in classifying sub-categories for requests related to debugging. Fine-tuning the GPT-3.5 model improved its performance to such an extent that it approximated the accuracy and consistency across categories observed between two human raters. Overall, this study demonstrates the feasibility of using LLMs to enhance educational systems through the automated classification of student needs.

Robots operating alongside humans often encounter unfamiliar environments that make autonomous task completion challenging. Though improving models and increasing dataset size can enhance a robot's performance in unseen environments, dataset generation and model refinement may be impractical in every unfamiliar environment. Approaches that utilize human demonstration through manual operation can aid in generalizing to these unfamiliar environments, but often require significant human effort and expertise to achieve satisfactory task performance. To address these challenges, we propose leveraging part-time human interaction for redirection of robots during failed task execution. We train a lightweight help policy that allows robots to learn when to proceed autonomously or request human assistance at times of uncertainty. By incorporating part-time human intervention, robots recover quickly from their mistakes. Our best performing policy yields a 20 percent increase in path-length weighted success with only a 21 percent human interaction ratio. This approach provides a practical means for robots to interact and learn from humans in real-world settings, facilitating effective task completion without the need for significant human intervention.

Background and Context: Over the past year, large language models (LLMs) have taken the world by storm. In computing education, like in other walks of life, many opportunities and threats have emerged as a consequence. Objectives: In this article, we explore such opportunities and threats in a specific area: responding to student programmers' help requests. More specifically, we assess how good LLMs are at identifying issues in problematic code that students request help on. Method: We collected a sample of help requests and code from an online programming course. We then prompted two different LLMs (OpenAI Codex and GPT-3.5) to identify and explain the issues in the students' code and assessed the LLM-generated answers both quantitatively and qualitatively. Findings: GPT-3.5 outperforms Codex in most respects. Both LLMs frequently find at least one actual issue in each student program (GPT-3.5 in 90% of the cases). Neither LLM excels at finding all the issues (GPT-3.5 finding them 57% of the time). False positives are common (40% chance for GPT-3.5). The advice that the LLMs provide on the issues is often sensible. The LLMs perform better on issues involving program logic rather than on output formatting. Model solutions are frequently provided even when the LLM is prompted not to. LLM responses to prompts in a non-English language are only slightly worse than responses to English prompts. Implications: Our results continue to highlight the utility of LLMs in programming education. At the same time, the results highlight the unreliability of LLMs: LLMs make some of the same mistakes that students do, perhaps especially when formatting output as required by automated assessment systems. Our study informs teachers interested in using LLMs as well as future efforts to customize LLMs for the needs of programming education.

How does your business interact with customers? Do you still use a phone-only helpline? Are you flooded with emails? How many employees are dedicated to answering those calls and emails? If you don't employ enough staff for the task, you could wind up with some seriously frustrated customers. That is one of the many reasons why so many businesses are opting to deploy AI chatbots.