From its inception, AI has had a rather ambivalent relationship with humans -- swinging between their augmentation and replacement. Now, as AI technologies enter our everyday lives at an ever increasing pace, there is a greater need for AI systems to work synergistically with humans. One critical requirement for such synergistic human-AI interaction is that the AI systems be explainable to the humans in the loop. To do this effectively, AI agents need to go beyond planning with their own models of the world, and take into account the mental model of the human in the loop. Drawing from several years of research in our lab, we will discuss how the AI agent can use these mental models to either conform to human expectations, or change those expectations through explanatory communication. While the main focus of the book is on cooperative scenarios, we will point out how the same mental models can be used for obfuscation and deception. Although the book is primarily driven by our own research in these areas, in every chapter, we will provide ample connections to relevant research from other groups.

I've seen a lot of new ideas. I've been right a few times about what would succeed and been way off quite often. Sometimes my predictions were simply too early. Those that know me may recall that back in the middle 2000's I was bullish on virtual reality (VR). I spoke and wrote about it widely. Turns out I was at least 10 years too soon with my prediction.

We aim to reduce the burden of programming and deploying autonomous systems to work in concert with people in time-critical domains such as military field operations and disaster response. Deployment plans for these operations are frequently negotiated on-the-fly by teams of human planners. A human operator then translates the agreed-upon plan into machine instructions for the robots. We present an algorithm that reduces this translation burden by inferring the final plan from a processed form of the human team's planning conversation. Our hybrid approach combines probabilistic generative modeling with logical plan validation used to compute a highly structured prior over possible plans, enabling us to overcome the challenge of performing inference over a large solution space with only a small amount of noisy data from the team planning session. We validate the algorithm through human subject experimentations and show that it is able to infer a human team's final plan with 86% accuracy on average. We also describe a robot demonstration in which two people plan and execute a first-response collaborative task with a PR2 robot. To the best of our knowledge, this is the first work to integrate a logical planning technique within a generative model to perform plan inference.

We aim to reduce the burden of programming and deploying autonomous systems to work in concert with people in time-critical domains, such as military field operations and disaster response. Deployment plans for these operations are frequently negotiated on-the-fly by teams of human planners. A human operator then translates the agreed upon plan into machine instructions for the robots. We present an algorithm that reduces this translation burden by inferring the final plan from a processed form of the human team's planning conversation. Our approach combines probabilistic generative modeling with logical plan validation used to compute a highly structured prior over possible plans. This hybrid approach enables us to overcome the challenge of performing inference over the large solution space with only a small amount of noisy data from the team planning session. We validate the algorithm through human subject experimentation and show we are able to infer a human team's final plan with 83% accuracy on average. We also describe a robot demonstration in which two people plan and execute a first-response collaborative task with a PR2 robot. To the best of our knowledge, this is the first work that integrates a logical planning technique within a generative model to perform plan inference.

The paper illustrates a novel approach to conformant planning using classical planners. The approach relies on two core ideas developed to deal with incomplete information in the initial situation: the use of a classical planner to solve non-classical planning problems, and the reduction of the size of the initial belief state. Differently from previous uses of classical planners to solve non-classical planning problems, the approach proposed in this paper creates a valid plan from a possible plan---by inserting actions into the possible plan and maintaining only one level of non-deterministic choice (i.e., the initial plan being modified). The algorithm can be instantiated with different classical planners---the paper presents the GC[LAMA] implementation, whose classical planner is LAMA. We investigate properties of the approach, including conditions for completeness. GC[LAMA] is empirically evaluated against state-of-the-art conformant planners, using benchmarks from the literature. The experimental results show that GC[LAMA] is superior to other planners, in both performance and scalability. GC[LAMA] is the only planner that can solve the largest instances from several domains. The paper investigates the reasons behind the good performance and the challenges encountered in GC[LAMA].