When shared plans go wrong: From atomic- to composite actions and back

As elaborate human-robot interaction capabilities continue to develop, humans will increasingly be in proximity with robots, and the management of the ongoing control in case of breakdown becomes increasingly important: taking care of what happens when cooperation goes wrong. The current research addresses three categories of breakdowns where cooperation can go wrong. In the first category, the human detects some type of problem and generates a self-issued stop signal, with a physical palm up posture. In the second category, the human becomes distracted, and physically changes his orientation away from the shared space of cooperation. In the final category that we investigate, the human becomes physically close to the robot such that safety limits are reached and detected by the robot. In each of these three cases, the robot cognitive system detects the failure via the perception of distinct physical states from motion capture: the hand up posture; change in head orientation; and physical distance reaching a minimum threshold. In each case the robot immediately halts the current action. Then, the system should recover appropriately. Each error type returns a specific code, allowing the Supervisor system to handle the specific type of error. Our cognitive system allows the robot to learn composite actions, as a sequence of atomic actions. These composite actions can then be composed into higher level plans. When a plan fails at the level of a composite action, the recovery method is not trivial: should recovery take place at the level of the composite action, or the actual atomic action which physically failed? As the best recovery may depend on the physical context, we expand the plan into atomic actions, and recover at this level, allowing the user to specify whether the action should be skipped or retried. We demonstrate that this system allows graceful recovery from three principal categories of interaction breakdown, and provides an invaluable mechanism for preserving the integrity of cooperative HRI.

[1]  Rachid Alami,et al.  Towards a platform-independent cooperative human-robot interaction system: II. Perception, execution and imitation of goal directed actions , 2011, 2011 IEEE/RSJ International Conference on Intelligent Robots and Systems.

[2]  H. H. Clark Coordinating with each other in a material world , 2005 .

[3]  Peter Ford Dominey,et al.  Linking Language with Embodied and Teleological Representations of Action for Humanoid Cognition , 2010, Front. Neurorobot..

[4]  Cynthia Breazeal,et al.  Improved human-robot team performance using Chaski, A human-inspired plan execution system , 2011, 2011 6th ACM/IEEE International Conference on Human-Robot Interaction (HRI).

[5]  Joseph R. Cavallaro,et al.  Robotic fault detection and fault tolerance: A survey , 1994 .

[6]  M. Tomasello,et al.  Role Reversal Imitation and Language in Typically Developing Infants and Children With Autism , 2005 .

[7]  L. Alvisi,et al.  A Survey of Rollback-Recovery Protocols , 2002 .

[8]  Peter Ford Dominey,et al.  Towards a platform-independent cooperative human-robot interaction system: I. Perception , 2010, 2010 IEEE/RSJ International Conference on Intelligent Robots and Systems.

[9]  Giulio Sandini,et al.  An experimental evaluation of a novel minimum-jerk cartesian controller for humanoid robots , 2010, 2010 IEEE/RSJ International Conference on Intelligent Robots and Systems.

[10]  Anthony G. Pipe,et al.  The BERT2 infrastructure: An integrated system for the study of human-robot interaction , 2010, 2010 10th IEEE-RAS International Conference on Humanoid Robots.

[11]  Grant Allen,et al.  The Definitive Guide to SQLite , 2006 .

[12]  Antonio Bicchi,et al.  An atlas of physical human-robot interaction , 2008 .

[13]  Giulio Sandini,et al.  The iCub humanoid robot: an open platform for research in embodied cognition , 2008, PerMIS.

[14]  Giorgio Metta,et al.  Towards long-lived robot genes , 2008, Robotics Auton. Syst..

[15]  R. Ham,et al.  Compliant actuator designs , 2009, IEEE Robotics & Automation Magazine.

[16]  Alin Albu-Schäffer,et al.  On joint design with intrinsic variable compliance: derivation of the DLR QA-Joint , 2010, 2010 IEEE International Conference on Robotics and Automation.

[17]  Siddhartha S. Srinivasa,et al.  Gracefully mitigating breakdowns in robotic services , 2010, 2010 5th ACM/IEEE International Conference on Human-Robot Interaction (HRI).

[18]  Alin Albu-Schäffer,et al.  Safety Evaluation of Physical Human-Robot Interaction via Crash-Testing , 2007, Robotics: Science and Systems.

[19]  Michael A. Goodrich,et al.  Human-Robot Interaction: A Survey , 2008, Found. Trends Hum. Comput. Interact..

[20]  M. Tomasello,et al.  Varieties of altruism in children and chimpanzees , 2009, Trends in Cognitive Sciences.

[21]  Peter Ford Dominey,et al.  The basis of shared intentions in human and robot cognition , 2011 .