Papers
Topics
Authors
Recent
Search
2000 character limit reached

REX: Designing User-centered Repair and Explanations to Address Robot Failures

Published 26 May 2024 in cs.RO and cs.HC | (2405.16710v1)

Abstract: Robots in real-world environments continuously engage with multiple users and encounter changes that lead to unexpected conflicts in fulfilling user requests. Recent technical advancements (e.g., large-LLMs, program synthesis) offer various methods for automatically generating repair plans that address such conflicts. In this work, we understand how automated repair and explanations can be designed to improve user experience with robot failures through two user studies. In our first, online study ($n=162$), users expressed increased trust, satisfaction, and utility with the robot performing automated repair and explanations. However, we also identified risk factors -- safety, privacy, and complexity -- that require adaptive repair strategies. The second, in-person study ($n=24$) elucidated distinct repair and explanation strategies depending on the level of risk severity and type. Using a design-based approach, we explore automated repair with explanations as a solution for robots to handle conflicts and failures, complemented by adaptive strategies for risk factors. Finally, we discuss the implications of incorporating such strategies into robot designs to achieve seamless operation among changing user needs and environments.

Definition Search Book Streamline Icon: https://streamlinehq.com
References (79)
  1. 2015. Temi - The Personal Robot. https://www.robotemi.com/. Accessed: 2024-04-21.
  2. 2022. Prolific: Quickly Find Research Participants You Can Trust. https://www.prolific.co/
  3. Do as i can, not as i say: Grounding language in robotic affordances. arXiv preprint arXiv:2204.01691 (2022).
  4. Safe and dependable physical human-robot interaction in anthropic domains: State of the art and challenges. In 2006 IEEE/RSJ International Conference on Intelligent Robots and Systems. IEEE, 1–16.
  5. Resilient chatbots: Repair strategy preferences for conversational breakdowns. In Proceedings of the 2019 CHI conference on human factors in computing systems. 1–12.
  6. Microblogging as a mechanism for human–robot interaction. Knowledge-Based Systems 69 (2014), 64–77.
  7. Curt Bererton and Pradeep Khosla. 2002. An analysis of cooperative repair capabilities in a team of robots. In Proceedings 2002 IEEE International Conference on Robotics and Automation (Cat. No. 02CH37292), Vol. 1. IEEE, 476–482.
  8. Do as i can, not as i say: Grounding language in robotic affordances. In Conference on robot learning. PMLR, 287–318.
  9. Daniel J Brooks. 2017. A human-centric approach to autonomous robot failures. Ph. D. Dissertation. University of Massachusetts Lowell.
  10. Language models are few-shot learners. Advances in neural information processing systems 33 (2020), 1877–1901.
  11. Bengisu Cagiltay and Bilge Mutlu. 2024. Toward Family-Robot Interactions: A Family-Centered Framework in HRI. (2024).
  12. System reliability, performance and trust in adaptable automation. Applied Ergonomics 52 (2016), 333–342.
  13. Designing persuasive robots: how robots might persuade people using vocal and nonverbal cues. In Proceedings of the seventh annual ACM/IEEE international conference on Human-Robot Interaction. 293–300.
  14. To err is human (-oid): how do consumers react to robot service failure and recovery? Journal of Service Research 24, 3 (2021), 354–371.
  15. Deep reinforcement learning from human preferences. Advances in neural information processing systems 30 (2017).
  16. Michael Jae-Yoon Chung and Maya Cakmak. 2020. Iterative repair of social robot programs from implicit user feedback via bayesian inference. interaction 1 (2020), 2.
  17. Victoria Clarke and Virginia Braun. 2014. Thematic analysis. In Encyclopedia of critical psychology. Springer, 1947–1952.
  18. Explainable AI for robot failures: Generating explanations that improve user assistance in fault recovery. In Proceedings of the 2021 ACM/IEEE International Conference on Human-Robot Interaction. 351–360.
  19. An atlas of physical human–robot interaction. Mechanism and Machine Theory 43, 3 (2008), 253–270.
  20. Two people walk into a bar: Dynamic multi-party social interaction with a robot agent. In Proceedings of the 14th ACM international conference on Multimodal interaction. 3–10.
  21. Psychometric evaluation of the use (usefulness, satisfaction, and ease of use) questionnaire for reliability and validity. In Proceedings of the human factors and ergonomics society annual meeting, Vol. 62. SAGE Publications Sage CA: Los Angeles, CA, 1414–1418.
  22. Retrieval-augmented generation for large language models: A survey. arXiv preprint arXiv:2312.10997 (2023).
  23. Robot task planning and explanation in open and uncertain worlds. Artificial Intelligence 247 (2017), 119–150.
  24. ” It’s Not a Replacement:” Enabling Parent-Robot Collaboration to Support In-Home Learning Experiences of Young Children. In Proceedings of the CHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems. 1–18.
  25. Designing Parent-child-robot Interactions to Facilitate In-Home Parental Math Talk with Young Children. In Proceedings of the 22nd Annual ACM Interaction Design and Children Conference. 355–366.
  26. Shanee Honig and Tal Oron-Gilad. 2018. Understanding and resolving failures in human-robot interaction: Literature review and model development. Frontiers in psychology 9 (2018), 861.
  27. Exploring the Role of Social Robot Behaviors in a Creative Activity. In Proceedings of the 2021 ACM Designing Interactive Systems Conference. 1380–1389.
  28. Foundations for an Empirically Determined Scale of Trust in Automated Systems. International Journal of Cognitive Ergonomics 4 (03 2000), 53–71. https://doi.org/10.1207/S15327566IJCE0401_04
  29. Program repair as a game. In Computer Aided Verification: 17th International Conference, CAV 2005, Edinburgh, Scotland, UK, July 6-10, 2005. Proceedings 17. Springer, 226–238.
  30. Lars Johannsmeier and Sami Haddadin. 2016. A hierarchical human-robot interaction-planning framework for task allocation in collaborative industrial assembly processes. IEEE Robotics and Automation Letters 2, 1 (2016), 41–48.
  31. Malte Jung and Pamela Hinds. 2018. Robots in the Wild: A Time for More Robust Theories of Human-Robot Interaction. J. Hum.-Robot Interact. 7, 1, Article 2 (may 2018), 5 pages. https://doi.org/10.1145/3208975
  32. Erez Karpas and Daniele Magazzeni. 2020. Automated planning for robotics. Annual Review of Control, Robotics, and Autonomous Systems 3 (2020), 417–439.
  33. Adaptive prior selection for repertoire-based online adaptation in robotics. Frontiers in Robotics and AI 6 (2020), 151.
  34. Training and evaluation of an MDP model for social multi-user human-robot interaction. In Proceedings of the SIGDIAL 2013 Conference. 223–232.
  35. Bwibots: A platform for bridging the gap between ai and human–robot interaction research. The International Journal of Robotics Research 36, 5-7 (2017), 635–659.
  36. Understanding Large-Language Model (LLM)-powered Human-Robot Interaction. arXiv preprint arXiv:2401.03217 (2024).
  37. Sprout: Designing Expressivity for Robots Using Fiber-Embedded Actuator. In Proceedings of the 2024 ACM/IEEE International Conference on Human-Robot Interaction. 403–412.
  38. Error detection and surprise in stochastic robot actions. In 2015 IEEE-RAS 15th International Conference on Humanoid Robots (Humanoids). IEEE, 1096–1101.
  39. The unboxing experience: Exploration and design of initial interactions between children and social robots. In Proceedings of the 2022 CHI conference on human factors in computing systems. 1–14.
  40. Demonstrating the Potential of Interactive Product Packaging for Enriching Human-Robot Interaction. In Companion of the 2023 ACM/IEEE International Conference on Human-Robot Interaction. 899–901.
  41. Gracefully mitigating breakdowns in robotic services. In 2010 5th ACM/IEEE International Conference on Human-Robot Interaction (HRI). IEEE, 203–210.
  42. You’re doing it wrong! studying unexpected behaviors in child-robot interaction. In Social Robotics: 7th International Conference, ICSR 2015, Paris, France, October 26-30, 2015, Proceedings 7. Springer, 390–400.
  43. Retrieval-augmented generation for knowledge-intensive nlp tasks. Advances in Neural Information Processing Systems 33 (2020), 9459–9474.
  44. Robot service failure and recovery: Literature review and future directions. International Journal of Advanced Robotic Systems 20, 4 (2023), 17298806231191606.
  45. Reflect: Summarizing robot experiences for failure explanation and correction. arXiv preprint arXiv:2306.15724 (2023).
  46. Arnold Lund. 2001. Measuring Usability with the USE Questionnaire. Usability and User Experience Newsletter of the STC Usability SIG 8 (01 2001).
  47. Robyn R Lutz and R Woodhouse. 1999. Bi-directional analysis for certification of safety-critical software. In 1st International Software Assurance Certification Conference (ISACC’99), Vol. 2. 3.
  48. Apology or gratitude? The effect of communication recovery strategies for service failures of AI devices. Journal of Travel & Tourism Marketing 39, 6 (2022), 570–587.
  49. Owning mistakes sincerely: Strategies for mitigating AI errors. In Proceedings of the 2022 CHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems. 1–11.
  50. Matthew Marge and Alexander I Rudnicky. 2019. Miscommunication detection and recovery in situated human–robot dialogue. ACM Transactions on Interactive Intelligent Systems (TiiS) 9, 1 (2019), 1–40.
  51. Reliability and Inter-rater Reliability in Qualitative Research: Norms and Guidelines for CSCW and HCI Practice. Proceedings of the ACM on Human-Computer Interaction 3 (11 2019), 1–23. https://doi.org/10.1145/3359174
  52. What’s at Stake? Robot explanations matter for high but not low-stake scenarios. In 2023 32nd IEEE International Conference on Robot and Human Interactive Communication (RO-MAN). IEEE, 2421–2426.
  53. Service robots in hospitals: new perspectives on niche evolution and technology affordances. European Journal of Information Systems 26, 5 (2017), 451–468.
  54. ” Off Script:” Design Opportunities Emerging from Long-Term Social Robot Interactions In-the-Wild. In Proceedings of the 2023 ACM/IEEE International Conference on Human-Robot Interaction. 378–387.
  55. Bilge Mutlu and Jodi Forlizzi. 2008. Robots in organizations: the role of workflow, social, and environmental factors in human-robot interaction. In Proceedings of the 3rd ACM/IEEE international conference on Human robot interaction. 287–294.
  56. Adaptive online fault diagnosis in autonomous robot swarms. Frontiers in Robotics and AI 5 (2018), 131.
  57. Authoring and verifying human-robot interactions. In Proceedings of the 31st annual acm symposium on user interface software and technology. 75–86.
  58. Transforming robot programs based on social context. In Proceedings of the 2020 CHI conference on human factors in computing systems. 1–12.
  59. Sketching Robot Programs On the Fly. In Proceedings of the 2023 ACM/IEEE International Conference on Human-Robot Interaction. 584–593.
  60. Periscope: A Robotic Camera System to Support Remote Physical Collaboration. Proceedings of the ACM on Human-Computer Interaction 7, CSCW2 (2023), 1–39.
  61. Cape: Corrective actions from precondition errors using large language models. In 2nd Workshop on Language and Robot Learning: Language as Grounding.
  62. Planning with large language models via corrective re-prompting. In NeurIPS 2022 Foundation Models for Decision Making Workshop.
  63. James Reason. 1990. Human error. Cambridge university press.
  64. Allison Sauppé and Bilge Mutlu. 2015. The social impact of a robot co-worker in industrial settings. In Proceedings of the 33rd annual ACM conference on human factors in computing systems. 3613–3622.
  65. Wenguo Shen and Yongwei Wang. 2022. Facilitation of Customer Empathy: The Effect of Robot Apology on Customer Reaction Following a Service Failure. Journal of Marketing Development & Competitiveness 16, 2 (2022).
  66. No fair!! an interaction with a cheating robot. In 2010 5th ACM/IEEE International Conference on Human-Robot Interaction (HRI). IEEE, 219–226.
  67. Gerald Steinbauer. 2013. A survey about faults of robots used in robocup. In RoboCup 2012: Robot Soccer World Cup XVI 16. Springer, 344–355.
  68. Making Informed Decisions: Supporting Cobot Integration Considering Business and Worker Preferences. In Proceedings of the 2024 ACM/IEEE International Conference on Human-Robot Interaction. 706–714.
  69. Redesigning human-robot interaction in response to robot failures: a participatory design methodology. In Extended Abstracts of the 2021 CHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems. 1–8.
  70. Leimin Tian and Sharon Oviatt. 2021. A taxonomy of social errors in human-robot interaction. ACM Transactions on Human-Robot Interaction (THRI) 10, 2 (2021), 1–32.
  71. Exploring Appropriate Communication Styles for Personalized Chatbots in Service Recovery. In Pacific Asia Conference on Information Systems. 1.
  72. Xinru Wang and Ming Yin. 2021. Are explanations helpful? a comparative study of the effects of explanations in ai-assisted decision-making. In 26th international conference on intelligent user interfaces. 318–328.
  73. Jörg Weber and Franz Wotawa. 2012. Diagnosis and repair of dependent failures in the control system of a mobile autonomous robot. Applied intelligence 36, 3 (2012), 511–528.
  74. David D Woods. 2018. The theory of graceful extensibility: basic rules that govern adaptive systems. Environment Systems and Decisions 38, 4 (2018), 433–457.
  75. Autogen: Enabling next-gen llm applications via multi-agent conversation framework. arXiv preprint arXiv:2308.08155 (2023).
  76. Exploring the effect of humor in robot failure. Annals of Tourism Research 95 (2022), 103425.
  77. Unremarkable AI: Fitting intelligent decision support into critical, clinical decision-making processes. In Proceedings of the 2019 CHI conference on human factors in computing systems. 1–11.
  78. Safety bounds in human robot interaction: A survey. Safety science 127 (2020), 104667.
  79. Calming the customers by AI: Investigating the role of chatbot acting-cute strategies in soothing negative customer emotions. Electronic Markets 32, 4 (2022), 2277–2292.
Citations (2)

Summary

No one has generated a summary of this paper yet.

Paper to Video (Beta)

No one has generated a video about this paper yet.

Whiteboard

No one has generated a whiteboard explanation for this paper yet.

Open Problems

We haven't generated a list of open problems mentioned in this paper yet.

Continue Learning

We haven't generated follow-up questions for this paper yet.

Collections

Sign up for free to add this paper to one or more collections.

Tweets

Sign up for free to view the 1 tweet with 0 likes about this paper.