The Purpose of HART (Hedonism, Autonomy, Responsibility, Trust)

1. The Purpose of HART(Hedonism, Autonomy, Responsibility, Trust) Maria Gini, SeyedWaqarJaffry, NiranjanSuri, Janneke van derZwaan, ArnoudVisser

2. Trust • Hard to gain, easy to lose • How do robots gain and maintain human trust • Do robots need to trust humans? • Predictability of system is key to trust • Prescriptive notion – if the system is performing as specified by the objective, then it can be trusted • Another indicator – “normal” communication between team members • Effective conveyance of performance and limitations to humans • How does the human recognize and convey to the robot detrimental environmental conditions • Analogy to Coaching – need to understand the limits, why something is going wrong, and convey options / direction to the robots • Dynamics of Human Trust – key role in team building • Teaming is something that is perceived by humans, not the robots • Robots must adapt their behavior based on their perception of the human trust model • Robots must be able to interpret indirect human expression / communication

3. Autonomy and Responsibility • “A Robot without a battery is a very autonomous robot” – Visser • “A Robot that can say no is a very autonomous robot” - Gini • Meta question – what qualifies as a robot? Is Autonomy Required? • Bulldozer?, Robonaut? Jackhammer? Car? • Behavior-based Robotics – two goals: • Invariants that should not be violated (do not run into walls, kill anyone, including self, etc.) • Attainable goals – related to task or objective • How does teaching (e.g., by demonstration) / learning fit into this? • How does learning for a robot differ from learning for humans? • Awareness of the human team member(s) is paramount • To what extent, if at all, do we need to anthropomorphize robots? Not just from a physical perspective, but from the notions of trust, behavior, etc. • Responsibility – four types? • Responsibility for the given / assigned / delegated tasks • Responsibility to communicate with team members for shared SA • Responsibility to the other team members / task (e.g., help other team members) • Responsibility for the greater good (e.g., not polluting the environment, etc.)

4. Applications • Search and Rescue • UAV – Mountain Search (Brown University) • RoboCup City-Level Search and Rescue for Disaster Recovery • Persistent Surveillance • Fixed and mobile assets • Cooperative Medicine • Nurse’s aid • Operating room • Rehabilitation • Assistants for Elderly Citizens • Warfighting • Useful to categorize applications into good targets for teams of size 2, 5, and 10 members • Nurse’s aid, Elderly Citizen Assistants (2) • Mountain Search and Rescue, Persistent Surveillance (5) • Warfighting (10)

5. Metrics • What are appropriate metrics to measure success of teamwork? • We don’t want a Turing Test, but some test • One Approach is to show that Human + Robot can do more than Human + Human or Robot + Robot • Scalability with respect to numbers • What are the best domains to show HART? • Meta metric – how “much” teamwork is there in a solution? • Metric – how well is the solution working? • Is there a notion of a local (i.e., individual) objective or metric versus a global (i.e., systemwide) objective or metric? • How does robustness play into this? Should robustness be an independent metric? • “Types” of robustness – flexibility to deal with novel/different situations (opposite of brittleness) • Role substitution – humanoid robots substituting for humans • Fit – how well do robots fit in an environment constructed by and for humans

6. Questions • What is essential for teamwork? • Human-level communication (gestures, facial expressions)?