Brandon S. Perelman
Skip Abstract Section
Abstract
Route planning is a critical behavior for human-intelligent agent (H-IA) team mobility. The scientific community has made major advances in improving route planner optimality and speed. However, human factors, such as the ability to predict and understand teammates’ actions and goals, are necessary for trust development in H-IA teams. Trust is especially critical when agents’ behaviors do not match human team members’ expectations, or the human cannot understand the agent's underlying reasoning process. To address this issue, the artificial intelligence community has pushed toward creating human-like agent behaviors using machine learning. The problem with this approach is that we do not yet have a clear understanding of what constitutes human-like behavior across the breadth of tasks that H-IA teams undertake. This article describes an investigation and comparison of human and agent route planning behaviors, the interplay between humans and agents in collaborative planning, and the role of trust in this collaborative process. Finally, we propose a data-driven methodology for characterizing and visualizing differences among routes planned by humans and agents. This methodology provides a means to advance compatible mental model metrics and theory by informing targeted transparency manipulations, thereby improving the speed and quality of routes produced by H-IA teams.
- Peter E. Hart, Nils J. Nilsson, and Bertram Raphael. 1968. A formal basis for the heuristic determination of minimum cost paths. IEEE Trans. Syst. Sci. Cyber. 4, 2 (1968), 100--107.Google Scholar
Cross Ref
- Andrew S. Clare. 2013. Modeling Real-time Human-automation Collaborative Scheduling of Unmanned Vehicles PhD. Dissertation. MIT, Cambridge, MA.Google Scholar
- Andrew S. Clare, Pierre C. P. Maere, and Mary L. Cummings. 2012. Assessing operator strategies for real-time replanning of multiple unmanned vehicles. Intell. Decis. Technologies Technol. 6, 3 (2012), 221--231.Google ScholarDigital Library
- Mary L. Cummings, Andrew S. Clare, and Christin Hart. 2010. The role of human-automation consensus in multiple unmanned vehicle scheduling. Hum. Fact. 52, 1 (2010), 17--27.Google ScholarCross Ref
- Emily K. Muthard and Christopher D. Wickens. 2003. Factors that mediate flight plan monitoring and errors in plan revision: Planning under automated and high workload conditions. In Proceedings of the 12th International Symposium on Aviation Psychology.Google Scholar
- Kip Johnson, Liling Ren, James Kuchar, and Charles Oman. 2002. Interaction of automation and time pressure in a route replanning task. In Proceedings of the International Conference on Human-Computer Interaction in Aeronautics. 132--137.Google Scholar
- Brandon S. Perelman, Kristin E. Schaefer, and Arthur W. Evans III. 2017. Mental model consensus and shifts during navigation system-assisted route planning. In Proceedings of the Human Factors and Ergonomics Society 61, 1 (2017), 1183--1187.Google ScholarCross Ref
- Philip N. Johnson-Laird and Ruth M. J. Byrne. 1991. Deduction. Erlbaum, Hillsdale, NJ.Google Scholar
- Reinhold Rauh, Cornelius Hagen, Markus Knauff, Thomas Kuss, Christoph Schlieder and Gerhard Strube. 2005. Preferred and alternative mental models in spatial reasoning. Spatial Cog. Comput. 5 (2005), 239--269.Google ScholarCross Ref
- Brandon S. Perelman and Shane T. Mueller. 2015. Identifying mental models of search in a simulated flight task using a pathmapping approach. In Proceedings of the 18th International Symposium on Aviation Psychology.Google Scholar
- Tad T. Brunyé and Holly A. Taylor. 2008. Extended experience benefits spatial mental model development with route but not survey descriptions. Acta Psychol. 127 (2008), 340--354.Google ScholarCross Ref
- Georg Jahn, Philip N. Johnson-Laird, and Markus Knauff. 2005. Reasoning about consistency with spatial mental models: Hidden and obvious indeterminacy in spatial descriptions. In Spatial Cognition IV: Reasoning, Action, Interaction, C. Freksa, M. Knauff, B. Krieg-Brückner, B. Nebel, and T. Barkowsky (Eds.). Springer, Berlin, Germany, 165--180.Google Scholar
- Barbara Tversky. 1991. Spatial mental models. Psychol. Learn. Motiv. 27 (1991), 109--145.Google ScholarCross Ref
- Maggie Wigness, John G. Rogers, and Luis E. Navarro-Serment. 2018. Robot navigation from human demonstration: Learning control behaviors. In Proceedings of the IEEE International Conference on Robotics and Automation (ICRA’18). 1150--1157.Google Scholar
- Kristin E. Schaefer, Brandon S. Perelman, Ralph W. Brewer, Julia L. Wright, Nicholas Roy, and Derya Aksaray. 2018. Quantifying human decision-making: Implications for bidirectional communication in human-robot teams. In Virtual, Augmented and Mixed Reality: Interaction, Navigation, Visualization, Embodiment, and Simulation, J. Chen and G. Fraomeni (Eds). Springer, Cham, 361--379.Google Scholar
- Brandon S. Perelman, Arthur W. Evans III, Kristin E. Schaefer, and Susan G. Hill. 2018. Attitudes toward risk and effort tradeoffs in human-robot heterogeneous team operations. In Proceedings of the Human Factors and Ergonomics Society Meeting 62, 1 (2018), 1098--1102. SAGE Publications, Los Angeles, CA.Google Scholar
- Elizabeth Phillips, Scott Ososky, Janna Grove, and Florian Jentsch. 2011. From tools to teammates: Toward the development of appropriate mental models for intelligent robots. In Proceedings of the Human Factors and Ergonomics Society Meeting 55, 1 (2011), 1491--1495. SAGE Publications, Los Angeles, CA.Google ScholarCross Ref
- Scott Ososky, David Schuster, Elizabeth Phillips, and Florian Jentsch. 2013. Building appropriate trust in human-robot teams. In Proceedings of the AAAI Spring Symposium: Trust and Autonomous Systems. 60--65.Google Scholar
- Raja Parasuraman and Victor Riley. 1997. Humans and automation: Use, misuse, disuse, abuse. Hum. Fact. 39, 2 (1997) 230--253.Google ScholarCross Ref
- Kristin E. Schaefer and Edward R. Straub. 2016. Will passengers trust driverless vehicles? Removing the steering wheel and pedals. In Proceedings of the IEEE International Multi-Disciplinary Conference on Cognitive Methods in Situation Awareness and Decision Support (CogSIMA’16). 159--165.Google Scholar
- Janis A. Cannon-Bowers, Eduardo Salas, and Sharolyn A. Converse. 1993. Shared mental models in expert team decision making. In Current Issues in Individual and Group Decision Making, N. J. Castellan Jr. (Ed.), 221--246. Erlbaum, Hillsdale, NJ.Google Scholar
- John E. Mathieu, Tonia S. Heffner, Gerald F. Goodwin, Eduardo Salas, and Janis A. Cannon-Bowers. 2000. Influence of shared mental models on team process and performance. J. Appl. Psychol. 85, 2 (2000), 273--283.Google ScholarCross Ref
- Katia Sycara and Gita Sukthankar. 2006. Literature Review of Teamwork Models. Report CMU-RI-TR-06-50. Robotics Institute, Carnegie Mellon University, Pittsburgh, PA.Google Scholar
- Kristin E. Schaefer, Edward R. Straub, Jessie Y. C. Chen, Joe Putney, and Arthur W. Evans III. 2017. Communicating intent to develop shared situation awareness and engender trust in human-agent teams. Cog. Syst. Res. 46, 26--39.Google ScholarCross Ref
- Victoria Alonso and Paloma de la Puente. 2018. System transparency in shared autonomy: A mini review. Front. Neurorob. 12, 83 (2018), DOI:10.3389/fnbot.2018.00083.Google Scholar
- George B. Dantzig and John H. Ramser. 1959. The truck dispatching problem. Manag. Sci. 6 (1959), 80--91.Google ScholarDigital Library
- Lanah Evers, Ana I. Barros, Herman Monsuur, and Albert Wagelmans. 2014. Online stochastic UAV mission planning with time windows and time-sensitive targets. Europ. J. Oper. Res. 238, 1 (2014), 348--362.Google ScholarCross Ref
- Lanah Evers, Twan Dollevoet, Ana I. Barros, and Herman Monsuur. 2012. Robust UAV mission planning. Ann. Ope. Res. 222, 1 (2012), 293--315.Google ScholarCross Ref
- Xu C. Ding, Amir R. Rahmani, and M. Egerstedt. 2010. Multi-UAV convoy protection: An optimal approach to path planning and coordination. IEEE Trans. Rob. 26, 2 (2010), 256--268.Google ScholarDigital Library
- Lanny Lin and Michael A. Goodrich. 2014. Hierarchical heuristic search using a Gaussian mixture model for UAV coverage. IEEE Trans. Cyber. 44, 2 (2014), 2532--2544.Google ScholarCross Ref
- Brandon S. Perelman and Shane T. Mueller. 2013. Examining memory for search using a simulated aerial search and rescue task. In Proceedings of the 17th International Symposium on Aviation Psychology.Google Scholar
- Hartwig Hochmair and Andrew U. Frank. 2000. Influence of estimation errors on wayfinding decisions in unknown street networks—analyzing the least-angle strategy. Spatial Cog. Comput. 2 (2000), 283--313.Google ScholarDigital Library
- David W. Eccles, Susanne E. Walsh, and David K. Ingledew. 2002. The use of heuristics during route planning by expert and novice orienteers. J. Sports Sci. 20 (2002), 327--337.Google ScholarCross Ref
- Thora Tenbrink and Inessa Seifert. 2011. Conceptual layers and strategies in tour planning. Cog. Proc. 12 (2011), 109--125.Google ScholarCross Ref
- Matthew Dry, Michael D. Lee, Douglas Vickers, and Peter Hughes. 2006. Human performance on visually presented traveling salesperson problems with varying numbers of nodes. J. Prob. Solv. 1, 1 (2006), 20--32.Google ScholarCross Ref
- James N. MacGregor and Tom Ormerod. 1996. Human performance on the traveling salesman problem. Percep. Psychophys. 58, 4 (1996), 527--539.Google ScholarCross Ref
- Brandon S. Perelman and Shane T. Mueller. 2016. Considerations influencing human TSP solutions and modeling implications. In Proceedings of the 14th International Conference on Cognitive Modeling.Google Scholar
- Edsger W. Dijkstra. 1959. A note on two problems in connexion with graphs. Numer. Math. 1, 1 (1959), 269--271.Google ScholarDigital Library
- Nathan D. Otten, Heather L. Jones, David S. Wettergreen, and William L. Whitaker. 2015. Planning routes of continuous illumination and traversable slope using connected component analysis. In Proceedings of the IEEE International Conference on Robotics and Automation (ICRA’15). 3953--3958.Google Scholar
- Nathan D. Otten, David S. Wettergreen, and William L. Whitaker. 2018. Strategic autonomy for reducing risk of sun-synchronous lunar polar exploration. In Proceedings of the International Conference on Field and Service Robotics. 465--479. Springer, Cham.Google Scholar
- Lawrence Mandow and José L. P. De La Cruz. 2010. Multiobjective A* search with consistent heuristics. J. ACM 57, 5 (2010) DOI:10.1145/1754399.1754400.Google ScholarDigital Library
- Adam R. Short and Douglas L. Van Bossuyt. 2015. Risk attitude informed route planning in a simulated rover. In Proceedings of the International Design Engineering Technical Conferences 8 Computers and Information in Engineering Conference.Google Scholar
- Dongoo Lee and Jaemyung Ahn. 2018. Integrated optimization of planetary rover layout and exploration routes. Eng. Optim. 50, 1 (2018), 164--182.Google ScholarCross Ref
- Adi Botea, Martin Müller, and Jonathan Schaeffer. 2004. Near optimal hierarchical path-finding. J. Game Dev. 1, 1 (2004), 7--28.Google Scholar
- Daqing Yi, Michael A. Goodrich, and Kevin D. Seppi. 2014. Informative path planning with a human path constraint. In Proceedings of the IEEE International Conference on Systems, Man, and Cybernetics. 1752--1758.Google Scholar
- Daqing Yi, Michael A. Goodrich, and Kevin D. Seppi. 2016. Homotopy-aware RRT* Toward human-robot topological path-planning. In Proceedings of the 11th ACM/IEEE International Conference on Human Robot Interaction. 279--286.Google Scholar
- Daqing Yi, Michael A. Goodrich, and Kevin D. Seppi. 2015. MMORF* Sampling-based multi-objective motion planning. In Proceedings of the 24th International Joint Conference on Artificial Intelligence.Google Scholar
- Martin Werner and Sebastian Feld. 2014. Homotopy and alternative routes in indoor navigation scenarios. In Proceedings of the IEEE International Conference on Indoor Positioning and Indoor Navigation. 230--238.Google ScholarCross Ref
- Sanjiban Choudhury, Sebastian Scherer, and Sanjiv Singh. 2013. RRT*-AR: Sampling-based alternate routes planning with applications to autonomous emergency landing of a helicopter. In Proceedings of the International Conference on Robotics and Automation, 3947--3952.Google ScholarCross Ref
- Subhrajit Bhattacharya, Vijay Kumar, and Maxim Likhachev. 2010. Search-based path planning with homotopy class constraints. In Proceedings of the 24th AAAI Conference on Artificial Intelligence.Google Scholar
- Subhrajit Bhattacharya, Maxim Likhachev, and Vijay Kumar. 2012. Topological constraints in search-based robot path planning Auton. Rob. 33, 3 (2012), 273--290.Google ScholarCross Ref
- Zeyad A. Algfoor, Mohd S. Sunar, and Hoshang Kolivand. 2015. A comprehensive study on pathfinding techniques for robotics and video games. Int.. Comput. Games Technol. 7 (2015), 1--11. DOI:10.1155/2015/736138.Google Scholar
- Emili Hernández Bes. 2012. Path Planning with Homotopic Constraints for Autonomous Underwater Vehicles. PhD. Dissertation. Universitat de Girona, Girona, Spain.Google Scholar
- Brenna D. Argall, Sonia Chernova, Manuela Veloso, and Brett Browning. 2009. A survey of robot learning from demonstration. Rob. Auton. Syst. 57, 5 (2009), 469--483.Google ScholarDigital Library
- Christopher G. Atkeson and Stefan Schaal. 1997. Robot learning from demonstration. In Proceedings of the 14th International Conference on Machine Learning.Google Scholar
- Beomjoon Kim and Joelle Pineau. 2015. Socially adaptive path planning in human environments using inverse reinforcement learning. Int. J. Soc. Rob. 8, 1 (2015), 51--66.Google ScholarCross Ref
- Henrik Kretzschmar, Markus Spies, Christoph Sprunk, and Wolfram Burgard. 2016. Socially compliant mobile robot navigation via inverse reinforcement learning. Int. J. Rob. Res. 35, 11 (2016), 1289--1307.Google ScholarDigital Library
- Giuseppe Della Penna, Benedetto Intrigila, Daniele Magazzeni, and Fabio Mercorio. 2010. Planning for autonomous planetary vehicles. In Proceedings of the 6th IEEE International Conference on Autonomic and Autonomous Systems. 131--136.Google Scholar
- Herbert A. Simon. 1979. Rational decision making in business organizations. Amer. Econ. Rev. 69, 4 (1979), 493--513.Google Scholar
- Reginald G. Golledge. 1995. Path selection and route preference in human navigation: A progress report. In Proceedings of the International Conference on Spatial Information Theory. Springer, Berlin, 207--222.Google ScholarCross Ref
- Tad T. Brunyé, Caroline R. Mahoney, Aaron L. Gardony, and Holly A. Taylor. 2010. North is up (hill): Route planning heuristics in real-world environments. Mem. Cog. 38, 6 (2010), 700--712.Google ScholarCross Ref
- Edward K. Sadalla and Lorin J. Staplin. 1980. The perception of traversed distance: Intersections. Envir. Behav. 12, 2 (1980), 167--182.Google ScholarCross Ref
- Avrim Blum, Shuchi Chawla, David R. Karger, Terran Lane, Adam Meyerson, and Maria Minkoff. 2007. Approximation algorithms for orienteering and discounted-reward TSP. SIAM J. Comput. 37, 2 (2007), 653--670.Google ScholarDigital Library
- Myke Gluck. 1991. Making sense of human wayfinding: Review of cognitive and linguistic knowledge for personal navigation with a new research direction. In Cognitive and Linguistic Aspects of Geographic Space, D. M. Mark and A. U. Frank (Eds.). 63, 117--135. Springer, Dordrecht.Google Scholar
- Christoph Hölscher, Thora Tenbrink, and Jan M. Wiener. 2011. Would you follow your own route description? Cognitive strategies in urban route planning. Cognition 121, 2 (2011), 228--247.Google ScholarCross Ref
- Salim A. Mouloua, James Ferraro, Mustapha Mouloua, and Peter A. Hancock. 2018. Trend analysis of unmanned aerial vehicles (UAVs) research published in the HFES proceedings. In Proceedings of the Human Factors and Ergonomics Society Meeting 62, 1 (2018), 1067--1071. SAGE Publications, Los Angeles, CA.Google Scholar
- Shane T. Mueller. 2014. PEBL: The psychology experiment building language (version 0.14) [computer experiment programming language]. Retrieved from http://pebl.sourceforge.net.Google Scholar
- Kristin E. Schaefer, Tracy L. Sanders, Ryan E. Yordon, Deborah R. Billings, and Peter A. Hancock. 2012. Classification of robot form: Factors predicting perceived trustworthiness. In Proceedings of the Human Factors and Ergonomics Society Meeting 56, 1 (2012), 1548--1552. SAGE Publications, Los Angeles, CA.Google Scholar
- Kristin E. Schaefer, Ashley N. Foots, and Edward R. Straub. 2018. Applied Robotics and Installations and Base Operations: User Perceptions of a Driverless Vehicle at Fort Bragg. Technical report: ARL-TR-8265. US Army Research Laboratory, Aberdeen Proving Ground, Maryland.Google Scholar
- Shane T. Mueller, Brandon S. Perelman, and Elizabeth S. Veinott. 2016. An optimization approach for mapping and measuring the divergence and correspondence between paths, Behav. Res. Meth. 48, 1 (2016), 53--71.Google ScholarCross Ref
- William N. Venables and Brian D. Ripley. 2002. Modern Applied Statistics with S (4th Edition). Springer, New York.Google Scholar
- Friedrich Leisch. 2004. FlexMix: A general framework for finite mixture models and latent class regression in R. J. Stat. Softw. 11, 8 (2004), 1--18.Google ScholarCross Ref
- Aly M. Tawfik, Hesham A. Rakha, and Shadeequa D. Miller. 2010. Driver route choice behavior: Experiences, perceptions, and choices. In Proceedings of the IEEE Intelligent Vehicles Symposium. 1195--1200.Google Scholar
- Zygmunt Pizlo, Emil Stefanov, John Saalweachter, Zheng Li, Yll Haxhimusa, and Walter G. Kropatsch. 2006. Traveling salesman problem: A foveating pyramid model. J. Prob. Solv. 1, 1 (2006), 83--101.Google ScholarCross Ref
- Matt Duckham and Lars Kulik. 2003. “Simplest” paths: Automated route selection for navigation. In Spatial Information Theory. Foundations of Geographic Information Science, W. Kuhn, M. F. Worboys, and S. Timpf (Eds.). Springer, Berlin, 169--185.Google Scholar
- Kai-Florian Richter and Matt Duckham. 2008. Simplest instructions: Finding easy-to-describe routes for navigation. In Proceedings of the International Conference on Geographic Information Science. 274--289. Springer, Berlin.Google ScholarDigital Library
- Pieter Vansteenwegen, Wouter Souffriau, and Dirk Van Oudheusden. 2011. The orienteering problem: A survey. Europ. J. Oper. Res. 209, 1 (2011), 1--10.Google ScholarCross Ref
- Georges A. Croes. 1958. A method for solving traveling salesman problems. Oper. Res. 6, 791--812.Google ScholarDigital Library
- Iris Van Rooij, Ulrike Stege, and Alissa Schactman. 2003. Convex hull and tour crossings in the Euclidean traveling salesperson problem: Implications for human performance studies. Mem. Cog. 31, 2 (2003), 215--220.Google ScholarCross Ref
- Brandon S. Perelman. 2015. A Naturalistic Computational Model of Human Behavior in Navigation and Search Tasks. PhD. dissertation. Michigan Technological University, Houghton, MI.Google Scholar
- Brent Mittelstadt, Chris Russell, and Sandra Wachter. 2019. Explaining explanations in AI. In Proceedings of the ACM Conference on Fairness, Accountability, and Transparency. 279--288.Google ScholarDigital Library
- Edward R. Tufte, Susan R. McKay, Wolfgang Christian, and James R. Matey. 1998. Visual explanations: images and quantities, evidence and narrative. Comput. Phys. 12, (1998). DOI:10.1063/1.168637Google Scholar
- Kyle J. Behymer, Elizabeth M. Mersch, Heath A. Ruff, Gloria L. Calhoun, and Sarah E. Spriggs. 2015. Unmanned vehicle planning comparison visualizations for effective human-autonomy teaming. Proc. Manuf. 3 (2015), 1022--1029.Google Scholar
- Kimberly Stowers, Nicholas Kasdaglis, Olivia Newton, Shan Lakhmani, Ryan Wohleber, and Jessie Chen. 2016. Intelligent agent transparency: The design and evaluation of an interface to facilitate human and intelligent agent collaboration. In Proceedings of the Human Factors and Ergonomics Society Meeting 60, 1 (2016), 1706--1710. SAGE Publications, Los Angeles, CA.Google ScholarCross Ref
- Laura M. Hiatt, Cody Narber, Esube Bekele, Sangeet S. Khemlalni, and J. Gregory Trafton. 2017. Human modeling for human-robot interaction. Int. J. Rob. Res. 36 (5--7) (2017), 580--596.Google Scholar
- Christopher A. Miller and Raja Parasuraman. 2007. Designing for flexible interaction between humans and automation: Delegation interfaces for supervisory control. Hum. Fact. 49, 1 (2007), 57--75.Google ScholarCross Ref
- Anca D. Dragan, Kenton C. T. Lee, and Siddhartha S. Srinivasa. 2013. Legibility and predictability of robot motion. In Proceedings of the 8th ACM/IEEE International Conference on Human-Robot Interaction. 301--308.Google Scholar
- Peter Henry, Christian Vollmer, Brian Ferris, and Dieter Fox. 2010. Learning to navigate through crowded environments. In Proceedings of the IEEE International Conference on Robotics and Automation. 981--986.Google ScholarCross Ref
- Peter A. Hancock, Deborah R. Billings, Kristin E. Schaefer, Jessie Y. C. Chen, Ewart J. De Visser, and Raja Parasuraman. 2011. A meta-analysis of factors affecting trust in human-robot interaction. Hum. Fact. 53, 5 (2011), 517--527.Google ScholarCross Ref
- Jessie Y. C. Chen and Michael J. Barnes. 2012. Supervisory control of multiple robots: Effects of imperfect automation and individual differences. Hum. Fact. 54, 2 (2012), 157--174.Google ScholarCross Ref
- Scott Ososky, Tracy Sanders, Florian Jentsch, Peter A. Hancock, and Jessie Y. C. Chen. 2014. Determinants of system transparency and its influence on trust in and reliance on unmanned robotic systems. In Proceedings of the International Society for Optics and Photonics: Unmanned Systems Technology. 9084. DOI:10.1117/12.2050622Google Scholar
Index Terms
- Where Do You Think You're Going?: Characterizing Spatial Mental Models from Planned Routes
Recommendations
Let's Think Together! Assessing Shared Mental Models, Performance, and Trust in Human-Agent Teams
GROUPAn emerging research agenda in Computer-Supported Cooperative Work focuses on human-agent teaming and AI agent's roles and effects in modern teamwork. In particular, one understudied key question centers around the construct of team cognition within ...
Optimization of route planning and exploration using multi agent system
This research presents an optimization technique for route planning and exploration in unknown environments. It employs the hybrid architecture that implements detection, avoidance and planning using autonomous agents with coordination capabilities. ...
Internalized plans: A representation for action resources
In the ongoing pursuit to produce intelligent autonomous agents that can operate in real world environments, emerging concepts about the relationships between planning and action are inspiring new alternatives in plan representation. The simple yet ...
Comments