Search for: All records

High capacity end-to-end approaches for human motion (behavior) prediction have the ability to represent subtle nuances in human behavior, but struggle with robustness to out of distribution inputs and tail events. Planning-based prediction, on the other hand, can reliably output decent-but-not-great predictions: it is much more stable in the face of distribution shift (as we verify in this work), but it has high inductive bias, missing important aspects that drive human decisions, and ignoring cognitive biases that make human behavior suboptimal. In this work, we analyze one family of approaches that strive to get the best of both worlds: use the end-to-end predictor on common cases, but do not rely on it for tail events / out-of-distribution inputs -- switch to the planning-based predictor there. We contribute an analysis of different approaches for detecting when to make this switch, using an autonomous driving domain. We find that promising approaches based on ensembling or generative modeling of the training distribution might not be reliable, but that there very simple methods which can perform surprisingly well -- including training a classifier to pick up on tell-tale issues in predicted trajectories. 

Designing a good reward function is essential to robot planning and reinforcement learning, but it can also be challenging and frustrating. The reward needs to work across multiple different environments, and that often requires many iterations of tuning. We introduce a novel divide-and- conquer approach that enables the designer to specify a reward separately for each environment. By treating these separate reward functions as observations about the underlying true reward, we derive an approach to infer a common reward across all environments. We conduct user studies in an abstract grid world domain and in a motion planning domain for a 7-DOF manipulator that measure user effort and solution quality. We show that our method is faster, easier to use, and produces a higher quality solution than the typical method of designing a reward jointly across all environments. We additionally conduct a series of experiments that measure the sensitivity of these results to different properties of the reward design task, such as the number of environments, the number of feasible solutions per environment, and the fraction of the total features that vary within each environment. We find that independent reward design outperforms the standard, joint, reward design process but works best when the design problem can be divided into simpler subproblems. 

Our goal is for people to be physically com- fortable when taking objects from robots. This puts a burden on the robot to hand over the object in such a way that a person can easily reach it, without needing to strain or twist their arm – a way that is conducive to ergonomic human grasping configurations. To achieve this, the robot needs to understand what makes a configuration more or less ergonomic to the person, i.e. their ergonomic cost function. In this work, we formulate learning a person’s ergonomic cost as an online estimation problem. The robot can implicitly make queries to the person by handing them objects in different configurations, and gets observations in response about the way they choose to take the object. We compare the performance of both passive and active approaches for solving this problem in simulation, as well as in an in-person user study. 

Our goal is for AI systems to correctly identify and act according to their human user’s objectives. Cooperative Inverse Reinforcement Learning (CIRL) formalizes this value alignment problem as a two-player game between a human and robot, in which only the human knows the parameters of the reward function: the robot needs to learn them as the interaction unfolds. Previous work showed that CIRL can be solved as a POMDP, but with an action space size exponential in the size of the reward parameter space. In this work, we exploit a specific property of CIRL—the human is a full information agent—to derive an optimality-preserving modification to the standard Bellman update; this reduces the complexity of the problem by an exponential factor and allows us to relax CIRL’s assumption of human rationality. We apply this update to a variety of POMDP solvers and find that it enables us to scale CIRL to non-trivial problems, with larger reward parameter spaces, and larger action spaces for both robot and human. In solutions to these larger problems, the human exhibits pedagogic (teaching) behavior, while the robot interprets it as such and attains higher value for the human. 

Intuitively, obedience -- following the order that a human gives -- seems like a good property for a robot to have. But, we humans are not perfect and we may give orders that are not best aligned to our preferences. We show that when a human is not perfectly rational then a robot that tries to infer and act according to the human's underlying preferences can always perform better than a robot that simply follows the human's literal order. Thus, there is a tradeoff between the obedience of a robot and the value it can attain for its owner. We investigate how this tradeoff is impacted by the way the robot infers the human's preferences, showing that some methods err more on the side of obedience than others. We then analyze how performance degrades when the robot has a misspecified model of the features that the human cares about or the level of rationality of the human. Finally, we study how robots can start detecting such model misspecification. Overall, our work suggests that there might be a middle ground in which robots intelligently decide when to obey human orders, but err on the side of obedience.