Abstract
Dialogue can support exchange of ideas and discussion of options as a means to enable shared decision making for human-robot collaboration. However, dialogue that supports dynamic, evidence-backed exchange of ideas is a major challenge for today's human-robot systems. The work presented here investigates the application of argumentation-based dialogue games as the means to facilitate flexible interaction, including unscripted changes in initiative. Two main contributions are provided in this paper. First, a methodology for implementing multiple types of argumentation-based dialogues for human-robot interaction is detailed. This includes explanation about which types of dialogues are appropriate given the beliefs of the participants and how multiple dialogues can occur simultaneously while maintaining a consistent set of beliefs for the participants. Second, a formal definition is presented for the Treasure Hunt Game (THG), a test environment that provides rich opportunities for experimentation in shared human-robot control, as well as motivating and engaging experiences for human subjects.
Highlights
Humans interact with each other in many types of relationships, ranging from subordinate, where one person instructs or commands another, to collaborative, where the skills of one person complement those of another
We have presented a model for human-robot interaction (HRI) that supports flexible and dynamic argumentation-based dialogue
We have described our methodology for implementing dialogue protocols to support human-robot collaboration, based on theoretical models found in the literature on argumentation and argumentation-based dialogue
Summary
Humans interact with each other in many types of relationships, ranging from subordinate, where one person instructs or commands another, to collaborative, where the skills of one person complement those of another. Partners in collaborative relationships share decision making. They exchange ideas and discuss options, and they jointly arrive at decisions about dependent and related actions. Such shared decision making is enabled using conversation—dialogue—that allows each partner to communicate ideas and adjust their beliefs according to new and/or contrasting ideas presented by others. 2.1 Argumentation An agent Ag maintains a set of beliefs, Σ, containing formulae from a propositional language, L. The agent’s set of beliefs, Σ, may be inconsistent; in other words, Σ may contain both p and ¬p (not p; i.e., if p is true, ¬p is false)
Sign-in/Register to view highlights & summary Sign-in/Register to access full text options 
Talk to us
Join us for a 30 min session where you can share your feedback and ask us any queries you have
Schedule a callDisclaimer: All third-party content on this website/platform is and will remain the property of their respective owners and is provided on "as is" basis without any warranties, express or implied. Use of third-party content does not indicate any affiliation, sponsorship with or endorsement by them. Any references to third-party content is to identify the corresponding services and shall be considered fair use under The CopyrightLaw.
