Helpfulness as a Key Metric of Human-Robot Collaboration
AI-generated Key Points
⚠The license of the paper does not allow us to build upon its content and the key points are generated using the paper metadata rather than the full article.
- Authors address the need to assess the roles of robotic teammates in interactions
- Focus on measuring the helpfulness of a robotic partner for a given task
- Propose a clear, concise task-oriented metric for evaluating helpfulness
- Discuss properties and implications of this metric for planning interactions with humans
- Provide concrete examples from different domains to illustrate the concept of helpfulness
- Present preliminary results demonstrating practical application of the metric
- Contribute to understanding human-robot interaction by providing a quantitative measure of helpfulness
- Offer insights into evaluating the role and contribution of robotic teammates in various domains
Authors: Richard G. Freedman, Steven J. Levine, Brian C. Williams, Shlomo Zilberstein
Abstract: As robotic teammates become more common in society, people will assess the robots' roles in their interactions along many dimensions. One such dimension is effectiveness: people will ask whether their robotic partners are trustworthy and effective collaborators. This begs a crucial question: how can we quantitatively measure the helpfulness of a robotic partner for a given task at hand? This paper seeks to answer this question with regards to the interactive robot's decision making. We describe a clear, concise, and task-oriented metric applicable to many different planning and execution paradigms. The proposed helpfulness metric is fundamental to assessing the benefit that a partner has on a team for a given task. In this paper, we define helpfulness, illustrate it on concrete examples from a variety of domains, discuss its properties and ramifications for planning interactions with humans, and present preliminary results.
Ask questions about this paper to our AI assistant
You can also chat with multiple papers at once here.
⚠The license of the paper does not allow us to build upon its content and the AI assistant only knows about the paper metadata rather than the full article.
Assess the quality of the AI-generated content by voting
Score: 0
Why do we need votes?
Votes are used to determine whether we need to re-run our summarizing tools. If the count reaches -10, our tools can be restarted.
The previous summary was created more than a year ago and can be re-run (if necessary) by clicking on the Run button below.
⚠The license of this specific paper does not allow us to build upon its content and the summarizing tools will be run using the paper metadata rather than the full article. However, it still does a good job, and you can also try our tools on papers with more open licenses.
Similar papers summarized with our AI tools
Navigate through even more similar papers through a
tree representationLook for similar papers (in beta version)
By clicking on the button above, our algorithm will scan all papers in our database to find the closest based on the contents of the full papers and not just on metadata. Please note that it only works for papers that we have generated summaries for and you can rerun it from time to time to get a more accurate result while our database grows.
Disclaimer: The AI-based summarization tool and virtual assistant provided on this website may not always provide accurate and complete summaries or responses. We encourage you to carefully review and evaluate the generated content to ensure its quality and relevance to your needs.