3.8 Article

Building the Foundation of Robot Explanation Generation Using Behavior Trees

期刊

出版社

ASSOC COMPUTING MACHINERY
DOI: 10.1145/3457185

关键词

Behavior explanation; behavior trees; robot explanation generation; robot transparency; state summarization

类别

资金

  1. Office of Naval Research [N00014-18-1-2503]

向作者/读者索取更多资源

The article discusses the importance of robots being able to explain their actions, proposing the use of Behavior Trees (BTs) for generating robot behavior explanations. By framing BTs as a set of semantic sets and inserting subgoals to satisfy dependencies, the BTs are made less static. Evaluation of the BTs for robot explanation generation was conducted in two domains.
As autonomous robots continue to be deployed near people, robots need to be able to explain their actions. In this article, we focus on organizing and representing complex tasks in a way that makes them readily explainable. Many actions consist of sub-actions, each of which may have several sub-actions of their own, and the robot must be able to represent these complex actions before it can explain them. To generate explanations for robot behavior, we propose using Behavior Trees (BTs), which are a powerful and rich tool for robot task specification and execution. However, for BTs to be used for robot explanations, their free-form, static structure must be adapted. In this work, we add structure to previously free-form BTs by framing them as a set of semantic sets {goal, subgoals, steps, actions} and subsequently build explanation generation algorithms that answer questions seeking causal information about robot behavior. We make BTs less static with an algorithm that inserts a subgoal that satisfies all dependencies. We evaluate our BTs for robot explanation generation in two domains: a kitting task to assemble a gearbox, and a taxi simulation. Code for the behavior trees (in XML) and all the algorithms is available at github.com/uml-robotics/robot-explanation-BTs.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

3.8
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据