1. The Purpose of HART (Hedonism, Autonomy, Responsibility, Trust) Maria Gini, Seyed Waqar Jaffry, Niranjan Suri, Janneke van der Zwaan, Arnoud Visser

2. Trust  Hard to gain, easy to lose  How do robots gain and maintain human trust  Do robots need to trust humans?  Predictability of system is key to trust  Prescriptive notion – if the system is performing as specified by the objective, then it can be trusted  Another indicator – “normal” communication between team members  Effective conveyance of performance and limitations to humans  How does the human recognize and convey to the robot detrimental environmental conditions  Analogy to Coaching – need to understand the limits, why something is going wrong, and convey options / direction to the robots  Dynamics of Human Trust – key role in team building  Teaming is something that is perceived by humans, not the robots  Robots must adapt their behavior based on their perception of the human trust model  Robots must be able to interpret indirect human expression / communication

3. Autonomy and Responsibility  “A Robot without a battery is a very autonomous robot” – Visser  “A Robot that can say no is a very autonomous robot” - Gini  Meta question – what qualifies as a robot? Is Autonomy Required?  Bulldozer?, Robonaut? Jackhammer? Car?  Behavior-based Robotics – two goals:  Invariants that should not be violated (do not run into walls, kill anyone, including self, etc.)  Attainable goals – related to task or objective  How does teaching (e.g., by demonstration) / learning fit into this?  How does learning for a robot differ from learning for humans?  Awareness of the human team member(s) is paramount  To what extent, if at all, do we need to anthropomorphize robots? Not just from a physical perspective, but from the notions of trust, behavior, etc.  Responsibility – four types?  Responsibility for the given / assigned / delegated tasks  Responsibility to communicate with team members for shared SA  Responsibility to the other team members / task (e.g., help other team members)  Responsibility for the greater good (e.g., not polluting the environment, etc.)

4. Applications  Search and Rescue  UAV – Mountain Search (Brown University)  RoboCup City-Level Search and Rescue for Disaster Recovery  Persistent Surveillance  Fixed and mobile assets  Cooperative Medicine  Nurse’s aid  Operating room  Rehabilitation  Assistants for Elderly Citizens  Warfighting  Useful to categorize applications into good targets for teams of size 2, 5, and 10 members  Nurse’s aid, Elderly Citizen Assistants (2)  Mountain Search and Rescue, Persistent Surveillance (5)  Warfighting (10)

5. Metrics  What are appropriate metrics to measure success of teamwork?  We don’t want a Turing Test, but some test  One Approach is to show that Human + Robot can do more than Human + Human or Robot + Robot  Scalability with respect to numbers  What are the best domains to show HART?  Meta metric – how “much” teamwork is there in a solution?  Metric – how well is the solution working?  Is there a notion of a local (i.e., individual) objective or metric versus a global (i.e., systemwide) objective or metric?  How does robustness play into this? Should robustness be an independent metric?  “Types” of robustness – flexibility to deal with novel/different situations (opposite of brittleness)  Role substitution – humanoid robots substituting for humans  Fit – how well do robots fit in an environment constructed by and for humans

6. Questions  What is essential for teamwork?  Human-level communication (gestures, facial expressions)?