Come join the Human-Robot Interaction (HRI) Reading group! We focus on recent trends in HRI Research including user studies in HRI, algorithmic HRI, case studies and systems in HRI. We will draw upon recent papers (< 5 years) mainly from ACM/IEEE HRI conferences but also from other related conferences including RO-MAN, RSS, CHI, ICRA, ICSR, or IROS.

Sign up for the mailing list!

Zhi Tan and Reuben Aronson

Format

The reading group generally follows a facilitated discussion style. You are expected to have read the paper before coming! You don’t have to understand the paper — anything you don’t understand will make a good question!

In addition, we’re asking participants to volunteer to facilitate paper discussions. This is not mandatory but definitely encouraged! More details available here. If you’d like to reserve a slot, add your name here (login with CMU credentials or email us): https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/1shaPVG5VlH2eKRR05YjhWZoUTRpfUnop62kpL3dOIm4/edit?usp=sharing

Details (Summer 2020)

Date and time: Tuesday 2pm
Location: Zoom link sent in email announcement

Next Paper

Week 11 (28 July 2020)
Summer undergrad research spotlight talks! Sign up for yours here: https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/u/1/d/1arzFrKj_cJSuheW40JF5meTXr016x2mOcIqWWCZn4BI/edit?usp=sharing
Facilitators: Reuben + Zhi

Paper History

Week 1 (26 May 2020)
Amal Nanavati, Malcolm Doering, Dražen Brščić, and Takayuki Kanda. 2020. “Autonomously Learning One-To-Many Social Interaction Logic from Human-Human Interaction Data.” In Proceedings of the 2020 ACM/IEEE International Conference on Human-Robot Interaction (HRI ’20). ACM
Presenter: Zhi Tan

Week 2 (2 June 2020)
Pragathi Praveena, Daniel Rakita, Bilge Mutlu, and Michael Gleicher. 2020. “Supporting Perception of Weight through Motion-induced Sensory Conflicts in Robot Teleoperation.” In Proceedings of the 2020 ACM/IEEE International Conference on Human-Robot Interaction (HRI ’20). DOI
Presenter: Reuben Aronson

Week 3 (9 June 2020)
Special talk and thesis defense practice: “Automated Action Selection and Embodied Simulation for Socially Assistive Robots using Standardized Interactions”
Presenter: Kim Baraka

Abstract

Robots have the tremendous potential of assisting people in their lives, allowing them to achieve goals that they would not be able to achieve by themselves. In particular, socially assistive robots provide assistance primarily through social interaction, in healthcare, therapy, and education contexts. Despite their potential, current socially assistive robots still lack robust interactive capabilities to allow them to carry out assistive tasks flexibly and autonomously. Some challenges for these robots include responding to and engaging in multi-modal behavior, operating with minimal expert intervention, and accommodating different user needs.

Motivated by these challenges, this thesis aims at augmenting the algorithmic capabilities of such robots by leveraging the structure of existing standardized human-human interactions in assistive domains. Using therapy for Autism Spectrum Disorder (ASD) as a domain of focus, we explore two roles for a socially assistive robot: ‘provider’ and ‘receiver’.

In the provider role, the robot proactively engages in assistive tasks with a human receiver (namely a child with ASD), following standardized interactive tasks. We contribute a family of algorithms for automated action selection, whose goal is to build cost-optimal robot action sequences that account for a range of receiver profiles. We further estimate the action parameters needed to run these algorithms through empirical studies with children with ASD and psychology experts.

In the receiver role, the robot simulates common behavioral responses of children with ASD to the standardized actions, acting as an aid for providers in training. By reversing the diagnosis pipeline, we first develop a simulation method that generates behaviors consistent with user-controllable receiver profiles. In a second step, we develop an interactive robot capable of responding to a therapist’s actions in an embodied fashion. Our evaluation studies conducted with therapists validate the designed robot behaviors and show promising results for the integration of such robots in clinical training.

These contributions allow for a richer set of interactions with robots in assistive contexts, and are expected to increase their autonomy, flexibility, and effectiveness when dealing with diverse user populations.

Week 4 (16 June 2020)
Jeon, H.J., Milli, S., & Dragan, A.D. 2020. “Reward-rational (implicit) choice: A unifying formalism for reward learning.” ArXiv, abs/2002.04833. arXiv
Presenter: Tesca Fitzgerald

Week 5 (23 June 2020)
Minae Kwon, Erdem Biyik, Aditi Talati, Karan Bhasin, Dylan P. Losey, and Dorsa Sadigh. 2020. “When Humans Aren’t Optimal: Robots that Collaborate with Risk-Aware Humans.” In Proceedings of the 2020 ACM/IEEE International Conference on Human-Robot Interaction (HRI ’20). Association for Computing Machinery, New York, NY, USA, 43–52. DOI
Presenter: Henny Admoni

Week 6 (30 June 2020)
Racca, Mattia, Ville Kyrki, and Maya Cakmak. “Interactive Tuning of Robot Program Parameters via Expected Divergence Maximization.” In Proceedings of the 2020 ACM/IEEE International Conference on Human-Robot Interaction, pp. 629-638. 2020. ACM
Presenter: Anahita Mohseni Kabir

Week 7 (30 June 2020)
Racca, Mattia, Ville Kyrki, and Maya Cakmak. “Interactive Tuning of Robot Program Parameters via Expected Divergence Maximization.” In Proceedings of the 2020 ACM/IEEE International Conference on Human-Robot Interaction, pp. 629-638. 2020. ACM
Presenter: Anahita Mohseni Kabir

Week 8 (7 July 2020)
Gijs van Ewijk, Matthijs Smakman, and Elly A. Konijn. 2020. “Teachers’ perspectives on social robots in education: an exploratory case study.” In Proceedings of the Interaction Design and Children Conference (IDC ’20). Association for Computing Machinery, New York, NY, USA, 273–280. DOI
Presenter: Yaxin Hu

Week 9 (14 July 2020)
Adam K. Coyne, Andrew Murtagh, and Conor McGinn. 2020. “Using the Geneva Emotion Wheel to Measure Perceived Affect in Human-Robot Interaction.” In Proceedings of the 2020 ACM/IEEE International Conference on Human-Robot Interaction (HRI ’20). Association for Computing Machinery, New York, NY, USA, 491–498. DOI
Presenter: Nik Martelaro

Week 10 (21 July 2020)
Special talk (joint with HCII) by Alexandra To, Angela D. R. Smith, and Ihudiya Finda Ogbonnaya-Ogburu.

The human-computer interaction community has made some efforts toward racial diversity, but the outcomes remain meager. We introduce critical race theory and adapt it for HCI to lay a theoretical basis for race-conscious efforts, both in research and within our community. Building on the theory’s original tenets, we argue that racism is pervasive in everyday socio-technical systems; that the HCI community is prone to “interest convergence,” where concessions to inclusion require benefits to those in power; and that the neoliberal underpinnings of the technology industry itself propagate racism. Critical race theory uses storytelling as a means to upend deep-seated assumptions, and we relate several personal stories to highlight ongoing problems of race in HCI. The implications: all HCI research must be attuned to issues of race; participation of underrepresented minorities must be sought in all of our activities; and as a community, we cannot become comfortable while racial disparities exist.

Related paper: Ihudiya Finda Ogbonnaya-Ogburu, Angela D.R. Smith, Alexandra To, and Kentaro Toyama. 2020. “Critical Race Theory for HCI.” In Proceedings of the 2020 CHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems (CHI ’20). Association for Computing Machinery, New York, NY, USA, 1–16. DOI

Spring 2020

Week 1 (27 Jan 2020)
Moharana, S., Panduro, A., Lee, H., and Riek, L.D. (2019). “Robots for Joy, Robots for Sorrow: Community Based Robot Design for Dementia Caregivers”. In Proceedings of the ACM/IEEE International Conference on Human Robot Interaction (HRI). pdf
Presenter: Reuben Aronson

Week 2 (3 Feb 2020)
A. Palazzi, D. Abati, s. Calderara, F. Solera and R. Cucchiara, “Predicting the Driver’s Focus of Attention: The DR(eye)VE Project,” in IEEE Transactions on Pattern Analysis and Machine Intelligence, vol. 41, no. 7, pp. 1720-1733, 1 July 2019. doi: 10.1109/TPAMI.2018.2845370 IEEE
Presenter: Abhijat Biswas

Week 3 (10 Feb 2020)
Special talk by Erick Carranza, Bioengineering PhD student at Pitt.

Waste pollution is an increasing problem in the world. In Latin America, only 4.5% of the total waste is recycled, while the remaining ends up in rivers, landfills and the sea. The root of this problem is the poor recycling culture in Latin America. Although several campaigns have been developed by municipalities to address this issue, they have been ineffective solutions. So, what if we use a social agent to try to change people’s recycling behavior? In this talk I will introduce IRBin (Intelligent Recycle Bin), the first social robot that aims to educate society about the importance of recycling. IRBin uses AI to properly classify and sort waste in its specific container. Additionally, IoT gives IRBin real time monitoring capabilities that optimize waste management. Since its launch in 2019, IRBin has had more than 3000 interactions per month and the acceptance by the users has been outstanding.

Week 4 (17 Feb 2020)
Saran, Akanksha; Short, Elaine; Thomaz, Andrea; Niekum, Scott. “Understanding Teacher Gaze Patterns for Robot Learning,” Conference on Robot Learning (CoRL), October 2019.
Presenter: Maggie Collier

Week 5 (24 Feb 2020)
Markus Bajones, David Fischinger, Astrid Weiss, Paloma de la Puente, Daniel Wolf, Markus Vincze, Tobias Körtner, Markus Weninger, Konstantinos Papoutsakis, Damien Michel, Ammar Qammaz, Paschalis Panteleris, Michalis Foukarakis, Ilia Adami, Danae Ioannidi, Asterios Leonidis, Margherita Antona, Antonis Argyros, Peter Mayer, Paul Panek, Håkan Eftring, and Susanne Frennert. 2019. Results of Field Trials with a Mobile Service Robot for Older Adults in 16 Private Households. Trans. Hum.-Robot Interact. 9, 2, Article 10 (December 2019). DOI
Presenter: Prof. Nik Martelaro

Week 6 (2 Mar 2020)
Walker, N., Weatherwax, K., Allchin, J., Takayama, L., & Cakmak, M. 2020 Human Perceptions of a Curious Robot that Performs Off-Task Actions. In HRI’20. PDF
Presenter: Sam Reig

Week 7 (9 Mar 2020)
Lage, Isaac, Daphna Lifschitz, Finale Doshi-Velez, and Ofra Amir. 2019. “Exploring Computational User Models for Agent Policy Summarization.” IJCAI. Macao, China. arXiv
Presenter: Mike Lee

Week 8 (16 Mar 2020)
Carman Neustaedter, Samarth Singhal, Rui Pan, Yasamin Heshmat, Azadeh Forghani, and John Tang. 2018. “From Being There to Watching: Shared and Dedicated Telepresence Robot Usage at Academic Conferences.” ACM Trans. Comput.-Hum. Interact. 25, 6, Article 33 (December 2018), 39 pages. DOI
Presenter: Zhi Tan

Week 9 (23 Mar 2020)
Maria De-Arteaga, Riccardo Fogliato, and Alexandra Chouldechova. “A Case for Humans-in-the-Loop: Decisions in the Presence of Erroneous Algorithmic Scores.” CHI 2020. arXiv
Presenter: Pallavi Koppol

Week 10 (30 Mar 2020)
Schrum, M. L., Johnson, M., Ghuy, M., & Gombolay, M. C. (2020). “Four Years in Review: Statistical Practices of Likert Scales in Human-Robot Interaction Studies.” in Alt HRI 2020. arXiv
Presenter: Liz Carter

Week 11 (6 Apr 2020)
Patrícia Alves-Oliveira, Patrícia Arriaga, Matthew A. Cronin, and Ana Paiva. 2020. Creativity Encounters Between Children and Robots. In Proceedings of the 2020 ACM/IEEE International Conference on Human-Robot Interaction (HRI ’20). Association for Computing Machinery, New York, NY, USA, 379–388. DOI
Presenter: Yaxin Hu

Week 12 (13 Apr 2020)
Tapomayukh Bhattacharjee, Ethan K. Gordon, Rosario Scalise, Maria E. Cabrera, Anat Caspi, Maya Cakmak, and Siddhartha S. Srinivasa. 2020. Is More Autonomy Always Better? Exploring Preferences of Users with Mobility Impairments in Robot-assisted Feeding. In Proceedings of the 2020 ACM/IEEE International Conference on Human-Robot Interaction (HRI ’20). Association for Computing Machinery, New York, NY, USA, 181–190. ACM Video
Presenter: Reuben Aronson

Week 13 (20 Apr 2020)
Special talk by Pallavi Koppol.

Our work investigates AI systems for sequential decision-making problems such as those found in social good sectors including: mobility, healthcare, education, and public policy. Such AI systems will directly affect or interface with people, and must abide by human values and priorities in order to ensure ethical and safe behavior. We are creating an interactive learning process for sequential-decision making problems that leverages human knowledge through intuitive and transparent interactions, making it easier for non-experts to train value-aligned AI. There exist substantial bodies of work on learning from human demonstrations, active learning techniques that query a user for label information, and preference-elicitation approaches for leveraging a user’s knowledge. However, this body of work has two key limitations. First, these learning techniques are designed to be machine-optimal, without much regard for how people respond to queries, differentiate between options, or prioritize between features. Second, they are opaque, and provide little insight into what the algorithm is learning. We are investigating how demonstration, label, and preference queries can be intelligently combined in ways that both leverage non-expert user knowledge, and clearly represent an algorithm’s capabilities and values throughout the learning process. Our current evaluations have been in the self-driving car domain, but we intend to extend these techniques to other sequential decision-making problems in the realm of social good.

Week 14 (27 Apr 2020)
Practice thesis proposal talk by Anahita Mohseni Kabir: “Efficient Robot Decision-Making for Achieving Multiple Independent Tasks.”

We focus on robotics applications where a robot is required to accomplish a set of tasks that are partially observable and evolve independently of each other according to their dynamics. One such domain that we target in this work is decision-making for a robot waiter waiting tables at a restaurant. The robot waiter should take care of an ongoing stream of requests, namely serving a number of tables, including delivering food to the tables and checking on customers. An action that the robot should take next at any point of time depends on the duration of possible actions, the state of each table, and how these tables evolve over time, e.g., the food becomes cold after a few time steps. A conventional approach to deal with this problem is to combine all the tasks’ states and robot actions into one large model and compute an optimal policy for this combined model. For the problems that we are interested in, the number of tasks, e.g., the number of tables in the restaurant domain, can be large making this planning approach computationally impractical and challenging.

We target the class of problems that include multiple tasks that evolve independently of each other and develop algorithms to enable a robot to achieve the multiple tasks while expediting robot planning and execution. Our solution takes advantage of the structure in this class of problems, namely the independency between the tasks, to speed up planning and execution. We provide a theoretical and experimental analysis of the algorithms. We discuss how we formalize the restaurant domain and define the assumptions under which the restaurant domain can be an instance of this class of problems. We demonstrate the effectiveness of our solutions in a simulated restaurant setting and on a robot.

Although our solutions are effective where the planning model is strictly followed, it fails in situations where the robot’s planning model is an approximation of the true model. For example, in our hard-coded restaurant model the customers cannot order more food after eating their dessert, so if the customers ask for the menu, the robot does not know how to proceed with the request. Most planning methods require a known and good planning model. This can be a severe limitation for many practical applications such as the restaurant domain for which an exact complete model does not exist. In the remainder of this thesis, we will develop efficient planning and execution algorithms to address this problem by handling the discrepancies resulting from the mismatch between the robot’s observations and the robot’s model. We will address the discrepancies by querying the users about their states. The answer to the queries will enable the robot to decrease its uncertainty over the users’ state and eventually resolve the discrepancies. We will explain how this approach can be combined with our planning and execution algorithms to enable the robot to accomplish multiple tasks in a real-time and scalable fashion. Finally, we plan to implement our proposed work and evaluate it on a real-robot with a limited number of tables and show the effectiveness of our algorithms in various scenarios.

Week 15 (4 May 2020)
Practice senior thesis presentation by Minji Kim: “Detecting the End of Speaking Turns to Enhance Social Robots’ Participation in Group Conversation.”

Past models that detect end-of-speaking-turn in conversation have mainly been applied to one-on-one interactions between a robot and a human. However, Human-Robot Interaction research often investigates how robots can support the functions of groups of people, for example by encouraging equal participation in group conversations. To be effective at tasks like balancing the participation across members of a group, these robots will also benefit from being able to detect when people in the group have ended their speaking turn. Thus in this research project, I will develop two end-of-speaking-turn detection models, based on past models that analyzed pair interactions, and determine how well they perform in more general scenarios. My first model will be a simpler model based on pause duration and the second model will be a deep learning model that learns acoustic features that characterize an end-of-turn. I will then test and compare the two models accuracy at detecting end-of-turns. To test how generally the model will be able to perform it will be tested in two scenarios: in-person interactions between pairs of people performing the map task and virtual interactions between groups of three people performing the desert survival task. To further study the robustness of the model, cross performance of the model where it will be trained on the map task data when tested on the desert survival data and trained on desert survival data when tested on map task data will also be observed in this study.

Fall 2019

Week 1 (26 Aug 2019)
Special talk by Sayanti Roy: “Mutual reinforcement learning for robots as trainers in skill transfer scenario”

2 Sep 2019
No meeting (Labor Day)

Week 2 (9 Sep 2019)
Karen Leung, Edward Schmerling, Mo Chen, John Talbot, J. Christian Gerdes, Marco Pavone. “On Infusing Reachability-Based Safety Assurance within Probabilistic Planning Frameworks for Human-Robot Vehicle Interactions.” International Symposium on Experimental Robotics (ISER) 2018. arXiv
Presenter: Cherie Ho
Presenter notes: We’ll be discussing a controls paper, with the specific focus on how to design experiments to validate safety-related ideas. To that end, read this paper with that question in mind and don’t worry too much about the technical details or specific experimental flaws. Specifically:

  • What results would you have liked the authors to present?
  • What should be key metrics/axes for this type of work?
  • What are the key assumptions and are they valid? How do they contrast with the HRI assumptions?

Week 3 (16 Sep 2019)
Ayanna Howard and Jason Borenstein, “Hacking the Human Bias in Robotics.” ACM Trans. Hum.-Robot Interact. 7, 1 (May 2018) ACM
Kerstin Dautenhahn, “Some Brief Thoughts on The Past and Future of Human-Robot Interaction.” ACM Trans. Hum.-Robot Interact. 7, 1 (May 2018) ACM
Maja Matarić, “On Relevance: Balancing Theory and Practice in HRI.” ACM Trans. Hum.-Robot Interact. 7, 1 (May 2018) ACM
Rodney Brooks, “A Brave, Creative, and Happy HRI.” ACM Trans. Hum.-Robot Interact. 7, 1 (May 2018) ACM
Presenter: Prof. Henny Admoni

Week 4 (23 Sep 2019)
M. Young, C. Miller, Y. Bi, W. Chen and B. D. Argall, “Formalized Task Characterization for Human-Robot Autonomy Allocation,” 2019 International Conference on Robotics and Automation (ICRA), Montreal, QC, Canada, 2019, pp. 6044-6050. NWU
Presenter: Reuben Aronson

(CANCELLED for HRI) Week 5 (30 Sep 2019)
Spellman, B. A. (2015). “A Short (Personal) Future History of Revolution 2.0.” Perspectives on Psychological Science, 10(6), 886–899. DOI
Presenter: Anahita Mohseni Kabir

Week 6 (7 Oct 2019)
Losey, D. P., Srinivasan, K., Mandlekar, A., Garg, A., & Sadigh, D. (2019). “Controlling Assistive Robots with Learned Latent Actions.” arXiv preprint arXiv:1909.09674. arXiv
Presenter: Maggie Collier

Week 7 (14 Oct 2019)
Spellman, B. A. (2015). “A Short (Personal) Future History of Revolution 2.0.” Perspectives on Psychological Science, 10(6), 886–899. DOI
Presenter: Anahita Mohseni Kabir

Week 8 (21 Oct 2019)
K. S. Welfare, M. R. Hallowell, J. A. Shah and L. D. Riek, “Consider the Human Work Experience When Integrating Robotics in the Workplace,” 2019 14th ACM/IEEE International Conference on Human-Robot Interaction (HRI), Daegu, Korea (South), 2019, pp. 75-84. IEEE
Presenter: Xiang Zhi Tan

Week 9 (28 Oct 2019)
H. Tennent, S. Shen and M. Jung, “Micbot: A Peripheral Robotic Object to Shape Conversational Dynamics and Team Performance,” 2019 14th ACM/IEEE International Conference on Human-Robot Interaction (HRI), Daegu, Korea (South), 2019, pp. 133-142. IEEE
Presenter: Minji Kim

Week 10 (4 Nov 2019)
Special talks by visitors from Georgia Tech:
Devleena Das, “Leveraging Rationales to Improve Human Task Performance”
Siddhartha Banerjee, “Facilitating Robust Autonomy with HRI”

Week 11 (11 Nov 2019)
K. Fischer, M. Jung, L. C. Jensen and M. V. aus der Wieschen, “Emotion Expression in HRI – When and Why,” 2019 14th ACM/IEEE International Conference on Human-Robot Interaction (HRI), Daegu, Korea (South), 2019, pp. 29-38. IEEE
Presenter: Yaxin Hu

Week 12 (18 Nov 2019)
Special talk by Zhi Tan

25 Nov 2019
No meeting (Thanksgiving)

Summer 2019

Week 1 (3 June 2019)
Greenberg, S. and Buxton, B., 2008, April. “Usability evaluation considered harmful (some of the time).” In Proceedings of the SIGCHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems (CHI ‘08) (pp. 111-120). ACM. ACM
Presenter: Kim Baraka
Session notes

Week 2 (10 June 2019)
David Sirkin, Brian Mok, Stephen Yang, and Wendy Ju. 2015. “Mechanical Ottoman: How Robotic Furniture Offers and Withdraws Support.” In Proceedings of the Tenth Annual ACM/IEEE International Conference on Human-Robot Interaction (HRI ‘15). ACM, New York, NY, USA, 11-18. DOI
Presenter: Amy Pavel

Week 3 (17 June 2019)
de Graaf, M. M., & Malle, B. F. (2019). People’s Explanations of Robot Behavior Subtly Reveal Mental State Inferences. In 2019 14th ACM/IEEE International Conference on Human-Robot Interaction (HRI) (pp. 239-248). IEEE
Presenter: Sam Reig

Week 4 (1 July 2019)
N. Ohshima, R. Fujimori, H. Tokunaga, H. Kaneko and N. Mukawa, “Neut: Design and evaluation of speaker designation behaviors for communication support robot to encourage conversations,” 2017 26th IEEE International Symposium on Robot and Human Interactive Communication (RO-MAN), Lisbon, 2017, pp. 1387-1393. IEEE
Presenter: Stephanie Valencia Valencia

Week 5 (8 July 2019)
Jin Joo Lee, Brad Knox, Jolie Baumann, Cynthia Breazeal, David DeSteno, “Computationally Modeling Interpersonal Trust.” Frontiers in Psychology, 04 Dec 2013. Frontiers
Presenter: Ada Taylor

Week 6 (15 July 2019)
Dorsa Sadigh, Shankar Sastry, Sanjit A. Seshia, and Anca D. Dragan, “Planning for Autonomous Cars that Leverage Effects on Human Actions.” Robotics: Science and Systems 2016. PDF
Presenter: Tushar Kusnur

Week 7 (22 July 2019)
L. Chan, D. Hadfield-Menell, S. Srinivasa and A. Dragan, “The Assistive Multi-Armed Bandit,” 2019. 14th ACM/IEEE International Conference on Human-Robot Interaction (HRI), Daegu, Korea (South), 2019, pp. 354-363. IEEE
Presenter: Ben Newman

Week 8 (5 Aug 2019)
Sandy H. Huang, David Held, Pieter Abbeel, Anca D. Dragan, “Enabling Robots to Communicate their Objectives,” 2017. Robotics: Science and Systems RSS
Presenter: Pallavi Koppol

Week 9 (12 Aug 2019)
Aditi Ramachandran, Sarah Strohkorb Sebo, Brian Scassellati, “Personalized Robot Tutoring using the Assistive Tutor POMDP (AT-POMDP),” 2019. Proceedings of the AAAI Conference on Artificial Intelligence, 33(01), 8050-8057. AAAI
Presenter: Anahita Mohseni Kabir

Week 10 (19 Aug 2019)
Room change this week: EDSH (Smith) 200 Malte F. Jung, Jin Joo Lee, Nick DePalma, Sigurdur O. Adalgeirsson, Pamela J. Hinds, and Cynthia Breazeal. 2013. “Engaging robots: easing complex human-robot teamwork using backchanneling.” In Proceedings of the 2013 conference on Computer supported cooperative work (CSCW ‘13). ACM, New York, NY, USA, 1555-1566. ACM
Presenter: Zhi Tan

Spring 2019

Week 1 (4 Feb 2019)
Bahar Irfan, James Kennedy, Séverin Lemaignan, Fotios Papadopoulos, Emmanuel Senft, and Tony Belpaeme. 2018. “Social Psychology and Human-Robot Interaction: An Uneasy Marriage.” In Companion of the 2018 ACM/IEEE International Conference on Human-Robot Interaction (HRI ‘18). ACM, New York, NY, USA, 13-20. DOI

Week 2 (11 Feb 2019)
David Porfirio, Allison Sauppé, Aws Albarghouthi, and Bilge Mutlu. 2018. Authoring and Verifying Human-Robot Interactions. In Proceedings of the 31st Annual ACM Symposium on User Interface Software and Technology (UIST ‘18). ACM, New York, NY, USA, 75-86. DOI

Week 3 (18 Feb 2019)
Jaime F. Fisac, Andrea Bajcsy, Sylvia L. Herbert, David Fridovich-Keil, Steven Wang, Claire J. Tomlin, Anca D. Dragan. “Probabilistically Safe Robot Planning with Confidence-Based Human Predictions.” In Robotics: Science and Systems 2018 (RSS ‘18). RSS

Week 4 (25 Feb 2019)
Correia, Filipa, Samuel F. Mascarenhas, Samuel Gomes, Patrícia Arriaga, Iolanda Leite, Rui Prada, Francisco S. Melo, and Ana Paiva. “Exploring Prosociality in Human-Robot Teams.” In Companion of the 2019 ACM/IEEE International Conference on Human-Robot Interaction (HRI ‘19). ResearchGate

Week 5 (4 Mar 2019)
E. Short, A. Allevato, and A. L. Thomaz. “SAIL: Simulation-Informed Active In-the-Wild Learning.” ACM/IEEE Conference on Human-Robot Interaction (HRI), Daegu, South Korea, 2019. (Email for paper.)

11 Mar 2019: Cancelled for spring break and HRI.

Week 6 (18 Mar 2019)
Choudhury, R., Swamy, G., Hadfield-Menell, D., & Dragan, A.D. (2019). On the Utility of Model Learning in HRI. Human-Robot Interaction, 2019 ACM/IEEE Conference on. arXiv

Week 7 (25 Mar 2019)
Vogt, Paul, et al. “Second Language Tutoring using Social Robots. A Large-Scale Study.” IEEE/ACM Int. Conf. on Human-Robot Interaction (HRI 2019). 2019. Link

Week 8 (1 Apr 2019)

Gallenberger, D., Bhattacharjee, T., Kim, Y., and Srinivasa, S. S. “Transfer depends on Acquisition: Analyzing Manipulation Strategies for Robotic Feeding.” In Proceedings of the 2019 ACM/IEEE international conference on Human-robot interaction. ACM, 2019. Link (pdf)

Week 9 (8 Apr 2019)

Bretan, M., Hoffman, G., & Weinberg, G. (2015). Emotionally expressive dynamic physical behaviors in robots. International Journal of Human-Computer Studies, 78, 1-16. ScienceDirect

Week 10 (16 Apr 2019)

Sanoubari, Elaheh, Stela H. Seo, Diljot Garcha, James E. Young, and Verónica Loureiro-Rodríguez. “Good Robot Design or Machiavellian? An In-the-Wild Robot Leveraging Minimal Knowledge of Passersby’s Culture.” In 2019 14th ACM/IEEE International Conference on Human-Robot Interaction (HRI), pp. 382-391. IEEE, 2019. Link

Fall 2018

Week 1 (17 Sep 2018)
Rodney Brooks. 2018. “A Brave, Creative, and Happy HRI.” ACM Trans. Hum.-Robot Interact. 7, 1, Article 1 (May 2018), 3 pages. ACM
Kerstin Dautenhahn. 2018. “Some Brief Thoughts on the Past and Future of Human-Robot Interaction.” ACM Trans. Hum.-Robot Interact. 7, 1, Article 4 (May 2018), 3 pages. ACM
Maja Matarić. 2018. “On Relevance: Balancing Theory and Practice in HRI.” ACM Trans. Hum.-Robot Interact. 7, 1, Article 8 (May 2018), 2 pages. ACM

Week 2 (24 Sep 2018)
Joseph E. Michaelis and Bilge Mutlu. 2017. Someone to Read with: Design of and Experiences with an In-Home Learning Companion Robot for Reading. In Proceedings of the 2017 CHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems (CHI ‘17). ACM, New York, NY, USA, 301-312. DOI

1 Oct 2018: Cancelled for the HRI submission deadline

Week 3 (8 Oct 2018)
Bertram F. Malle, Matthias Scheutz, Thomas Arnold, John Voiklis, and Corey Cusimano. 2015. Sacrifice One For the Good of Many?: People Apply Different Moral Norms to Human and Robot Agents. In Proceedings of the Tenth Annual ACM/IEEE International Conference on Human-Robot Interaction (HRI ‘15). ACM, New York, NY, USA, 117-124. DOI

Week 4 (15 Oct 2018)
Ohn-Bar, Eshed & Kitani, Kris & Asakawa, Chieko. (2018). “Personalized Dynamics Models for Adaptive Assistive Navigation Interfaces.” 2nd Conference on Robot Learning (CoRL 2018) arXiv

Week 5 (22 Oct 2018)
N. Mirnig, S. Stadler, G. Stollnberger, M. Giuliani and M. Tscheligi, “Robot humor: How self-irony and Schadenfreude influence people’s rating of robot likability,” 2016 25th IEEE International Symposium on Robot and Human Interactive Communication (RO-MAN), New York, NY, 2016, pp. 166-171. doi: 10.1109/ROMAN.2016.7745106 IEEE

Week 6 (29 Oct 2018)
S. Huang, K. Bhatia, P. Abbeel, and A. Dragan. “Establishing Appropriate Trust Via Critical States.” IROS 2018. arXiv

Week 7 (5 Nov 2018)
Drazen Brscić, Hiroyuki Kidokoro, Yoshitaka Suehiro, and Takayuki Kanda. 2015. Escaping from Children’s Abuse of Social Robots. In Proceedings of the Tenth Annual ACM/IEEE International Conference on Human-Robot Interaction (HRI ‘15). ACM, New York, NY, USA, 59-66. DOI

Week 8 (12 Nov 2018)
Elena Knox and Katsumi Watanabe. 2018. “AIBO Robot Mortuary Rites in the Japanese Cultural Context.” 2018 IEEE/RSJ International Conference on Intelligent Robots and Systems (IROS). Madrid, Spain. PDF available upon request

Week 9 (19 Nov 2018)
Tom Williams, Daria Thames, Julia Novakoff, and Matthias Scheutz. 2018. “Thank You for Sharing that Interesting Fact!”: Effects of Capability and Context on Indirect Speech Act Use in Task-Based Human-Robot Dialogue. In Proceedings of the 2018 ACM/IEEE International Conference on Human-Robot Interaction (HRI ‘18). ACM, New York, NY, USA, 298-306. DOI

Week 10 (26 Nov 2018)
Anderson-Bashan, L., Megidish, B., Erel, H., Wald, I., Hoffman, G., Zuckerman, O., & Grishko, A. (2018, August). The Greeting Machine: An Abstract Robotic Object for Opening Encounters. In 2018 27th IEEE International Symposium on Robot and Human Interactive Communication (RO-MAN) (pp. 595-602). IEEE

Summer 2018

Week 1 (6 Jun 2018)
Erickson, Z., Clever, H. M., Turk, G., Liu, C. K., & Kemp, C. C. (2017). “Deep Haptic Model Predictive Control for Robot-Assisted Dressing.” arXiv preprint arXiv:1709.09735. (Accepted to ICRA 2018.) arXiv

Week 2 (13 Jun 2018)
Rachel Gockley, Jodi Forlizzi, and Reid Simmons. “Natural person-following behavior for social robots.” HRI 2007 ACM

Week 3 (20 Jun 2018)
Anirudh Vemula, Katharina Muelling, and Jean Oh. “Social Attention: Modeling Attention in Human Crowds.” ICRA 2018. arXiv

27 Jun 2018: Cancelled to attend RSS.

4 Jul 2018: Cancelled for Independence Day.

Week 4 (11 Jul 2018)
Paul Robinette, Wenchen Li, Robert Allen, Ayanna M. Howard, and Alan R. Wagner. “Overtrust of robots in emergency evacuation scenarios.” HRI 2016. IEEE

Week 5 (18 Jul 2018)
Harold Soh, Pan Shu, Min Chen, and David Hsu. “The Transfer of Human Trust in Robot Capabilities across Tasks.” RSS 2018. RSS

Week 6 (25 Jul 2018)
Joseph DelPreto, Andres F. Salazar-Gomez, Stephanie Gil, Ramin M. Hasani, Frank H. Guenther, and Daniela Rus, “Plug-and-Play Supervisory Control Using Muscle and Brain Signals for Real-Time Gesture and Error Detection.” RSS 2018. RSS

Week 11 (3 Dec 2018)
Andrist, S., Bohus, D., Kamar, E., & Horvitz, E. (2017, November). “What Went Wrong and Why? Diagnosing Situated Interaction Failures in the Wild”. In International Conference on Social Robotics (pp. 293-303). Springer, Cham. Springer

Spring 2018

Week 1 (24 Jan 2018)
Vivian Chu, Tesca Fitzgerald, and Andrea L. Thomaz. “Learning Object Affordances by Leveraging the Combination of Human-Guidance and Self-Exploration.” HRI 2016 IEEE

Week 2 (31 Jan 2018)
Hae Won Park, Rinat Rosenberg-Kima, Maor Rosenberg, Goren Gordon, and Cynthia Breazeal. “Growing Growth Mindset with a Social Robot Peer.” HRI 2017 ACM

Week 3 (7 Feb 2018)
Laura M. Hiatt, Cody Narber, Esube Bekele, Sangeet S. Khemlani, and J. Gregory Trafton. “Human Modeling for Human–Robot Collaboration.” IJRR 2017 SAGE

Week 4 (14 Feb 2018)
Denise Hebesberger, Tobias Koertner, Christoph Gisinger, Juergen Pripfl, and Christian Dondrup. “Lessons Learned from the Deployment of a Long-term Autonomous Robot as Companion in Physical Therapy for Older Adults with Dementia: A Mixed Methods Study.” HRI 2016 IEEE

Week 5 (21 Feb 2018)
Chien-Ming Huang and Bilge Mutlu. “Anticipatory Robot Control for Efficient Human-Robot Collaboration.” HRI 2016 ACM

Week 6 (28 Feb 2018)
James Auger. “Living with robots: a speculative design approach.” JHRI 2014 ACM

7 Mar 2018: Skipped to attend HRI

Week 7 (14 Mar 2018)
Daniel Rakita, Bilge Mutlu, and Michael Gleicher. “An Autonomous Dynamic Camera Method for Effective Remote Teleoperation.” HRI 2018 ACM

Week 8 (21 Mar 2018)
Kwangmin Jeong, Jihyun Sung, Hae-Sung Lee, Aram Kim, Hyemi Kim, Chanmi Park, Yuin Jeong, JeeHang Lee, and Jinwoo Kim. “Fribo: A Social Networking Robot for Increasing Social Connectedness through Sharing Daily Home Activities from Living Noise Data.” HRI 2018 ACM

Week 9 (28 Mar 2018)
Christoforos I. Mavrogiannis, Wil B. Thomason, and Ross A. Knepper. “Social Momentum: A Framework for Legible Navigation in Dynamic Multi-Agent Environments.” HRI 2018 ACM

Week 10 (4 Apr 2018)
Nicole Salomons, Michael van der Linden, Sarah Strohkorb Sebo, and Brian Scassellati. “Humans Conform to Robots: Disambiguating Trust, Truth, and Conformity.” HRI 2018 ACM

Week 11 (11 Apr 2018)
Michael Walker, Hooman Hedayati, Jennifer Lee, and Daniel Szafir. “Communicating Robot Motion Intent with Augmented Reality.” HRI 2018 ACM

Week 12 (18 Apr 2018)
Hee Rin Lee and Laurel D. Riek. “Reframing Assistive Robots to Promote Successful Aging.” JHRI 2018 pdf

Week 13 (25 Apr 2018)
Minae Kwon, Sandy H. Huang, and Anca D. Dragan. “Expressing Robot Incapability.” HRI 2018 ACM

Week 14 (2 May 2018)
Location change this week: NSH 1505
Brian Scassellati, Jake Brawer, Katherine Tsui, Setareh Nasihati Gilani, Melissa Malzkuhn, Barbara Manini, Adam Stone, Geo Kartheiser, Arcangelo Merla, Ari Shapiro, David Traum, and Laura-Ann Petitto. “Teaching Language to Deaf Infants with a Robot and a Virtual Human.” CHI 2018. ACM

Week 15 (9 May 2018)
Reddy, Siddharth, Sergey Levine, and Anca Dragan. “Shared Autonomy via Deep Reinforcement Learning.” arXiv preprint arXiv:1802.01744 (2018). arXiv

Week 16 (16 May 2018)
Solace Shen, Hamish Tennent, Houston Claure, and Malte Jung. “My Telepresence, My Culture?: An Intercultural Investigation of Telepresence Robot Operators’ Interpersonal Distance Behaviors.” CHI 2018). ACM

Week 17 (23 May 2018)
Phoebe Liu, Dylan F. Glas, Takayuki Kanda, and Hiroshi Ishiguro. “Data-driven HRI: Learning social behaviors by example from human–human interaction.” IEEE Transactions on Robotics 32, no. 4 (2016). IEEE