Robot behavior coordination using decision-making neurophysiological mechanism

Author(s):  
Ting Lan ◽  
Shirong Liu
2020 ◽  
Vol 34 (03) ◽  
pp. 2518-2526
Author(s):  
Sarath Sreedharan ◽  
Tathagata Chakraborti ◽  
Christian Muise ◽  
Subbarao Kambhampati

In this work, we present a new planning formalism called Expectation-Aware planning for decision making with humans in the loop where the human's expectations about an agent may differ from the agent's own model. We show how this formulation allows agents to not only leverage existing strategies for handling model differences like explanations (Chakraborti et al. 2017) and explicability (Kulkarni et al. 2019), but can also exhibit novel behaviors that are generated through the combination of these different strategies. Our formulation also reveals a deep connection to existing approaches in epistemic planning. Specifically, we show how we can leverage classical planning compilations for epistemic planning to solve Expectation-Aware planning problems. To the best of our knowledge, the proposed formulation is the first complete solution to planning with diverging user expectations that is amenable to a classical planning compilation while successfully combining previous works on explanation and explicability. We empirically show how our approach provides a computational advantage over our earlier approaches that rely on search in the space of models.


2018 ◽  
Vol 41 ◽  
Author(s):  
Patrick Simen ◽  
Fuat Balcı

AbstractRahnev & Denison (R&D) argue against normative theories and in favor of a more descriptive “standard observer model” of perceptual decision making. We agree with the authors in many respects, but we argue that optimality (specifically, reward-rate maximization) has proved demonstrably useful as a hypothesis, contrary to the authors’ claims.


2018 ◽  
Vol 41 ◽  
Author(s):  
David Danks

AbstractThe target article uses a mathematical framework derived from Bayesian decision making to demonstrate suboptimal decision making but then attributes psychological reality to the framework components. Rahnev & Denison's (R&D) positive proposal thus risks ignoring plausible psychological theories that could implement complex perceptual decision making. We must be careful not to slide from success with an analytical tool to the reality of the tool components.


2018 ◽  
Vol 41 ◽  
Author(s):  
Kevin Arceneaux

AbstractIntuitions guide decision-making, and looking to the evolutionary history of humans illuminates why some behavioral responses are more intuitive than others. Yet a place remains for cognitive processes to second-guess intuitive responses – that is, to be reflective – and individual differences abound in automatic, intuitive processing as well.


2014 ◽  
Vol 38 (01) ◽  
pp. 46
Author(s):  
David R. Shanks ◽  
Ben R. Newell

2014 ◽  
Vol 38 (01) ◽  
pp. 48
Author(s):  
David R. Shanks ◽  
Ben R. Newell

2020 ◽  
Vol 43 ◽  
Author(s):  
Valerie F. Reyna ◽  
David A. Broniatowski

Abstract Gilead et al. offer a thoughtful and much-needed treatment of abstraction. However, it fails to build on an extensive literature on abstraction, representational diversity, neurocognition, and psychopathology that provides important constraints and alternative evidence-based conceptions. We draw on conceptions in software engineering, socio-technical systems engineering, and a neurocognitive theory with abstract representations of gist at its core, fuzzy-trace theory.


Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document