Designs for Enabling Collaboration in Human-Machine Teaming via Interactive and Explainable Systems

Collaborative robots and machine learning-based virtual agents are increasingly entering the human workspace with the aim of increasing productivity and enhancing safety. Despite this, we show in a ubiquitous experimental domain, Overcooked-AI, that state-of-the-art techniques for human-machine teaming (HMT), which rely on imitation or reinforcement learning, are brittle and result in a machine agent that aims to decouple the machine and human's actions to act independently rather than in a synergistic fashion. To remedy this deficiency, we develop HMT approaches that enable iterative, mixed-initiative team development allowing end-users to interactively reprogram interpretable AI teammates. Our 50-subject study provides several findings that we summarize into guidelines. While all approaches underperform a simple collaborative heuristic (a critical, negative result for learning-based methods), we find that white-box approaches supported by interactive modification can lead to significant team development, outperforming white-box approaches alone, and black-box approaches are easier to train and result in better HMT performance highlighting a tradeoff between explainability and interactivity versus ease-of-training. Together, these findings present three important directions: 1) Improving the ability to generate collaborative agents with white-box models, 2) Better learning methods to facilitate collaboration rather than individualized coordination, and 3) Mixed-initiative interfaces that enable users, who may vary in ability, to improve collaboration.

The Utility of Explainable AI in Ad Hoc Human-Machine Teaming

Recent advances in machine learning have led to growing interest in Explainable AI (xAI) to enable humans to gain insight into the decision-making of machine learning models. Despite this recent interest, the utility of xAI techniques has not yet been characterized in human-machine teaming. Importantly, xAI offers the promise of enhancing team situational awareness (SA) and shared mental model development, which are the key characteristics of effective human-machine teams. Rapidly developing such mental models is especially critical in ad hoc human-machine teaming, where agents do not have a priori knowledge of others' decision-making strategies. In this paper, we present two novel human-subject experiments quantifying the benefits of deploying xAI techniques within a human-machine teaming scenario. First, we show that xAI techniques can support SA ($p<0.05)$. Second, we examine how different SA levels induced via a collaborative AI policy abstraction affect ad hoc human-machine teaming performance. Importantly, we find that the benefits of xAI are not universal, as there is a strong dependence on the composition of the human-machine team. Novices benefit from xAI providing increased SA ($p<0.05$) but are susceptible to cognitive overhead ($p<0.05$). On the other hand, expert performance degrades with the addition of xAI-based support ($p<0.05$), indicating that the cost of paying attention to the xAI outweighs the benefits obtained from being provided additional information to enhance SA. Our results demonstrate that researchers must deliberately design and deploy the right xAI techniques in the right scenario by carefully considering human-machine team composition and how the xAI method augments SA.

Human-Machine Collaborative Optimization via Apprenticeship Scheduling

Coordinating agents to complete a set of tasks with intercoupled temporal and resource constraints is computationally challenging, yet human domain experts can solve these difficult scheduling problems using paradigms learned through years of apprenticeship. A process for manually codifying this domain knowledge within a computational framework is necessary to scale beyond the ``single-expert, single-trainee" apprenticeship model. However, human domain experts often have difficulty describing their decision-making processes, causing the codification of this knowledge to become laborious. We propose a new approach for capturing domain-expert heuristics through a pairwise ranking formulation. Our approach is model-free and does not require enumerating or iterating through a large state space. We empirically demonstrate that this approach accurately learns multifaceted heuristics on a synthetic data set incorporating job-shop scheduling and vehicle routing problems, as well as on two real-world data sets consisting of demonstrations of experts solving a weapon-to-target assignment problem and a hospital resource allocation problem. We also demonstrate that policies learned from human scheduling demonstration via apprenticeship learning can substantially improve the efficiency of a branch-and-bound search for an optimal schedule. We employ this human-machine collaborative optimization technique on a variant of the weapon-to-target assignment problem. We demonstrate that this technique generates solutions substantially superior to those produced by human domain experts at a rate up to 9.5 times faster than an optimization approach and can be applied to optimally solve problems twice as complex as those solved by a human demonstrator.