Feasible Action Space Reduction for Quantifying Causal Responsibility in Continuous Spatial Interactions

Understanding the causal influence of one agent on another agent is crucial for safely deploying artificially intelligent systems such as automated vehicles and mobile robots into human-inhabited environments. Existing models of causal responsibility deal with simplified abstractions of scenarios with discrete actions, thus, limiting real-world use when understanding responsibility in spatial interactions. Based on the assumption that spatially interacting agents are embedded in a scene and must follow an action at each instant, Feasible Action-Space Reduction (FeAR) was proposed as a metric for causal responsibility in a grid-world setting with discrete actions. Since real-world interactions involve continuous action spaces, this paper proposes a formulation of the FeAR metric for measuring causal responsibility in space-continuous interactions. We illustrate the utility of the metric in prototypical space-sharing conflicts, and showcase its applications for analysing backward-looking responsibility and in estimating forward-looking responsibility to guide agent decision making. Our results highlight the potential of the FeAR metric for designing and engineering artificial agents, as well as for assessing the responsibility of agents around humans.

Fitts' List Revisited: An Empirical Study on Function Allocation in a Two-Agent Physical Human-Robot Collaborative Position/Force Task

In this letter, we investigate whether the classical function allocation holds for physical Human-Robot Collaboration, which is important for providing insights for Industry 5.0 to guide how to best augment rather than replace workers. This study empirically tests the applicability of Fitts' List within physical Human-Robot Collaboration, by conducting a user study (N=26, within-subject design) to evaluate four distinct allocations of position/force control between human and robot in an abstract blending task. We hypothesize that the function in which humans control the position achieves better performance and receives higher user ratings. When allocating position control to the human and force control to the robot, compared to the opposite case, we observed a significant improvement in preventing overblending. This was also perceived better in terms of physical demand and overall system acceptance, while participants experienced greater autonomy, more engagement and less frustration. An interesting insight was that the supervisory role (when the robot controls both position and force control) was rated second best in terms of subjective acceptance. Another surprising insight was that if position control was delegated to the robot, the participants perceived much lower autonomy than when the force control was delegated to the robot. These findings empirically support applying Fitts' principles to static function allocation for physical collaboration, while also revealing important nuanced user experience trade-offs, particularly regarding perceived autonomy when delegating position control.