Bayesian Inference of Self-intention Attributed by Observer

Most of agents that learn policy for tasks with reinforcement learning (RL) lack the ability to communicate with people, which makes human-agent collaboration challenging. We believe that, in order for RL agents to comprehend utterances from human colleagues, RL agents must infer the mental states that people attribute to them because people sometimes infer an interlocutor's mental states and communicate on the basis of this mental inference. This paper proposes PublicSelf model, which is a model of a person who infers how the person's own behavior appears to their colleagues. We implemented the PublicSelf model for an RL agent in a simulated environment and examined the inference of the model by comparing it with people's judgment. The results showed that the agent's intention that people attributed to the agent's movement was correctly inferred by the model in scenes where people could find certain intentionality from the agent's behavior

Robot Mindreading and the Problem of Trust

This paper raises three questions regarding the attribution of beliefs, desires, and intentions to robots. The first one is whether humans in fact engage in robot mindreading. If they do, this raises a second question: does robot mindreading foster trust towards robots? Both of these questions are empirical, and I show that the available evidence is insufficient to answer them. Now, if we assume that the answer to both questions is affirmative, a third and more important question arises: should developers and engineers promote robot mindreading in view of their stated goal of enhancing transparency? My worry here is that by attempting to make robots more mind-readable, they are abandoning the project of understanding automatic decision processes. Features that enhance mind-readability are prone to make the factors that determine automatic decisions even more opaque than they already are. And current strategies to eliminate opacity do not enhance mind-readability. The last part of the paper discusses different ways to analyze this apparent trade-off and suggests that a possible solution must adopt tolerable degrees of opacity that depend on pragmatic factors connected to the level of trust required for the intended uses of the robot

Humanoid Theory Grounding

In this paper we consider the importance of using a humanoid physical form for a certain proposed kind of robotics, that of theory grounding. Theory grounding involves grounding the theory skills and knowledge of an embodied artificially intelligent (AI) system by developing theory skills and knowledge from the bottom up. Theory grounding can potentially occur in a variety of domains, and the particular domain considered here is that of language. Language is taken to be another “problem space” in which a system can explore and discover solutions. We argue that because theory grounding necessitates robots experiencing domain information, certain behavioral-form aspects, such as abilities to socially smile, point, follow gaze, and generate manual gestures, are necessary for robots grounding a humanoid theory of language

Towards A Theory-Of-Mind-Inspired Generic Decision-Making Framework

Simulation is widely used to make model-based predictions, but few approaches have attempted this technique in dynamic physical environments of medium to high complexity or in general contexts. After an introduction to the cognitive science concepts from which this work is inspired and the current development in the use of simulation as a decision-making technique, we propose a generic framework based on theory of mind, which allows an agent to reason and perform actions using multiple simulations of automatically created or externally inputted models of the perceived environment. A description of a partial implementation is given, which aims to solve a popular game within the IJCAI2013 AIBirds contest. Results of our approach are presented, in comparison with the competition benchmark. Finally, future developments regarding the framework are discussed.Comment: 7 pages, 5 figures, IJCAI 2013 Symposium on AI in Angry Bird