As robots' manipulation capabilities improve for pick-and-place tasks (e.g., object packing, sorting, and kitting), methods focused on understanding human-acceptable object configurations remain limited expressively with regard to capturing spatial relationships important to humans. To advance robotic understanding of human rules for object arrangement, we introduce positionally-augmented RCC (PARCC), a formal logic framework based on region connection calculus (RCC) for describing the relative position of objects in space. Additionally, we introduce an inference algorithm for learning PARCC specifications via demonstrations. Finally, we present the results from a human study, which demonstrate our framework's ability to capture a human's intended specification and the benefits of learning from demonstration approaches over human-provided specifications.

As learned control policies become increasingly common in autonomous systems, there is increasing need to ensure that they are interpretable and can be checked by human stakeholders. Formal specifications have been proposed as ways to produce human-interpretable policies for autonomous systems that can still be learned from examples. Previous work showed that despite claims of interpretability, humans are unable to use formal specifications presented in a variety of ways to validate even simple robot behaviors. This work uses active learning, a standard pedagogical method, to attempt to improve humans' ability to validate policies in signal temporal logic (STL). Results show that overall validation accuracy is not high, at 65\% $\pm$ 15% (mean $\pm$ standard deviation), and that the three conditions of no active learning, active learning, and active learning with feedback do not significantly differ from each other. Our results suggest that the utility of formal specifications for human interpretability is still unsupported but point to other avenues of development which may enable improvements in system validation.

Much of the recent work developing formal methods techniques to specify or learn the behavior of autonomous systems is predicated on a belief that formal specifications are interpretable and useful for humans when checking systems. Though frequently asserted, this assumption is rarely tested. We performed a human experiment$(\mathbf{N}=62)$with a mix of people who were and were not familiar with formal methods beforehand, asking them to validate whether a set of signal temporal logic (STL) constraints would keep an agent out of harm and allow it to complete a task in a gridworld capture-the-ftag setting. Validation accuracy was 45%$\pm$20% (mean$\pm$standard deviation). The ground-truth validity of a specification, subjects' familiarity with formal methods, and subjects' level of education were found to be significant factors in determining validation correctness. Participants exhibited an affirmation bias, causing significantly increased accuracy on valid specifications, but significantly decreased accuracy on invalid specifications. Additionally, participants, particularly those familiar with formal methods, tended to be overconfident in their answers, and be similarly confident regardless of actual correctness. Our data do not support the belief that formal specifications are inherently human-interpretable to a meaningful degree for system validation. We recommend ergonomic improvements to data presentation and validation training, which should be tested before claims of interpretability make their way back into the formal methods literature.

Deep reinforcement learning has generated superhuman AI in competitive games such as Go and StarCraft. Can similar learning techniques create a superior AI teammate for human-machine collaborative games? Will humans prefer AI teammates that improve objective team performance or those that improve subjective metrics of trust? In this study, we perform a single-blind evaluation of teams of humans and AI agents in the cooperative card game Hanabi, with both rule-based and learning-based agents. In addition to the game score, used as an objective metric of the human-AI team performance, we also quantify subjective measures of the human's perceived performance, teamwork, interpretability, trust, and overall preference of AI teammate. We find that humans have a clear preference toward a rule-based AI teammate (SmartBot) over a state-of-the-art learning-based AI teammate (Other-Play) across nearly all subjective metrics, and generally view the learning-based agent negatively, despite no statistical difference in the game score. This result has implications for future AI design and reinforcement learning benchmarking, highlighting the need to incorporate subjective metrics of human-AI teaming rather than a singular focus on objective task performance.

There is an emerging desire across manufacturing industries to deploy robots that support people in their manual work, rather than replace human workers. This paper explores one such opportunity, which is to field a mobile robotic assistant that travels between part carts and the automotive final assembly line, delivering tools and materials to the human workers. We compare the performance of a mobile robotic assistant to that of a human assistant to gain a better understanding of the factors that impact its effectiveness. Statistically significant differences emerge based on type of assistant, human or robot. Interaction times and idle times are statistically significantly higher for the robotic assistant than the human assistant. We report additional differences in participant's subjective response regarding team fluency, situational awareness, comfort and safety. Finally, we discuss how results from the experiment inform the design of a more effective assistant.