SearcharxivSearch

arXiv · 2212.05286

A Survey of Multi-Agent Human-Robot Interaction Systems

Abstract

This article presents a survey of literature in the area of Human-Robot Interaction (HRI), specifically on systems containing more than two agents (i.e., having multiple humans and/or multiple robots). We identify three core aspects of ``Multi-agent" HRI systems that are useful for understanding how these systems differ from dyadic systems and from one another. These are the Team structure, Interaction style among agents, and the system's Computational characteristics. Under these core aspects, we present five attributes of HRI systems, namely Team size, Team composition, Interaction model, Communication modalities, and Robot control. These attributes are used to characterize and distinguish one system from another. We populate resulting categories with examples from recent literature along with a brief discussion of their applications and analyze how these attributes differ from the case of dyadic human-robot systems. We summarize key observations from the current literature, and identify challenges and promising areas for future research in this domain. In order to realize the vision of robots being part of the society and interacting seamlessly with humans, there is a need to expand research on multi-human -- multi-robot systems. Not only do these systems require coordination among several agents, they also involve multi-agent and indirect interactions which are absent from dyadic HRI systems. Adding multiple agents in HRI systems requires advanced interaction schemes, behavior understanding and control methods to allow natural interactions among humans and robots. In addition, research on human behavioral understanding in mixed human-robot teams also requires more attention. This will help formulate and implement effective robot control policies in HRI systems with large numbers of heterogeneous robots and humans; a team composition reflecting many real-world scenarios.

Explore related subjects

Keep this discovery

BibTeXRIS

Abhinav Dahiya, Alexander M. Aroyo, Kerstin Dautenhahn, Stephen L. Smith. 2022-12-10. A Survey of Multi-Agent Human-Robot Interaction Systems. https://arxiv.org/abs/2212.05286

Cite the original work for its findings. Save a collection to share your selection of sources.

KEEP EXPLORING

Related papers

IMLE-VLA: Fast Single-Step Action Generation for Vision-Language-Action Policies

Vision-language-action (VLA) policies leverage pretrained vision-language backbones to achieve strong cross-task generalization. A leading design couples this backbone with a dedicated continuous action head trained via diffusion or flow matching. However, such heads rely on iterative multi-step sampling, for example 10 Euler steps in $\pi_{0.5}$. This creates an inference bottleneck that produces stop-and-go movement in the robot and slower task completion. We introduce IMLE-VLA, which replaces the iterative action head with a single-step conditional generator trained via conditional Implicit Maximum Likelihood Estimation (cIMLE). The cIMLE objective promotes multimodal action coverage, avoiding the mode collapse of naive regression heads while eliminating multi-step sampling entirely. When IMLE-VLA is applied to $\pi_{0.5}$, it increases inference frequency 3.67x (55 Hz vs. 15 Hz), enabling up to 11x higher action throughput. On the 40-task LIBERO benchmark, IMLE-VLA achieves the highest average success rate (98.0%) among all baselines while leading in inference frequency. Under the test-time perturbations of LIBERO-plus, IMLE-VLA retains $\pi_{0.5}$'s robustness while other baselines degrade sharply, confirming that the cIMLE head preserves generalization. Real-world experiments on a Franka Emika Panda across four tasks demonstrate smoother motion (2.2x to 3.0x lower jerk) and faster task completion, with IMLE-VLA outperforming $\pi_{0.5}$ on every task and reducing average VLA inference time per episode by 3.9x to 6.6x. Videos and code are available at https://kianhk6.github.io/IMLE-VLA/

cs.RO

ObstaDiff: Generalizable Diffusion Policy Learning via Obstacle-aware Representations

Imitation learning has achieved impressive results in robotic manipulation, yet most existing approaches assume clean backgrounds and lack explicit mechanisms for obstacle-aware motion generation. Extending such policies to cluttered, real-world scenes with unstructured obstacles remains a key generalization challenge. We present ObstaDiff, a decomposed diffusion-policy framework with a lightweight obstacle-aware visual encoder. ObstaDiff extracts a structured target-obstacle-background representation, enabling the downstream alignment policy to generate end-effector trajectories toward a target-centered bottleneck pose while reasoning about surrounding obstacles. We evaluate ObstaDiff on 61 real-robot greenhouse trials per method (366 executions in total). ObstaDiff achieves 75.41% average task success and 8.20% average obstacle collision rate, outperforming representative imitation-learning baselines and improving generalization in cluttered agricultural scenes.

cs.RO

Testing Between the Test Cases: Proving End-to-End Steering in Conditions You Never Drove

AI-based automated vehicle testing is challenging because a model that passes every test condition can still fail in the real world. Formal verification offers a way to directly address this gap. On a simulated highway and an arterial road we trained two small end-to-end steering networks each in CARLA, one on clear conditions alone and one on clear, fog, night and low sun. All four models were driven against a 2.19 ft lane-departure budget. Without driving again, we used bound propagation, a formal method that reads the trained weights, to compute how far steering can drift at every disturbance strength between two captured images. One calculation covers more than a campaign could drive: on the arterial it spans 133 poses, where ten intensities each would be 10^133 combinations, in minutes on one GPU. Not only did formal verification find conditions that broke the clear-trained policy without simulation testing, it provided some preliminary evidence for potential failures between the test cases. Our overall conclusion is that formal verification is a viable complement to simulation, and could be adopted as a part of verification and validation for automated driving.

cs.RO