Papers › Inferring Belief States in Partially-Observable Human-Robot Teams

Inferring Belief States in Partially-Observable Human-Robot Teams

18 Mar 2024arXiv:2403.11955links table onlyarchive 2025-07-28

Jack Kolb, Karen M. Feigh

The archive published only this paper's code-link row. Authors, date and abstract are from arXiv's metadata (CC0), read from the Kaggle arXiv metadata snapshot of 2026-09-12 where its title matched the archive's; the title is the archive's.

We investigate the real-time estimation of human situation awareness using observations from a robot teammate with limited visibility. In human factors and human-autonomy teaming, it is recognized that individuals navigate their environments using an internal mental simulation, or mental model. The mental model informs cognitive processes including situation awareness, contextual reasoning, and task planning. In teaming domains, the mental model includes a team model of each teammate's beliefs and capabilities, enabling fluent teamwork without the need for explicit communication. However, little work has applied team models to human-robot teaming. In this work we compare the performance of two models, logical predicates and large language models, at estimating user situation awareness over varying visibility conditions. Our results indicate that the methods are largely resilient to low-visibility conditions in our domain, however opportunities exist to improve their overall performance.

PaperPDFCode

Code

gt-cec/tmm-hri officialmentioned in paperpytorch report

Repository list and official/mentioned flags are the archive's, frozen 2025-07-28. Reachability, where shown, is from one Syntology probe window (2026-09-16 to 2026-09-18); repositories not probed show nothing. GitHub stars are not tracked.

Code Syntology ran Syntology

Not run by Syntology. Nothing on this page verifies that the listed code works.

Results from the paper archive 2025-07-28

No leaderboard rows for this paper in the archive.

Report a problem or propose a change · a person checks every report against the paper or source before anything changes; decisions are listed on /corrections