Human-Like Motion Planning Based on Game Theoretic Decision Making
Bibliographic Data
| ID | 21199876 |
|---|---|
| Authors | Annemarie Turnwald (0000-0001-9491-5778, Technical University of Munich, corresponding author), Dirk Wollherr (0000-0003-2810-6790, Technical University of Munich) |
| Year | 2019 |
| Volume | 11 |
| Issue | 1 |
| Pages | 151-170 |
| Publication date | 2019-01-01 |
| Peer Reviewed | Yes |
| Open Access | Yes |
| Type | ARTICLE |
| Venue | International Journal of Social Robotics (JOURNAL) |
| Journal identifiers | ISSN: 1875-4791 • E-ISSN: 1875-4805 |
| Publisher | Springer Science and Business Media LLC (PUBLISHER) |
| DOI | 10.1007/s12369-018-0487-2 |
| OpenAlex | W2842410450 |
| Language | EN |
| Citations received | 2 |
| References cited | 74 |
Robot motion planners are increasingly being equipped with an intriguing property: human likeness. This property can enhance human–robot interactions and is essential for a convincing computer animation of humans. This paper presents a (multi-agent) motion planner for dynamic environments that generates human-like motion. The presented motion planner stands out against other motion planners by explicitly modeling human-like decision making and taking interdependencies between individuals into account, which is achieved by applying game theory. Non-cooperative games and the concept of a Nash equilibrium are used to formulate the decision process that describes human motion behavior while walking in a populated environment. We evaluate whether our approach generates human-like motions through two experiments: a video study showing simulated, moving pedestrians, wherein the participants are passive observers, and a collision avoidance study, wherein the participants interact within virtual reality with an agent that is controlled by different motion planners. The experiments are designed as variations of the Turing test, which determines whether participants can differentiate between human motions and artificially generated motions. The results of both studies coincide and show that the participants could not distinguish between human motion behavior and our artificial behavior based on game theory. In contrast, the participants could distinguish human motions from motions based on established planners, such as the reciprocal velocity obstacles or social forces
Animation · Computer animation · Computer vision · Human–computer interaction · Motion Capture · Motion planning · Robot · Simulation · Computer Science · Evacuation and Crowd Dynamics · Reinforcement Learning in Robotics · Social Robot Interaction and HRI · Artificial Intelligence
Modeling Bounded Rationality
An Experimental Study of Apparent Behavior
Who Sees Human?
The Uncanny Valley [From the Field]
Goal attribution without agency cues
Movement and Mind
Social force model for pedestrian dynamics
On seeing human
Towards a Socially Acceptable Collision Avoidance for a Mobile Robot Navigating Among Pedestrians Using a Pedestrian Model
Measuring the Effectiveness of Readability for Mobile Robot Locomotion
Understanding Human Avoidance Behavior
Cooperative Dynamic Manipulation of Unknown Flexible Objects
Increasing Helpfulness towards a Robot by Emotional Adaption to the User
Socio-Contextual Constraints for Human Approach with a Mobile Robot
From Proxemics Theory to Socially-Aware Navigation
Anthropomorphic Interactions with a Robot and Robot–like Agent
Effects of form and motion on judgments of social robots׳ animacy, likability, trustworthiness and unpleasantness
An Integrated Decision Making Approach for Adaptive Shared Control of Mobility Assistance Robots
Timescale bias in the attribution of mind
| Unique citing works | 2 |
|---|---|
| Citations per year | 0,33 |
| Citation span | 2020 - 2023 (4) |
| Citation velocity | historical |
| Highly cited | No |
| Citation types | Neutral: 2 |