Synergy Over Spiral: A Logistics 5.0 Game-Theoretic Model for Trust-Fatigue Co-regulation in Human-Cobot Order Picking

Repeated human-robot interaction (HRI) requires proactively accounting for humans who continually adapt to evolving beliefs about the robot. Prior frameworks often treat encounters as isolated events, suffering cumulative task performance decay as human perception drifts, or maintain long-term influence through erratic, unpredictable behavior that erodes perceived human trust and relies on computationally unscalable formulations. To address these gaps, we introduce the Belief- Aware Influence and Trust (BAIT) controller. BAIT integrates a hierarchical particle filter, which infers both fast human strategic shifts and slow perceptual belief updates, with a belief-aware Model Predictive Path Integral planner. BAIT explicitly optimizes the trade-off between long-horizon influence and human trust, while enforcing immediate task performance as a strict constraint. Across simulations, a human-subject study, and a real-world GEM vehicle deployments in repeated lane-merging scenarios, BAIT achieves task performance comparable to baselines that optimize long-term influence through unpredictability while yielding significantly higher user trust. The video demonstrating our experiments is available at https://youtu.be/9o4GqKLWDCw.

AI systems are fallible, and humans can make mistakes in deciding whether to trust AI over their own judgment. Thus, improving human-AI collaboration requires understanding when, why, and how humans decide to rely on AI. We study two distinct reliance decisions: the delegation choice -- deciding when to let AI act autonomously without knowing its output, and the adoption choice -- evaluating AI suggestions and deciding how to use them. Both of these decoupled reliance patterns shape collaboration, but prior work rarely studies them together in realistic settings with the same users. We address this gap by studying collaborative human--AI teams competing in a question-answering game in which humans can choose when and how to work with AI agents to win. Our 24 matches pair 23 expert humans with 16 AI agents, capturing 387 delegation and 1440 adoption decisions. While human--AI collaboration performs better than either AI or humans alone, humans make suboptimal collaboration decisions, both under-relying on correct AI suggestions (3.9% of opportunities missed) and over-relying when AI misleads them (1.7%). Both parties contribute wrong answers: reported model confidence is near chance when humans and AI disagree, while confirmation bias drives higher under-reliance (64.5%) when an AI suggestion agrees with humans' initial incorrect answer. To close this gap, we recommend calibrated confidence, evidence-grounded explanations, and mechanisms that help users refine trust.

We focus on human-robot collaborative transport, a challenging task of broad relevance spanning logistics, manufacturing, and the home, in which a user and a robot work together to relocate a large or heavy object. To act as an effective partner, the robot should reduce the user's effort by contributing to efficient relocation of the object while remaining physically responsive to them. Prior work often addresses these capabilities separately, producing robots that may move the object efficiently but resist user input, or accommodate the user but depend on continuous guidance. Our key insight is that obstacle-constrained collaborative transport requires integrating predictions of human collaborative behavior with compliant robot control. To this end, we introduce PROACT, a framework for human-robot collaborative transport that incorporates anticipation into compliant whole-body control through a learned model of human collaborative behavior. Trained on a large-scale, real-world dataset of dyadic human transport demonstrations, our transformer architecture distills collaborative behavior into predictions of future object motion. Across 108 real-world trials with a 9-DoF mobile manipulator, PROACT reduces mean interaction work by 59.2% and 20.4%, and mean completion time by 12.9% and 6.9%, relative to compliance-only and MPC baselines, respectively. Footage from our experiments can be found at https://youtu.be/qAGvQfVPjbk.