When the Inference Meets the Explicitness or Why Multimodality Can Make Us Forget About the Perfect Predictor

Effective human-robot collaboration in open-world environments requires joint planning under uncertainty about the task, the environment, and the human teammate. Communication is the most direct means of resolving such uncertainty, yet most existing systems support only one-way communication: robots listen and act, treating humans as passive supervisors rather than conversational teammates capable of two-way dialogue. We propose a unified human-robot joint planning system in which the robot actively resolves uncertainty through two complementary communication channels. When uncertainty is decision-critical, an uncertainty-mitigation joint planning module engages the human in clarification dialogue: it grounds ambiguous instructions via an LLM-assisted active elicitation mechanism, enumerates traversability hypotheses through a hypothesis-augmented A* search, and computes a cost-optimal querying policy via dynamic programming, so that the robot asks only the questions whose answers actually matter for the plan. When explicit dialogue is unnecessary or impractical, a real-time intent-aware collaboration module instead reads implicit, nonverbal cues, maintaining a probabilistic belief over the human's latent task intent from spatial and directional signals to enable coordination-aware task selection without any communication overhead. We validate the proposed system in both Gazebo simulations and real-world UAV deployments, integrated with a voice dialogue interface and a Vision-Language Model (VLM)-based 3D semantic perception pipeline. Experimental results show that cost-optimal clarification dialogue cuts the interaction cost by 51.9% while maintaining a 100% task success rate, and implicit intent reading reduces the cooperative task execution time by 25.4% compared to the baselines.

Effective robot-to-human communication can increase transparency and trust, reduce uncertainty, and contribute to safer collaboration in shared workspaces. Designing and validating an effective robot communication strategy is challenging due to the varying and often limited communication modalities across robots, differences in how diverse recipients interpret messages, and the underexplored virtual-to-real gap in studies of communication legibility. We present a systematic, large-scale comparative validation of existing communication strategies for a mobile non-humanoid robot across message types and settings (online and in-person). Based on the prescribed message types in the existing standards for industrial robots, we realize and compare a low-expressive, unimodal LED-based strategy with a highly expressive, multimodal one that leverages robotic gaze, gestures, and voice. For each strategy, we analyze the communication of a turning intention, an attention request, error status, whether the robot is stuck, and whether it is functioning normally. We evaluate these strategies in replicated online and in-person experiments. We find strong evidence that highly expressive multimodal communication is perceived as more legible and intuitive than unimodal LED-based communication. Comparing the online and real-world study findings, we observe a notable decrease in overall legibility, particularly for signaling with LEDs. Similarly, confidence in message interpretation decreases during the real-world evaluation.

Robots in shared spaces often move in ways that are difficult for people to interpret, placing the burden on humans to adapt. High-DoF robots exhibit motion that people read as expressive, intentionally or not, making it important to understand how such cues are perceived. We present an online video study evaluating how different signaling modalities, expressive motion, lights, text, and audio, shape people's ability to understand a quadruped robot's upcoming navigation actions (Boston Dynamics Spot). Across four common scenarios, we measure how each modality influences humans' (1) accuracy in predicting the robot's next navigation action, (2) confidence in that prediction, and (3) trust in the robot to act safely. The study tests how expressive motions compare to explicit channels, whether aligned multimodal cues enhance interpretability, and how conflicting cues affect user confidence and trust. We contribute initial evidence on the relative effectiveness of implicit versus explicit signaling strategies.