Organizations: Department of Electrical and Computer Engineering, George Washington University · the Department of Electrical and Computer Engineering, Northeastern University · the Department of Mechanical and Aerospace Engineering, George Washington University
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.
Figures & tables
Fig. 1 : Overview of the proposed system and the two planning modes inside the core planning engine. The system first analyzes the surrounding environment via perception models; the central interface then activates one planning mode based on the task type. The planning results, either way-point paths or high-level goals, are sent to the low-level controller to drive the drone. Details of the two modes are elaborated in Section II .
Fig. 2 : Semantic Fusion: The top row displays the original RGB inputs. The bottom row illustrates the semantic segmentation masks after the recursive fusion strategy.
Fig. 3 : Voice interface and Gazebo simulation environment.
Fig. 4 : Evaluation setups: (a) shows the joint planning configuration, while (b) details the intent-aware setup.
Method
Time (s)
Total Dist (m)
Human Dist (m)
Proposed
14.83 ± 0.79
24.46 ± 1.41
12.26 ± 0.76
Non-Cooperative
19.26 ± 0.90
27.40 ± 1.33
14.90 ± 0.90
TABLE I : Simulation performance of the intent-aware cooperation module compared to the non-cooperative baseline.
Metric
Rational
Ambiguous
Overall
Avg. True-Target Prob.
75.2% ± 2.2%
65.3% ± 3.0%
71.9% ± 2.0%
Top-1 Acc.
90.6% ± 2.5%
70.7% ± 3.2%
84.0% ± 2.8%
TABLE II : Intent recognition performance measured by average true-target probability and top-1 accuracy.
Fig. 5 : Task completion progress (left) and expected remaining travel distance (right) over time for the proposed method and non-cooperative baseline.
Attribute
Blue box
Black box
People
Yellow Box
Net
Confidence
0.8147
0.6342
0.5336
0.4644
0.3371
Range x
[7.39,7.64]
[−0.02,0.47]
[4.89,6.53]
[5.10,5.70]
[3.02,3.66]
Range y
[−1.04,−0.68]
[−0.09,0.30]
[0.58,1.21]
[−1.30,−0.62]
[0.49,1.17]
TABLE III : 2D Object Localizations and Confidence Scores.
Fig. 6 : Visualized results of uncertainty-mitigation in Gazebo simulations. Note that we only compare paths successfully generated by all three methods for length comparison.
Method
Time (s)
Total Dist (m)
Human Dist (m)
Proposed
20.59 ± 1.25
16.31 ± 1.91
9.22 ± 2.66
Non-Cooperative
27.61 ± 2.99
19.86 ± 2.88
11.29 ± 2.38
TABLE IV : Real-world performance of the intent-aware cooperation module compared to the non-cooperative baseline.
Method
Success (%)
Queries
Tokens
Time (s)
Passive
33.3
0.0
1079.3±50.2
8.80±1.07
Exhaustive
100
2.7
4109.0±81.1
13.35±1.51
Ours
100
1.3
3434.8±74.2
11.84±1.47
TABLE V : Real-world experimental results for uncertainty-mitigation joint planning, averaged on three commands.