Bridging Teacher Expectations and Robot Learning via Coupling Dynamics

Successful Human-Robot Teaching assumes alignment between robot processing needs and human teaching intent. To better understand this alignment, this work seeks to uncover the underlying logic that humans intuitively apply when teaching. Through an exploratory, bottom-up study with N=34, participants observing two distinct robot Reinforcement Learning (RL) scenarios, we analyze 204 intuitive teaching responses across early, middle, and late learning phases. Results reveal that teaching decisions consist of a nuanced, interconnected network of Triggers (situational catalysts), Objectives (subjective teaching targets), Signals (communicative acts), and Strategies (high-level governance) in which teachers spontaneously adopt diverse roles, acting as coaches, engineers, or designers and prioritize different objectives. Based on these results, we introduce the TOSS Framework, which conceptualizes Human-Robot teaching as a procedural loop between robot behavior and human teaching actions, in which human teaching decisions are modeled as Trigger-Signal responses modulated by teaching Objectives and Strategies. It provides future research with an openly accessible dataset and a theoretical foundation for a) understanding teaching decisions and b) simulating realistic oracles as well as c) designing human-centered teaching settings and novel robot learning algorithms that go beyond the constraints of current robot learning settings.

Human-robot collaboration describes the process of humans and autonomous agents working together to accomplish common goals. This process is facilitated best when robot policies, or behaviors in different situations, are made transparent to humans. Demonstration-based explanations have been a focus of human-robot collaboration research, and the field has frequently drawn upon literature from education to improve how humans are taught robot policies. However, no single teaching method has been proven effective across domains, difficulties, learners, and other variables; the question of how humans can most effectively be taught robot policies remains open. In traditional classrooms, learners are shown erroneous examples, in which they reflect on and correct incorrect responses to understand common pitfalls when learning a concept. We propose using erroneous examples to teach robot policies, extending an existing policy teaching framework. We conduct a user study in which participants view incorrect demonstrations of robot behavior and correct the actions to align with the actual policy. Our findings suggest that viewing these incorrect demonstrations and verbalizing one's reasoning in predicting a robot's actions improves retention of the policy over time, in agreement with the effect of erroneous examples in classrooms. We also categorize participants into distinct learning styles and establish that participants using inverse reinforcement learning-like reasoning perform best on policy prediction tasks. With this work, we aim to advance the methods by which robots educate humans on their policies.

Comparative feedback, asking people which of two behaviors they prefer, has become a standard way to align robot and agent behavior with human intent when the reward itself cannot be specified directly. Preference-based reward learning typically casts the human teacher as a passive oracle answering learner-generated queries. We argue this forfeits the teacher's defining advantage: knowledge of the objective. A teacher who knows the target can construct training examples more efficiently than any learner-driven acquisition strategy, an advantage that widens as the reward's feature dimension grows. However, exploiting this advantage requires an accurate model of what the learner currently knows. We therefore recast preference learning as a human-autonomy team problem coupling two behavioral models: the teacher maintains a model of the learner to design an informative curriculum, and the learner maintains a second-order model of the teacher's model, emitting structured preference constraints (understanding statements) that keep the teacher's model of the learner synchronized. In simulation, an informed teacher outperforms learner-led selection; teacher-model drift under alternating teachers erodes this advantage; and understanding statements repair it, with second-order (ToM-2) statements outperforming mean-belief statements when the teacher's error about the learner is concentrated in a particular direction rather than spread evenly.