Skip to main content

Advertisement

Springer Nature Link
Log in

Deceptive robot motion: synthesis, analysis and experiments

  • Published:
Autonomous Robots Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

Much robotics research explores how robots can clearly communicate true information. Here, we focus on the counterpart: communicating false information, or hiding information altogether—in one word, deception. Robot deception is useful in conveying intentionality, and in making games against the robot more engaging. We study robot deception in goal-directed motion, in which the robot is concealing its actual goal. We present an analysis of deceptive motion, starting with how humans would deceive, moving to a mathematical model that enables the robot to autonomously generate deceptive motion, and ending with a studies on the implications of deceptive motion for human-robot interactions and the effects of iterated deception.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Subscribe and save

Springer+ Basic
$34.99 /Month
  • Get 10 units per month
  • Download Article/Chapter or eBook
  • 1 Unit = 1 Article or 1 Chapter
  • Cancel anytime
Subscribe now

Buy Now

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Fig. 1
Fig. 2
Fig. 3
Fig. 4
Fig. 5
Fig. 6
Fig. 7
Fig. 8
Fig. 9
Fig. 10
Fig. 11
Fig. 12
Fig. 13
Fig. 14
Fig. 15

Similar content being viewed by others

Explore related subjects

Discover the latest articles, news and stories from top researchers in related subjects.

References

  • Adar, E., Tan, D.S., & Teevan, J. (2013). Benevolent deception in human computer interaction. In Proceedings of the SIGCHI conference on human factors in computing systems, (pp. 1863–1872), ACM.

  • Alami, R., Clodic, A., Montreuil, V., Sisbot, E.A., & Chatila, R. (2006). Toward human-aware robot task planning. AAAI Spring Symposium (pp. 39–46).

  • Arkin, R.C. (2011). The ethics of robotic deception. The computational turn: past, present, futures?.

  • Arkin, R. C. (2012). Robots that need to mislead: Biologically-inspired machine deception. IEEE Intelligent Systems.

  • Arkin, R. C., Ulam, P., & Wagner, A. R. (2012). Moral decision making in autonomous systems: Enforcement, moral emotions, dignity, trust, and deception. Proceedings of the IEEE, 100(3), 571–589.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Beetz, M., Stulp, F., Esden-Tempski, P., Fedrizzi, A., Klank, U., Kresse, I., et al. (2010). Generality and legibility in mobile manipulation. Autonomous Robots, 28, 21–44.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Biever, C. (2010). Deceptive robots show theory of mind. New Scientist, 207(2779), 24–25.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Biswas, J., Mendoza, J. P., Zhu, D., Choi, B., Klee, S., & Veloso, M. (2014). Opponent-driven planning and execution for pass, attack, and defense in a multi-robot soccer team. International conference on autonomous agents and multi-agent systems (AAMAS) 2014.

  • Breazeal, C., Kidd, C. D., Thomaz, A. L., Hoffman, G., & Berlin, M. (2005). Effects of nonverbal communication on efficiency and robustness in human-robot teamwork. Intelligent robots and systems (IROS), (pp. 708–713), IEEE .

  • Brewer, B. R., Klatzky, R. L., & Matsuoka, Y. (2006). Visual-feedback distortion in a robotic rehabilitation environment. Proceedings of the IEEE, 94(9), 1739–1751.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Castelfranchi, C. (2000). Artificial liars: Why computers will (necessarily) deceive us and each other. Ethics and Information Technology, 2(2), 113–119.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Choudhury, S., Deb, A. K., & Mukherjee, J. (2011) Designing deception in adversarial reinforcement learning.

  • Csibra, G., & Gergely, G. (2007). Obsessed with goals: Functions and mechanisms of teleological interpretation of actions in humans. Acta Psychologica, 124(1), 60–78.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • D’Agostino, R. B. (1971). A second look at analysis of variance on dichotomous data. Journal of Educational Measurement, 8(4), 327–333.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Deits, R., Tellex, S., Thaker, P., Simeonov, D., Kollar, T., & Roy, N. (2013). Clarifying commands with information-theoretic human-robot dialog. Journal of Human-Robot Interaction, 2, 58–79.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Dewar, M. (1989). The art of deception in warfare. Newton Abbot: David & Charles Publishers.

    Google Scholar 

  • Dragan, A., Lee, K., & Srinivasa, S. (2013). Legibility and predictability of robot motion. In Human-Robot Interaction.

  • Dragan, A., & Srinivasa, S. (2012). Formalizing assistive teleoperation. In Robotics: Science and Systems. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.

  • Dragan, A., & Srinivasa, S. (2013). Generating legible motion. In Robotics: Science and Systems.

  • Dragan, A., & Srinivasa, S. (2014) Familiarization to robot motion. In Human-Robot Interaction.

  • Floreano, D., Mitri, S., Magnenat, S., & Keller, L. (2007). Evolutionary conditions for the emergence of communication in robots. Current biology, 17(6), 514–519.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Flynn, R. (1996). Anticipation and deception in squash. In 9th Squash Australia/PSCAA National Coaching conference.

  • Gergely, G., Nadasdy, Z., Csibra, G., & Biro, S. (1995). Taking the intentional stance at 12 months of age. Cognition, 56(2), 165–193.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Gielniak, M., & Thomaz, A. (2011). Generating anticipation in robot motion. In RO-MAN.

  • Goodman, N. D., & Stuhlmüller, A. (2013). Knowledge and implicature: Modeling language understanding as social cognition. Topics in Cognitive Science, 5(1), 173–184.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Grodzinsky, F. S., Miller, K. W., & Wolf, M. J. (2015). Developing automated deceptions and the impact on trust. Philosophy & Technology, 28(1), 91–105.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Hancock, P., Billings, D., & Schaefer, K. (2011). Can you trust your robot? Ergonomics in Design: The Quarterly of Human Factors Applications, 19(3), 24–29.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Holladay, R., Dragan, A., & Srinivasa, S.S. (2014). Legible robot pointing.

  • Jackson, R. C., Warren, S., & Abernethy, B. (2006). Anticipation skill and susceptibility to deceptive movement. Acta psychologica, 123(3), 355–371.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Jim Mainprice, T.S., Akin Sisbot, E., & Alami, R. (2010). Planning safe and legible hand-over motions for human-robot interaction. In IARP Workshop on technical challenges for dependable robots in human environments.

  • Kahn Jr, P.H., Kanda, T., Ishiguro, H., Gill, B.T., Ruckert, J.H., Shen, S., Gary, H.E., Reichert, A.L., Freier, N.G., & Severson, R.L. (2012). Do people hold a humanoid robot morally accountable for the harm it causes? In International conference on Human-robot interaction, pp. 33–40.

  • Nijholt, A. (2010) Computational deception.

  • Raza Abidi, S. S., Williams, M., & Johnston, B. (2013). Human pointing as a robot directive. In Proceedings of the 8th ACM/IEEE international conference on Human-robot interaction, pp. 67–68. IEEE Press.

  • Reynolds, C., & Ishikawa, M. (2006). Robot trickery. In: International workshop on ethics of human interaction with robotic, bionic, and AI systems: Concepts and policies.

  • Sato, E., Yamaguchi, T., & Harashima, F. (2007). Natural interface using pointing behavior for human-robot gestural interaction. IEEE Transactions on Industrial Electronics, 54(2), 1105–1112.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Sharkey, A. Dignity, older people, and robots.

  • Sharkey, A., & Wood, N. (2015). The paro seal robot: demeaning or enabling?.

  • Shim, J., & Arkin, R. C. (2012) Biologically-inspired deceptive behavior for a robot. In From Animals to Animats 12, pp. 401–411. Springer.

  • Shim, J., & Arkin, R. C. (2013). A taxonomy of robot deception and its benefits in hri.

  • Shim, J., & Arkin, R. C. (2014) Other-oriented robot deception: A computational approach for deceptive action generation to benefit the mark.

  • Short, E., Hart, J., Vu, M., & Scassellati, B. (2010). No fair!! an interaction with a cheating robot. In International conference on Human-robot interaction (HRI) (pp. 219–226).

  • Smeeton, N., & Williams, A. (2012). The role of movement exaggeration in the anticipation of deceptive soccer penalty kicks. British Journal of Psychology, 103(4), 539–555.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Takayama, L., Dooley, D., & Ju, W. (2011). Expressing thought: improving robot readability with animation principles. In HRI.

  • Terada, K., & Ito, A. (2010). Can a robot deceive humans? In: Human-Robot Interaction (HRI), 2010 5th ACM/IEEE International Conference on, (pp. 191–192) IEEE.

  • Vázquez, M., May, A., Steinfeld, A., & Chen, W.-H. (2011). A deceptive robot referee in a multiplayer gaming environment. In: 2011 International Conference on Collaboration Technologies and Systems (CTS), (pp. 204–211) IEEE.

  • Vogel, A., Potts, C., & Jurafsky, D. Implicatures and nested beliefs in approximate Decentralized-POMDPs. In: Proceedings of the 51st annual meeting of the association for computational linguistics, Sofia, Bulgaria, August 2013. Association for Computational Linguistics.

  • Wagner, A. R., & Arkin, R. C. (2009). Robot deception: recognizing when a robot should deceive. In 2009 IEEE International Symposium on Computational Intelligence in Robotics and Automation (CIRA), (pp. 46–54) IEEE.

  • Wagner, A. R., & Arkin, R. C. (2011). Acting deceptively: Providing robots with the capacity for deception. International Journal of Social Robotics, 3(1), 5–26.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Whaley, B. (1982). Toward a general theory of deception. The Journal of Strategic Studies, 5(1), 178–192.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Williams, M.-A., Wang, X., Parajuli, P., Abedi, S., Youssef, M., & Wang, W. (2014). The fugitive: a robot in the wild. In Proceedings of the 2014 ACM/IEEE international conference on Human-robot interaction, (pp. 111–111) ACM.

  • Yamaguchi, T., Sato, E., & Sakurai, S. (2007). Recognizing pointing behavior using humatronics oriented human-robot interaction. In 33rd annual conference of the IEEE industrial electronics society, (pp. 4–9).

  • Zucker, M., Ratliff, N., Dragan, A., Pivtoraiko, M., Klingensmith, M., Dellin, C., et al. (2013). Covariant hamiltonian optimization for motion planning. International Journal of Robotics Research, 32, 1164–1193.

    Article  Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. The Robotics Institute, Carnegie Mellon University, Pittsburgh, USA

    Anca Dragan, Rachel Holladay & Siddhartha Srinivasa

Authors
  1. Anca Dragan
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Rachel Holladay
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. Siddhartha Srinivasa
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Rachel Holladay.

Additional information

This is one of several papers published in Autonomous Robots comprising the “Special Issue on Robotics Science and Systems”.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Dragan, A., Holladay, R. & Srinivasa, S. Deceptive robot motion: synthesis, analysis and experiments. Auton Robot 39, 331–345 (2015). https://doi.org/10.1007/s10514-015-9458-8

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s10514-015-9458-8

Keywords

Search

Navigation

pFad - Phonifier reborn

Pfad - The Proxy pFad of © 2024 Garber Painting. All rights reserved.

Note: This service is not intended for secure transactions such as banking, social media, email, or purchasing. Use at your own risk. We assume no liability whatsoever for broken pages.


Alternative Proxies:

Alternative Proxy

pFad Proxy

pFad v3 Proxy

pFad v4 Proxy