Why Robots Are Bad at Detecting Their Mistakes: Limitations of Miscommunication Detection in Human-Robot Dialogue
Not on the map. Why?
Abstract (arXiv)
Detecting miscommunication in human-robot interaction is a critical function for maintaining user engagement and trust. While humans effortlessly detect communication errors in conversations through both verbal and non-verbal cues, robots face significant challenges in interpreting non-verbal feedback, despite advances in computer vision for recognizing affective expressions. This research evaluates the effectiveness of machine learning models in detecting miscommunications in robot dialogue. Using a multi-modal dataset of 240 human-robot conversations, where four distinct types of conversational failures were systematically introduced, we assess the performance of state-of-the-art computer vision models. After each conversational turn, users provided feedback on whether they perceived an error, enabling an analysis of the models' ability to accurately detect robot mistakes. Despite using state-of-the-art models, the performance barely exceeds random chance in identifying miscommunication, while on a dataset with more expressive emotional content, they successfully identified confused states. To explore the underlying cause, we asked human raters to do the same. They could also only identify around half of the induced miscommunications, similarly to our model. These results uncover a fundamental limitation in identifying robot miscommunications in dialogue: even when users perceive the induced miscommunication as such, they often do not communicate this to their robotic conversation partner. This knowledge can shape expectations of the performance of computer vision models and can help researchers to design better human-robot conversations by deliberately eliciting feedback where needed.
Key facts. Cited by 1 paper in the map (data through 14 Oct 2026). Builds on 13 of its 46 references that are in the map. First posted on arXiv 25 Jun 2025.
Builds on
13 of 46 references.
References · 13
- 2015Deep Residual Learning for Image Recognitioncited by 52,096
- 2014Very Deep Convolutional Networks for Large-Scale Image Recognitioncited by 15,364
- 2018MELD: A Multimodal Multi-Party Dataset for Emotion Recognition in Conversationscited by 643
- 2019MediaPipe: A Framework for Building Perception Pipelinescited by 583
- 2013Challenges in Representation Learning: A report on three machine learning contestscited by 302
- 2018Deep Facial Expression Recognition: A Surveycited by 270
- 2013Crowdsourcing a Word-Emotion Association Lexiconcited by 196
- 2022EmoBank: Studying the Impact of Annotation Perspective and Representation Format on Dimensional Emotion Analysiscited by 76
- 2022Dimensional Modeling of Emotions in Text with Appraisal Theories: Corpus Creation, Annotation Reliability, and Predictioncited by 46
- 2016FaceNet2ExpNet: Regularizing a Deep Face Recognition Net for Expression Recognitioncited by 25
- 2017AI Challenges in Human-Robot Cognitive Teamingcited by 9
- 2022APPReddit: a Corpus of Reddit Posts Annotated for Appraisalcited by 7
1 more
Built on by
Citing papers per year: 2025: 1.
1 paper.