Joint Decision-Making in Robot Teleoperation: When are Two Heads Better Than One?

Operators working with robots in safety-critical domains have to make decisions under uncertainty, which remains a challenging problem for a single human operator. An open question is whether two human operators can make better decisions jointly, as compared to a single operator alone. While prior work has shown that two heads are better than one, such studies have been mostly limited to static and passive tasks. We investigate joint decision-making in a dynamic task involving humans teleoperating robots. We conduct a human-subject experiment with $N=100$ participants where each participant performed a navigation task with two mobiles robots in simulation. We find that joint decision-making through confidence sharing improves dyad performance beyond the better-performing individual (p<0.0001). Further, we find that the extent of this benefit is regulated both by the skill level of each individual, as well as how well-calibrated their confidence estimates are. Finally, we present findings on characterising the human-human dyad's confidence calibration based on the individuals constituting the dyad. Our findings demonstrate for the first time that two heads are better than one, even on a spatiotemporal task which includes active operator control of robots.