Question: Page 2:  states that agent has only a partial description of a goal state. So, does the uncertainty in this task reduce to uncertainty about the goal state? Toward the end of the paper I discovered that the uncertainty actually  comes from missing environment annotations. This needs to be clarified.
Evidence: Problem. We apply HARI to modeling a human-assisted navigation (HAN) problem. In HAN, a human requests an agent to find an object in an indoor environment. Each task request asks the agent to go to a room of type r and find an object of type o (e.g., find a mug in a kitchen). The agent is equipped with a camera and shares its camera view with the human. We assume that the human is sufficiently familiar with the environment that they can recognize the agent's location by looking at its current view. Before issuing a task request, the human imagines a goal location (but do not reveal it to the agent). We are primarily interested in evaluating success in goal-finding, i.e. whether the agent can arrive at the human's intended goal location. Even though there could be multiple locations that match a request, the agent only succeeds if it arrives exactly at the chosen goal location. We also determine success in request-fulfilling, where the agent successfully fulfills a request if it navigates to any node that is within two meters of an object that matches the request.
While an agent is performing a task, it may request the human to provide additional information via telecommunication (e.g., a chat app). Specifically, it can ask for a description of its current location (CUR), the goal location (GOAL), or a subgoal location that is on the path from its current location to the goal location (SUB). Detail about how the subgoals are determined is in the Appendix.
Operation Environment. We construct the operation environments using the environment graphs provided by the Matterport3D simulator. Each environment graph is generated from a 3D model of a house where each node is a location in the house and each edge connects two nearby unobstructed locations. Each operation state s corresponds to a node in the graph. At any time, the agent's operation action space A consists of traversing to any of the nodes that are adjacent to its current node.
We employ a discrete bag-of-features representation for state descriptions. 3 A bag of features represents the information that the agent extracts from the raw input that the agent perceives (e.g., an image, a language sentence). Working with this intermediate input allows us to easily vary the type and amount of information given to the agent. Specifically, we simulate two settings of descriptions: dense and sparse. At evaluation time, the agent perceives sparse descriptions and request the assistant for dense descriptions. A dense description of a current location contains the room name at the location, and the features of M objects restricted to be within δ meters of the location. The features of each object consists of (i) its name, (ii) horizontal and vertical angles (relative to the current viewpoint), and (iii) distance (in meters) from the object to the current location. A dense description of a goal follows the same representation scheme. In the sparse setting, the current-location description does not include the room name. Moreover, we remove the features of objects that are not in the top 100 most frequent objects, emulating an imperfect object detector module. The sparse goal description (the task request) has only features of the target object and the room name where the object is located at. Especially, if a subgoal location is adjacent or coincides with the agent's current location, instead of describing room and object features, the human specifies the ground-truth action to go to the subgoal (an action is specified by its horizontal and vertical angles, and travel distance). 4   Experimental Procedure. We conduct our experiments in three phases. In the pre-training phase, we learn an operation policy π with dense descriptions of the current location and the goal. In the training phase, the agent perceives a sparse description of its current location and is given a sparse initial goal description. We use advantage actor-critic to learn an interaction policy ψ θ that controls how the agent communicates with the human and navigates in an environment. The human always returns dense descriptions. The interaction policy is trained in environments that are previously seen as well as unseen during pre-training. Finally, in the evaluation phase, the interaction policy is tested on three conditions: seen environment and target object type but starting from a new room (UNSEENSTR), seen environment but new target object type (UNSEENOBJ), and new environment (UNSEENENV).
Problem. We apply HARI to modeling a human-assisted navigation (HAN) problem. In HAN, a human requests an agent to find an object in an indoor environment. Each task request asks the agent to go to a room of type r and find an object of type o (e.g., find a mug in a kitchen). The agent is equipped with a camera and shares its camera view with the human. We assume that the human is sufficiently familiar with the environment that they can recognize the agent’s location by looking at its current view. Before issuing a task request, the human imagines a goal location (but do not reveal it to the agent). We are primarily interested in evaluating success in goal-finding, i.e. whether the agent can arrive at the human’s intended goal location. Even though there could be multiple locations that match a request, the agent only succeeds if it arrives exactly at the chosen goal location. We also determine success in request-fulfilling, where the agent successfully fulfills a request if it navigates to any node that is within two meters of an object that matches the request. While an agent is performing a task, it may request the human to provide additional information via telecommunication (e.g., a chat app). Specifically, it can ask for a description of its current location (CUR), the goal location (GOAL), or a subgoal location that is on the path from its current location to the goal location (SUB). Detail about how the subgoals are determined is in the Appendix.
Answer: The agent also has imperfect information about its *current state*, not just the goal state (sec 5).