prompt_front: Now, answer the following question based on the text below, only give me the answer and do not output any other words.

Question: When did Margaret Way start self-publishing her books as e-books?

Read the following text and answer briefly.

Context 1: Margaret Way (b  Brisbane d  Cleveland, Queensland, Australia ) was an Australian writer of romance novels and women's fiction  A prolific author, Way wrote more than 120 novels since 1970, many through Mills & Boon, a romance imprint of British publisher Harlequin UK Ltd , owned by Harlequin Enterprises 

Biography
Before her marriage, she was a well-known pianist, teacher, vocal coach and accompanist  She began writing when her son, Laurence Way, was born, a friend took a pile of Mills & Boon books to her, she read all and decided that she also could write these types of novels  She began to write and promote her country with her stories set in Australia  She sold her first novels in 1970  Margaret Way lives with her family in her native Brisbane  Beginning in 2013, Margaret began to self-publish, releasing her first "e-book" mid-July 

Margaret died on the 10th of August 2022 in Cleveland, Queensland 

Bibliography

Single Novels
King Country (1970)
Blaze of Silk (1970)
The Time of the Jacaranda (1970)
Bauhinia Junction (1971)
Man from Bahl Bahla (1971)
Summer Magic (1971)
Return to Belle Amber (1971)
Ring of Jade (1972)
Copper Moon (1972)
Rainbow Bird (1972)
Man Like Daintree (1972)
Noonfire (1972)
Storm Over Mandargi (1973)
Wind River (1973)
Love Theme (1974)
McCabe's Kingdom (1974)
Sweet Sundown (1974)
Reeds of Honey (1975)
Storm Flower (1975)
Lesson in Loving (1975)
Flight into Yesterday (1976)
Red Cliffs of Malpara (1976)
Man on Half-moon (1976)
Swan's Reach (1976)
Mutiny in Paradise (1977)
One Way Ticket (1977)
Portrait of Jaime (1977)
Black Ingo (1977)
Awakening Flame (1978)
Wild Swan (1978)
Ring of Fire (1978)
Wake the Sleeping Tiger (1978)
Valley of the Moon (1979)
White Magnolia (1979)
Winds of Heaven (1979)
Blue Lotus (1979)
Butterfly and the Baron (1979)
Golden Puma (1980)
Temple of Fire (1980)
Lord of the High Valley (1980)
Flamingo Park (1980)
North of Capricorn (1981)
Season for Change (1981)
Shadow Dance (1981)
McIvor Affair (1981)
Home to Morning Star (1981)
Broken Rhapsody (1982)
The Silver Veil (1982)
Spellbound (1982)
Hunter's Moon (1982)
Girl at Cobalt Creek (1983)
No Alternative (1983)
House of Memories (1983)
Almost a Stranger (1984)
A place called Rambulara (1984)
Fallen Idol (1984)
Hunt the Sun (1985)
Eagle's Ridge (1985)
The Tiger's Cage (1986)
Innocent in Eden (1986)
Diamond Valley (1986)
Morning Glory (1988)
Devil Moon (1988)
Mowana Magic (1988)
Hungry Heart (1988)
Rise of an Eagle (1988)
One Fateful Summer (1993)
The Carradine Brand (1994)
Holding on to Alex (1997)
The Australian Heiress (1997)
Claiming His Child (1999)
The Cattleman's Bride (2000)
The Cattle Baron (2001)
The Husbands of the Outback (2001)
Secrets of the Outback (2002)
With This Ring (2003)
Innocent Mistress (2004)
Cattle Rancher, Convenient Wife (2007)
Outback Marriages (2007)
Promoted: Nanny to Wife (2007)
Cattle Rancher, Secret Son (2007)
Genni's Dilemma (2008)
Bride At Briar Ridge (2009)
Outback Heiress, Surprise Proposal (2009)
Cattle Baron, Nanny Needed (2009)

Legends of the Outback Series
Mail Order Marriage (1999)
The Bridesmaid's Wedding (2000)
The English Bride (2000)
A Wife at Kimbara (2000)

Koomera Crossing Series
Sarah's Baby (2003)
Runaway Wife (2003)
Outback Bridegroom (2003)
Outback Surrender (2003)
Home to Eden (2004)

McIvor Sisters Series
The Outback Engagement (2005)
Marriage at Murraree (2005)

Men Of The Outback Series
The Cattleman (2006)
The Cattle Baron's Bride (2006)
Her Outback Protector (2006)
The Horseman (2006)

Outback Marriages Series
Outback Man Seeks Wife (2007)
Cattle Rancher, Convenient Wife (2007)

Barons of the Outback Series Multi-Author
Wedding At Wangaree Valley (2008)
Bride At Briar's Ridge (2008)

Family Ties Multi-Author
Once Burned (1995)

Hitched! Multi-Author
A Faulkner Possession (1996)

Simply the Best Multi-Author
Georgia and the Tycoon (1997)

The Big Event Multi-Author
Beresford's Bride (1998)

Guardian Angels Multi-Author
Gabriel's Mission (1998)

Australians Series Multi-Author
7  Her Outback Man (1998)
17  Master of Maramba (2001)
19  Outback Fire (2001)
22  Mistaken Mistress (2002)
24  Outback Angel (2002)
33  The Australian Tycoon's Proposal (2004)
35  His Heiress Wife (2004)

Marrying the Boss Series Multi-Author
Boardroom Proposal (1999)

Contract Brides Series Multi-Author
Strategy for Marriage (2002)

Everlasting Love Series Multi-Author
Hidden Legacy (2008)

Diamond Brides Series Multi-Author
The Australian's Society Bride (2008)

Collections
Summer Magic / Ring of Jade / Noonfire (1981)
Wife at Kimbara / Bridesmaid's Wedding (2005)

Omnibus in Collaboration
Pretty Witch / Without Any Amazement / Storm Over Mandargi (1977) (with Lucy Gillen and Margaret Malcolm)
Dear Caliban / Heart of the Eagle / Swans' Reach (1978) (with Jane Donnelly and Elizabeth Graham)
The Bonds of Matrimony / Dragon Island / Reeds of Honey (1979) (with Elizabeth Hunter and Henrietta Reid)
The Man Outside / Castles in Spain / McCabe's Kingdom (1979) (with Jane Donnelly and Rebecca Stratton)
Winds From The Sea / Island of Darkness / Wind River (1979) (with Margaret Pargeter and Rebecca Stratton)
Moorland Magic / Tree of Idleness / Sweet Sundown (1980) (with Elizabeth Ashton and Elizabeth Hunter)
The Shifting Sands / Portrait of Jaime / Touched by Fire (1982) (with Jane Donnelly and Kay Thorpe)
Head of Chancery / Wild Heart / One-Way Ticket (1986) (with Betty Beaty and Doris Smith)
Heart of the Scorpion / The Winds of Heaven / Sweet Compulsion (1987) (with Janice Gray and Victoria Woolf)
One Brief Sweet Hour / Once More With Feeling / Blue Lotus (1990) (with Jane Arbor and Natalie Sparks)
Marry Me Cowboy (1995) (with Janet Dailey, Susan Fox and Anne McAllister)
Husbands on Horseback (1996) (with Diana Palmer)
Wedlocked (1999) (with Day Leclaire and Anne McAllister)
Mistletoe Magic (1999) (with Betty Neels and Rebecca Winters)
The Australians (2000) (with Helen Bianchin and Miranda Lee)
Weddings Down Under (2001) (with Helen Bianchin and Jessica Hart)
Outback Husbands (2002) (with Marion Lennox)
The Mother's Day Collection (2002) (with Helen Dickson and Kate Hoffmann)
Australian Nights (2003) (with Miranda Lee)
Outback Weddings (2003) (with Barbara Hannay)
Australian Playboys (2003) (with Helen Bianchin and Marion Lennox)
Australian Tycoons (2004) (with Emma Darcy and Marion Lennox)
A Mother's Day Gift (2004) (with Anne Ashley and Lucy Monroe)
White Wedding (2004) (with Judy Christenberry and Jessica Steele)
A Christmas Engagement (2004) (with Sara Craven and Jessica Matthews)
A Very Special Mother's Day (2005) (with Anne Herries)
All I Want for Christmas    (2005) (with Betty Neels and Jessica Steele)
The Mills and Boon Collection (2006) (with Caroline Anderson and Penny Jordan)
Outback Desire (2006) (with Emma Darcy and Carol Marinelli)
To Mum, with Love (2006) (with Rebecca Winters)
Australian Heroes (2007) (with Marion Lennox and Fiona McArthur)
Tall, Dark and Sexy (2008) (with Caroline Anderson and Helen Bianchin)
The Boss's Proposal (2008) (with Jessica Steele and Patricia Thayer)
Island Heat / Outback Man Seeks Wife / Prince's Forbidden Virgin / One Night Before Marriage / Their Lost-and-found Family / Single Dad's Marriage Wish (2008) (with Robyn Donald, Marion Lennox, Carol Marinelli, Sarah Mayberry and Anne Oliver)
Australian Billionaires (2009) (with Jennie Adams and Amy Andrews)
Cattle Baron : Nanny Needed / Bachelor Dad on Her Doorstep (2009) (with Michelle Douglas)

External links
Margaret Way at Harlequin Enterprises Ltd

Australian romantic fiction writers
Australian women novelists
Living people
Year of birth missing (living people)
Women romantic fiction writers
Context 3: Hugh Hilton Goodwin (December 21, 1900 – February 25, 1980) was a decorated officer in the United States Navy with the rank of Vice Admiral  A veteran of both World Wars, he commanded escort carrier  during the Mariana Islands campaign  Goodwin then served consecutively as Chief of Staff, Carrier Strike Group 6 and as Air Officer, Philippine Sea Frontier and participated in the Philippines campaign in the later part of the War 

Following the War, he remained in the Navy and rose to the flag rank and held several important commands including Vice Commander, Military Air Transport Service, Commander, Carrier Division Two and Commander, Naval Air Forces, Continental Air Defense Command 

Early life and career

Hugh H  Goodwin was born on December 21, 1900, in Monroe, Louisiana and attended Monroe High School there (now Neville High School)  Following the United States' entry into World War I in April 1917, Goodwin left the school without receiving the diploma in order to see some combat and enlisted the United States Navy on May 7, 1917  He completed basic training and was assigned to the battleship   Goodwin participated in the training of armed guard crews and engine room personnel as the Atlantic Fleet prepared to go to war and in November 1917, he sailed with the rest of Battleship Division 9, bound for Britain to reinforce the Grand Fleet in the North Sea 

Although he did not complete the last year of high school, Goodwin was able to earn an appointment to the United States Naval Academy at Annapolis, Maryland in June 1918  While at the academy, he earned a nickname "Huge" and among his classmates were several future admirals and generals including: Hyman G  Rickover, Milton E  Miles, Robert E  Blick Jr , Herbert S  Duckworth, Clayton C  Jerome, James P  Riseley, James A  Stuart, Frank Peak Akers, Sherman Clark, Raymond P  Coffman, Delbert S  Cornwell, Frederick J  Eckhoff, Ralph B  DeWitt, John Higgins, Vernon Huber, Albert K  Morehouse, Harold F  Pullen, Michael J  Malanaphy, William S  Parsons, Harold R  Stevens, John P  Whitney, Lyman G  Miller and George J  O'Shea 

Goodwin graduated with Bachelor of Science degree on June 3, 1922, and was commissioned Ensign in the United States Navy  He was subsequently assigned to the battleship  and took part in the voyage to Rio de Janeiro, Brazil, before he was ordered to the Naval Torpedo Station at Newport, Rhode Island for submarine instruction in June 1923  Goodwin completed the training several weeks later and was attached to the submarine   He then continued his further training aboard submarine  and following his promotion to Lieutenant (junior grade) on June 3, 1925, he qualified as submariner 

He then served aboard submarine  off the coast of California, before he was ordered for the recruiting duty to San Francisco in September 1927  While in this capacity, Goodwin applied for naval aviation training which was ultimately approved and he was ordered to the Naval Air Station Pensacola, Florida in August 1928  Toward the end of the training, he was promoted to lieutenant on December 11, 1928, and upon the completion of the training in January 1929, he was designated Naval aviator 

Goodwin was subsequently attached to the Observation Squadron aboard the aircraft carrier  and participated in the Fleet exercises in the Caribbean  He was transferred to the Bureau of Aeronautics in Washington, D C  in August 1931 and served consecutively under the architect of naval aviation William A  Moffett and future Chief of Naval Operations Ernest J  King 

In June 1933, Goodwin was ordered to the Naval War College at Newport, Rhode Island, where he completed junior course in May of the following year  He subsequently joined the crew of aircraft carrier  and served under Captain Arthur B  Cook and took part in the Fleet exercises in the Caribbean and off the East Coast of the United States 

He was ordered back to the Naval Air Station Pensacola, Florida in June 1936 and was attached to the staff of the Base Commandant, then-Captain Charles A  Blakely  When Blakely was succeeded by William F  Halsey in June 1937, Goodwin remained in Halsey's staff and was promoted to Lieutenant Commander on December 1, 1937  He also completed correspondence course in International law at the Naval War College 

Goodwin was appointed Commanding officer of the Observation Squadron 1 in June 1938 and attached to the battleship  he took part in the patrolling of the Pacific and 
West Coast of the United States until September 1938, when he assumed command of the Observation Squadron 2 attached to the battleship  

When his old superior from Lexington, now Rear Admiral Arthur B  Cook, was appointed Commander Aircraft, Scouting Force in June 1939, he requested Goodwin as his Aide and Flag Secretary  He became Admiral Cook's protégé and after year and half of service in the Pacific, he continued as his Aide and Flag Secretary, when Cook was appointed Commander Aircraft, Atlantic Fleet in November 1940 

World War II

Following the United States' entry into World War II, Goodwin was promoted to the temporary rank of Commander on January 1, 1942, and assumed duty as advisor to the Argentine Navy  His promotion was made permanent two months later and he returned to the United States in early 1943 for duty as assistant director of Planning in the Bureau of Aeronautics under Rear admiral John S  McCain  While still in Argentina, Goodwin was promoted to the temporary rank of Captain on June 21, 1942 

By the end of December 1943, Goodwin was ordered to Astoria, Oregon, where he assumed command of newly commissioned escort carrier USS Gambier Bay  He was responsible for the initial training of the crew and was known as a strict disciplinarian, but the crew appreciated the skills he taught them that prepared them for combat  Goodwin insisted that everyone aboard has to do every job right every time and made us fight our ship at her best 

During the first half of 1944, Gambier Bay was tasked with ferrying aircraft for repairs and qualified carrier pilots from San Diego to Pearl Harbor, Hawaii, before departed on May 1, 1944, to join Rear admiral Harold B



ground_truth: Margaret Way started self-publishing her books as e-books in 2013.

prompt_front: Now, answer the following question based on the text below, only give me the answer and do not output any other words.

Question: What is the effect of accounting for path preference on the robot's belief update?

Read the following text and answer briefly.

Context 2: Paper Info

Title: Incorporating Human Path Preferences in Robot Navigation with Minimal Interventions
Publish Date: 16 Mar 2023
Author List: Oriana Peltzer, Dylan Asmar, Mac Schwager, Mykel Kochenderfer

Figure

Hyperplane arrangement of a twodimensional space containing two obstacles (colored in gray) The robot is located inside the pink polytope, surrounded by three adjacent obstacle-free polytopes Each hyperplane on the boundary of the robot's polytope corresponds to one of the nonredundant constraints in eq (4) (b)Graph derived from the hyperplane arrangement The nodes on the graph designate polytopes, and edges designate transitions to adjacent polytopes To estimate the human's preference, the robot updates a posterior over the goal and over which of the graph transitions φ 1 , φ 2 and φ 3 is preferred by the human (c)Example preference defined over the graph The location of the goal is indicated in yellow in the lower right polytope For each node, the outgoing pink arrow designates the edge on the graph corresponding to the preferred transition between polytopes 
Simple, 10 × 10, 8 polytopes (b) Map 2: Office, 10 × 10, 56 polytopes (c) Map 3: Classroom, 20 × 20, 73 polytopes (d) Sampled observations and robot's executed trajectories 
Fig 5: Maps used for simulating the robot navigation problem with path preferences In (d), the heading angles observed are indicated with arrows The goal is indicated with a pink circle, and the orange robot corresponds to the starting location The blue robot follows a policy that accounts for path preference, while the green robot does not The opacity of the robots increases with time 
Map 1 problem setup and example realizations for goal-only (green) and path preference (blue) solution methods The robot starts at the lower left corner of the environment, and the goal of the task (pink circle) is in the upper left area The robot does not know which goal, among 10 options (shown in light blue squares), is the correct goal The human provides noisy observations, indicated by arrows, at each iteration The green robot selects actions according to the goal-only baseline, and the blue robot uses our proposed method to infer path preferences The polytopes composing G are drawn in blue Probability of correct goal WLPHVWHS +J (c) Entropy of goal distribution g 
Fig  6: Probability of the correct goal, fig 6b, and entropy of the goal belief distribution P (g), fig 6c, for the same problem setup, fig 6a In this problem instance, the human's preference is to go to the goal by passing on the right side of the obstacle Results are averaged over 50 runs and the area filled represents one standard deviation above and below the mean value The goal-only baseline shows an over-confident prediction (shown by the strong reduction in belief entropy) that the correct goal is less likely, making it more difficult to reach the correct goal compared to a method that accounts for path preference 
Success rates in the simple environment (Map 1) The results are averaged over 6 randomly sampled problem instances (start location, goal location, and goal possibilities), and over 50 runs per problem instance ∆T is the number of time steps separating two consecutive human inputs The robot's mission time is Tmax = 30 time steps We selected γ h = 1 5, corresponding to relatively noisy human inputs and making the problem more difficult to solve for the robot 
Computation times for Goal Only and Path Preference methods on Map 1 (fig 5a),Map 2 (fig 5b), and Map 3 (fig 5c),averaged over 100 runs with randomly sampled problem instances The 95 % confidence interval is provided with the mean We evaluate computation time at the first iteration of each run (where the search depth takes on its highest value Tmax) 

abstract

Robots that can effectively understand human intentions from actions are crucial for successful human-robot collaboration  In this work, we address the challenge of a robot navigating towards an unknown goal while also accounting for a human's preference for a particular path in the presence of obstacles 
This problem is particularly challenging when both the goal and path preference are unknown a priori  To overcome this challenge, we propose a method for encoding and inferring path preference online using a partitioning of the space into polytopes  Our approach enables joint inference over the goal and path preference using a stochastic observation model for the human 
We evaluate our method on an unknown-goal navigation problem with sparse human interventions, and find that it outperforms baseline approaches as the human's inputs become increasingly sparse  We find that the time required to update the robot's belief does not increase with the complexity of the environment, which makes our method suitable for online applications 

INTRODUCTION

Collaboration between humans and robots has become increasingly important and one key aspect of this collaboration is the ability for robots to adapt to human decisions  In many scenarios, such as a robot navigating through a busy room to deliver an item, it is important for the robot to take into account human preferences 
For instance, humans may prefer a specific path that would allow their colleagues to notice the item being delivered, but this preference may change dynamically based on various factors such as changes in the environment or unforeseen circumstances  While some preferences can be incorporated into the path-planning process, accommodating dynamic user preferences in real-time remains challenging 
In this paper, we propose a way to enable robots to adapt to human preferences dynamically by leveraging real-time feedback to inform decision-making  In this work, we tackle the problem of robot navigation in which the robot cannot observe the goal or the preferred path to the goal, but must make navigation decisions that are influenced by humans through recommended actions 
Prior work has explored how to adapt to a human's preference through feedback, but such approaches often require a high level of intervention, which can be time-consuming and impractical in real-world scenarios  To optimize the use of human input and quickly infer the human's preference, Fig  : An autonomous robot navigates in a simulated classroom towards a goal location (pink circle) 
At the start of its mission, it receives direction indications (arrows) from a human that indicate which path it should take to get to the goal  In this scenario, the human wants the robot to go around the desks on the right side of the classroom  A robot that does not reason over path preferences (green) will take the shortest path to the goal regardless of the human's input 
Our method (blue) infers the human's path preference from these indications and adapts to their recommendations  we propose an approach that leverages probabilistic representations of human preference and incorporates real-time feedback  Previous research by Bajcsy et al  considered an online adaptation problem in a manipulation task, where the person can apply forces to the robot to indicate their preferences 
By allowing the robot to continue its task while taking into account a probabilistic representation of human preference, their approach does not require frequent inputs  Building on this idea, we adopt a similar approach to adapt to a human's preference in the context of a robot autonomously navigating through a known environment, such as a cluttered office space 
Specifically, we focus on allowing the human to influence the robot's trajectory with respect to obstacles, by providing guidance on preferred routes or paths, while the robot continues to execute its task  Paths can be represented using homotopy classes   However, homotopies can pose computational challenges when used to encode and infer human preferences 
When the robot maintains a belief over homotopy classes, the inference problem can become exponentially complex with the number of obstacles in the space  Additionally, when the goal is unknown, the number of variables increases with the number of candidate destinations  This complexity can render the decision-making problem intractable 
Our solution is to encode path preference based on a partitioning of the environment into polytopes   This representation allows path preferences to be expressed as sets of preferred transitions between adjacent polytopes  Paths belonging to different homotopy classes correspond to different sequences of transitions 
By leveraging conditional independence assumptions, we can make the Bayesian inference problem tractable  These assumptions exploit the fact that human actions provide information about the path in a piece-wise manner  For example, indicating a preference for navigating around a particular obstacle only provides information about the local area and not the entire path 
Finally, after updating its belief representation over the human's preference, the robot can adapt to indications by replanning online  Our contributions are as follows  • We formulate the human-robot collaboration problem as a Partially Observable Markov Decision Process (POMDP) where both the goal of the task and the human's path preference are unknown random variables 
• We propose an encoding of a human's path preference using a partitioning of the environment into polytopes, along with conditional independence assumptions that make the Bayesian inference problem tractable to infer the task goal and path preference online  • Through simulations in two environments of different sizes and complexity, we show that our method is effective for solving problems where the robot must reach a goal that is unknown a-priori while simultaneously adapting to a human's indications 
Our method shows higher success rates compared to baseline approaches when the human inputs are sparse  Our approach enables a robot to make effective navigation decisions in collaboration with a human, even when the goal and path preference are not known in advance, and with minimal human input  In recent years, there has been a growing interest in shared autonomy and interactive systems, where humans and robots work together to accomplish tasks 
Several approaches have been proposed to address the challenge of enabling effective collaboration between human and robot agents while still achieving high task performance  Losey et al  and Jeon, Losey, and Sadigh propose a framework where a human operator is given control of a task-relevant latent action space while an autonomous system handles the rest 
Dragan and Srinivasa present a formalism for arbitrating between a user's input and a robot's policy when both human and robot share control of the same action space  Cognetti et al  [7] provide a method for real-time modifications of a path,       Fig  : We model the intent inference problem with the above diagram 
At each step in time, the robot receives an observation ot from the human conditioned on its current location st, the intended goal g, and the human's path preference θ  The robot updates its belief over g and θ and transitions to a next location st+1  while Hagenow et al  present a method that allows an outside agent to modify key robot state variables and blends the changes with the original control 
However, a common challenge of these approaches is the high level of intervention required from humans  Best and Fitch propose a method for predicting an agent's intended trajectory from observations  Rather than maintaining a belief over the agent's future path, they infer the agent's intended goal among a set of candidate locations at the boundary of the space 
This approach provides information on where the agent is heading and generates a distribution of candidate future trajectories for the agent  Inferring the goal of the task among a discrete set of candidates is also relevant to the area of shared autonomy  Javdani, Srinivasa, and Bagnell propose a formalism for shared control of a robotic arm, where the robot must assist the human in picking up an object but needs to infer which object the human has chosen from joystick inputs 
Planning with homotopy class constraints is useful in problems where the robot's requirements are given with respect to obstacles, and Yi, Goodrich, and Seppi consider topological constraints provided by human operators  Bhattacharya propose an efficient algorithm for solving pathplanning problems under homotopic constraints 
However, the number of homotopy classes for a given problem can be infinite, and as the robot changes location and updates its representation of the world, carrying out inference over homotopy classes in a dynamic environment requires recomputing the set of homotopies at every iteration, making the belief update challenging 
Prior work has addressed the challenge of shared autonomy by considering how robots can infer a human's intended goal, or how they can infer the preferred path to a goal  However, we argue that inferring the goal and the path as separate problems can lead to over-confidence in incorrect beliefs about the user's preferences 
To illustrate this point, consider the following scenario: a robot and a human are collaborating to move an object from one end of a room to Fig  : Using the hyperplanes composing the H-representation of each obstacle, we construct a hyperplane arrangement of the obstacle-free space (a)  We define the human's preference for the robot's one step action choices as the posterior distribution (given all human input up to that point) over transitions from the current to the neighboring polytopes, i e  edges on the graph 
Each time the robot transitions to a new polytope, the set of neighbor polytopes and the distribution over human preferences are updated  another, but there is an obstacle in the way  The human would like the robot to take a path around the obstacle on the left, even though the goal is on the right  If the robot only infers the goal from the human's inputs, it may incorrectly assume that the goal is on the right, and become over-confident in this belief 
On the other hand, if the robot only infers the preferred path, it may mistakenly assume that the goal is on the left, leading to a failure in completing the task  To overcome these challenges, our work proposes a joint inference approach that considers both the human's intended goal and their preferred path to that goal 
Specifically, we model the human's preference over different homotopy classes and leverage a conditional independence assumption to provide a tractable solution  In our approach, we assume that the human's inputs are noisily rational conditioned on both the goal and the preference  By jointly inferring the goal and path preference, we can avoid over-confidence in incorrect beliefs about the user's preferences, leading to improved system performance 
We consider the problem of robot navigation in a known environment to an unknown destination, where a human can intervene and provide a heading direction to the robot using a joystick or force cues  The human also has a preference on which path the robot should take with respect to obstacles, and our objective is for the robot to understand the human's intentions and execute the task with minimal interventions 
Let g be a discrete random variable denoting the goal of the task, belonging to a set of candidates Ω g , and let θ be a discrete-valued random variable representing the human's path preference, belonging to a set of possible preferences Θ  The physical location of the robot at time index t is denoted by s t ∈ R 2 , and the robot's action at time index t, belonging to some action space A, is denoted by a t  
The transition model T (s t+1 | s t , a t ) is deterministic, meaning the robot has full control over its future location  At any time step, the human may provide an observation to the robot  When the human intervenes, the robot receives a direction (heading angle) that can be mapped to a future location in space 
More specifically, we map the direction to an intended location, which is the resulting robot location after advancing in the indicated direction for one time step  For simplicity, we consider that the robot directly makes an observation o t of the location indicated by the human  We assume that the robot has a stochastic observation model for the human P (o t | s t , g, θ) that is conditioned on both the goal of the task g and the human's preferred path θ 
We further assume that having chosen a goal and path preference, the human takes actions to noisily minimize a cost function C g,θ that measures the cost of moving from the robot's current location to the goal along the preferred path  For example, C g,θ (s t , o t ) can be the length of the shortest path from location s t to the goal g after taking a first step to o t , and constrained by path preference θ 
We use C g,θ to induce a probability distribution over observations, given by: where γ h is a hyperparameter that designates the rationality coefficient  This model assumes the human will pick the lowest cost action with the highest probability and the likelihood of an action decreases exponentially with the increase in cost  
Our inclusion of the path preference θ sets our approach apart from   The model is shown in fig  represented as a Bayesian Network 

Inference

At each time step where the human provides an observation, the posterior P (g, θ) is given through the Bayesian update We note that the number of Bayesian updates required at each iteration to update the belief is equal to the cardinality of Ω g × Θ  In addition, each Bayesian update involves computing C g,θ (  
,   ) in eq  ( ), which involves solving an optimization problem (such as a shortest path problem)  In section IV, we propose a specific encoding of preference θ for resolving eq  ( ), while ensuring the number of computations of the cost C g,θ ( ,  ) per update does not grow exponentially with the number of obstacles 

Decision Making

We consider a navigation problem where the robot receives reward according to the model R(s t , g, θ, a t )  We wish to find the optimal policy π that maximizes the expected discounted sum of future rewards, with discount factor γ  The above problem is a Partially Observable Markov Decision Process (POMDP)  
In this section, we propose an encoding of human's path preference θ for computing the posterior in eq  ( )  Devifrom the concept of homotopy classes, we define the preference according to a partitioning of the environment into polytopes, as shown in fig  , creating a hyperplane arrangement of the space 
Hyperplane arrangements have been used by Vincent and Schwager in the context of Neural Network verification  In our setting, we leverage this representation to define path preferences as preferred transitions between adjacent regions of the space 

Hyperplane Arrangement

We assume a two-dimensional environment composed of m polytopic obstacles, each defined by their half-space representation (H-representation) where A i ∈ R di×2 and b i ∈ R di , and where d i is the number of edges (hyperplanes) composing polytope i  Let n = i d i be the total number of hyperplanes  We leverage each obstacle's H-representation to construct a hyperplane arrangement of the environment as shown in fig 
 e  a partitioning of the space into polytopes  More specifically, each location in space belongs to a polytope j for which we can write an H-representation of the form where α j i ∈ {−1, 1} di is a vector specific to polytope j and obstacle i corresponding to the relative position of any point in the set with respect to each hyperplane in O i  
Fig  : Intent inference model in a hyperplane arrangement of the obstacle free space  We spatially decompose the preference θ into a set of preferred neighboring polytopes per region of the space  Within each polytope j, the human preference pj is a discrete distribution over the preferred neighbor in N (j) 
We assume that for a location st belonging to polytope j, and given goal g and preference pj, the observation ot and any other preference p i,i =j are conditionally independent  Concatenating elements from each obstacle's Hrepresentation, we can write polytope j's H-representation as where Some of the constraints in eq  ( ) (corresponding to rows of A, b and α j ) are redundant, i e  the set P j does not change upon their removal 
We can further reduce the Hrepresentation of a polytope to include only non-redundant constraints  By removing the rows corresponding to redundant constraints, we obtain new matrices A j e , b j e and α j e such that we can write the polytope's reduced H-representation as The non-redundant constraints correspond to edges of the polytope 
In other words, as the robot continually moves in space, the first hyperplane that it will cross upon exiting the polytope will correspond to one of the polytope's nonredundant constraints  Vincent and Schwager outline an iterative method for removing redundant constraints by solving n linear programs 
We use this method in practice for computing α j e for each polytope  We can now characterize each polytope by a vector α j e ∈ {−1, 1} n j e , where n j e ≤ n is the number of essential constraints of the polytope  The polytopes P j partition the environment into a hyperplane arrangement 

Path Preference

In this section, we provide a definition of preference θ according to a graphical representation of the environment based on the hyperplane arrangement  Under this representation, a path preference corresponds to a set of preferred transitions  In other words, for each polytope in the space, the human will have a preference to which neighboring polytope they wish to transition 
Let G := (V, E) be an undirected graph, where vertices are obstacle-free polytopes, and edges connect two adjacent polytopes  Each polytope is described by a unique vector α j as defined in eq  ( )  Two polytopes are adjacent if they share non-redundant constraints (rows in eq  ( )) corresponding to the same hyperplane (i e  they are on opposite sides of the hyperplane) 
Let N (v) be the set of neighbors of a vertex v  For each vertex, we denote p v the discrete-valued random variable describing which edge in N (v) the human intends to transition to  Using this formalism, we define a path preference as the set of preferred transitions over all nodes in the graph, Let m θ = v∈V |N (v)| be the cardinality of Θ, and m g = |Ω g | the number of possible goals 
A priori, the number of Bayesian updates required to update the belief at every iteration should be m θ × m g   Now, let us assume the conditional independence relationships described by the new problem diagram in fig    More specifically, we introduce the assumption that conditioned on a robot location s t , the goal g, and the preference for the corresponding vertex p v in the graph, the observation o t and the preference for any other vertex are conditionally independent 
In other words, the observations the human provides can be defined conditioned only on the robot location, the goal, and the human's preference for its current vertex p v   By introducing this assumption, each update step only requires updating the joint (p v , g), reducing the number of cost computations to |N (v)| × m g  
We can notice that by introducing this assumption, we removed the direct relationship between the number of polytopes in the environment and the complexity of the Bayesian update in eq  ( )  In practice, components of θ are not mutually independent  For example, if the human preference at a vertex v 1 is
, it is unlikely that the human will also prefer p v2 = (v 2 , v 1 ) (turning back)  We can improve our model by assuming a dependent relationship between preferences for adjacent edges, which does not significantly increase the complexity of the inference problem  An interesting property of our encoding is that any two paths that belong to different homotopy classes will cross different sequences of polytopes, i e  they correspond to a different sequence of edges on G 
This can be proved by contradiction  Let us suppose that two continuous trajectories ξ 1 and ξ 2 , with the same start and end points and that do not intersect any obstacle, traverse the same regions in G in the same order  From the construction of the hyperplane arrangement, each polytope that the paths traverse through is obstacle-free 
Therefore, within each polytope, there is no obstacle in the area located in between the portions of ξ 1 and ξ 2 that belong to the region  A smooth transformation of ξ 1 into ξ 2 can be obtained by transforming each portion of ξ 1 belonging to the polytopes it intersects into the corresponding portion of ξ 2 for the same polytopes, where the extremities of the trajectory portions are connected to one another along the polytope's edges (where the same edge is crossed by both paths) 
Along this transformation, the paths do not intersect any obstacle, and therefore ξ 1 and ξ 2 belong to the same homotopy class 

EXPERIMENTS

We evaluate our model on a simulated navigation task where the robot must reach a goal that is unknown a priori while respecting the path preferences indicated by a human  The robot navigates in a grid world containing obstacles  The transition model is deterministic: the robot selects an adjacent location on the grid to reach at the next time step 
The robot is also allowed to take diagonal actions  Each location s t in the map can be mapped to a vertex v t ∈ G  Therefore, the actions leading to locations mapped to different vertices correspond to edges on the graph  We note f (s t , a t ) the edge crossed by taking action a t from location s t  
The robot is given a mission time limit T max for reaching the goal  In this problem, we assume that the human selects actions to noisily minimize a cost function C g,θ , where θ is defined as per eq  ( ), corresponding to the length of the shortest path to the goal constrained by the preference (where the robot is only allowed to make transitions on G along preferred edges) 
More specifically, where δ(s t , g | o t , p vt ) designates the length of the shortest path from s t to g passing by o t and constrained by preference p vt   This is a slight variant of the cost function proposed by Best and Fitch , where we add in a conditioning on the path preference  We compute costs by running the A path planning algorithm on the environment maps (grid worlds with diagonal actions) and impose preference constraints by pruning invalid transitions from the search tree 
Reward model  At each step in time, the robot receives a reward which is a sum of three components: a goal-specific reward a preference-specific reward or penalty We compute solutions to the POMDP defined in section III-B with the online solver POMCP , and with the particularity that within the rollouts, the robot does not expect to collect human inputs 
Each time a solution is computed, the robot takes an action and may receive an observation  If it does, it updates its belief distribution over the unknown problem variables and resolves the POMDP over a receding horizon 

Baselines

• Goal only  The robot solves the POMDP while ignoring the effects of path preference  Similarly to , we assume the human is taking action to minimize a goaldependent cost C g (s t , o t ) = δ(s t , g | o t ), where the conditioning on the preference is removed  We also omit the path preference's contribution to the reward R pref  
• Compliant  The robot complies with the human input, but does not take an initiative  If the user stops providing information, the robot continues in the last direction indicated for 5 time steps (conserving its momentum), then stops  • Blended  We designed an arbitration function to decide between our proposed policy (accounting for path preferences) and the user's recommendation when the robot receives inputs 
Our metric to evaluate confidence in the robot's prediction for the purpose of arbitration is the entropy of the intention distribution H(g, p i ), where p i denotes the preferred neighbor for the current region  Because our representation of the world is discrete, the arbitration is given by a step function 
Denoted by U , the action corresponding to the human's input, and P , the robot's prediction for the optimal action, we write the policy where we chose h = 1 6 as the confidence threshold 

Results

When evaluating the algorithm, we consider that a run is successful if the robot reached the goal within its allocated mission time T max and only made transitions between graph vertices corresponding to the human's preferences  We vary the time delay between human inputs, from constant guidance (∆ T = 1) to only a single observation (∆ T ≥ T max ) 
Success rates  Table I reports the success rates for experiments conducted over six randomly sampled problem instances and 50 runs per instance in Map 1 (fig  )  When the human provides inputs at every iteration, the compliant policy shows the highest success rates  However, as ∆ T increases, the compliant robot is not able to accomplish the task within the allotted time as it does not receive sufficient inputs to do so, and performance decreases compared to the autonomous baselines 
We find that in these runs, accounting for path preference consistently improves performance compared with the goal-only baseline  Results also show that blending the user's input with the robot's policy (Path Preference + Blend) when the human provides information leads to improved performance  Belief entropy 
Figure shows a challenging problem instance where the directions the human provides do not align directly with the shortest path to the goal  By ignoring the effects of preferences in the problem model (goal only), the robot quickly infers from observations that the upper left goal is less likely than others (P (g) drops) 
The strong decrease in entropy shows that the robot becomes overconfident in this prediction  Overconfidence in an incorrect goal will prevent the agent from finding the correct goal once the human's indications directly align with it, as it needs to correct for the wrong predictions, as shown in the path realization (fig 
)  In this realization, the goal-only method (green robot) fails to search the upper left area within the allotted time  By accounting for path preferences in its model, the blue robot's entropy over the goal distribution decreases more steadily, allowing for it to leverage the human's latest observations and reach the goal successfully 
shows an over-confident prediction (shown by the strong reduction in belief entropy) that the correct goal is less likely, making it more difficult to reach the correct goal compared to a method that accounts for path preference  Computation time  In table II we provide the time required to solve the POMDP, and the time required to update the robot's belief as it receives new observations 
We compute solutions on three maps: a simple 10 × 10 grid world with 8 polytopes (fig  ), a 10 × 10 grid world with 56 polytopes (fig  ), and a 20×20 grid world with 73 polytopes (fig  )  The latter environment being larger, we increase the mission time and the depth of the search tree in POMCP from T max = 30 (Map 1 and Map 2) to T max = 60 (Map 3) 
We do not notice an increase in the time required to update the robot's belief with an increase in problem complexity, which is consistent with our observation that the complexity of the Bayesian update should not increase with the number of obstacles or polytopes  On the contrary, the belief update time on Map 2 and Map 3, containing more obstacles, is reduced compared to the first map 
More obstacles result in fewer iterations when solving the constrained shortest path problem with A   Adding constraints due to the obstacles and polytopes reduces the size of the A search tree  C  Limitations Simulation environments  In our simulations, we hardcoded the preference policy over the maps (e g  in Map 1, go around the table counter-clockwise) 
We randomly sampled problem instances (start and goal locations, and goal options) to reduce the bias introduced by these preference choices  To best evaluate and compare the different approaches, it would be best to sample preferences among a distribution of preferences chosen by a human (for example, from benchmarks resulting from a collection of data) 
Creating such a benchmark is an interesting direction for future work  Hyperplane arrangement construction  The main limitation of our approach is that the size and geometry of each polytope depends strongly on the geometry of the obstacles, as seen in fig    Because of this, the robot can make predictions over preferences that are too refined compared with the topology of the environment 
A direct consequence is that when the size of the polytopes is small, the information provided by the human can be incorrectly interpreted as a preference on the robot's immediate action  Our method can be improved by changing the structure of the hyperplane arrangement so that it relies on the topology of the environment, but does not vary strongly with the geometry of the features in the environment 
For this purpose, topometric maps and region construction algorithms are promising directions  We presented an approach for encoding and inferring a human's path preference in an environment with obstacles  By leveraging a partitioning of the space into polytopes and a stochastic observation model, our method allows for joint inference over the goal and path preference even when both are unknown a-priori 
Our experiments on an unknown-goal navigation problem with sparse human interventions demonstrate the effectiveness of our approach and its suitability for online applications  The time required to update the robot's belief does not increase with the complexity of the environment, which further highlights the practicality of our method 



ground_truth: The belief entropy decreases more steadily.

prompt_front: Now, answer the following question based on the text below, only give me the answer and do not output any other words.

Question: Which air unit did Goodwin command during the initial landings of Marines on Saipan?

Read the following text and answer briefly.

Context 3:  Sallada's Carrier Support Group 2, staging in the Marshalls for the invasion of the Marianas 

The air unit, VC-10 Squadron, under Goodwin's command gave close air support to the initial landings of Marines on Saipan on June 15, 1944, destroying enemy gun emplacements, troops, tanks, and trucks  On the 17th, her combat air patrol (CAP) shot down or turned back all but a handful of 47 enemy planes headed for her task group and her gunners shot down two of the three planes that did break through to attack her 

Goodwin's carrier continued in providing of close ground support operations at Tinian during the end of July 1944, then turned her attention to Guam, where she gave identical aid to invading troops until mid-August that year  For his service during the Mariana Islands campaign, Goodwin was decorated with Bronze Star Medal with Combat "V" 

He was succeeded by Captain Walter V  R  Vieweg on August 18, 1944, and appointed Chief of Staff, Carrier Division Six under Rear admiral Arthur W  Radford  The Gambier Bay was sunk in the Battle off Samar on October 25, 1944, during the Battle of Leyte Gulf after helping turn back a much larger attacking Japanese surface force 

Goodwin served with Carrier Division Six during the Bonin Islands raids, the naval operations at Palau and took part in the Battle of Leyte Gulf and operations supporting Leyte landings in late 1944  He was later appointed Air Officer of the Philippine Sea Frontier under Rear admiral James L  Kauffman and remained with that command until the end of hostilities  For his service in the later part of World War II, Goodwin was decorated with Legion of Merit with Combat "V"  He was also entitled to wear two Navy Presidential Unit Citations and Navy Unit Commendation 

Postwar service

Following the surrender of Japan, Goodwin assumed command of Light aircraft carrier  on August 24, 1945  The ship was tasked with air missions over Japan became mercy flights over Allied prisoner-of-war camps, dropping food and medicine until the men could be rescued  She was also present at Tokyo Bay for the Japanese surrender on September 2, 1945 

Goodwin returned with San Jacinto to the United States in mid-September 1945 and he was detached in January 1946  He subsequently served in the office of the Chief of Naval Operations until May that year, when he entered the instruction at National War College  Goodwin graduated in June 1947 and served on Secretary's committee for Research on Reorganization  Upon promotion to Rear admiral on April 1, 1949, Goodwin was appointed Chief of Staff and Aide to Commander-in-Chief, Atlantic Fleet under Admiral William H  P  Blandy 

Revolt of the Admirals

In April 1949, the budget's cuts and proposed reorganization of the United States Armed Forces by the Secretary of Defense Louis A  Johnson launched the wave of discontent between senior commanders in the United States Navy  Johnson proposed the merging of the Marine Corps into the Army, and reduce the Navy to a convoy-escort force 

Goodwin's superior officer, Admiral Blandy was call to testify before the House Committee on Armed Services and his harsh statements for the defense of the Navy, costed him his career  Goodwin shared his views and openly criticized Secretary Johnson for having power concentrated in a single civilian executive, who is an appointee of the Government and not an elected representative of the people  He also criticized aspects of defense unification which permitted the Joint Chiefs of Staff to vote on arms policies of individual services, and thus "rob" the branches of autonomy 

The outbreak of the Korean War in summer 1950 proved the proposal of Secretary Johnson as incorrect and he resigned in September that year  Also Secretary of the Navy, Francis P  Matthews resigned one month earlier 

Later service

Due to the Revolts of the admirals, Blandy was forced to retire in February 1950 and Goodwin was ordered to Newport, Rhode Island for temporary duty as Chief of Staff and Aide to the President of the Naval War College under Vice admiral Donald B  Beary in April 1950  Goodwin was detached from that assignment two months and appointed member of the General Board of the Navy  He was shortly thereafter appointed acting Navy Chief of Public Information, as the substitute for Rear Admiral Russell S  Berkey, who was relieved of illness, but returned to the General Board of the Navy in July that year  Goodwin served in that capacity until February 1951, when he relieved his Academy class, Rear admiral John P  Whitney as Vice Commander, Military Air Transport Service (MATS) 

While in this capacity, Goodwin served under Lieutenant general Laurence S  Kuter and was co-responsible for the logistical support of United Nations troops fighting in Korea  The MATS operated from the United States to Japan and Goodwin served in this capacity until August 1953, when he was appointed Commander Carrier Division Two  While in this assignment, he took part in the Operation Mariner, Joint Anglo-American exercise which encountered very heavy seas over a two-week period in fall 1953 

Goodwin was ordered to the Philippines in May 1954 and assumed duty as Commander, U S  Naval Forces in the Philippines with headquarters at Naval Station Sangley Point near Cavite  He held that command in the period of tensions between Taiwan and China and publicly declared shortly after his arrival, that any attack on Taiwan by the Chinese Communists on the mainland would result in US participation in the conflict  The naval fighter planes under his command also provided escort for passing commercial planes  Goodwin worked together with retired Admiral Raymond A  Spruance, then-Ambassador to the Philippines, and accompanied him during the visits to Singapore, Bangkok and Saigon in January 1955 

On December 18, 1955, Goodwin's classmate Rear admiral Albert K  Morehouse, then serving as Commander, Naval Air Forces, Continental Air Defense Command (CONAD), died of heart attack and Goodwin was ordered to CONAD headquarters in Colorado Springs, Colorado to assume Morehouse's position  While in this capacity, he was subordinated to Army General Earle E  Partridge and was responsible for the Naval and Marine Forces allocated to the command designated for the defense of the Continental United States 

Retirement

Goodwin retired on June 1, 1957, after 40 years of active service and was advanced to the rank of Vice admiral on the retired list for having been specially commended in combat  A week later, he was invited back to his Monroe High School (now Neville High School) and handed a diploma showing that he had been graduated with the class of 1918  He then settled in Monterey, California where he taught American history at Stevenson school and was a member of the Naval Order of the United States 

Vice admiral Hugh H  Goodwin died at his home on February 25, 1980, aged 79  He was survived by his wife, Eleanor with whom he had two children, a daughter Sidney and a son Hugh Jr , who graduated from the Naval Academy in June 1948, but died one year later, when the Hellcat fighter he was piloting collided with another over the Gulf of Mexico during training 

Decorations

Here is the ribbon bar of Vice admiral Hugh H  Goodwin:

References

1900 births
1980 deaths
People from Monroe, Louisiana
Military personnel from Louisiana
United States Naval Academy alumni
Naval War College alumni
United States Naval Aviators
United States Navy personnel of World War I
United States Navy World War II admirals
United States Navy vice admirals
United States submarine commanders
Recipients of the Legion of Merit



ground_truth: VC-10 Squadron.