A Multi-Modal Explainability Approach for Human-Aware Robots in Multi-Party Conversation

In the context of machine learning, the development of explainable models is steadily rising (Barredo Arrieta et al.,, 2020). The earliest approaches primarily focused on the inherent form of explainability, i.e., employing a model that is straightforward enough for people to understand its behavior and decisions. This slowly changed when the deep learning models got increasingly stronger, eventually substantially surpassing the accuracy of simple models (Krizhevsky et al.,, 2012). Deep learning models are powerful enough to achieve superhuman performance in certain tasks (He et al.,, 2015), yet they often do not provide any reasoning behind their decisions. Thus, the explainability of deep models started to play a crucial role, mainly in their deployment in critical applications.

Two vastly researched and popular methods of interpretability of deep learning are SHAP (Lundberg and Lee,, 2017) and LIME (Ribeiro et al.,, 2016). These and many similar methods work by training a surrogate, often much simpler model, approximating the black-box model to produce similar output while being inherently explainable. On the other hand, there is often a need to generate precise explanations for the image classification domain. Therefore, saliency maps, i.e., the importance of image regions for predictions, are often investigated (Simonyan et al.,, 2014; Zhou et al.,, 2016; Selvaraju et al.,, 2017). Using these methods, it is possible to peek inside the black-box model processing an image. A downside of similar approaches is their dependence on a specific type of architecture (smooth gradients, convolutions, etc.); otherwise, they are often unable to produce satisfying results.

A branch of research, currently setting the SOTA in the majority of tasks, was initiated by designing the transformer architecture (Vaswani et al.,, 2017) followed by its adaptation for the image domain (Dosovitskiy et al.,, 2021). Thanks to their attention mechanism, transformers are also often considered more interpretable (Kashefi et al.,, 2023), as extracting the attention weights during the forward pass is possible. Thus, in this work, we leverage the idea of attention in general (Shen et al.,, 2017; Niu et al.,, 2021) and the many ways of implementing it in the specific downstream task of AE where, to our knowledge, explainability was never taken into account before.

The management of multi-party conversations requires robots to be endowed with human activity recognition capabilities; this is even more challenging when they have to deal with multiple humans at the same time. Several tasks need to be solved to this aim, not only sound detection and natural language understanding, which are essential to receiving the message. Speaker recognition and diarization, turn-taking, and addressee estimation are crucial problems that need to be tackled to assess, beyond the “what" of the message, the “who" and the “to whom" of each utterance (Gu et al.,, 2022). Endowed with multiple sensors, robots can solve problems related to multi-party conversations with a multi-modal approach to recognize the scene and human intentions via audio, vision, and, additionally, interpreting information coming from the conversation context (Bilac et al.,, 2017; Dhaussy et al.,, 2023; Bae and Bennett,, 2023; Addlesee et al.,, 2024).

Differently from dyadic scenarios, multi-party conversations present an additional problem once the speaker yields the turn: who is entitled to take it? If the conversation must proceed, a correct estimation of the utterance’s addressee(s) usually implies who should take the turn. In the majority of cases, works tackling AE during the interaction with artificial agents designed rule-based algorithms (Richter et al.,, 2016), machine learning models (van Turnhout et al.,, 2005; Huang et al.,, 2011; Sheikhi et al.,, 2013), deep neural networks (Mazzola et al.,, 2023; Tesema et al.,, 2023) or large language model (LLM) based techniques (Addlesee et al.,, 2024) grounded on multiple modalities and features in order to cope with the ambiguity and unpredictability of human behaviors in real-time interactions. Keywords uttered by speakers, their gaze, pose, para-verbal cues and contextual information have all been demonstrated useful to the purpose of AE (for a review, see Skantze, (2021)). AE may improve robots’ conversational abilities by providing information not only about when intervening but how to do so. However, most current models predict only whether the robot was addressed in a binary way (van Turnhout et al.,, 2005; Huang et al.,, 2011; Sheikhi et al.,, 2013; Tesema et al.,, 2023; Addlesee et al.,, 2024). But binary estimation does not identify the addressee (if it is other than the robot) and, therefore, is insufficient for the robot to effectively engage in conversations with more than two humans or without pre-determined knowledge about other users’ presence.

To resolve this limitation, Mazzola et al., (2023) adopted a deep-learning approach to estimate the direction of the addressee from the robot’s perspective, training the model on HRI data collected with a Nao robot (Jayagopi et al.,, 2012). The same model was then ported and tested with a pilot experiment on the iCub platform (Mazzola et al.,, 2024), but not yet implemented in an architecture for multi-party conversation. Such implementation is one of the goals of the present study: after optimizing the approach of Mazzola et al., (2023), we incorporate the new explainable AE model into a modular architecture with additional components (e.g., spatial memory and action manager) to make the robot find and identify the addressee over its limited field of view.

Explainable artificial intelligence (XAI) has predominantly been explored in the human-computer interaction field (Lai et al.,, 2021; Gambino and Liu,, 2022) and even though the number of works concerning robots’ explainability is increasing, there are still a few studies about XAI within the HRI context (De Graaf and Malle,, 2017). Robots introduce an additional layer of complexity to the explainability problem compared to virtual agents due to their embodiment and the broader spectrum of interaction modalities they offer (Setchi et al.,, 2020).

Automatic explanation generation with robots has been investigated in several interaction contexts, such as planning (Chakraborti et al.,, 2017) and human-robot collaboration (Matarese et al., 2023a, ). For instance, Chakraborti et al., (2017) generated explanations while trying to resolve the discrepancies between the robot and human’s internal models. Diversely, Tabrez et al., (2019) tackled the problem by focusing on users’ task understanding to detect incomplete or incorrect beliefs about the robot’s functioning. Matarese et al., 2023a focused on explainable robots’ influence when providing explanations that consider the human-robot common ground, also regarding people’s personality traits (Matarese et al., 2023b, ).

Visual explanations with robots have been proposed for several purposes, such as navigation (Maruyama et al.,, 2022; Halilovic and Lindner,, 2023). However, more importantly for the scope of this work, Zhu et al., (2022) proposed a multi-modal explanation framework that coupled visual-based with verbal-based explanations to explain facial emotion recognition. Moreover, Sobrín-Hidalgo et al., (2024) presented a preliminary study proposing a vision-language model that allows the robot to generate explanations combining data from its logs and the images it captures.

In recent years, the HRI community has shown a growing interest in verbal explanations that is destined to grow further, given the spreading of LLMs. Stange et al., (2022) designed and developed a dialogical model for explanations in HRI. With their model, the robot can reply to human users’ requests with explanations referring to its internal state. The authors stressed the iterative nature of their model in managing the explanatory processes as dialogues. Task understanding has also been investigated from a dialogical perspective with a focus on the role of negation in human-robot explanatory exchanges (Groß et al.,, 2023). Moreover, to allow artificial agents to adapt their explanations to their partners’ understanding, Robrecht and Kopp, (2023) implemented a linguistic explainer model that constructs and employs a partner model.

In the context of the multi-party conversation, explainability has been investigated for sentiment analysis of social media dialogues (Sinha et al.,, 2021) and emotion recognition with multi-modal attentive learning (Arumugam et al.,, 2022). However, to the best of our knowledge, there is no approach to provide real-time explainable and transparent solutions for robot’s behavior in multi-party interaction.

The development of our explainable AE model consists of two steps: in the first step, we focus on enhancing the classification accuracy with respect to the previous SOTA in the same task (Mazzola et al.,, 2023), which represents our baseline (see Paragraph 3.1.1). This way, we obtain a first model, which we refer to as Improved Addressee Estimation (IAE) model. In the second step, we modify this model with inherently explainable modules based on attention (see Paragraph 3.1.2) to extract additional information during addressee estimation. We refer to the second model as Explainable Addressee Estimation (XAE) model.

After the design of the XAE model, the second contribution of this paper is its deployment in a modular architecture for multi-party conversation for the robot iCub, which goes in parallel with the user evaluation of the explainability and transparency techniques implemented in the architecture.

The term artificial cognitive architecture generally refers to computational frameworks that aim to explain and reproduce the fundamental mechanisms of human cognition, such as perception, attention, action selection, memory, learning, reasoning, meta-cognition, or prospective (Vernon,, 2014). The development of artificial cognitive architectures able to solve all these tasks with similar performance to humans is a longstanding and unsolved problem (Kotseruba and Tsotsos,, 2020). The architecture we propose in this paper is not meant to represent a comprehensive solution for a multi-task robotic architecture. Rather, it is a cognitive-inspired framework supporting the robot’s autonomous reasoning, decision-making, and interaction in the context of a multi-party conversation for deploying and evaluating the proposed explainable model in HRI.

To provide a statistically robust evaluation of our proposed models (IAE model as well as the XAE model), the training is repeated five times in total for each test set, using different random seeds. The two models achieve comparable accuracy. The IAE model reaches 79.51% average F1 score with a standard deviation of 0.56%, whereas the F1 score for the XAE model is 79.40% with a standard deviation of 1.06%. Thus, both models surpass the previous SOTA F1 score of 75.01%, described in Mazzola et al., (2023) by $\approx 4.45$%. When looking at their confusion matrices (Figure 9), we see that the models have roughly equal distribution of each type of misclassification. We also see that the models are slightly weaker on recognizing when the addressee is the robot.

To test our XAE model’s capabilities on recordings captured using the iCub, we first analyze its accuracy on the data provided in Saade, (2023) (further referred to as the iCub data). We trained the XAE model on the Vernissage corpus and tested it on the iCub data, with resulting testing accuracy of 66.31%. This informs us that even though the data distribution is quite different from the Vernissage dataset, the model can successfully estimate the correct addressee most of the time. However, the performance is still notably worse than on the Vernissage data. Thus, to ensure the best possible accuracy of the model when deployed in the iCub, the final model used in the user study was trained on both of the datasets.

When analyzing the distribution of the face vs. pose attention weights, we found that the face and pose information is equally important, i.e., the average score is 0.5. On the other hand, we notice a negative correlation of -0.87 (p = 0.001) between the dimensionality we use for the face and pose embeddings and the logarithm of the importance deviations. The higher the dimensionality, the lower the deviation of attention scores (the lower the distinction rate between the two modalities). Thus, during the optimization process, it is not enough to optimize the model only for the performance, but also for the expressiveness of the explanations, like the deviation of importance scores in this case.

Our experiments showed that in the case of employing the fusion of dimensionalities without the vision transformer and recurrent network with attention, the explanation capability seemed to increase, and the pose information was slightly prevalent, having a score of $\approx 0.62$ with a deviation of $0.15$. The full, combined version has an average score of $0.5$ and deviation of $0.04$ with a comparable embedding dimensionality.

To further explore the properties of our XAE model in greater detail, we analyze time frame scores with 10-frame-long sequences of the Vernissage dataset. A way to look at the activations is to compute their distribution. When considering only the stack of values independently, they precisely follow a Gaussian distribution with a mean of $\approx 0.1$ and standard deviation $\approx 0.0055$. Our explanation of the low deviation is that since there are only 10 frames in each sequence, they do not capture a long period of time; thus, their embeddings are usually quite similar. We also observe that the weights change more in the case of frames with greater variability.

Next, we analyzed the threshold value for triggering an explanation at the end of a sequence. The threshold clearly influences the rate at which the verbal cue is generated. In Figure 10 we can see the probabilities of triggering a verbal response for differing threshold values. We empirically verified that threshold values higher than 0.02 yield verbal cues aligning with human expectations. In contrast, by using lower values, the noise patterns sometimes overrule the useful information, yielding responses that are difficult to verify.

Table 1 reports the means and standard deviations of three questionnaire scales (Satisfaction, Usefulness, and Intrusiveness) grouped by the four explainability and transparency modalities (verbal, embodied, visual/attentional, and functional) and the three groups of participants (Technical HRI Researchers, Humanities HRI researchers, Users in HRI). The Linear Mixed models revealed a significant effect of the modality on Satisfaction. Specifically, participants were found, on average, more satisfied with Verbal (M = 4.54), Attentional (M = 4.14), and Functional (M = 4.32) modalities than Embodied (M = 3.12) (Verb-Emb: B = 1.333, t = 3.991, p = 0.001; Func-Emb: B = 1.311, t = 3.925, p = 0.001, Att-Emb: B = 1.066, t = 3.19, p = 0.014; all tests computed with Bonferroni correction), as shown in Figure 11. No statistically significant differences were found in the group nor in the other scales.

In supplementary materials, Tables E.1 , LABEL:tab:correlation_verbal , E.3 and E.4 present all the results from Spearman rank correlations tests computed on the three parameters (Satisfaction, Usefulness and Intrusiveness) considering the four modalities independently. Concerning the verbal modality, the only significant relationship (a positive linear correlation) was found between Satisfaction and Usefulness ($r(19)=0.479$, $p=0.028$). The same relationship was found in all the other modalities: (embodied: $r(19)=0.611$, $p=0.003$; attentional: $r(19)=0.728$, $p<.001$; functional: $r(19)=0.666$, $p<.001$). Moreover, a significant negative linear correlation was found between the Usefulness and the Intrusiveness in the embodied ($r(19)=-.644$, $p=0.002$), in the attentional ($r(19)=-.650$, $p=0.001$), and in the functional modalities ($r(19)=-.554$, $p=0.009$). The latter also reported a significant negative linear correlation between Satisfaction and Intrusiveness ($r(19)=-.624$, $p=0.003$).

With respect to the relationship between user’s judgments of explainability/transparency solutions and their perception of the robot, a Spearman rank correlation test revealed a significant positive relationship between the Satisfaction for embodied modality and the robot’s perceived experience ($r(19)=0.449$, $p=0.041$) as well as with the likeability ($r(19)=0.588$, $p=0.005$) (see Figure 12). No significant correlations were found between any of the above mentioned scales (a to f) and the Satisfaction for the other modalities. No other correlations were found on the other scales, with the exception of the affective trust, which was found to have a significant positive relationship with the Usefulness of attentional ($r(19)=0.456$, $p=0.038$) and with the Intrusiveness of the functional modality ($r(19)=0.634$, $p=0.02$).

Built with a modular approach, our architecture was designed as the mean to connect our XAE model with the other modules necessary for the task of multi-party conversation: from Sound Detection to Spatial Memory and Speech Generation. At this stage, our architecture only missed a sound localization module, which the experimenter handled with the Wizard-of-Oz technique. Beyond that, the interaction flow was smooth and autonomous, as presented in the video. While iCub verbal explanations after each participant’s utterance may disrupt the fluidity of the interaction, it’s important to note that this is a deliberate design choice made specifically for the purposes of this study.

The modular design was preferred to an end-to-end approach for two reasons. First, the multi-party conversation is a complex scenario involving various activities and multiple individuals interacting simultaneously. A modular approach offers greater controllability of the robot processes and behaviors in such unpredictable contexts. Second, real-time multi-modal processing allows to exploit the synergy of different modules, enabling them to self-supervise each other and correct any erroneous estimations.

In the recorded multi-party interactions, the XAE model failed only twice, but thanks to the modular approach, these errors could be amended, and the conversation resumed correctly. For instance, thanks to Speech Understanding and Generation modules, when iCub is told the utterance was addressed to someone else, it apologizes for interrupting.

The connection with spatial memory is another pivotal point. Thanks to this module, the final estimation of the addressee is not only based on multiple features coming from the robot’s vision but also on continuously updated spatial-contextual information of the environment, following a more cognitive-inspired approach.

Contextual information about people in the environment was used in previous works, but it was given as input to the neural network before the AE estimation, without any possibility of updating it after the inference. Hence, to our knowledge, our architecture is the first that can 1) make corrections on the addressee identification based on additional exploration and spatial memory information and 2) discover new people and update the spatial memory based on the addressee estimation. For instance, in the first case, if the addressee is estimated to be on the speaker’s left, but the robot doesn’t detect anyone in that direction, it infers that the utterance was directed towards itself. On the other hand, in the second case, if the addressee is estimated at the speaker’s left and the robot does not remember anybody in that direction, it turns its gaze to check over there and may detect new people.

The implementation of the XAI model in the robot’s architecture for multi-party conversation aimed to enhance the comprehensibility of the robot’s underlying processes. The system’s opacity can be an obstacle to the perceived reliability of the robot (or any other artificial system) both for the users and its developers. Moreover, this issue becomes even more problematic when it comes to multi-faceted modular architectures, where several processes concur in executing a complex behavior (Wortham et al.,, 2017). To reach an efficient and smooth interaction, developers and HRI designers need certainly to take care of the robot’s performance, but also of their user-friendly intelligibility (Sciutti et al.,, 2018). It is to ensure this understandability, and hence reliability, that we designed our framework and system to provide real-time clarifications of the robot’s behavior and the processes underlying its functioning.

The act of explaining is a social mechanism: someone (the explainer) explains to someone else (the explainee) (Hilton,, 1990). Recently, also the XAI community recognized and exploited this social component of the explainability problem, highlighting the explainees’ needs within the explanation exchanges (Miller,, 2019). The active role of the explainee has also been stressed by Rohlfing et al., (2021) in their co-constructive approach.

In our online user study, we presented multi-modal explanations to explainees belonging to three different groups (naive users or HRI researchers, either with a technical or humanities background) to collect their impressions and preferences about the robot’s explanations of its behavior in multi-party conversation scenarios. Results outlined no preferences for any of the explanation types between the groups.

However, we found all participants were more satisfied with the verbal, visual/attentional, and visual/functional explanations than with the embodied ones (i.e., expressing model’s estimations and confidence via robot’s facial expressions). Participants did not appreciate iCub’s embodied behavior compared to the other more explicit measures of transparency, even though they found it as useful as the others. This result may be due to the embodied behavior design choices that some users could have found less intuitive and expressive than expected. Interestingly, correlations between satisfaction with the embodied explanations and the perceived robot’s experience and likeability showed that the more people were satisfied with the explanations communicated through facial expressions, the more they liked the robot (and the more they attributed to the robot the capability of having experiences as well). None of the other modalities correlated with the perceived robot’s experience and likeability, reinforcing the importance of embodied behavior design for robots also in the field of XAI. These results highlight indeed the importance of improving the transparency and reliability of embodied robotic behavior, such as gaze and facial expressions (as also observed in (Matarese et al.,, 2021)), and more deeply investigating those implicit communication mechanisms to reach smoother HRI and human-like transparency.

Participants’ satisfaction with the explanations and their perceived usefulness correlated for all the modalities meaning that participants’ appreciation came in general from a utilitarian viewpoint: the more useful, the more satisfying. This result is coherent with the declared objective of the user study since participants had to exploit the robot’s explanations to make sense of its behavior. The same modalities, but verbal explanations, showed strong negative correlations between perceived usefulness and intrusiveness, which evinces the reliability of the scales used.

The explainable addressee estimation model we designed in this work offers verbal and embodied explanations alongside the classification of the addressee. However, it is important to address its limitations. Given the surprisingly high sensitivity of the frequency and quality of the explanation on the hyper-parameters, a simple error optimization may not guarantee the model to produce meaningful explanations. Therefore, it would be useful to devise a training method that aligns with achieving good accuracy and generates reasonable and discriminative explanations.

Evaluating the level of explainability (besides user studies) presents the greatest challenge because the standard evaluation metrics cannot be used when data with labeled explanations are lacking.

In the case of addressee estimation, the model performance heavily relies on the quality and representativeness of the dataset, which may not always align with real-world scenarios. Thus, for continuing in this line of research, a data-centric approach might yield further substantial improvements both in the quality of the explanations and in the accuracy of the model.

For what concerns the multi-party modular architecture, a current limitation was the input provided by the experimenter instead of autonomous Sound Localization. For a final version of the architecture, we foresee the use of the Sound Localisation module to classify the direction of the upcoming sound source with respect to a robot-centric reference frame (e.g., from the right, front, or left of the robot). This will enable the activation of specific attention mechanisms, such as redirecting the robot’s gaze toward the direction of the speakers’ voice when they are outside its field of view. Moreover, as one can see from the video, the visual/attentional explanations sometimes flickered. This problem was due to network issues, which sometimes saturated during the working day. The modular approach we used needed extensive use of the local network to let the modules exchange information with each other, but we are aware that it may bring such inconvenience for users. At this stage, we do not have a real-time evaluation of the architecture, but we can refer to the accuracy of the XAE model (see Section 4.1). Anyway, we leave such real-time evaluation with the robot for future work.

List of all optimized hyper-parameters along with all considered values and the chosen values is provided in Table B.1. The hyper-parameters were split into multiple groups, which were being optimized separately. They are ordered and grouped approximately (some parameters were present in multiple groups) in the order in which their value was chosen and fixed. “Gamma” controls the learning rate decay. “Convolutional” controls the number of output channels: “small” = [6, 8, 12, 16], “medium” = [8, 12, 16, 32], “large” = [8, 16, 32, 64]. The last eight hyper-parameters control data augmentation. We used WandB (Biewald,, 2020) with Bayesian search for the optimization.

The final IAE model architecture is summarized in Table B.2.

Tables B.3 and B.4 contain hyperparameters of the XAE model and its architecture (where relevant). Activation function in the recurrent network is used on inputs to the GRU unit and outputs from the GRU (i.e., inputs to the final fully-connected layer).

In this part, we are going to transform the two modalities of pose and image vector. We base it on the mechanism of multi-dimensional attention proposed in Shen et al., (2017), where the authors propose an attention scoring not only to weight individual value vectors but to give each of their elements a corresponding weight as well. For a given time frame $t$, using this procedure we are able to merge two modalities (outputs of the face and pose networks, $\boldsymbol{f}_{t}\in\mathbb{R}^{d_{face}}$ and $\boldsymbol{p}_{t}\in\mathbb{R}^{d_{pose}}$ respectively) into a single representation, which is then fed to the final, recurrent network. Using this method, the modalities are combined while taking into account their cross-relations. Our divergence from the traditional approach is that we do not combine multiple value vectors to a single representation, but we rather compute one value vector at a time and feed it to the RNN. The exact computation is following:

$$\boldsymbol{q}_{t}=\mathbf{W}^{Q}\boldsymbol{p}_{t},\quad\boldsymbol{k}_{t}=\mathbf{W}^{K}\boldsymbol{f}_{t},\quad\boldsymbol{v}_{t}=\mathbf{W}^{V}\boldsymbol{f}_{t},$$

(C.1)

where the matrices, $\mathbf{W}^{Q}\in\mathbb{R}^{d_{q}\times d_{pose}}$, $\mathbf{W}^{K}\in\mathbb{R}^{d_{k}\times d_{face}}$ and $\mathbf{W}^{V}\in\mathbb{R}^{d_{v}\times d_{face}}$ are trainable parameters representing transformation of the corresponding vectors to query, key and value.

The next step is to compute the importance weights for each of the elements of the value vector.

$$\boldsymbol{e}_{t}=\boldsymbol{W}^{T}_{D}\times act(\boldsymbol{W}_{1}\times\boldsymbol{q}_{t}+\boldsymbol{W}_{2}\times\boldsymbol{k}_{t}+\boldsymbol{b}),$$

(C.2)

where $\boldsymbol{W}_{1}\in\mathbb{R}^{d_{inner}\times d_{q}}$, $\boldsymbol{W}_{2}\in\mathbb{R}^{d_{inner}\times d_{k}}$, $\boldsymbol{W}_{D}\in\mathbb{R}^{d_{inner}\times d_{v}}$ and $\boldsymbol{b}\in\mathbb{R}^{d_{inner}}$ are trainable parameters.

The input to the RNN network is a simple Hadamard product of $\boldsymbol{e}_{t}$ and $\boldsymbol{v}_{t}$. Thus, each element of the value vector has its corresponding weight.

In this method we leverage the idea of general attention procedure (Brauwers and Frasincar,, 2023). After the input is processed, we end up with a representation of pose and face, $\boldsymbol{p_{t}}$ and $\boldsymbol{f_{t}}$, respectively. However in this scenario, $\boldsymbol{f_{t}}\in\mathbb{R}^{d_{pose}}$ is a vector but $\boldsymbol{p_{t}}\in\mathbb{R}^{n_{p}\times d_{embed}}$ is a series of vectors, each corresponding to a channel aggregation for a single pixel value after the convolutions.

To continue with a general scheme of attention, we create our query, keys, and values as follows:

$$\boldsymbol{q}_{t}=\mathbf{W}^{Q}\boldsymbol{p}_{t},\quad\boldsymbol{k}_{t,i}=\mathbf{W}^{K}\boldsymbol{f}_{t,i},\quad\boldsymbol{v}_{t,i}=\mathbf{W}^{V}\boldsymbol{f}_{t,i},$$

(C.3)

where the matrices, $\mathbf{W}^{Q}\in\mathbb{R}^{d_{q}\times d_{pose}}$, $\mathbf{W}^{K}\in\mathbb{R}^{d_{k}\times d_{face}}$ and $\mathbf{W}^{V}\in\mathbb{R}^{d_{v}\times d_{face}}$ are trainable parameters representing transformation of the corresponding vectors to query, key and value. A scoring function is applied to return the corresponding weight to each of the components of the face representation:

$$\boldsymbol{e}_{t,i}=\boldsymbol{w}^{T}_{D}\times act(\boldsymbol{W}_{1}\times\boldsymbol{q}_{t}+\boldsymbol{W}_{2}\times\boldsymbol{k}_{t,i}+\boldsymbol{b}),$$

(C.4)

where $\boldsymbol{W}_{1}\in\mathbb{R}^{d_{inner}\times d_{q}}$, $\boldsymbol{W}_{2}\in\mathbb{R}^{d_{inner}\times d_{k}}$, $\boldsymbol{W}_{D}\in\mathbb{R}^{d_{inner}}$ and $\boldsymbol{b}\in\mathbb{R}^{d_{inner}}$ are trainable parameters. This is followed by an alignment step, where we normalize the contribution of each component of the face representation.

$$a_{t,i}=\rm{softmax}(e_{t,i};\boldsymbol{e}).$$

(C.5)

The final representation $\boldsymbol{r}$ of the input is a weighted sum of the face components.

$$\boldsymbol{r_{t}}=\sum_{i=1}^{n_{p}}a_{t,i}.\boldsymbol{v_{t,i}}.$$

(C.6)

Shopping Mall Context: “You are a service robot named iCub, working as an assistant in shopping mall. You help customers who need information about shops inside the mall. You give informations based on customers needs and preferences. Be friendly and keep answers very short and concise!.”

Domestic Assistant Context: “You are a domestic assistant robot named iCub. You can do several tasks, like preparing drinks and food, and your role is to help accomplish this task when required. Be friendly and keep answers very short and concise!.”

Restaurant Context: “You are a service robot named iCub, working as a waiter for a restaurant. You help customers who need to order their food and drinks. Be friendly and keep answers very short and concise!.”