Imagine you're walking down a grocery aisle and someone is pushing a cart straight toward you. You don't need to know they're headed to the dairy section — you need to know whether they're going left or right. That's the core insight here: the right level of intent communication for hallway robots isn't "where I'm going" but "which side I'll take." The paper's committed claim: in constrained social navigation like hallways, legibility defined as passing-side intent — particularly when adaptively updated — produces measurably smoother human trajectories and is perceived as more competent than either destination-based legibility or non-legible baselines. This is not a new algorithm family; it's a controlled test of what representation of intent actually matters for the human in the loop. The authors implement three legibility formulations inside a shared Model Predictive Path Integral (MPPI) control framework: destination-based (classic legibility, telegraphing where the robot is ultimately going), passing-side (signaling left-pass vs. right-pass), and a non-legible baseline. The shared controller is key — it isolates the representation question from confounding differences in planning architecture. Study 1 (N=45) tests these three against each other with attentive pedestrians. Study 2 (N=45) adds a distraction condition (participants perform a secondary cognitive task while walking) to test whether legibility benefits survive divided attention. The results are clean on the behavioral side. Passing-side legibility, especially the adaptive variant that updates its intent representation as the interaction unfolds, produces the smoothest human motion trajectories. Participants rated it as more competent and less mentally and physically demanding than the destination-based version. The destination-based planner, which is the standard formulation in much of the legibility literature, actually performed worse than the non-legible baseline on several subjective metrics — a pointed finding that challenges the default approach in the field. Study 2's distraction results are more nuanced and arguably more interesting. Behavioral smoothness benefits of legible motion persisted even when participants were cognitively loaded — suggesting legibility operates partly below conscious attention. But subjective ratings didn't consistently reflect this, which the authors flag honestly. The gap between what the body does and what the mind reports is a real finding, not a null result dressed up. The validation regime is solid for HRI: controlled lab studies with real human participants (not simulation-only), within-subjects design, standardized questionnaires (RoSAS, NASA-TLX), and objective trajectory metrics. The limitation is ecological validity — these are hallway encounters in a lab, not hospitals or airports. The sample sizes (N=45 per study) are reasonable for within-subjects HRI but not large. Code is released, which matters for replication. The bigger field question this addresses is whether the legibility frameworks developed for static-observer manipulation tasks (think: a robot arm reaching for an object while a person watches) transfer intact to dynamic social navigation. This paper says no — you need interaction-level representations, not goal-level ones. That's a useful corrective, even if the experimental scope is narrow. The next obvious step is testing this in multi-agent hallway scenarios or with real deployment noise, which the authors did not attempt — likely a scope and resource constraint rather than a buried negative result.
