Knowledge-Based Task Planning Using Natural Language Processing for Robotic Manufacturing
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Robotic alternative to many manual operations falls short in application due to the difficulties in capturing the manual skill of an expert operator. One of the main problems to be solved if robots are to become flexible enough for various manufacturing needs is that of end-user programming. An end-user with little or no technical expertise in robotics area needs to be able to efficiently communicate its manufacturing task to the robot. This paper proposes a new method for robot task planning using some concepts of Artificial Intelligence. Our method is based on a hierarchical knowledge representation and propositional logic, which allows an expert user to incrementally integrate process and geometric parameters with the robot commands. The objective is to provide an intelligent and programmable agent such as a robot with a knowledge base about the attributes of human behaviors in order to facilitate the commanding process. The focus of this work is on robot programming for manufacturing applications. Industrial manipulators work with low level programming languages. This work presents a new method based on Natural Language Processing (NLP) that allows a user to generate robot programs using natural language lexicon and task information. This will enable a manufacturing operator (for example for painting) who may be unfamiliar with robot programming to easily employ the agent for the manufacturing tasks.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 0.001 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".