Gestures for industry: intuitive human-robot communication from human observation
Why this work is in the frame
A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Human-robot collaborative work has the potential to advance quality, efficiency and safety in manufacturing. In this paper we present a gestural communication lexicon for human-robot collaboration in industrial assembly tasks and establish methodology for producing such a lexicon. Our user experiments are grounded in a study of industry needs, providing potential real-world applicability to our results. Actions required for industrial assembly tasks are abstracted into three classes: part acquisition, part manipulation, and part operations. We analyzed the communication between human pairs performing these subtasks and derived a set of communication terms and gestures. We found that participant-provided gestures are intuitive and well suited to robotic implementation, but that interpretation is highly dependent on task context. We then implemented these gestures on a robot arm in a human-robot interaction context, and found the gestures to be easily interpreted by observers. We found that observation of human-human interaction can be effective in determining what should be communicated in a given humanrobot task, how communication gestures should be executed, and priorities for robotic system implementation based on frequency of use. Finally, we show that a simple and expedient method of gesture programming is capable of producing effective, natural gestures.
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.
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
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 it