Design and Impact of Hesitation Gestures during Human-Robot Resource Conflicts
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
In collaborative tasks, people often communicate using nonverbal gestures to coordinate actions. When two people reach for the same object at the same time, they often respond to an imminent potential collision with jerky halting hand motions that we term hesitation gestures. Successful implementation of such communicative conflict response behaviour onto robots can be useful. In a myriad of human-robot interaction contexts involving shared spaces and objects, this behaviour can provide a fast and effective means for robots to express awareness of conflict and cede right-of-way during collaborative work with users. Our previous work suggests that when a six-degree-of-freedom (6-DOF) robot traces a simplified trajectory of recorded human hesitation gestures, these robot motions are also perceived by humans as hesitation gestures. In this work, we present a characteristic motion profile derived from the recorded human hesitation motions, called the Acceleration-based Hesitation Profile (AHP). We test its efficacy to generate communicative hesitation responses by a robot in a fast-paced human-robot interaction experiment.
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 | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 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