MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2054642366 · doi:10.1109/icar.2013.6766465

Robot task error recovery using Petri nets learned from demonstration

2013· article· en· W2054642366 on OpenAlex

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.

affAt least one author lists a Canadian institution in the pinned OpenAlex snapshot.

Bibliographic record

Venuenot available
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldComputer Science
TopicPetri Nets in System Modeling
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Waterloo
Fundersnot available
KeywordsPetri netRobotTask (project management)Computer scienceRepresentation (politics)Block (permutation group theory)Artificial intelligenceRobot kinematicsError detection and correctionMobile robotDistributed computingAlgorithmEngineering

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The ability to recover from errors is necessary for robots to cope with unexpected situations in a dynamic environment. Efficient error recovery should allow the robot to utilise existing knowledge of the task and learn new error recovery strategies from observation. This paper proposes an automatic error recovery procedure that allows the robot to handle both known and unknown error states using a Petri net representation of the task. For known error states, the robot can directly adjust the sequencing of actions using the Petri net representation to complete the task, while for unknown error states, the robot can learn how to perform error recovery from a human demonstrator by extending the existing Petri net. The proposed method is verified on a real robot performing a block stacking task.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Simulation or modeling · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Methods · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.705
Threshold uncertainty score0.667

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.002
Open science0.0010.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.001

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.

Opus teacher head0.080
GPT teacher head0.278
Teacher spread0.198 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Quick stats

Citations14
Published2013
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same topicPetri Nets in System ModelingFrench-language works237,207