Bounds of Neglect Benevolence in Input Timing for Human Interaction with Robotic Swarms
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Robotic swarms are distributed systems whose members interact via local control laws to achieve a variety of behaviors, such as flocking. In many practical applications, human operators may need to change the current behavior of a swarm from the goal that the swarm was going towards into a new goal due to dynamic changes in mission objectives. There are two related but distinct capabilities needed to supervise a robotic swarm. The first is comprehension of the swarm's state and the second is prediction of the effects of human inputs on the swarm's behavior. Both of them are very challenging. Prior work in the literature has shown that inserting the human input as soon as possible to divert the swarm from its original goal towards the new goal does not always result in optimal performance (measured by some criterion such as the total time required by the swarm to reach the second goal). This phenomenon has been called Neglect Benevolence, conveying the idea that in many cases it is preferable to neglect the swarm for some time before inserting human input. In this paper, we study how humans can develop an understanding of swarm dynamics so they can predict the effects of the timing of their input on the state and performance of the swarm. We developed the swarm configuration shape-changing Neglect Benevolence Task as a Human Swarm Interaction (HSI) reference task allowing comparison between human and optimal input timing performance in control of swarms. Our results show that humans can learn to approximate optimal timing and that displays which make consensus variables perceptually accessible can enhance performance.
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 | 0.003 | 0.033 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 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 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".