The Implementation of a Planning and Scheduling Architecture for Multiple Robots Assisting Multiple Users in a Retirement Home Setting
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
Our research focuses on the use of Planning & Scheduling (P&S) technology for a team of robots providing daily assistance to multiple elder adults living in retirement facilities. Multi-user assistance and group-based activities require robots to plan and schedule their human-robot interaction (HRI) activities based on the specific needs, time constraints, availability and preferences of the multiple users. In this paper, we introduce and implement a novel centralized system architecture that can manage real P&S scenarios with multiple socially assistive robots, multiple users and their individual schedules, and single- and multi-person assistive activities. We describe how the main components of the proposed P&S architecture are integrated to control the robots, and to generate and monitor sequences of temporally annotated activities using off-the-shelf temporal planners. We verify that the architecture can manage realistic scenarios with three assistive robots, twenty users, and several single- and group-based activity requests during a single day.
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 | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| 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 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 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