Interactive collision avoidance system for indoor mobile robots based on human-robot interaction
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
This paper presents a collision avoidance system based on human-robot interaction for mobile robots, which are working alongside to humans. In the future work environments, mobile robots will work side by side to humans. This raises big challenges related to the safety of the human and the ability of the robot to identify the people, interact with them and avoid physical accidents to them. To realize these concepts, a human-robot interaction system together with a collision avoidance system are developed to enable a safe navigation of the mobile robots. In this system, when a robot meets people in its path, it will try to interact with the human to execute one of the three actions: move forward, move backward, and collision avoidance; or the robot will implement the collision-avoidance autonomously when no people interacted with it. The interaction is based on the gestures obtained from the Kinect 2.0 sensor, and the system was tested using a H20 Robot (Canada). The experimental results proved the validity of the proposed system in interacting with the humans, and avoiding them.
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