Collision Detection for Human-Robot Interaction in an Industrial Setting using Force Myography and a Deep Learning Approach
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
By applying robots while collaborating with a human in an industrial setting to provide more flexible and productive industries, safe interaction and collision detection have become an indispensable element of the collaborative robots. In such a dynamic environment, safe collaboration scenarios are needed to be designed using reliable methods to monitor collision-related signals and avoid a dangerous collision. Since human's hand is the most exposed limb to collision during cooperation with a robot, new flexible methods should be conducted to use in industries by considering hand safety. In this study, collision monitoring is developed using force myography of a worker forearm and robot dynamic parameters. A method based on deep neural network is proposed to distinguish any occurrence of a collision between a worker's hand and robot's arm during the collaboration. The proposed approach can be applied to provide a reliable interaction with no unnecessary robot stop during working by classifying unintended collision. Various experiments have been conducted to evaluate the proposed method. The results show that the proposed scheme can successfully detect a collision and classify human intention to provide safe and reliable cooperation with a robot in an industrial environment.
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 | 0.000 |
| 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