MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort

Towards situational awareness from robotic group motion

2019· article· en· W3000500539 on OpenAlexaff
Florent Levillain, David St-Onge, Giovanni Beltrame, Elisabetta Zibetti

Bibliographic record

Venuenot available
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldPsychology
TopicSocial Robot Interaction and HRI
Canadian institutionsPolytechnique MontréalÉcole de Technologie Supérieure
Fundersnot available
KeywordsHuman–computer interactionNonverbal communicationComputer scienceSituation awarenessHuman multitaskingRobotSwarm behaviourSituational ethicsContext (archaeology)Motion (physics)Artificial intelligenceComprehensionTypologyMobile robotCognitive psychologyPsychologyCommunicationEngineeringSocial psychology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The control of multiple robots in the context of tele-exploration tasks is often attentionally taxing, resulting in a loss of situational awareness for operators. Unmanned aerial vehicle swarms require significantly more multitasking than controlling a plane, thus making it necessary to devise intuitive feedback sources and control methods for these robots. The purpose of this article is to examine a swarm's nonverbal behaviour as a possible way to increase situational awareness and reduce the operators cognitive load by soliciting intuitions about the swarm's behaviour. To progress on the definition of a database of nonverbal expressions for robot swarms, we first define categories of communicative intents based on spontaneous descriptions of common swarm behaviours. The obtained typology confirms that the first two levels (as defined by Endsley: elements of environment and comprehension of the situation) can be shared through swarms motion-based communication. We then investigate group motion parameters potentially connected to these communicative intents. Results are that synchronized movement and tendency to form figures help convey meaningful information to the operator. We then discuss how this can be applied to realistic scenarios for the intuitive command of remote robotic teams.

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 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 categoriesInsufficient payload (model declined to judge)
Consensus categoriesInsufficient payload (model declined to judge)
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.787
Threshold uncertainty score0.985

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 communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.1090.016

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 head0.047
GPT teacher head0.361
Teacher spread0.314 · 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

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; both teacher heads agree on what is shown here.

Study designObservational
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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".

Quick stats

Citations6
Published2019
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same topicSocial Robot Interaction and HRIFrench-language works237,207