MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W3108616151 · doi:10.4204/eptcs.329.1

How to Formally Model Human in Collaborative Robotics

2020· article· en· W3108616151 on OpenAlex

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.

affAt least one author lists a Canadian institution in the pinned OpenAlex snapshot.

Bibliographic record

VenueElectronic Proceedings in Theoretical Computer Science · 2020
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldComputer Science
TopicFormal Methods in Verification
Canadian institutionsMcMaster University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsRoboticsRobotWorkspaceArtificial intelligenceComputer scienceHuman–robot interactionHuman–computer interactionRisk analysis (engineering)Business

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Human-robot collaboration (HRC) is an emerging trend of robotics that promotes the co-presence and cooperation of humans and robots in common workspaces. Physical vicinity and interaction between humans and robots, combined with the uncertainty of human behaviour, could lead to undesired situations where humans are injured. Thus, safety is a priority for HRC applications. Safety analysis via formal modelling and verification techniques could considerably avoid dangerous consequences, but only if the models of HRC systems are comprehensive and realistic, which requires reasonably realistic models of human behaviour. This paper explores state-of-the-art solutions for modelling human and discusses which ones are suitable for HRC scenarios.

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 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)0.002
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Theoretical or conceptual · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Methods · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.796
Threshold uncertainty score0.960

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0020.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.006
Science and technology studies0.0000.001
Scholarly communication0.0010.002
Open science0.0040.001
Research integrity0.0000.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.016
GPT teacher head0.277
Teacher spread0.262 · 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