A Model-driven Approach for the Formal Analysis of Human-Robot Interaction Scenarios
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
Robots are currently mostly found in industrial settings. In the future, a wider range of environments will benefit from their inclusion. This calls for the development of tools that allow professionals to set up dependable robotic applications in which people productively interact with robots aware of their needs. Given the co-existence of humans and robots, the precise analysis-e.g., through formal verification techniques-of properties related to aspects such as human needs and physiology is of paramount importance. In this paper, we present a formally-based, model-driven approach to design and verify scenarios involving human-robot interactions. Some of the features of our approach are tailored to the healthcare domain, from which our case studies are derived. In our approach, the designer specifies the main parameters of the mission to generate the model of the application, which includes mobile robots, the humans to be served, including some of their physiological features, and the decision-maker that orchestrates the execution. All components are modeled through hybrid automata to capture variables with complex dynamics. The model is verified through Statistical Model Checking (SMC), using the Uppaal tool, to determine the probability of success of the mission. The results are examined by the developer, who iteratively refines the design until the probability of success is satisfactory.
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 | 0.001 |
| 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