Formally-based Model-Driven Development of Collaborative Robotic Applications
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
Abstract The development of Human Robot Collaborative (HRC) systems faces many challenges. First, HRC systems should be adaptable and re-configurable to support fast production changes. However, in the development of HRC applications safety considerations are of paramount importance, as much as classical activities such as task programming and deployment. Hence, the reconfiguration and reprogramming of executing tasks might be necessary also to fulfill the desired safety requirements. Model-based software engineering is a suitable means for agile task programming and reconfiguration. We propose a model-based design-to-deployment toolchain that simplifies the routine of updating or modifying tasks. This toolchain relies on (i) UML profiles for quick model design, (ii) formal verification for exhaustive search for unsafe situations (caused by intended or unintended human behavior) within the model, and (iii) trans-coding tools for automating the development process. The toolchain has been evaluated on a few realistic case studies. In this paper, we show a couple of them to illustrate the applicability of the approach.
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 | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| 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