An Experimental Validation and Comparison of Reaching Motion Models for Unconstrained Handovers: Towards Generating Humanlike Motions for Human-Robot Handovers
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The Minimum Jerk motion model has long been cited in literature for human point-to-point reaching motions in single-person tasks. While it has been demonstrated that applying minimum-jerk-like trajectories to robot reaching motions in the joint action task of human-robot handovers allows a robot giver to be perceived as more careful, safe, and skilled, it has not been verified whether human reaching motions in handovers follow the Minimum Jerk model. To experimentally test and verify motion models for human reaches in handovers, we examined human reaching motions in unconstrained handovers (where the person is allowed to move their whole body) and fitted against 1) the Minimum Jerk model, 2) its variation, the Decoupled Minimum Jerk model, and 3) the recently proposed Elliptical (Conic) model. Results showed that Conic model fits unconstrained human handover reaching motions best. Furthermore, we discovered that unlike constrained, single-person reaching motions, which have been found to be elliptical, there is a split between elliptical and hyperbolic conic types. We expect our results will help guide generation of more humanlike reaching motions for human-robot handover tasks.
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 machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.006 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 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 itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
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".