Training industrial end‐user programmers with interactive tutorials
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 Newly released robot programming tools have made it feasible for end‐users to program industrial robots by combining block‐based languages and lead‐through programming. To use these systems effectively, end‐users, who usually have limited or no programming experience, require training. To train users, tutoring systems are often used for block‐based programming—some even for lead‐through programming—but no tutorial system combines these two types of programming. We present CoBlox Interactive Tutorials (CITs), a novel tutoring approach that teaches how to use both the hardware and software components that comprise a typical end‐user robot programming environment. As users switch between the two programming styles, CITs provide them with extensive scaffolding, give users immediate feedback on missteps, and provide guidance on next steps. To evaluate CITs, we conducted a study with 79 industrial end‐users using a programming environment released by ABB Robotics that compares our approach to training with training videos, the most commonly used training in industry. This study, one of the largest to date on training professional end‐users, found that CIT‐trained users authored more correct programs in less time than video‐trained users. This shows that a tight integration of hardware and software concepts is crucial to training end‐users to program industrial robots.
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 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| 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