Integrating Robot Manufacturer Perspectives into Legible Factory Robot Light Communications
Bibliographic record
Abstract
In a world with increasing numbers of robots operating in everyday human spaces, the employees at this robotics company are pioneers, with intelligent point-to-point path planning and autonomous transport operations in 150+ factory and warehouse locations in North America. At the time of research, this robotics company consisted of 250 employees. Unlike other industry models, their robots are designed to operate with people in mixed human-machine spaces, yet no HRI style evaluations had previously been run with their robots. As early observers of how factory workers and transport robot interact, across varied job roles ranging from technology design to customer relations, this work sought to leverage employee knowledge and experiences to identify opportunities for improving the communication capabilities of the robots, resulting in the addition of several robot state communications to their initial software set leveraging both employee- and social robotics literature- sourced ideas for communicating with lights. To achieve this a social robotics researcher spent a summer onsite at the robotics company, getting to know their software stack and culture. Her research activities included: (1) a company-wide survey relative to the robot’s light, sound, and motion communications was sent out and analyzed, (2) the development of three new light sets (car-like, sweeping, heartbeat) and five overall states (blocked, at goal, turning, idle), and (3) a user study evaluating the developed light sets relative to the current robot default light patterns, all significantly improving the overall legibility of the targeted robot state communications: at goal, blocked, turning, and idle. Our initial findings advance knowledge in which style of light patterns is best for different communication states, showing that eye-catching lights are best for high urgency states, such as blocked, and subtle lights are best for low urgency states, such as idle. Finally, the latest software release for this robot has deployed a subset of these light patterns to all of their currently operating client sites, i.e., anyone who updates their robots to the latest release will benefit from these research results. This deployment sets the ground for future researchers exploring how end-users at different sites have responded to the new, more communicative light patterns.
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 | 0.007 | 0.015 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.002 | 0.004 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.008 | 0.007 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.004 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.007 | 0.001 |
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".