Considerations for Developing Robot-Assisted Crisis De-Escalation Practices
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Robots are increasingly entering the social sphere and taking on more sophisticated roles. One application for which robots are already being deployed is in civilian security tasks, in which robots augment security and police forces. In this domain, robots will encounter individuals in crisis who may pose a threat to themselves, others, or personal property. In such interactions with human police and security officers, a key goal is to de-escalate the situation to resolve the interaction. This paper considers the task of utilizing mobile robots in de-escalation tasks, using the mechanisms developed for de-escalation in human–human interactions. What strategies should a robot follow in order to leverage existing de-escalation approaches? Given these strategies, what sensing and interaction capabilities should a robot be capable of in order to engage in de-escalation tasks with humans? First, we discuss the current understanding of de-escalation with individuals in crisis and present a working model of the de-escalation process and strategies. Next, we review the capabilities that an autonomous agent should demonstrate to be able to apply such strategies in robot-mediated crisis de-escalation. Finally, we explore data-driven approaches to training robots in de-escalation and the next steps in moving the field forward.
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 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) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 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 itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, 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".