Action Classification in Human Robot Interaction Cells in Manufacturing
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Action recognition has become a prerequisite approach to fluent Human-Robot Interaction (HRI) due to a high degree of movement flexibility. With the improvements in machine learning algorithms, robots are gradually transitioning into more human-populated areas. However, HRI systems demand the need for robots to possess enough cognition. The action recognition algorithms require massive training datasets, structural information of objects in the environment, and less expensive models in terms of computational complexity. In addition, many such algorithms are trained on datasets derived from daily activities. The algorithms trained on non-industrial datasets may have an unfavorable impact on implementing models and validating actions in an industrial context. This study proposed a lightweight deep learning model for classifying low-level actions in an assembly setting. The model is based on optical flow feature elicitation and mobilenetV2-SSD action classification and is trained and assessed on an actual industrial activities’ dataset. The experimental outcomes show that the presented method is futuristic and does not require extensive preprocessing; therefore, it can be promising in terms of the feasibility of action recognition for mutual performance monitoring in real-world HRI applications. The test result shows 80% accuracy for low-level RGB action classes. The study's primary objective is to generate experimental results that may be used as a reference for future HRI algorithms based on the InHard dataset.
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 | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 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 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".