Integrating intention-based systems in human-robot interaction: a scoping review of sensors, algorithms, and trust
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
The increasing adoption of robot systems in industrial settings and teaming with humans have led to a growing interest in human-robot interaction (HRI) research. While many robots use sensors to avoid harming humans, they cannot elaborate on human actions or intentions, making them passive reactors rather than interactive collaborators. Intention-based systems can determine human motives and predict future movements, but their closer interaction with humans raises concerns about trust. This scoping review provides an overview of sensors, algorithms, and examines the trust aspect of intention-based systems in HRI scenarios. We searched MEDLINE, Embase, and IEEE Xplore databases to identify studies related to the forementioned topics of intention-based systems in HRI. Results from each study were summarized and categorized according to different intention types, representing various designs. The literature shows a range of sensors and algorithms used to identify intentions, each with their own advantages and disadvantages in different scenarios. However, trust of intention-based systems is not well studied. Although some research in AI and robotics can be applied to intention-based systems, their unique characteristics warrant further study to maximize collaboration performance. This review highlights the need for more research on the trust aspects of intention-based systems to better understand and optimize their role in human-robot interactions, at the same time establishes a foundation for future research in sensor and algorithm designs for intention-based systems.
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 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.002 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 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