Adapting to Human Preferences to Lead or Follow in Human-Robot Collaboration: A System Evaluation
Bibliographic record
Abstract
With the introduction of collaborative robots, humans and robots can now work together in close proximity and share the same workspace. However, this collaboration presents various challenges that need to be addressed to ensure seamless cooperation between the agents. This paper focuses on task planning for human-robot collaboration, taking into account the human’s performance and their preference for following or leading. Unlike conventional task allocation methods, the proposed system allows both the robot and human to select and assign tasks to each other. Our previous studies evaluated the proposed framework in a computer simulation environment. This paper extends the research by implementing the algorithm in a real scenario where a human collaborates with a Fetch mobile manipulator robot. We briefly describe the experimental setup, procedure and implementation of the planned user study. As a first step, in this paper, we report on a system evaluation study where the experimenter enacted different possible behaviours in terms of leader/follower preferences that can occur in a user study. Results show that the robot can adapt and respond appropriately to different human agent behaviours, enacted by the experimenter. A future user study will evaluate the system with human participants.
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 | 0.018 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 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".