Block-based Programming for Two-Armed Robots: A Comparative Study
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Programming industrial robots is difficult and expensive. Although recent work has made substantial progress in making it accessible to a wider range of users, it is often limited to simple programs and its usability remains untested in practice. In this article, we introduce Duplo, a block-based programming environment that allows end-users to program two-armed robots and solve tasks that require coordination. Duplo positions the program for each arm side-by-side, using the spatial relationship between blocks from each program to represent parallelism in a way that end-users can easily understand. This design was proposed by previous work, but not implemented or evaluated in a realistic programming setting. We performed a randomized experiment with 52 participants that evaluated Duplo on a complex programming task that contained several sub-tasks. We compared Duplo with RobotStudio Online YuMi, a commercial solution, and found that Duplo allowed participants to solve the same task faster and with greater success. By analyzing the information collected during our user study, we further identified factors that explain this performance difference, as well as remaining barriers, such as debugging issues and difficulties in interacting with the robot. This work represents another step towards allowing a wider audience of non-professionals to program, which might enable the broader deployment of robotics.
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 | 0.005 | 0.027 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.008 | 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".