Human leading or following preferences: Effects on human perception of the robot and the human–robot collaboration
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Achieving effective and seamless human–robot collaboration requires two key outcomes: enhanced team performance and fostering a positive human perception of both the robot and the collaboration. This paper investigates the capability of the proposed task planning framework to realize these objectives by integrating human leading/following preferences and performance into its task allocation and scheduling processes. We designed a collaborative scenario wherein the robot autonomously collaborates with participants. The outcomes of the user study indicate that the proactive task planning framework successfully attains the aforementioned goals. We also explore the impact of participants’ leadership and followership styles on their collaboration. The results reveal intriguing relationships between these factors which warrant further investigation in future studies. • Implementing the task planning framework, adaptable to the human agent’s preference and performance, in a designed autonomous pick-and-place scenario. • Implementing dynamic task and action updates based on task states, agents’ actions, and human errors. • Investigating how the cobot’s adaptive planning influences participants’ perception of the robot and collaboration. • Exploring the influence of participants’ preferences, collaboration attitude, leadership style, and initial trust on their task planning and collaboration.
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 | 0.003 | 0.020 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 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 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".