A Theoretical Foundation for Erroneous Behavior in Human–Robot Interaction
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The advent of mass customization has precipitated a need within the industry for the implementation of collaborative robots, which facilitate the integration of human cognitive capabilities with the speed and repeatability of robots. This coupling, however, engenders a closer collaboration between the partners, thereby necessitating collective synergy to achieve optimal scheduling while circumventing musculoskeletal disorders. It is imperative to study and analyze the behavior of humans and robots in interaction, as the current paradigm strives to achieve an optimal interaction between the two partners with the objective of ensuring productivity, safety, cognitive ergonomics and preventing musculoskeletal disorders. However, human behavior is variable and can, on occasion, give rise to anomalies in the interaction. Consequently, it is imperative that the robot partner exhibits precise behavior, whether proactive or reactive. This paper puts forth a unified perspective on robot behavior when confronted with human abnormal behavior during interaction on the factory floor. This systematic literature review and meta-analysis employs the PRISMA methodology to examine the literature on human and robot behavior in human–robot interaction in an industrial context, with a particular focus on robot behavior when confronted with human abnormal behavior during interaction. A systematic search of nearly 2,609 papers yielded 133 for inclusion in this systematic review. In light of the findings presented in this review, it can be concluded that the selection of robot actions based on human behavior represents a novel area of research that requires further investigation, particularly with regard to proactive online behavioral approaches. Indeed, there is a vast array of robot behavior modalities in response to typical human behavior (e.g., command input). However, there is currently no prescribed robot reaction based on atypical human behavior (e.g., misplacement in the factory floor, repetition of tasks, etc.). This lack of definition complicates the deployment of such technology in the smart factory. Consequently, it is essential to define new decision strategies based, for instance, on artificial intelligence approaches.
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 | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| 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 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| 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 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".