MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4407183290 · doi:10.1007/s12369-025-01219-4

Replayable Augmented Reality Visualization for Robot Fault Diagnosis: A Comparative Study

2025· article· en· W4407183290 on OpenAlex

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.

affAt least one author lists a Canadian institution in the pinned OpenAlex snapshot.

Bibliographic record

VenueInternational Journal of Social Robotics · 2025
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEngineering
TopicRobotics and Automated Systems
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Victoria
FundersAmazon Robotics
KeywordsVisualizationAugmented realityArtificial intelligenceComputer scienceRoboticsMechatronicsRobotComputer visionHuman–computer interaction

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Abstract Efficient fault diagnosis in autonomous robotic systems is essential for minimizing downtime. This study compares the effectiveness of an Augmented Reality (AR) interface and sensor data replay (featuring a 15-second loop before the fault) in diagnosing common robot faults. In a user study, 24 participants experienced a series of eight staged robot fault scenarios. A tablet-based interface, presenting identical information, was favoured over AR due to its effectiveness and ease of use. Participant feedback highlighted the limitations of the AR interface including the low field of view and blurriness, suggesting potential improvements in future AR headset iterations. While a preference for replayed data emerged, it was not supported uniformly, warranting further research. This study advances the exploration of Augmented Reality in human-robot interaction, emphasizing the crucial role of user-friendly interfaces for efficient robot fault diagnosis.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Simulation or modeling · Consensus signal: Simulation or modeling
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.917
Threshold uncertainty score0.512

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.040
GPT teacher head0.371
Teacher spread0.330 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it