A novel digital twins-driven mutual trust framework for human–robot collaborations
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.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Trust plays an important role and significantly influences human–robot collaborations (HRC). However, most previous research on trust only emphasizes the human attitude toward robots. There needs more understanding of human uncertainties that may also cause disruptions of trust in collaborations. This paper presents a novel mutual trust framework to provide a relatable vision for future development in HRC from an integrated perspective via the integration of human and robotic digital twins . More specifically, a comprehensive review of current trust research in HRC is first provided, including trust factors and state-of-the-art trust models. Second, a novel human–robot mutual trust framework based on 5-layer digital twins models is introduced. The mutual trust framework highlights the interactions amongst modules of artificial intelligence , simulation, and operation, which can provide wide services in HRC (e.g., task allocation and motion planning). A case study of solving a path planning problem is exemplified to evaluate the performance of the proposed mutual trust framework. Compared with singular trust models, the proposed framework enables robotic systems with real-time response and adaptation to human behavior. Some limitations and future work of the mutual trust framework are elaborated in the end.
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 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 | 0.000 | 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 it