MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W7127292565 · doi:10.1109/icrae67496.2025.00016

Unified Modelling of Intelligent Robotic Systems: Applications of COH/GISMOL in Automation Engineering

2025· article· W7127292565 on OpenAlexaff
Harris Wang

Bibliographic record

Venuenot available
Typearticle
Language
FieldComputer Science
TopicAI-based Problem Solving and Planning
Canadian institutionsAthabasca University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsRoboticsAutomationPython (programming language)Intelligent decision support systemModel-driven architectureRobotConstraint (computer-aided design)Reinforcement learning

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Robotics and automation increasingly demand intelligent systems that integrate perception, cognition, and action while assuring safety and compliance in dynamic environments. Existing paradigms-behavior-based control, layered architectures, middleware frameworks, and learning-based controllers-solve parts of the problem but rarely offer a cohesive way to model structure, learning, and constraints together. This paper introduces Constrained Object Hierarchies (COH) and its Python toolkit GISMOL (General Intelligent System Modelling Language) as a unified approach to designing and implementing intelligent systems. COH formalizes intelligent systems via a 9-tuple representation-components, attributes, methods, neural components, embeddings, identity constraints, trigger constraints, goal constraints, and constraint daemons -thereby separating what a system is from what it does and what must never be violated. Neuroscience-inspired hierarchical processing motivates this decomposition and the separation of learned behaviors from innate constraints. We demonstrate COH/GISMOL on five representative cases in robotics and automation: warehouse AMR, collaborative assembly, autonomous harvesting, predictive maintenance, and multi-robot search-and-rescue. Across these cases, COH/GISMOL delivers: (i) systematic modelling, (ii) integrated learning with safety-first constraint enforcement, and (iii) maintainable hierarchies that support verification and runtime monitoring consistent with emerging standards and best practices.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.002
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.003
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Simulation or modeling · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.010
Threshold uncertainty score0.020

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0020.003
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.002
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0010.003
Scholarly communication0.0020.003
Open science0.0020.003
Research integrity0.0010.002
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0050.001

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.

Opus teacher head0.025
GPT teacher head0.241
Teacher spread0.216 · 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

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designSimulation or modeling
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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".

Quick stats

Citations0
Published2025
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same topicAI-based Problem Solving and PlanningFrench-language works237,207