Advertisement

Towards Safe Human-Robot Interaction

  • Elena Corina Grigore
  • Kerstin Eder
  • Alexander Lenz
  • Sergey Skachek
  • Anthony G. Pipe
  • Chris Melhuish
Part of the Lecture Notes in Computer Science book series (LNCS, volume 6856)

Abstract

The development of human-assistive robots challenges engineering and introduces new ethical and legal issues. One fundamental concern is whether human-assistive robots can be trusted. Essential components of trustworthiness are usefulness and safety; both have to be demonstrated before such robots could stand a chance of passing product certification. This paper describes the setup of an environment to investigate safety and liveness aspects in the context of human-robot interaction. We present first insights into setting up and testing a human-robot interaction system in which the role of the robot is that of serving drinks to a human. More specifically, we use this system to investigate when the right time is for the robot to release the drink such that the action is both safe and useful. We briefly outline follow-on research that uses the safety and liveness properties of this scenario as specification.

Keywords

Pressure Sensor Humanoid Robot Liveness Property Robot Hand Circle Area 
These keywords were added by machine and not by the authors. This process is experimental and the keywords may be updated as the learning algorithm improves.

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

References

  1. 1.
    Basu, A., Gallien, M., Lesire, C., Nguyen, T.H., Bensalem, S., Ingrand, F., Sifakis, J.: Incremental component-based construction and verification of a robotic system. In: European Conference on Artificial Intelligence, pp. 631–635. IOS Press, Amsterdam (2008)Google Scholar
  2. 2.
    Bensalem, S., Gallien, M., Ingrand, F., Kahloul, I., Nguyen, T.H.: Toward a More Dependable Software Architecture for Autonomous Robots. IEEE Robotics and Automation Magazine 16(1), 67–77 (2009)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Clarke, E.M., Grumberg, O., Peled, D.: Model checking. MIT Press, Cambridge (1999)Google Scholar
  4. 4.
    Fitzpatrick, P., Metta, G., Natale, L.: Towards long-lived robot genes. Robotics and Autonomous Systems 56(1), 29–45 (2008)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Lallée, S., Lemaignan, S., Lenz, A., Melhuish, C., Natale, L., Zant, T.V.D., Warneken, F., Dominey, P.F.: Towards a Platform-Independent Cooperative Human-Robot Interaction System: I. Perception. In: International Conference on Intelligent Robots and Systems (IROS 2010), pp. 4444–4451. IEEE, Los Alamitos (2010)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Lenz, A., Skacheck, S., Hamann, K., Steinwender, J., Pipe, A., Melhuish, C.: The BERT2 infrastructure: An integrated system for the study of human-robot interaction. In: International Conference on Humanoid Robots. IEEE, Los Alamitos (2010)Google Scholar
  7. 7.
    Magee, J., Kramer, J.: Concurrency: State Models & Java Programs. Wiley, Chichester (2006)zbMATHGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Metta, G., Natale, L., Pathak, S., Pulina, L., Tacchella, A.: Safe and Effective Learning: A Case Study. In: ICRA 2010, pp. 4809–4814 (2010)Google Scholar
  9. 9.
    Pappas, G., Kress-Gazit, H. (eds.): ICRA Workshop on Formal Methods in Robotics and Automation (2009)Google Scholar
  10. 10.
    RTCA: DO178B Software Considerations in Airborne Systems and Equipment Certification (1992)Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag Berlin Heidelberg 2011

Authors and Affiliations

  • Elena Corina Grigore
    • 1
  • Kerstin Eder
    • 1
    • 2
  • Alexander Lenz
    • 2
  • Sergey Skachek
    • 2
  • Anthony G. Pipe
    • 2
  • Chris Melhuish
    • 2
  1. 1.Computer Science DepartmentUniversity of BristolBristolUK
  2. 2.Bristol Robotics LaboratoryBristolUK

Personalised recommendations