Pith. sign in

REVIEW 3 major objections 6 minor 24 references

By grounding LLM-generated instructions into hierarchical temporal logic and replanning on a rolling horizon, this paper shows that multi-robot teams can execute long-horizon human-facing tasks like object handovers while preserving formal

Reviewed by Pith at T0; open to challenge. T0 means a machine referee read the full paper against a public rubric. the ladder, T0–T4 →

Challenge this review Re-run · record.json Download PDF Read on arXiv ↗

A neuro-symbolic planner that grounds LLM instructions into hierarchical temporal logic and re-plans in a rolling horizon outperforms an LLM-only baseline in dynamic multi-robot handover tasks.

T0 review reviewed 2026-08-03 challenge →

load-bearing objection A credible integration of H-LTLf and LLM grounding with real robot demos, but the headline 'grounding' claim rests on an unverified LLM-to-spec translation. the 3 major comments →

arxiv 2602.09472 v2 pith:BYLIOKFR submitted 2026-02-10 cs.RO cs.CV

LLM-Grounded Dynamic Task Planning with Hierarchical Temporal Logic for Human-Aware Multi-Robot Handover

Shuyuan Hu , Tao Lin , Kai Ye , Tianwei Zhang This is my paper
classification cs.RO cs.CV
keywords multi-robot planninghierarchical temporal logicLTLfreceding horizonlarge language modelshuman-robot handovertask allocationneuro-symbolic planning
verification ladder T0 review T1 audit T2 compute T3 formal T4 reserved

The pith

A machine-rendered reading of the paper's core claim, the machinery that carries it, and where it could break.

The reading

This paper tries to establish that LLM-based high-level planning can be made both formally correct and dynamically responsive by translating free-form instructions into hierarchical LTLf specifications, solving the resulting task-allocation-and-planning problem, and repeatedly re-solving it as the world changes. A sympathetic reader would care because it addresses three gaps at once: LLM plans lack formal guarantees, formal planners are offline and static, and existing dynamic LLM planners are simulation-only. The paper reports that in simulation and on real two-robot handover experiments its framework beats an LLM-replanning baseline in success rate, time cost, and token usage, and reduces replanning counts under moving-human disturbances.

Core claim

The authors claim that hierarchical LTLf team models—where each leaf specification becomes a product automaton of robot transition systems and a nondeterministic finite automaton, connected by in-spec and inter-spec switch transitions—reduce the search space enough to enable A* optimal path finding in real time, and that wrapping this in a progress-triggered receding horizon loop with reactive safety constraints and predictive horizon adaptation lets the system resolve stochastic environmental changes while keeping formal guarantees. They report success rates of 93% in the hardest simulation setting versus 19% for the baseline, a 50% execution-time reduction in a dynamic interruption scenari

What carries the argument

Hierarchical Team Models: a graph of product automata, each combining a robot's weighted transition system with an NFA of a leaf H-LTLf specification, linked by sequential and simultaneous in-spec switches and by task-switching and progression inter-spec switches. A* search over this graph yields the optimal path; progress-triggered replanning re-solves whenever an atomic action or switch transition completes, a safety shield halts execution on kinematic infeasibility or predicted intrusion risk, and predictive planning precomputes suffix plans for forecast human positions and takes over only when the observed state converges to the prediction.

Load-bearing premise

The load-bearing premise is that the LLM's translation of a free-form instruction into a correct H-LTLf hierarchy faithfully captures the user's intent—if it emits a plausible but wrong hierarchy, the formal planner guarantees correctness only for the wrong task.

What would settle it

Run a scenario with two robots and one moving person, and give an instruction whose LLM-generated hierarchy omits a safety proposition such as 'stay out of the person's workspace during handover.' If the resulting plan lets a robot intrude into the person's predicted position, the claim that the system resolves stochastic environmental changes fails. Alternatively, make a person move adversarially faster than the trajectory predictor; if success rate collapses while a constant-replanning baseline holds, the predictive adaptation claim is falsified.

Watch this falsifier. Get emailed when new claim-graph text bears on it.

If this is right

  • If the 93%-versus-19% simulation gap holds, the hierarchical formal structure is the key to scaling LLM-based multi-robot planning to long horizons.
  • The 80–94% token reduction suggests that closed-loop formal grounding makes LLM queries cheap enough for real-time replanning cycles.
  • Correct-by-construction mutual exclusion, such as blocking simultaneous-hold handovers, means safety properties are enforced by the automaton rather than by prompt engineering.
  • Predictive horizon adaptation removes planning latency at the moment a handover target changes, which is the bottleneck in human-aware interaction.
  • The framework's deployment on two heterogeneous real manipulators shows the approach is not confined to simulation.

Where Pith is reading between the lines

These are editorial extensions of the paper, not claims the author makes directly.

  • Because the LLM's translation of an instruction into an H-LTLf hierarchy is unverified, the formal guarantees hold only relative to the generated specification; a testable extension is adding a semantic verification or repair step that checks the hierarchy against the instruction's intent.
  • The approach could generalize beyond handovers to any domain with hierarchical task decompositions and stochastic human behavior, such as assembly or service robotics, where the same product-team-model structure applies.
  • The receding-horizon re-solving over a product graph resembles model-predictive control; one could derive formal bounds on how replanning frequency trades off against plan suboptimality as environmental dynamics change.
  • The prediction horizon is an unanalyzed tunable parameter; adversarial human motion that outruns the predictor could stress the safety shield in ways the current experiments do not measure.
Share X Bluesky LinkedIn Reddit HN

Editorial analysis

A structured set of objections, weighed in public.

Desk editor's note, referee report, simulated authors' rebuttal, and a circularity audit.

Referee Report

3 major / 6 minor

Summary. The paper proposes a neuro-symbolic framework for multi-robot task planning in dynamic human environments. A perception module builds a semantic 3D scene, an LLM converts natural-language instructions into hierarchical LTLf (sc-LTL) specifications, and a hierarchical team model combines robot transition systems with automata for each leaf specification. An A* search solves the resulting STAP problem, and a receding horizon loop with reactive safety constraints and predictive trajectory planning handles stochastic human motion and task updates. The system is evaluated in simulation against a single LLM baseline and in real-world experiments with two manipulators and human participants, reporting success rate, time cost, token usage, replanning counts, and HRC fluency metrics.

Significance. If the claims are substantiated, this would be a notable step toward scalable formal planning with LLM-based task specification in dynamic human-centric environments. The paper makes a concrete engineering contribution by integrating H-LTLf formal planning, receding-horizon replanning, perception, and physical handover skills in a real system, which is relatively rare. The token-usage reduction and the real-world deployment with heterogeneous manipulators are strengths. However, the central end-to-end claim that the LLM reliably grounds human instructions into correct hierarchical specifications is not directly validated, and the statistical support for 'significantly outperforms' is weak. These issues are load-bearing for the paper's stated value proposition.

major comments (3)
  1. [Sec. III-B/III-C and Sec. V] The central claim that the system 'grounds human instructions' into H-LTLf specifications and provides 'correct-by-construction safety and feasibility' depends on an unverified LLM translation step. Section III stage (2) only states that 'an LLM reason about the scene, and output hierarchical team models' with no semantic verification, consistency check, or fallback mechanism. The formal planner guarantees correctness only for the specification it is given; a hallucinated hierarchy (wrong goal, missing safety proposition, incorrect decomposition) would be executed with high confidence. None of the experiments in Sec. V isolate or measure translation fidelity: simulation tasks appear to be procedurally generated with known specifications, and the real-world T1–T6 scenarios are reported without formula-level ground truth. To support the end-to-end claim, the paper should specify the prompt
  2. [Table II and Sec. V-B] The abstract claims the approach 'significantly outperforms baseline methods in success rate and interaction fluency', but no statistical tests are reported. Table II gives point estimates of success rates without confidence intervals or p-values; some differences are small (e.g., 2-1: 100 vs 99, 4-1: 100 vs 96). In the real-world experiments (Fig. 7), 20 trials per task are run but no significance testing is reported for execution time, success, or replanning count. The claim of a 'significantly lower replanning count' in T5/T6 is also unsupported. Add appropriate statistical analyses (e.g., paired bootstrap or exact tests across trials) or soften the 'significant' wording to 'consistent improvements' where significance is not established.
  3. [Sec. III-D, Sec. V-A, Sec. V-C] The contribution 'extend H-LTLf based formal planning ... via integrating it with RHP' is not isolated in the evaluation. The only baseline, SMART-LLM [13]-R, is a script-generation LLM planner and does not use hierarchical formal specifications; the comparison therefore conflates the H-LTLf formal planning layer with the RHP loop. The paper does not compare against an open-loop H-LTLf planner (e.g., Nl2HLTL2Plan [9]) or an H-LTLf planner with periodic full replanning, so the specific benefit of progress-triggered re-optimization over the remaining horizon is not demonstrated. Table III ablates the predictive trigger and parallel motion planning, but not the absence of the RHP loop. I recommend adding an ablation that fixes the initial H-LTLf plan and executes it open-loop (or replans only on failure) under the same dynamic disturbances; this would directly support the claim that the RHP
minor comments (6)
  1. [Abstract and Sec. III-B] The paper alternates between 'H-LTLf' (abstract, title) and 'Hierarchical sc-LTL' (Sec. III-B). Since LTLf and sc-LTL are distinct formalisms, clarify the relationship and use one consistent name.
  2. [Sec. III-D] Typo: 're-solv' should be 're-solve'. In Sec. III-B, 'donated as' should be 'denoted as'.
  3. [Sec. V-A] The task notation such as '1-1', '4-4-square' is undefined. State explicitly that the first number is N_task, the second is N_robot, and the suffix is the topological layout.
  4. [Fig. 7 / Sec. V-B] Define how 'replanning count' is computed and whether Fig. 7 shows means over the 20 trials. Add error bars and clarify the criterion 'trials exceeding 3 are marked as failures'.
  5. [Sec. V-D / Table III] The caption uses 'P.T.' while the table rows use 'w/o P.P.' for predictive planning/trigger. Use one abbreviation consistently.
  6. [Sec. III-C] The A* search is described without specifying the heuristic or how edge costs c_r are determined. If optimality is claimed, state the heuristic's admissibility and the source of c_r.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged

No significant circularity: the formal backbone is imported from external prior work, and the reported gains are measured against external baselines rather than fitted parameters renamed as predictions.

full rationale

The paper's derivation chain is not circular. The hierarchical sc-LTL/H-LTLf formalism is taken from [5] (Luo & Liu) and [9] (Xu, Luo, et al.), which are external works with no author overlap with the present paper; the paper's contribution is the dynamic receding-horizon integration, not a reformulation of its own conclusions as premises. The planning pipeline (LLM -> H-LTLf -> NFA -> product team model -> A* search) is a standard compositional synthesis construction, and the safety/feasibility properties in Sec. V-C are explicitly presented as 'Correct-by-Construction' outcomes of the transition-system design, not as empirical discoveries. The success-rate and time-cost comparisons are measured against SMART-LLM and a replanning variant [13]-R in both procedurally generated simulation tasks and real-world trials; no parameter is fit to the evaluation metric and then reported as a prediction. The self-citations present ([1], [6], [22]) are background surveys or a handover-motion component and are not load-bearing for the central claim. The main weakness identified by the skeptic is a semantic-verification gap: the LLM's translation of natural language into H-LTLf is not checked against user intent, so the formal guarantees apply to the generated specification rather than the original instruction. That is an external-validity or correctness-risk concern, not a circularity, because the paper does not define the specification in terms of the measured outcome or derive the outcome from the specification it is supposed to explain. Overall, no step reduces, by definition or self-citation, to its own inputs.

Axiom & Free-Parameter Ledger

4 free parameters · 5 axioms · 0 invented entities

The formal backbone (H-LTLf, product team models, decomposition sets) is adopted from [5], not re-derived. The paper's main unsupported inputs are LLM translation correctness, trajectory prediction accuracy, edge costs, and trigger thresholds; no new physical entities are postulated.

free parameters (4)
  • Transition-system edge costs c_r
    A* minimizes J = sum_r c_r (Sec. III-C), described as execution time or energy, but no measurement or estimation method is given. Plan optimality is relative to these hand-set costs.
  • Person-trajectory prediction horizon T_pred and observation window T_obs
    Sec. III-A defines T_obs and T_pred but never gives values; the utility of predictive replanning depends on them.
  • Reactive safety thresholds (workspace intrusion distance, high-velocity maneuver definition)
    Sec. III-D.2 halts execution when the human is 'predicted to enter the robot's workspace W_r during a high-velocity maneuver'; the thresholds for both conditions are unspecified.
  • Plan-takeover convergence criterion
    Sec. III-D.3 performs plan takeover 'only when the actual observed state s_t converges to s_pred', but no metric or threshold is defined.
axioms (5)
  • standard math sc-LTL formulas convert to equivalent NFAs, and the product of a robot transition system with an NFA preserves task satisfaction.
    Invoked in Sec. III-C to construct product team models; a standard automata-theoretic result imported without proof.
  • domain assumption Fixed-base arms with spherical reachability models and cylindrical objects are a sufficient abstraction of the task domain.
    Sec. IV-A/B model reachable regions as spheres and objects as cylinders; the real system uses two fixed-base arms and does not treat general clutter or deformable objects.
  • ad hoc to paper LLM-generated H-LTLf hierarchies are semantically faithful to the natural-language instruction.
    Sec. III stage (2) has an LLM output hierarchical team models with no verification loop that the generated specification matches the user's intended goals. If this fails, the formal planner is correct for the wrong task.
  • ad hoc to paper Predicted human trajectories are accurate enough to trigger useful pre-plans.
    Sec. III-D.3 uses trajectory prediction Y_{1:T_pred} to solve a planning problem in parallel and to perform plan takeover; no uncertainty bounds or failure analysis is provided.
  • ad hoc to paper Progress-triggered replanning over the remaining horizon preserves global correctness and optimality.
    Sec. III-D.1 re-solves A* on the hierarchical team model for the remaining specification Phi_rem without a formal guarantee that hierarchical decomposition plus re-solving converges to a globally optimal feasible plan.

reviewed 2026-08-03 · how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of LLM-Grounded Dynamic Task Planning with Hierarchical Temporal Logic for Human-Aware Multi-Robot Handover." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/BYLIOKFR

@misc{pith2026260209472,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: LLM-Grounded Dynamic Task Planning with Hierarchical Temporal Logic for Human-Aware Multi-Robot Handover},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/BYLIOKFR}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2602.09472}
}
Share X Bluesky LinkedIn Reddit HN
read the original abstract

Large Language Models (LLMs) enable non-experts to specify open-world multi-robot tasks, but the generated plans are often kinematically infeasible and inefficient in long-horizon settings. Formal methods such as Linear Temporal Logic (LTL) offer correctness and optimality guarantees, yet they are typically offline and scale poorly. To bridge this gap, we propose a neuro-symbolic framework that grounds human instructions into hierarchical LTLf specifications (i.e., LTL on finite traces) and solves the resulting Simultaneous Task Allocation and Planning (STAP) problem. Unlike static approaches, our system handles stochastic environmental changes-such as user motion or updated instructions-through a receding horizon planning (RHP) loop with real-time perception, dynamically refining plans over a hierarchical state space. Experiments in simulation and on real robots demonstrate that our approach significantly outperforms baseline methods in success rate and interaction fluency while reducing replanning overhead.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2602.09472 by Kai Ye, Shuyuan Hu, Tao Lin, Tianwei Zhang.

Figure 1
Figure 1. Figure 1: A demonstration of the proposed dynamic planning with the human instruction, [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p001_1.png] view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. Figure 2: The proposed method flowchart. In the Hierarchical Team Models panel, we illustrate the hierarchical team models for two leaf specifications and two robots. The product team models corresponding to each leaf specification are shown inside the regions shaded in light orange and light green. Within each product team model, ζ 1 in are drawn as purple bidirectional dashed arrows, while ζ 2 in are drawn as pink… view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. Figure 3: Pick planning pipeline [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p005_3.png] view at source ↗
Figure 4
Figure 4. Figure 4: The proposed robot-to-robot handover method. [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p005_4.png] view at source ↗
Figure 5
Figure 5. Figure 5: Simulation experiment setup for 2-4-square and 2-4-line. [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p006_5.png] view at source ↗
Figure 6
Figure 6. Figure 6: Real-world experiment setup [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p006_6.png] view at source ↗
Figure 8
Figure 8. Figure 8: Typical LLM failure modes prevented by formal planning checks. [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p007_8.png] view at source ↗

discussion (0)

Sign in with ORCID, Apple, or X to comment. Anyone can read and Pith papers without signing in.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

24 extracted references · 5 linked inside Pith

  1. [1]

    Robot manipulation based on embodied visual perception: A survey,

    S. Wang, M. N. Nikoli ´c, T. L. Lam, Q. Gao, R. Ding, and T. Zhang, “Robot manipulation based on embodied visual perception: A survey,” CAAI Transactions on Intelligence Technology, 2025. 1

    2025

  2. [2]

    Dynamic open-vocabulary 3d scene graphs for long-term language- guided mobile manipulation,

    Z. Yan, S. Li, Z. Wang, L. Wu, H. Wang, J. Zhu, L. Chen, and J. Liu, “Dynamic open-vocabulary 3d scene graphs for long-term language- guided mobile manipulation,” IEEE Robotics and Automation Letters, vol. 10, no. 5, pp. 4252–4259, 2025. 1

    2025

  3. [3]

    Dart-llm: Dependency-aware multi- robot task decomposition and execution using large language models,

    Y . Wang, R. Xiao, J. Y . L. Kasahara, R. Yajima, K. Nagatani, A. Yamashita, and H. Asama, “Dart-llm: Dependency-aware multi- robot task decomposition and execution using large language models,”

  4. [4]

    Dexter-llm: Dynamic and explainable coordination of multi-robot systems in unknown environments via large language models,

    Y . Zhu, J. Chen, X. Zhang, M. Guo, and Z. Li, “Dexter-llm: Dynamic and explainable coordination of multi-robot systems in unknown environments via large language models,” 2025. 1, 2

    2025

  5. [5]

    Simultaneous task allocation and planning for multi-robots under hierarchical temporal logic specifications,

    X. Luo and C. Liu, “Simultaneous task allocation and planning for multi-robots under hierarchical temporal logic specifications,” IEEE Transactions on Robotics, 2025. 1, 2, 4

    2025

  6. [6]

    A survey on the visual perception of humanoid robot,

    T. Bin, H. Yan, N. Wang, M. N. Nikoli ´c, J. Yao, and T. Zhang, “A survey on the visual perception of humanoid robot,” Biomimetic Intelligence and Robotics, p. 100197, 2024. 2

    2024

  7. [7]

    Temporal logic motion planning with convex op- timization via graphs of convex sets,

    V . Kurtz and H. Lin, “Temporal logic motion planning with convex op- timization via graphs of convex sets,” IEEE Transactions on Robotics, vol. 39, no. 5, pp. 3791–3804, 2023. 2

    2023

  8. [8]

    Lamma-p: Gen- eralizable multi-agent long-horizon task allocation and planning with lm-driven pddl planner,

    X. Zhang, H. Qin, F. Wang, Y . Dong, and J. Li, “Lamma-p: Gen- eralizable multi-agent long-horizon task allocation and planning with lm-driven pddl planner,” in 2025 IEEE International Conference on Robotics and Automation (ICRA). IEEE, 2025. 2

    2025

  9. [9]

    Nl2hltl2plan: Scaling up natural language understanding for multi-robots through hierarchical temporal logic task representation,

    S. Xu, X. Luo, Y . Huang, L. Leng, R. Liu, and C. Liu, “Nl2hltl2plan: Scaling up natural language understanding for multi-robots through hierarchical temporal logic task representation,” 2024. 2, 6

    2024

  10. [10]

    Octo: An open-source generalist robot policy,

    Octo Model Team, D. Ghosh, H. Walke, K. Pertsch, K. Black, O. Mees, S. Dasari, J. Hejna, C. Xu, J. Luo, T. Kreiman, Y . Tan, L. Y . Chen, P. Sanketi, Q. Vuong, T. Xiao, D. Sadigh, C. Finn, and S. Levine, “Octo: An open-source generalist robot policy,” in Proceedings of Robotics: Science and Systems, Delft, Netherlands, 2024. 2

    2024

  11. [11]

    Openvla: An open-source vision-language-action model,

    M. Kim, K. Pertsch, S. Karamcheti, T. Xiao, A. Balakrishna, S. Nair, R. Rafailov, E. Foster, G. Lam, P. Sanketi, Q. Vuong, T. Kollar, B. Burchfiel, R. Tedrake, D. Sadigh, S. Levine, P. Liang, and C. Finn, “Openvla: An open-source vision-language-action model,” arXiv preprint arXiv:2406.09246, 2024. 2

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2024

  12. [12]

    Coherent: Collaboration of heterogeneous multi-robot system with large language models,

    K. Liu, Z. Tang, D. Wang, Z. Wang, B. Zhao, and X. Li, “Coherent: Collaboration of heterogeneous multi-robot system with large language models,” arXiv preprint arXiv:2409.15146, 2024. 2

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2024

  13. [13]

    Smart-llm: Smart multi-agent robot task planning using large language models,

    S. S. Kannan, V . L. Venkatesh, and B.-C. Min, “Smart-llm: Smart multi-agent robot task planning using large language models,” arXiv preprint arXiv:2309.10062, 2023. 2, 6

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2023

  14. [14]

    Roco: Dialectic multi-robot col- laboration with large language models,

    Z. Mandi, S. Jain, and S. Song, “Roco: Dialectic multi-robot col- laboration with large language models,” in 2024 IEEE International Conference on Robotics and Automation (ICRA). IEEE, 2024, pp. 286–299. 2

    2024

  15. [15]

    Handover control for human-robot and robot-robot collaboration,

    M. Costanzo, G. De Maria, and C. Natale, “Handover control for human-robot and robot-robot collaboration,” Frontiers in Robotics and AI, vol. 8, p. 672995, 2021. 2

    2021

  16. [16]

    HOI4ABOT: Human- object interaction anticipation for human intention reading assistive roBOTs,

    E. V . Mascaro, D. Sliwowski, and D. Lee, “HOI4ABOT: Human- object interaction anticipation for human intention reading assistive roBOTs,” in 7th Annual Conference on Robot Learning, 2023. 2

    2023

  17. [17]

    Recognize anything: A strong image tagging model,

    Y . Zhang, X. Huang, J. Ma, Z. Li, Z. Luo, Y . Xie, Y . Qin, T. Luo, Y . Li, S. Liu, et al., “Recognize anything: A strong image tagging model,” in Proceedings of the IEEE/CVF Conference on Computer Vision and Pattern Recognition, 2024, pp. 1724–1732. 3

    2024

  18. [18]

    Grounding dino: Marrying dino with grounded pre-training for open-set object detection,

    S. Liu, Z. Zeng, T. Ren, F. Li, H. Zhang, J. Yang, Q. Jiang, C. Li, J. Yang, H. Su, et al., “Grounding dino: Marrying dino with grounded pre-training for open-set object detection,” in European conference on computer vision. Springer, 2024, pp. 38–55. 3

    2024

  19. [19]

    Sam 2: Segment anything in images and videos,

    N. Ravi, V . Gabeur, Y .-T. Hu, R. Hu, C. Ryali, T. Ma, H. Khedr, R. R¨adle, C. Rolland, L. Gustafson, et al., “Sam 2: Segment anything in images and videos,” arXiv preprint arXiv:2408.00714, 2024. 3

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2024

  20. [20]

    Learning transferable visual models from natural language supervision,

    A. Radford, J. W. Kim, C. Hallacy, A. Ramesh, G. Goh, S. Agarwal, G. Sastry, A. Askell, P. Mishkin, J. Clark, et al., “Learning transferable visual models from natural language supervision,” in International conference on machine learning. PmLR, 2021, pp. 8748–8763. 3

    2021

  21. [21]

    Yolov11: An overview of the key architectural enhancements,

    R. Khanam and M. Hussain, “Yolov11: An overview of the key architectural enhancements,” 2024. [Online]. Available: https: //arxiv.org/abs/2410.17725 3

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2024

  22. [22]

    Fast and comfort- able robot-to-human handover for mobile cooperation robot system,

    C. Meng, T. Zhang, D. Zhao, and T. L. Lam, “Fast and comfort- able robot-to-human handover for mobile cooperation robot system,” Cyborg and Bionic Systems, vol. 5, p. 0120, 2024. 5

    2024

  23. [23]

    Human-robot collaboration based on cyber-physical production system and mqtt,

    C. A. Garcia, W. Montalvo-Lopez, and M. V . Garcia, “Human-robot collaboration based on cyber-physical production system and mqtt,” Procedia manufacturing, vol. 42, pp. 315–321, 2020. 8

    2020

  24. [2025]

    Higher C–ACT is better; lower H–IDLE, R–IDLE, F–DEL are better

    1, 2, 6 2H–IDLE/R–IDLE: percentage of total task time the respective agent is inactive; C–ACT: percentage of time at least two agents are concurrently active; F–DEL: percentage of time between one robot finishing and the other starting. Higher C–ACT is better; lower H–IDLE, R–IDLE, F–DEL are better

This paper was first reviewed by deepseek-v4-flash on August 3, 2026.