Pith. sign in

REVIEW 4 major objections 6 minor 40 references

Can I do it

T0 review · 4 major / 6 minor · reviewed 2026-08-11 · deepseek-v4-flash

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

Pith's one-line read The paper claims that a robot can answer 'Can I do it?' by combining an ontology of its components and configurations with deductive inference rules and inductive performance predictions from past experience.

desk verdict A solid ontology-and-reasoning core is buried in an unfinished draft whose central claim rests on an unvalidated SOM lookup and an empty results section. read the letter →

arxiv 2412.02569 v1 pith:624Q3AVL submitted 2024-12-03 cs.SE

Joris Sijs , Carlos Hernandez-Corbato , Willeke van Vught , Julio Oliveira This is my paper · ORCID
classification cs.SE
keywords ontologyautomatedreasoningperformanceandreconfigurationhypergraphself-assessmentself-organizingmaprobotcapabilitytaskplanning
verification ladder T0 review T1 audit T2 compute T3 formal

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 a robot can answer 'Can I do it?' for a task by making its own engineering knowledge available online: what components it has, what each component needs as input and produces as output, which configurations combine components into behaviors, and how well those components are doing right now. The authors propose a knowledge representation, called Self-X, built as an ontology implemented over a hypergraph, with deductive inference rules that automatically check whether a component's requirements are met and whether a configuration can execute a behavior. Performance under current conditions is then predicted inductively, by clustering past experiments with similar quality readings and using each cluster's average success rate as the expected performance. The payoff, demonstrated on a real robot searching rooms for people, is that the robot can compare alternative configurations and choose one that meets a desired performance level.

What carries the argument

The carrier of the argument is a hypergraph-based ontology whose core concepts are Entity, Relation, and Attribute, connected by 'has' and 'Role' links, with a set-theoretic notation that turns ontology statements into second-order logic expressions. On top of that structure, two automatically inferred relations do the deductive work: 'realizing' matches a requested creation's properties (format, rate, units, ranges) to those of an available creation, and 'processing' declares a component fully operational when its functional, non-functional, and environmental requirements are all realized, with transitivity chaining components into configurations. The inductive half is a set of self-organizing maps, one per behavior, trained on 25 experiments, which groups past conditions and component-quality readings into clusters and assigns each cluster an average detection-success probability; the current readings are matched to the best-matching unit, and that cluster average becomes the prediction of overall performance.

What would settle it

Run many search trials in conditions that fall inside a single trained cluster, and compare the cluster's average success probability to the observed frequency of correct detections; a large and systematic gap between the two, or a gap that changes with room characteristics the cluster ignores, would show that the inductive performance map does not generalize.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

The central claim is that a robot's engineering knowledge can be structured so that the robot itself can reason about its own capabilities at runtime. The ontology defines components (sensors, actuators, functional units, appliances), the creations they produce (data, resources, physical phenomena), and three kinds of requirement (functional, non-functional, environmental). Deductive rules instantiate 'realizing' relations when an available creation satisfies a component's requirement, and 'processing' relations when all requirements of a component are met; transitivity of processing lets the knowledge base assemble larger configurations from connected components. A behavior is then linked to the configurations that can execute it, and the expected quality of a behavior's output is derived from online measurements of component quality plus an inductive map learned from past experiments. On this basis the robot can answer whether a task is feasible and with what performance, and can select among configurations.

Load-bearing premise

The load-bearing premise is that the average success rate of past trials in a cluster of similar-looking conditions, computed from only 25 experiments, carries over to the current room; if the recorded lighting, noise, and room-size readings do not actually determine detection success, the predicted answer to 'Can I do it?' can be wrong even when the ontology and its inference rules are correct.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • A robot can choose among alternative configurations for the same task by querying which configurations satisfy current conditions and which meet the task's required performance.
  • Configuration validity does not have to be hard-coded: realizing and processing relations are inferred automatically and updated as components, data links, and environmental states change.
  • Because the knowledge base is online and updatable, component degradation or failure can change the answer to 'Can I do it?' without re-engineering the system.
  • The same ontology can later be interfaced with engineering languages such as SysML, so engineering-time models and runtime self-assessment share one structure.
  • Performance predictions are behavior-specific: thorough search, fast search, and acoustic search each have their own self-organizing map, so the robot can compare expected success across qualitatively different ways of doing a task.

Reading between the lines

Editorial extensions of the paper, not claims the author makes directly.

  • The paper leaves implicit that the same ontology could support calibrated confidence rather than a single point estimate: replacing the cluster average with a probabilistic model over the same feature space would let the robot report 'I am 70 percent sure I can do it' and update that number as data accumulate.
  • The separation of functional, non-functional, and environmental requirements suggests a natural extension to fleet learning, where one robot's experience with a configuration updates a shared capability knowledge base used by other robots.
  • A testable extension would be to isolate the ontology's contribution from the inductive predictor's by running the system in simulation with a known ground-truth performance model; if the ontology and inference rules alone produce the correct configuration rankings, the remaining error is attributable to the clustering step.
  • The paper's remark that quality will later enter equations rather than constraints points toward analytic propagation of component quality through processing chains, which could make performance prediction less dependent on the 25-experiment clusters.
Share X Bluesky LinkedIn Reddit HN

Signed reviews

No signed human review yet.

Editorial analysis

A structured set of objections, weighed in public.

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

Referee Report

4 major / 6 minor

Summary. The paper proposes Self-X, a knowledge representation intended to let a robot assess whether it can perform a task with a desired performance. It models system components, their requirements and outputs, configurations, and behaviors in a hypergraph-based ontology implemented in GRAKN; deductive inference rules generate realizing and processing relations between components; and an inductive stage uses a self-organizing map trained on 25 experiments to predict the probability of detecting a human (P(human)) from current quality readings and environmental conditions. The central claim is that this combination lets a robot answer 'can I do it' questions. The manuscript, however, provides no experimental evidence for that claim: Section 6 contains only fragments and missing figures, and the SOM-based predictor is not validated.

Significance. If the approach were fully supported, it would be a useful step toward runtime self-assessment in autonomous robots, combining the structure of engineering ontologies with quantitative, data-driven performance prediction, and the hardware implementation on a SPOT robot with ROS2/GRAKN is a concrete asset. The novel combination of deductive configuration logic and inductive performance learning is worth exploring. However, because the experimental results and validation for the inductive predictor are absent, the contribution cannot be assessed beyond the conceptual design; the paper does not, in its current form, substantiate the claimed real-life functionality.

major comments (4)
  1. [Section 6] The 'Experimental results' section contains no actual results. It consists of sentence fragments about deductive and inductive reasoning and captions for Figures 22–24, but the figures themselves are not present in the manuscript. There are no tables, plots, measurement summaries, or numerical outcomes, so the abstract's statement that 'our real-life implementation shows a robot' is unsupported. This is the central evidence for the paper's main claim and must be supplied.
  2. [Section 5.3] The prediction of P(human) is a nearest-cluster average of Boolean detection labels over a self-organizing map trained on only 25 experiments. No details are given on the number of clusters, the number of samples per cluster, the SOM hyperparameters, or any out-of-sample evaluation. With inputs comprising brightness, contrast, 16–20 Brisque features, noise, and room diagonal, a 25-sample training set is too small to establish generalization; the predicted 'expected performance' may be an artifact of the training data rather than a reliable estimate for a new room. Since this mapping is what converts component-quality readings into a task-level capability answer, the central claim depends on it and it is currently unvalidated.
  3. [Section 4.3.1] The realizing and processing inference rules are not well-formed formulas. For example, the realizing rule uses 'X⊂ (x∈ creation|x.hasProperty : p1)' and then 'Y∈ X' and 'p1∈ p2' without defining whether X, Y, p1, and p2 denote sets, individuals, or properties. The processing rule similarly defines a set of sets '{I, Y, F, R, O, C}⊂{{{ i∈ creation},...}}' whose type is unclear. Because these rules are the deductive engine that derives configurations from component requirements, the formalization must be corrected before the deductive reasoning can be considered sound.
  4. [Sections 4.3.2 and 5.3] The manuscript does not specify how the ontology and the predicted P(human) combine to answer the question 'can I do it with a desired performance.' Section 4.3.2 states that the system 'would choose' the acoustic behavior when visual accuracy is low without giving a selection rule, and Section 5.3 defines the prediction but not a threshold or query procedure that maps predicted performance to a configuration decision. The claimed ability to answer capability questions therefore lacks a formal decision step.
minor comments (6)
  1. [Throughout] There are numerous typographical errors, including 'Boulean' (Section 5.3), 'indcutive' and 'dedcutive' (Section 6), 'recieved' (Section 2), 'autonmous' (Section 2), 'envrionment' (Section 3.2.1), and 'visibability' (Section 4.3.2). The text needs a careful proofreading pass.
  2. [Section 2.3] The link names '.....Role' and '....has' appear with leading dots, which is likely a formatting artifact and should be corrected to 'Role' and 'has'.
  3. [Section 4.2] The sentence 'Discussions on what is a task or a behavior are not yet settled, see [ref]' contains an unresolved reference placeholder; a citation should be supplied.
  4. [Section 5.3] The self-organizing map citation is given as '[ref]', and the phrase 'insert figure' appears immediately after the description of the prediction procedure; both need to be completed.
  5. [Section 5.2] The text references 'figure XXX' twice and 'Figure 24' in a context where the figure is not present; all figure references should be resolved to actual figures.
  6. [Section 7] The Conclusions section contains only Elsevier bibliography style instructions and does not summarize the contribution, limitations, or future work. A proper conclusion is needed.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 0.0 of 10

No significant circularity: the SOM-based P(human) predictor is an explicit empirical fit, not a derivation equivalent to its inputs, and the ontology/deductive rules are self-contained.

full rationale

The only fitted component is the inductive performance predictor in Section 5.3, and the paper explicitly labels it as data-driven: 'This prediction is done with a data-driven approach, i.e., learned from experimental data.' The predicted P(human) is a nearest-cluster average of binary success labels over a self-organizing map trained on 25 experiments. That is supervised learning from recorded outcomes, not circularity: the query-time prediction uses current conditions and quality readings to select a cluster, and the binary outcome labels are not fed back into the ontology or inference rules as premises. The deductive realizing/processing rules check data format, rate, resource, and environmental requirements, which are independent of the fitted performance values. Citations to the authors' prior work, e.g. [11], [30], and [39], are used as related work or for floor-plan modeling, not as a load-bearing proof of the central claim, and no uniqueness theorem is imported from prior work. The paper's main weakness is evidentiary rather than circular: Section 6 contains placeholder text and references missing figures, and the SOM predictor is not validated with out-of-sample results. These are correctness and completeness concerns, not instances of the derivation reducing to its own inputs.

Assumptions & free parameters 4 free parameters · 4 assumptions · 3 invented entities

The framework rests on a domain assumption that ontology-based requirement checking captures component viability, plus a data-driven assumption that cluster-average success rates predict behavior performance. The latter is a fitted model with no validation, so it is ad hoc to this paper.

free parameters (4)
  • Robot position accuracy delta = 0.25 m
    Heuristic in the equation D = delta + sqrt(d) for object association position inaccuracy, §5.3.
  • Human voice intensity S = 70 dB
    Assumed expected intensity of a human voice in the microphone quality estimate, §5.3.
  • SOM cluster parameters = not reported
    Self-organizing map size and number of clusters are not specified; the performance prediction depends on them, §5.3.
  • Position inaccuracy D for acoustic and NLP search = half of the room diagonal
    Heuristic for victim location inaccuracy derived from room size, §5.3.
assumptions (4)
  • domain assumption An ontology with Entity, Relation, Attribute and Role/has links can capture runtime-relevant system engineering knowledge.
    Foundational to Self-X; introduced in §2.3 and §3.
  • domain assumption Component viability can be decided by checking Format, Rate, Capacity, Unit, and Range constraints in realizing rules.
    Realizing rules infer configuration feasibility from these properties, §4.1.
  • domain assumption The transitive closure of Processing relations faithfully represents a complete system configuration.
    Transitivity rule in §4.1 extends processing over any number of components.
  • ad hoc to paper Performance of a behavior can be predicted by nearest-cluster averaging of past success labels in a trained SOM.
    No generalization or validation argument beyond clustering is given, §5.3.
invented entities (3)
  • Processing relation
    purpose: Summarizes a complete component chain from input data to output creation, enabling configuration-level reasoning.
    Introduced in §4.1; no external validation separate from the paper.
  • ProcessingRequirement
    purpose: Links a behavior to the processing relations that must be active, enabling behavior selection.
    Introduced in §4.3.2; inferred rules depend on it.
  • Behavior-linked MeasureOfPerformance
    purpose: Quantifies outcome quality, such as P(human) and position inaccuracy, used for behavior comparison.
    Defined in §5.3; values come from heuristics or fitted clusters, not from external standards.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Can I do it." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/624Q3AVL

@misc{pith2026241202569,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Can I do it},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/624Q3AVL}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2412.02569}
}
read the original abstract

Knowledge about how well a robot can perform a specific task is currently present only in engineering reports which are inaccessible to the robot. Artificial Intelligence techniques, such as hypergraphs and automated reasoning, can provide such engineering knowledge online while enabling updates in the knowledge with new experiences. This requires a sound knowledge structure and maintenance routines for keeping this knowledge-base about the robot's capabilities truthful. A robot with such up-to-date information can reason about if and how well it can accomplish a task. This article introduces a knowledge representation that combines an ontology on system engineering, a deductive reasoning on the connections between system components, and an inductive reasoning on the performance of these components in the current system configuration. This representation is further used to derive the expected performance for the overall system based on a continuous evaluation of the actual performance per component. Our real-life implementation shows a robot that can answer questions on whether it can do a specific task with the desired performance.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2412.02569 by the authors.

Figure 1
Figure 1. Two alternative system configurations to search for persons. [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p001_1.png] view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. Setup of an autonomous robot that is planning how to conduct a task [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p002_2.png] view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. An illustrative example of a hypergraph, in its original representation [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p003_3.png] view at source ↗
Figures from the paper (23 more)
Figure 4
Figure 4. Figure 4: The highest level concepts in the model for a Component produc [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p005_4.png]
Figure 5
Figure 5. Figure 5: The hierarchy of sub-classes for Creation, Component, Require and Property. Every open-ended arrow is a sub-relation, while a dashed arrow implies that [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p006_5.png]
Figure 6
Figure 6. Figure 6: Ontology model of a Functional. Here, as previous illustration, a dashed line of a box indicates that the concept in that box is already present in another [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p006_6.png]
Figure 7
Figure 7. Figure 7: A further refinement of some properties: [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p007_7.png]
Figure 8
Figure 8. Figure 8: Four examples to create a first set of instances of the sensor’s design [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p007_8.png]
Figure 9
Figure 9. Figure 9: The instantiation of a complete camera component. Note that at [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p008_9.png]
Figure 10
Figure 10. Figure 10: The instantiation of a complete detector component, where attributes [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p008_10.png]
Figure 11
Figure 11. Figure 11: Three design patterns of Realizing as a subclass of Relation taking place between two of the same creations. Note that Range has already been substituted with its possible subclasses of Exact, Min and Max, though for data it is assumed that there is exactly one rate a…
Figure 12
Figure 12. Figure 12: Design pattern of Processing as a subclass of Relation. In this case the processing relation in defined for a functional component, while the processing relation itself should only be instantated when all the requirements of thel component are realized (with the reali…
Figure 13
Figure 13. Figure 13: Design pattern of Processing in the case of a transitivity. 10 [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p010_13.png]
Figure 1
Figure 1. Figure 1: It was already denoted that the system configuration [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p011_1.png]
Figure 14
Figure 14. Figure 14: Ontology model of a Behavior (inputs Commodity features a Qual [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p011_14.png]
Figure 15
Figure 15. Figure 15: Instantiation of the realizing rule (dotted lines means that the relation is inferred) [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p012_15.png]
Figure 16
Figure 16. Figure 16: Instantiation of the processing rule (dotted lines means that the rela [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p012_16.png]
Figure 19
Figure 19. Figure 19: The robotic system used for SelfX. is able to search a room and locate victims. Once the robot en￾tered a room in will plan one of its Search behaviors. To decide which Search behavior is best for the room, the performance of each behavior is predicted by SelfX based …
Figure 17
Figure 17. Figure 17: Instantiation of the visual configuration [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p013_17.png]
Figure 18
Figure 18. Figure 18: Instantiation of the acoustic configuration [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p013_18.png]
Figure 21
Figure 21. Figure 21: The two types of configuration of which one will be invoked in case [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p014_21.png]
Figure 20
Figure 20. Figure 20: The three different search behaviors of the robot, each resulting in a particular accuracy of the victim’s location. 14 [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p014_20.png]
Figure 24
Figure 24. Figure 24: Precision and recall visial search. 7. Conclusions There are various bibliography styles available. You can select the style of your choice in the preamble of this document. These styles are Elsevier styles based on standard styles like Harvard and Vancouver. Please u…
Figure 22
Figure 22. Figure 22: Boxplot hitch confidence [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p016_22.png]
Figure 23
Figure 23. Figure 23: decision tree confidence [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p016_23.png]
Figure 25
Figure 25. Figure 25: The four different types of Units that are modelled for describing a system configuration. 18 [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p018_25.png]

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

40 extracted references · 34 canonical work pages

  1. [1]

    Huizing, C

    A. Huizing, C. Veenman, M. Neerincx, J. Dijk, Hybrid ai: The way forward in ai by developing four dimensions, in: F. Heintz, M. Mi- lano, B. O’Sullivan (Eds.), Trustworthy AI – Integrating Learning, Op- timization and Reasoning, Lecture Notes in Computer Science (including subseries Lecture Notes in Artificial Intelligence and Lecture Notes in Bioinformat...

    work page 2021

  2. [2]

    Russel, Human compatibale: AI and the problem of control, 1st Edi- tion, Viking, 2019

    S. Russel, Human compatibale: AI and the problem of control, 1st Edi- tion, Viking, 2019

    work page 2019

  3. [3]

    Pickery, The cybernetic brain: sketches of another future, The name of the publisher, 2010

    A. Pickery, The cybernetic brain: sketches of another future, The name of the publisher, 2010

    work page 2010

  4. [4]

    Heylighen, From Human Computation to the Global Brain: The Self- Organization of Distributed Intelligence, In: Michelucci P

    F. Heylighen, From Human Computation to the Global Brain: The Self- Organization of Distributed Intelligence, In: Michelucci P. (eds) Hand- book of Human Computation. Springer, New York, NY , 2013

    work page 2013

  5. [5]

    W. L. Chapman, A. T. Bahill, A. W. Wymore, Engineering modeling and design, CRC Press, 2018

    work page 2018

  6. [6]

    J. A. Estefan, et al., Survey of model-based systems engineering (mbse) methodologies, Incose MBSE Focus Group 25 (8) (2007) 1–12

    work page 2007

  7. [7]

    Dori, et al., Model-based systems engineering with OPM and SysML, V ol

    D. Dori, et al., Model-based systems engineering with OPM and SysML, V ol. 15, Springer, 2016

    work page 2016

  8. [8]

    Friedenthal, A

    S. Friedenthal, A. Moore, R. Steiner, A practical guide to SysML: the systems modeling language, Morgan Kaufmann, 2014

    work page 2014

Show all 40 references
  1. [9]

    Hochgeschwender, L

    N. Hochgeschwender, L. Gherardi, A. Shakhirmardanov, G. K. Kraet- zschmar, D. Brugali, H. Bruyninckx, A model-based approach to soft- ware deployment in robotics, in: 2013 IEEE /RSJ International Confer- ence on Intelligent Robots and Systems, 2013, pp. 3907–3914. doi: 10.1109...

    2013

  2. [10]

    Morten, Modeling goals and functions of complex industrial plants, Applied Artificial Intelligence 8 (2) (1994) 259–283

    L. Morten, Modeling goals and functions of complex industrial plants, Applied Artificial Intelligence 8 (2) (1994) 259–283. doi:10.1080/ 08839519408945442. 16

    1994

  3. [11]

    Hern ´andez Corbato, J

    C. Hern ´andez Corbato, J. Bermejo, R. Sanz, A self-adaptation framework based on functional knowledge for augmented autonomy in robots, In- tegrated Computer-Aided Engineering 25 (2018) 1–16. doi:10.3233/ ICA-180565

    2018

  4. [12]

    Weyns, N

    D. Weyns, N. Bencomo, R. Calinescu, J. C ´amara, C. Ghezzi, V . Grassi, L. Grunske, P. Inverardi, J. J ´ez´equel, S. Malek, R. Mirandola, M. Mori, G. Tamburrelli, Perpetual assurances for self-adaptive systems, CoRR abs/1903.04771. arXiv:1903.04771. URL http://arxiv.org/abs/1903.04771

    1903 arXiv

  5. [13]

    Lemos, H

    R. Lemos, H. Giese, H. M ¨uller, J. Andersson, M. Litoiu, B. Schmerl, G. Tamura, N. Villegas, T. V ogel, D. Weyns, L. Baresi, B. Becker, N. Ben- como, Y . Brun, B. Cukic, R. Desmarais, S. Dustdar, G. Engels, J. Wuttke, Software Engineering for Self-Adaptive Systems: A Second R...

    2013 doi

  6. [14]

    I. U, D. Weyns, Activforms: Active formal models for self-adaptation, in: In Proc. of the Int. Conf. on Software Engineering for Adaptive and Self-Managing Systems (SEAMS2014), 2014, pp. 125 – 134

    2014

  7. [15]

    Zhang, B

    J. Zhang, B. H. C. Cheng, Model-based development of dynamically adaptive software, in: In Proc. of the Int. Conf. on Software Engineer- ing, 2006, pp. 371 – 380

    2006

  8. [16]

    J. O. Kephart, D. M. Chess, The vision of autonomic computing, Com- puter 36 (1) (2003) 41–50. doi:10.1109/MC.2003.1160055

    2003 arXiv

  9. [17]

    Schleno ff, J

    C. Schleno ff, J. Albus, E. Messina, A. Barbera, R. Madhavan, S. Bal- akirsky, Using 4d /rcs to address ai knowledge integration, AI Mag. 27 (2006) 71–81

    2006

  10. [18]

    Prestes, J

    E. Prestes, J. Carbonera, S. Fiorini, V . Jorge, M. Abel, R. Madhavan, A. Locoro, P. Gonc ¸alves, M. Barreto, M. Habib, A. Chibani, S. G´erard, Y . Amirat, C. Schlenoff, Towards a core ontology for robotics and au- tomation, Robotics and Autonomous Systems 61 (2013) 1193–1204....

    2013 doi

  11. [19]

    A. B. d. O. Neto, J. A. Silva, M. E. Barreto, Prototyping and validating the cora ontology: Case study on a simulated reconnaissance mission, in: 2019 Latin American Robotics Symposium (LARS), 2019 Brazilian Symposium on Robotics (SBR) and 2019 Workshop on Robotics in Edu- cat...

    2019

  12. [20]

    Balakirsky, C

    S. Balakirsky, C. Schleno ff, S. R. Fiorini, S. Redfield, M. Bar- reto, H. Nakawala, J. L. Carbonera, L. Soldatova, J. Bermejo-Alonso, F. Maikore, P. J. Goncalves, E. De Momi, V . R. Kumar, T. Haidegger, Towards a robot task ontology standard, in: Proceedings of the ASME 2017 ...

    2017

  13. [21]

    Czarnecki, Operational world model ontology for automated driving systems – part 1: Road structure, Tech

    K. Czarnecki, Operational world model ontology for automated driving systems – part 1: Road structure, Tech. rep., Waterloo Intelligent Systems Engineering Lab (2018). doi:10.13140/RG.2.2.15521.30568

    2018

  14. [22]

    Czarnecki, Operational world model ontology for automated driving systems – part 2: Road users, animals, other obstacles, and environmen- tal conditions, Tech

    K. Czarnecki, Operational world model ontology for automated driving systems – part 2: Road users, animals, other obstacles, and environmen- tal conditions, Tech. rep., Waterloo Intelligent Systems Engineering Lab (2018). doi:10.13140/RG.2.2.11327.00165

    2018

  15. [23]

    J. Thai, M. Gruninger, Robot meets world, in: In Proc. of the Joint Ontol- ogy Workshop, JOWO., 2020

    2020

  16. [24]

    Tenorth, D

    M. Tenorth, D. Jain, M. Beetz, Knowledge processing for cognitive robots, KI-Kunstliche Intelligenz 24 (2010) 233–340

    2010

  17. [25]

    Beetz, D

    M. Beetz, D. Beßler, A. Haidu, M. Pomarlan, A. Bozcuoglu, G. Bartels, Know rob 2.0—a 2nd generation knowledge processing framework for cognition-enabled robotic agents, in: In Proc. of the 2018 IEEE Int. Conf. on Robotics and Automation (ICRA), 2018, pp. 512–519

    2018

  18. [26]

    Scioni, N

    E. Scioni, N. H ¨ubel, S. Blumenthal, A. Shakhimardanov, M. Klotzb¨ucher, H. Garcia, H. Bruyninckx, Hierarchical hypergraphs for knowledge- centric robot systems: a composable structural meta model and its domain specific language NPC4 7 (1) (2016) 55–74

    2016

  19. [27]

    Taherinejad, P

    N. Taherinejad, P. Lewis, A. Jantsch, A. M. Rahmani, L. Esterle, Resource constrained self-aware cyber-physical systems (tutorial), 2019. doi:10. 1109/FAS-W.2019.00071

    2019

  20. [28]

    B. W. Israelsen, N. R. Ahmed, E. W. Frew, D. Lawrence, B. Argrow, Machine self-confidence in autonomous systems via meta-analysis of de- cision processes, CoRR abs/1810.06519. arXiv:1810.06519. URL http://arxiv.org/abs/1810.06519

    arXiv

  21. [29]

    Sweet, N

    N. Sweet, N. Ahmed, U. Kuter, C. Miller, Towards self-confidence in autonomous systems, 2016. doi:10.2514/6.2016-1651

    2016 doi

  22. [30]

    Hern ´andez Corbato, Z

    C. Hern ´andez Corbato, Z. Milosevic, C. Olivares, G. Rodriguez, C. Rossi, Meta-control and Self-Awareness for the UX-1 Autonomous Underwater Robot, 2020, pp. 404–415. doi:10.1007/978-3-030-35990-4_33

    2020 doi

  23. [31]

    Lewis, A

    P. Lewis, A. Chandra, F. Faniyi, K. Glette, T. Chen, R. Bahsoon, J. Tor- resen, Architectural aspects of self-aware and self-expressive computing systems: From psychology to engineering, Computer 48 (2015) 62–70. doi:10.1109/MC.2015.235

    2015 doi

  24. [32]

    Bermejo, R

    J. Bermejo, R. Sanz, M. Rodriguez, C. Hern ´andez Corbato, An ontologi- cal framework for autonomous systems modelling 3

  25. [33]

    O. Tas, S. Hoermann, B. Sch ¨aufele, F. Kuhnt, Automated vehicle system architecture with performance assessment, 2017. doi:10.1109/ITSC. 2017.8317862

    2017

  26. [34]

    W. A. Waymore, Model-based systems engineering: An introduction to the mathematical theory of discrete systems and to the tricotyledon theory of system design, 1st Edition, CRC Press, 1993

    1993

  27. [35]

    Bjelonic, YOLO ROS: Real-time object detection for ROS, https: //github.com/leggedrobotics/darknet_ros (2016–2018)

    M. Bjelonic, YOLO ROS: Real-time object detection for ROS, https: //github.com/leggedrobotics/darknet_ros (2016–2018)

    2016

  28. [36]

    Dynamics, Spot

    B. Dynamics, Spot. URL https://www.bostondynamics.com/spot

  29. [37]

    Studio, Respeaker core v2.0

    S. Studio, Respeaker core v2.0. URL https://wiki.seeedstudio.com/ReSpeaker_Core_v2.0/

  30. [38]

    Pribadi, The grakn.ai ontology: simplicity and maintainability, in comparison with traditional ontology languages and tools (2021)

    H. Pribadi, The grakn.ai ontology: simplicity and maintainability, in comparison with traditional ontology languages and tools (2021). URL https://blog.grakn.ai/the-grakn-ai-ontology-simplicity-and-maintainability-ab78340f5ff6

    2021

  31. [39]

    J. Sijs, J. Fletcher, An online knowledge base to model real-world, indoor environments for robots conducting a search operation with uncertainty, in: submitted to the 2021 IEEE /RSJ International Conference on Intelli- gent Robots and Systems (IROS’21)., 2021

    2021

  32. [40]

    Mittal, A

    A. Mittal, A. K. Moorthy, A. C. Bovik, Blind /referenceless image spatial quality evaluator, in: 2011 Conference Record of the Forty Fifth Asilomar Conference on Signals, Systems and Computers (ASILOMAR), 2011, pp. 723–727. doi:10.1109/ACSSC.2011.6190099. Appendices 17 (a) Mod...

    2011

Pith tools

Reviewed August 11, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.