Conjugated Capabilities: Interrelations of Elementary Human Capabilities and Their Implication on Human-Machine Task Allocation and Capability Testing Procedures

Frank Flemisch; Larissa F\"uller; Lars Mikelsons; Nils Mandischer; Torsten Alles

REVIEW 4 major objections 5 minor 26 references

Conjugated Capabilities: Interrelations of Elementary Human Capabilities and Their Implication on Human-Machine Task Allocation and Capability Testing Procedures

T0 review · 4 major / 5 minor · reviewed 2026-08-06 · deepseek-v4-flash

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

Pith's one-line read Paired human capabilities let effort shift from a deficit to a reserve

desk verdict Concept is promising and the test synthesis is a real contribution, but the data analysis is circular and the statistics are misreported; needs major revision before the empirical claims can be trusted. read the letter →

arxiv 2507.07560 v1 pith:XYE2GXXY submitted 2025-07-10 cs.HC cs.MAcs.RO

Nils Mandischer , Larissa Füller , Torsten Alles , Frank Flemisch , Lars Mikelsons This is my paper · ORCID

classification cs.HCcs.MAcs.RO

keywords conjugatedcapabilitiescapabilitydeltashuman-machinetaskallocationIMBAstandardnetworktestsequencesynthesisrehabilitationdatahuman-robotcollaboration

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

The paper introduces conjugated capabilities: pairs of elementary human capabilities, such as reaching forward and bending the torso, between which effort can be shifted so that a limitation in one can be compensated by a reserve in the other. It argues these pairs can be identified by analyzing the IMBA capability standard together with anatomical knowledge, and that they show up as strong correlations in post-rehabilitation patient profiles. On this basis it constructs a directed graph of conjugated capabilities for stationary manufacturing and uses the graph to synthesize movement sequences that exercise every capability in every score level with minimal test repetitions. The paper further formalizes how capability deltas, together with fuzzy parameters, can be used to decide task allocation, shifting requirements from deficient to conjugated capabilities before concluding a person cannot do a task. The wider point is that human limitation should be assessed and compensated at the level of interconnected elementary capabilities rather than as isolated scores.

What carries the argument

The central object is the conjugated capability pair $\langle c_{j_1}, c_{j_2} \rangle$ together with the directed graph built from such pairs. Each pair is two elementary IMBA capabilities between which effort can be shifted bilaterally, for example trunk bending compensating for limited forward reach. The graph encodes four relation types — depends on, condition for, appears in combination with, may be replaced by — with directions chosen to avoid loops. The graph carries the argument because it turns anatomical and standard-based knowledge into a machine-readable form that supports optimization of test sequences and the iterative requirement-shifting procedure for task allocation.

What would settle it

Record the same conjugated pairs in healthy people and patients using instrumented, rater-independent measurements — for example, measure maximum forward reach with and without torso bending, and trunk rotation with and without head movement. If the predicted compensation effects are absent or the pairwise correlations drop to near zero, the graph and the test-synthesis method built on it would not hold.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

The paper's central claim is that human capabilities come in conjugated pairs — pairs for which effort can be redistributed from a deficit capability to a partner capability with reserve — and that these pairs form a network that is visible in IMBA rehabilitation data. For example, arms horizontal in front and arms overhead are treated as conjugated, as are reaching forward and trunk bending. Using post-rehabilitation IMBA profiles from 476 samples, the paper finds Pearson correlations with mean $r = 0.521$ and maximum $p = 0.0002$ that support the graph edges; it then converts the interrelation table into a directed graph and solves a path-cover optimization to produce 24 minimal movement sequences. The paper concludes that the graph enables faster test design and that task allocation should first attempt to shift requirements along conjugated edges before judging a person incapable.

Load-bearing premise

The load-bearing premise is that the correlations between IMBA scores in post-rehabilitation patients reflect real anatomical and functional coupling that supports shifting effort between paired capabilities, rather than rater habits, overlapping illness effects, or the same feature being scored twice in the standard.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

If conjugated capabilities are real, the IMBA test battery can be shortened to 24 movement sequences that visit each capability in each quantification at least six times, reducing data-recording burden.
Task allocation can treat a person as capable when deficits can be shifted onto conjugated capabilities with reserves, using the fuzzy bounds of Equation 5, before resorting to automation.
The directed graph gives a general representation for capability interrelations that can be reused for other work contexts, such as standing postures, by adding or removing pairs.
Strong correlations between capabilities such as arm movements and hand or finger movements suggest that capabilities should be organized by anatomical function rather than by the standard's system hierarchy.

Reading between the lines

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

The correlation evidence cannot by itself distinguish true biomechanical coupling from rater bias or shared illness effects, so an independent instrumented measurement study would be the decisive check of the conjugation concept.
The graph formalism likely transfers to other capability assessment standards, such as the Fugl-Meyer Assessment or the Action Research Arm Test, enabling test synthesis for those instruments as well.
Pairwise conjugation could be generalized to higher-dimensional compensation patterns; the network representation could be extended with hyperedges or multi-capability effort shifting beyond pairs.
If validated, the approach could be coupled with robot action planning by mapping each conjugated pair to robot capabilities, so that automation takes over only the deficient component while the human contributes the reserve capability.

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.

Desk Editor's Note

read the letter

Read the conjugated capabilities paper. The core idea is straightforward and worth having: pair up elementary IMBA capabilities between which effort can be shifted, so a deficit in one can be offset by a reserve in another. The graph-based test sequence synthesis is the strongest part—formulating minimal-path test design as an integer program and getting human-plausible sequences out of it is a legitimate contribution, and the authors are appropriately cautious that the sequences need translation into real test protocols.

What's not solid is the empirical support. The paper uses the same 476-sample correlation matrix to prune weak edges, add new edges from Table II, and even insert the c3.01.03–c3.02.01 edge just to make the optimization feasible, then presents the graph as 'supported by correlations.' That's circular, and the stress-test note is right to call it out. The statistics are also sloppy: they report the 'highest power' as 0.0002, which is actually a p-value, and there's no multiple-comparison correction even though they test hundreds of pairs. The data filtering (only post-rehab profiles with variance ≥ 0.2) is post hoc; it could be defensible, but they don't show robustness to the threshold. And Pearson correlations are symmetric while the compensation relation is directed, so high correlation alone can't establish the directed effort-shifting claim. The authors do concede that correlation is 'necessary but not sufficient,' but then they lean on it as if it were sufficient.

The expert interrelation table (Table IV) is a real artifact, and the distinction between capacity and performance is a useful framing. The fuzzy parameters ξ and ϑ are introduced but uncalibrated; that's fine as a proposal.

Proportionately: the central concept is plausible, the test synthesis works regardless of the empirical validation, but the empirical claims are not established. The paper deserves a serious referee, but the statistical analysis needs major rework and the graph needs validation on independent data or against an external benchmark before the conjugation claims can be trusted.

I'd bring it to a reading group as a 'maybe' and wouldn't cite the empirical results, but I'd point colleagues to the test synthesis idea.

Referee Report

4 major / 5 minor

Summary. The paper introduces 'conjugated capabilities' as pairs of elementary IMBA capabilities between which effort can be redistributed, so that a deficit in one capability can be compensated by a reserve in another. The authors derive candidate interrelations from the IMBA standard, anatomy, and manufacturing-task reasoning; compare these candidates with Pearson correlations computed from 476 post-rehabilitation IMBA profiles; build a directed graph of the resulting capability pairs; and use this graph in a mixed-integer optimization to synthesize 24 minimal movement sequences for capability testing. They also extend their capability-delta framework with fuzzy compensation parameters and sketch how conjugated capabilities could inform human-machine task allocation.

Significance. If the empirical support held, the paper would make a useful contribution: it gives a concrete, machine-readable representation of capability interrelations, demonstrates a nontrivial optimization use case (synthesizing test sequences), and addresses a real gap in capability-based human-robot task allocation, where reserves in under-challenged capabilities are usually ignored. The formalization is clear, the use of real rehabilitation data is a strength, and the authors deserve credit for explicitly stating that correlation is a necessary but not sufficient criterion for conjugation (Section IV-B). However, as presented, the empirical validation is circular: the same correlation matrix is used both to judge the expert-derived graph and to modify that graph, and the directed edges themselves are not independently tested. The paper is best read as an exploratory proposal; the confirmatory language in Sections IV-V needs to be reworked or supported by out-of-sample validation.

major comments (4)

[Sections IV-B and V-A] The validation loop is circular. The same 476-sample Pearson correlation matrix (Figure 1) is used in three interacting ways: to delete four weak pairs from the expert-derived Table IV (r < 0.4), to add two new pairs from Table II after a feasibility check, and to insert the edge c3.01.03-c3.02.01 solely because the optimization problem becomes infeasible without it (Section V-A, second paragraph). The resulting graph is then presented as supported by the correlations, but the graph has been fitted to those very correlations. This contradicts the paper's own caveat in Section IV-B that correlation is 'a necessary criterion ... that is not necessarily sufficient.' Please provide an independent validation set, a pre-registered threshold and edge-addition rule, or explicitly reframe the network as an exploratory hypothesis generated from the data rather than a confirmed model.
[Section IV-A and Figure 1] The statistical reporting is not adequate for a confirmatory claim. The statement 'The highest power of all capability pairs ... is pmax = 0.0002' reports a p-value, not statistical power, and no multiple-comparison correction is described for the roughly 400 pairwise correlations. In addition, the data filtering (standard deviation below 0.2 removed, post-rehabilitation samples only) is post hoc, and no sensitivity analysis is given for the threshold. With r_mean = 0.521 across all pairs, a single general health or illness-severity factor could plausibly explain much of the correlation; the discussion in Section IV-B acknowledges this confound but does not control it. Finally, Pearson correlation is symmetric, so it cannot by itself support the directed 'd/c/a/r' relations in the graph; the edge directions rest entirely on the expert judgment in Table IV.
[Section V-A and Table II] The reproducibility of the graph construction is undermined by inconsistencies in the edge-selection criteria. Table II is titled 'Directed Dependencies with Strong Correlations (>= 0.8)', yet it includes the pair c3.01.03-c3.02.01 with r = 0.704, and this pair is subsequently added to the graph in Section V-A to make the optimization feasible. The reader cannot tell whether the threshold is 0.8 or lower, and the feasibility-driven insertion is a clear case of optimization overfitting. The same paragraph also fixes nmin = 4 and Pmax = 6 'through experiments' without reporting the experiments; these choices should be justified or their sensitivity explored.
[Section VI, Eq. (5)] The proposed fuzzy task-allocation criteria are not yet testable. The fuzzy parameters xi_j and theta are introduced as free parameters, and the text states only that 'the exact quantification ... needs to be calibrated with rehabilitation experts and relative to the context.' No calibration protocol, data, or example is provided, so the claimed implication for human-machine task allocation remains a sketch. Please either supply a concrete calibration method and a worked example, or clearly mark this part as future work rather than a derived result.

minor comments (5)

[Section IV-A] The notation for the filter threshold is inconsistent: the text speaks of 'standard deviation s2 < 0.2' and then reports 's2_post = [0, 1.707]' and 's2_post,median = 0.521'; it is unclear whether s2 denotes variance, standard deviation, or squared standard deviation. Please use sigma or sigma^2 consistently.
[Section IV-A and Figure 1 caption] The phrase 'highest power' should be 'smallest p-value' or 'most significant result'; as written, it conflates p-values with statistical power.
[Tables I, II, and IV] Several capability IDs used in Table II and Table IV are not defined in Table I, for example 4.04.01, 4.04.02, and 5.06.04. Since the sub-ID convention allows omitted levels, please add a sentence explaining which detail-level IDs are used and how they relate to the main-level entries in Table I.
[Section II-A] Minor typo: '3 and 4 are trivially interpret as sub-populations of value 3' should read 'trivially interpreted'.
[Section V-B] The claim that the generated sequences are 'a suitable basis to design real tests' is based only on the authors' visual inspection; please state explicitly that this is an expert judgment, and consider reporting inter-rater agreement if multiple experts are involved.

Circularity Check

2 steps flagged · score 5.0 of 10

Data-support loop: the same 476-sample correlation matrix is used to prune and add graph edges and is then cited as confirming the conjugation graph; the optimized test sequences are generated from that fitted graph.

fitted input called prediction [Section V, 'Capabilities Network and Test Synthesis', graph-adjustment paragraph]
"We remove the weak ( r <0.4) pairs ⟨c3.04.02, c5.01.04⟩, ⟨c3.04.08, c5.01.03⟩,⟨c3.04.08, c5.01.04⟩, and ⟨c5.01.03, c3.01.03⟩. Further, we investigate all strongly correlated pairs not in Table IV and annotate the feasibility of these candidates in Table II. ... From this consideration, we add only the two conjugated capabilities ⟨c3.03.10, c3.04.10⟩ and ⟨c3.04.06, c3.04.08⟩."

The correlation matrix in Figure 1 is computed from the 476 post-rehabilitation samples; Section V then uses that same matrix as an editing rule, deleting weak-r pairs and adding strong-r pairs after a feasibility check. The Conclusion later cites these correlations as having 'supported' the findings and 'uncovered more interrelations.' Thus the graph is fitted to the data and then the same data are presented as independent support: a fit-then-validate loop.
fitted input called prediction [Section VII, Conclusions]
"By computing correlations of post-rehabilitation capabilities, we supported the majority of the initial findings, but also uncovered more interrelations."

The 'interrelations uncovered' by the correlations are precisely the edges added in Section V on the basis of those correlations (including ⟨c3.01.03, c3.02.01⟩, inserted in Section V-A to make the optimization feasible). Attributing them to a post-hoc data analysis turns the data-fitting step into an empirical confirmation, although no independent sample or external benchmark was used to test the adjusted graph.

full rationale

The paper's core derivation has an independent component: Table IV is built from the IMBA standard, anatomy, and manufacturing-scenario analysis, not from the correlation data, and Section IV-B explicitly concedes that correlation is 'a necessary criterion ... not necessarily sufficient.' However, the claimed empirical support for the conjugation graph is circular in part. The same 476-sample correlation matrix is used both to modify the graph (delete r<0.4 edges, add strong-correlation candidates such as ⟨c3.03.10, c3.04.10⟩ and ⟨c3.04.06, c3.04.08⟩, and insert ⟨c3.01.03, c3.02.01⟩ for feasibility) and then cited in the Conclusion as having 'supported' the findings. The minimal-time test sequences of Table III are outputs of an optimizer run on this fitted graph, so they demonstrate the graph's usability but do not independently validate conjugation. No load-bearing self-citation chain or definitional identity was found; the circularity is the data-dependent validation loop, which justifies a partial rather than maximal score.

Assumptions & free parameters 6 free parameters · 5 assumptions · 2 invented entities

The central claim rests on expert judgment encoded in Table IV, on hand-chosen correlation and filtering thresholds, and on the assumption that correlations reflect true functional coupling. No independent benchmark or public data is provided.

free parameters (6)

SD filter threshold = 0.2 (variance)
Profiles with standard deviation s2 < 0.2 are excluded; the threshold was chosen by comparing standard deviations of all samples (Section IV-A).
Correlation thresholds for graph edges = remove r<0.4; add r>=0.8; keep 0.4<=r<0.8
Weak correlations removed, strong correlations not in Table IV considered for addition, moderate kept (Section V).
Minimum path length nmin = 4
Determined by experiments to give aesthetic movement sequences (Section V-A).
Target visits per node Pmax = 6
Each node shall be visited six times over all paths; chosen without explicit justification (Section V-A).
Fuzzy parameters xi and theta = uncalibrated
Introduced for fuzzy task allocation; exact quantification needs calibration with rehabilitation experts (Section VI).
Added edge c3.01.03-c3.02.01 = n/a
Added ad hoc because the optimization was infeasible otherwise (Section V-A).

assumptions (5)

domain assumption IMBA standard provides a valid and sufficiently comprehensive quantification of elementary human capabilities for manufacturing workstations.
The entire analysis is based on IMBA capability scores.
domain assumption Capabilities that are anatomically or functionally coupled allow bidirectional effort redistribution without changing the outcome.
Core of the Delta Compensation Pattern; stated in Sections I and III.
domain assumption Pearson correlation between capability scores in post-rehabilitation profiles is a meaningful indicator of underlying capability conjugacy.
Stated in Section IV-B, with the caveat that it is necessary, not sufficient.
ad hoc to paper The expert-derived interrelations in Table IV are correct.
The table is constructed by the authors from IMBA diagnostics, anatomy, and brainstorming; no external validation.
standard math Monte Carlo resampling test with 10,000 resamples is appropriate for these correlations.
Section IV-A; exact test claimed, but details are sparse.

invented entities (2)

Conjugated capability pair
purpose: Formalizes pairs of elementary capabilities between which effort can be shifted to compensate deficits.
No independent behavioral or physiological experiment demonstrates the proposed effort shift; only correlational and expert evidence.
Capabilities network
purpose: Directed graph of conjugated capabilities used for test synthesis and task allocation.
Constructed from Table IV and correlations; no external validation of the graph's predictive power.

how reviews work

0 comments

Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Conjugated Capabilities: Interrelations of Elementary Human Capabilities and Their Implication on Human-Machine Task Allocation and Capability Testing Procedures." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/XYE2GXXY

@misc{pith2026250707560,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Conjugated Capabilities: Interrelations of Elementary Human Capabilities and Their Implication on Human-Machine Task Allocation and Capability Testing Procedures},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/XYE2GXXY}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2507.07560}
}

read the original abstract

Human and automation capabilities are the foundation of every human-autonomy interaction and interaction pattern. Therefore, machines need to understand the capacity and performance of human doing, and adapt their own behavior, accordingly. In this work, we address the concept of conjugated capabilities, i.e. capabilities that are dependent or interrelated and between which effort can be distributed. These may be used to overcome human limitations, by shifting effort from a deficient to a conjugated capability with performative resources. For example: A limited arm's reach may be compensated by tilting the torso forward. We analyze the interrelation between elementary capabilities within the IMBA standard to uncover potential conjugation, and show evidence in data of post-rehabilitation patients. From the conjugated capabilities, within the example application of stationary manufacturing, we create a network of interrelations. With this graph, a manifold of potential uses is enabled. We showcase the graph's usage in optimizing IMBA test design to accelerate data recordings, and discuss implications of conjugated capabilities on task allocation between the human and an autonomy.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2507.07560 by the authors.

**Figure 2.** Directed graph of conjugated capabilities according to Table IV, adjusted according to the correlation of Figure 1. [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p006_2.png] view at source ↗

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

26 extracted references · 25 canonical work pages

[1]

Redistributing work in aging europe,

J. W. Vaupel and E. Loichinger, “Redistributing work in aging europe,” Science, vol. 312, no. 5782, 2006

work page 2006
[2]

Percentage of people in the u.s. with a disability as of 2022, by age,

J. Elflein, “Percentage of people in the u.s. with a disability as of 2022, by age,” statista, 2024. [Online]. Available: https://www.statista.com/statistics/793952/disability-in-the-us-by-age/

work page 2022
[3]

Will working into our 70s become the norm or will retirement vanish altogether for many in the future?

E. Andrews, “Will working into our 70s become the norm or will retirement vanish altogether for many in the future?”

work page
[4]

Automatic indexation of the pension age to life expectancy: When policy design matters,

M. Ayuzu, J. M. Bravo, R. Holzmann, and E. Palmer, “Automatic indexation of the pension age to life expectancy: When policy design matters,” risks, vol. 9, no. 5, 2021

work page 2021
[5]

Exploring capability-based control distributions of human-robot teams through capability deltas: Formalization and implications,

N. Mandischer, M. Usai, F. Flemisch, and L. Mikelsons, “Exploring capability-based control distributions of human-robot teams through capability deltas: Formalization and implications,” in IEEE Interna- tional Conference on Systems, Man, and Cybernetics (SMC) , 2024

work page 2024
[6]

Towards human capability estima- tion to enhance human-robot team performance,

N. Mandischer and L. Mikelsons, “Towards human capability estima- tion to enhance human-robot team performance,” AT Automatisierung- stechnik, vol. 72, no. 12, 2024

work page 2024
[7]

The post-stroke hemiplegic patient. 1. a method for evaluation of physical performance,

A. R. Fugl-Meyer, L. J ¨a¨ask¨o, I. Leyman, S. Olsson, and S. Steglind, “The post-stroke hemiplegic patient. 1. a method for evaluation of physical performance,” Scandinavian journal of rehabilitation medicine, vol. 7, no. 1, 1975

work page 1975
[8]

A performance test for assessment of upper limb func- tion in physical rehabilitation treatment and research,

R. C. Lyle, “A performance test for assessment of upper limb func- tion in physical rehabilitation treatment and research,” International journal of rehabilitation research , vol. 4, no. 4, 1981

work page 1981

Show all 26 references

[9]

Gait training efficacy using a home-based practice model in chronic hemiplegia,

A. A. Rodriquez et al. , “Gait training efficacy using a home-based practice model in chronic hemiplegia,” Archives of physical medicine and rehabilitation, vol. 77, no. 8, 1996

1996
[10]

Measuring balance in the elderly: preliminary development of an instrument,

K. Berg, “Measuring balance in the elderly: preliminary development of an instrument,” Physiotherapy Canada, vol. 41, no. 6, 1989

1989
[11]

Imba - handbuch: 4th edition,

Entwicklergemeinschaft IMBA, “Imba - handbuch: 4th edition,” 2019

2019
[12]

Evaluation of a profile comparison system for the inclusion of people with disabilities in horticulture: A case study in austria,

S. K. Schaffernicht, K. Moder, and E. Quendler, “Evaluation of a profile comparison system for the inclusion of people with disabilities in horticulture: A case study in austria,” Work (Reading, Mass.) , vol. 68, no. 2, 2021

2021
[13]

Determining robotic assistance for inclusive workplaces for people with disabilities,

E. H ¨using, C. Weidemann, M. Lorenz, B. Corves, and M. H ¨using, “Determining robotic assistance for inclusive workplaces for people with disabilities,” Robotics, vol. 10, no. 1, 2021

2021
[14]

A skill- and feature-based approach to planning process monitoring in assembly planning,

C. Gonnermann, S. E. Hashemi-Petroodi, S. Thevenin, A. Dolgui, and R. Daub, “A skill- and feature-based approach to planning process monitoring in assembly planning,” The International Journal of Advanced Manufacturing Technology , vol. 122, no. 5-6, 2022

2022
[15]

Skill-based shared control,

C. Mower, J. Moura, and S. Vijayakumar, “Skill-based shared control,” in Robotics: Science and Systems XVII . Robotics: Science and Systems Foundation, 2021

2021
[16]

Skill-based worker assignment in a manual assembly line,

I. Gr ¨aßler, D. Roesmann, C. Cappello, and E. Steffen, “Skill-based worker assignment in a manual assembly line,” Procedia CIRP, vol. 100, 2021

2021
[17]

Skill-based instruction of collaborative robots in industrial settings,

C. Schou, R. S. Andersen, D. Chrysostomou, S. Bøgh, and O. Madsen, “Skill-based instruction of collaborative robots in industrial settings,” Robotics and Computer-Integrated Manufacturing , vol. 53, 2018

2018
[18]

Capability-aware task assignment for human-robot teams for empow- ering people with disabilities,

C. Weidemann, H.-J. Choi, R. Yadav, S.-O. Bezrucav, and B. Corves, “Capability-aware task assignment for human-robot teams for empow- ering people with disabilities,” in PlanRob Workshop at International Conference on Automated Planning and Scheduling , 2023

2023
[19]

Inter-rater reliability of the ‘merkmalprofile zur eingliederung leistungsgewandel- ter und behinderter in arbeit’ (melba) in young disabled adults with psychosocial limitations,

T. Achterberg, H. Wind, P. Prinzie, and M. Frings-Dresen, “Inter-rater reliability of the ‘merkmalprofile zur eingliederung leistungsgewandel- ter und behinderter in arbeit’ (melba) in young disabled adults with psychosocial limitations,” Work (Reading, Mass.), vol. 44, no. 4, 2013

2013
[20]

Available: https://www.miro- gmbh.de/de/uebersicht-melba/

“Melba.” [Online]. Available: https://www.miro- gmbh.de/de/uebersicht-melba/
[21]

Permutation p-values should never be zero: calculating exact p-values when permutations are randomly drawn,

B. Phipson and G. K. Smyth, “Permutation p-values should never be zero: calculating exact p-values when permutations are randomly drawn,” Stat Appl Genet Mol Biol. , vol. 9, no. 39, 2010

2010
[22]

coin-or/cbc: Release releases/2.10.12,

John Forrest et al., “coin-or/cbc: Release releases/2.10.12,” 2024

2024
[23]

Optimization with pulp,

S. Mitchell, A. Kean, A. Mason, M. O’Sullivan, A. Phillips, and F. Peschiera, “Optimization with pulp,” 2009. [Online]. Available: https://coin-or.github.io/pulp/

2009
[24]

Branch and cut,

J. E. Mitchell, “Branch and cut,” in Wiley Encyclopedia of Operations Research and Management Science . Wiley, 2011

2011
[25]

A comparative empirical evaluation of the accuracy of the novel process language mtm-human work design,

T. Finsterbusch, A. Petz, M. Faber, J. H ¨artel, P. Kuhlang, and C. M. Schlick, “A comparative empirical evaluation of the accuracy of the novel process language mtm-human work design,” in Advances in Ergonomics of Manufacturing: Managing the Enterprise of the Future. Springer...

2016
[2024]

Available: https://ageing-better.org.uk/blogs/what- will-retirement-future-look

[Online]. Available: https://ageing-better.org.uk/blogs/what- will-retirement-future-look

Pith tools

Reviewed August 6, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.

[1] [1]

Redistributing work in aging europe,

J. W. Vaupel and E. Loichinger, “Redistributing work in aging europe,” Science, vol. 312, no. 5782, 2006

work page 2006

[2] [2]

Percentage of people in the u.s. with a disability as of 2022, by age,

J. Elflein, “Percentage of people in the u.s. with a disability as of 2022, by age,” statista, 2024. [Online]. Available: https://www.statista.com/statistics/793952/disability-in-the-us-by-age/

work page 2022

[3] [3]

Will working into our 70s become the norm or will retirement vanish altogether for many in the future?

E. Andrews, “Will working into our 70s become the norm or will retirement vanish altogether for many in the future?”

work page

[4] [4]

Automatic indexation of the pension age to life expectancy: When policy design matters,

M. Ayuzu, J. M. Bravo, R. Holzmann, and E. Palmer, “Automatic indexation of the pension age to life expectancy: When policy design matters,” risks, vol. 9, no. 5, 2021

work page 2021

[5] [5]

Exploring capability-based control distributions of human-robot teams through capability deltas: Formalization and implications,

N. Mandischer, M. Usai, F. Flemisch, and L. Mikelsons, “Exploring capability-based control distributions of human-robot teams through capability deltas: Formalization and implications,” in IEEE Interna- tional Conference on Systems, Man, and Cybernetics (SMC) , 2024

work page 2024

[6] [6]

Towards human capability estima- tion to enhance human-robot team performance,

N. Mandischer and L. Mikelsons, “Towards human capability estima- tion to enhance human-robot team performance,” AT Automatisierung- stechnik, vol. 72, no. 12, 2024

work page 2024

[7] [7]

The post-stroke hemiplegic patient. 1. a method for evaluation of physical performance,

A. R. Fugl-Meyer, L. J ¨a¨ask¨o, I. Leyman, S. Olsson, and S. Steglind, “The post-stroke hemiplegic patient. 1. a method for evaluation of physical performance,” Scandinavian journal of rehabilitation medicine, vol. 7, no. 1, 1975

work page 1975

[8] [8]

A performance test for assessment of upper limb func- tion in physical rehabilitation treatment and research,

R. C. Lyle, “A performance test for assessment of upper limb func- tion in physical rehabilitation treatment and research,” International journal of rehabilitation research , vol. 4, no. 4, 1981

work page 1981