Decision Making with STPA through Markov Decision Process, a Theoretic Framework for Safe Human-Robot Collaboration
Source abstract
Abstract
During the last decades, collaborative robots capable of operating out of their cages are widely used in industry to assist humans in mundane and harsh manufacturing tasks. Although such robots are inherently safe by design, they are commonly accompanied by external sensors and other cyber-physical systems, to facilitate close cooperation with humans, which frequently render the collaborative ecosystem unsafe and prone to hazards. We introduce a method that capitalizes on partially observable Markov decision processes (POMDP) to amalgamate nominal actions of the system along with unsafe control actions posed by the System Theoretic Process Analysis (STPA). A decision-making mechanism that constantly prompts the system into a safer state is realized by providing situation awareness about the safety levels of the collaborative ecosystem by associating the system safety awareness with specific groups of selected actions. POMDP compensates the partial observability and uncertainty of the current state of the collaborative environment and creates safety screening policies that tend to make decisions that balance the system from unsafe to safe states in real time during the operational phase. The theoretical framework is assessed on a simulated human–robot collaborative scenario and proved capable of identifying loss and success scenarios.
Source: crossref · Quality: baseline
Research context
OpenAlex topics: Human-Automation Interaction and Safety · Occupational Health and Safety Research · Flexible and Reconfigurable Manufacturing Systems
SciVX discovery tags are terminology-based. OpenAlex topics are source-provided classifications.
Affiliations
Department of Civil Engineering, Democritus University of Thrace, 671 00 Komotini, Greece
Department of Production and Management Engineering, Democritus University of Thrace, 671 00 Komotini, Greece
References (37)
Show source-provided references
1. Bragança, S., Costa, E., Castellucci, I., and Arezes, P.M. (2019). A brief overview of the use of collaborative robots in industry 4.0: Human role and safety. Occupational and Environmental Safety and Health, Springer.10.1007/978-3-030-14730-3_68 ↗
2. Human-Robot collaboration in industry
3. Safety bounds in human robot interaction: A survey10.1016/j.ssci.2020.104667 ↗
4. Ergonomics in the Industry 4.0: Collaborative robots
5. Patalas-Maliszewska, J., and Krebs, I. (2016). A model of the tacit knowledge transfer support tool: CKnow-board. International Conference on Information and Software Technologies, Springer.10.1007/978-3-319-46254-7_3 ↗
6. Knowledge, robots and productivity in SMEs: Explaining the second digital wave10.1016/j.jbusres.2019.11.017 ↗
7. ISO (2011). Robots and Robotic Devices–Safety Requirements for Industrial Robots–Part 2: Robot Systems and Integration, International Organization for Standardization.
8. BSI Group (2016). Robots and Robotic Devices—Collaborative Robots (ISO/TS 15066: 2016), BSI Standards Publication.
9. Zacharaki, A., and Kostavelis, I. (2020). Dependability Levels on Autonomous Systems: The Case Study of a Crisis Management Robot. Robotic Systems: Concepts, Methodologies, Tools, and Applications, IGI Global.10.4018/978-1-7998-1754-3.ch066 ↗
10. International Organization for Standardization (ISO) (2010). Safety of Machinery—General Principles for Design—Risk Assessment and Risk Reduction, International Organization for Standardization.
11. Askarpour, M., Mandrioli, D., Rossi, M., and Vicentini, F. (2016). SAFER-HRC: Safety analysis through formal verification in human–robot collaboration. International Conference on Computer Safety, Reliability, and Security, Springer.10.1007/978-3-319-45477-1_22 ↗
12. Safety-critical advanced robots: A survey10.1016/j.robot.2017.04.004 ↗
13. Safety and reliability assessment techniques in robotics10.1017/S0263574797000829 ↗
14. Zhuo-Hua, D., Zi-xing, C., and Jin-xia, Y. (2005, January 18–22). Fault diagnosis and fault tolerant control for wheeled mobile robots under unknown environments: A survey. Proceedings of the 2005 IEEE International Conference on Robotics and Automation, Barcelona, Spain.
15. Hazard analysis of human–robot interactions with HAZOP–UML10.1016/j.ssci.2015.12.017 ↗
16. Ishimatsu, T., Leveson, N.G., Thomas, J., Katahira, M., Miyamoto, Y., and Nakao, H. (2010, January 19–21). Modeling and hazard analysis using STPA. Proceedings of the 4th IAASS Conference, Making Safety Matter, Huntsville, AL, USA.
17. Comparison of the FMEA and STPA safety analysis methods–A case study10.1007/s11219-017-9396-0 ↗
18. Bensaci, C., Zennir, Y., and Pomorski, D. (2018, January 20–22). A Comparative Study of STPA Hierarchical Structures in Risk Analysis: The Case of a Complex Multi-Robot Mobile System. Proceedings of the 2018 2nd European Conference on Electrical Engineering and Computer Science (EECS), Bern, Switzerland.10.1109/EECS.2018.00080 ↗
19. Gleirscher, M., Johnson, N., Karachristou, P., Calinescu, R., Law, J., and Clark, J. (2020). Challenges in the Safety-Security Co-Assurance of Collaborative Industrial Robots. arXiv.10.1007/978-3-030-78513-0_11 ↗
20. A New Approach to System Safety of human-multi-robot mobile system control with STPA and FTA10.51485/ajss.v5i1.100 ↗
21. STPA and Bowtie risk analysis study for centralized and hierarchical control architectures comparison10.1016/j.aej.2020.06.036 ↗
22. Safety assessment of collaborative robotics through automated formal verification10.1109/TRO.2019.2937471 ↗
23. Survey on human–robot collaboration in industrial settings: Safety, intuitive interfaces and applications10.1016/j.mechatronics.2018.02.009 ↗
24. Understanding of human behavior with a robotic agent through daily activity analysis10.1007/s12369-019-00513-2 ↗
25. The safety barometer: How safe is my plant today? Is instantaneously measuring safety level utopia or realizable?10.1016/j.jlp.2013.02.012 ↗
26. Measuring safety through the distance between system states with the RiskSOAP indicator10.5296/jss.v2i2.10436 ↗
27. A novel real-time safety level calculation approach based on STPA. MATEC Web of Conferences
28. Alemzadeh, H., Chen, D., Lewis, A., Kalbarczyk, Z., Raman, J., Leveson, N., and Iyer, R. (2014). Systems-theoretic safety assessment of robotic telesurgical systems. International Conference on Computer Safety, Reliability, and Security, Springer.10.1007/978-3-319-24255-2_16 ↗
29. Geist, M., Scherrer, B., and Pietquin, O. (2019, January 9–15). A theory of regularized markov decision processes. Proceedings of the 36th International Conference on Machine Learning, Long Beach, CA, USA.
30. Reliability modelling of redundant safety systems without automatic diagnostics incorporating common cause failures and process demand10.1016/j.isatra.2017.09.007 ↗
31. Cassandra, A.R. (1998). A survey of POMDP applications. Working Notes of AAAI 1998 Fall Symposium on Planning with Partially Observable Markov Decision Processes, Available online: http://www.cassandra.org/arc/papers/applications.pdf.
32. Spaan, M.T. (2012). Partially observable Markov decision processes. Reinforcement Learning, Springer.10.1007/978-3-642-27645-3_12 ↗
33. Kostavelis, I., Giakoumis, D., Malassiotis, S., and Tzovaras, D. (2017, January 9–14). A pomdp design framework for decision making in assistive robots. Proceedings of the International Conference on Human-Computer Interaction, Vancouver, BC, Canada.10.1007/978-3-319-58071-5_35 ↗
34. A tutorial on partially observable Markov decision processes10.1016/j.jmp.2009.01.005 ↗
35. A survey of point-based POMDP solvers10.1007/s10458-012-9200-2 ↗
36. Meuleau, N., Kim, K.E., Kaelbling, L.P., and Cassandra, A.R. (2013). Solving POMDPs by searching the space of finite policies. arXiv.
37. Cassandra, A.R. (2021, January 01). Pomdp.Org. 2003–2021. Available online: https://www.pomdp.org/code//.