Credit: EESC

The EU must pursue a policy that ensures the development, deployment and use of artificial intelligence (AI) in Europe in favor, and not conducive to the detriment, acts of society and social welfare, the Committee said in an initiative opinion on the social impact of AI which 11 fields are identified for action.

“We have a human need in-command approach to artificial intelligence, with machines remain machines and people always maintain control of these machines” said rapporteur Catelijne Muller (NL – Workers’ Group). She was not just about technical check: “People can and must decide whether, when and how AI is used in our daily lives, what tasks we entrust to AI and how transparent and ethical is all. Eventually, we decide whether we want that certain activities are carried out, care or medical decisions are made by AI, and whether we want to accept that our AI security, privacy and autonomy might be jeopardized,” said Mrs. Muller.

Artificial intelligence has recently undergone rapid growth. The size of the market for AI is approximately USD 664 million and is expected to increase to 38.8 billion USD in 2025. It is virtually undisputed that artificial intelligence can have great social benefits: consider applications for sustainable agriculture, environmentally friendly production, safer traffic safety work, a safer financial system, better medicine and more. Artificial intelligence can even possibly contribute to the eradication of disease and poverty.

But the benefits of AI can only be realized as well as the challenges to be addressed related to it. The Committee has identified 11 areas in which AI ensures social challenges, ranging from ethics, security, transparency, privacy and standards, employment, education, (in) equality and inclusiveness, legislation, governance and democracy, besides warfare and super intelligence.

These challenges can not be filed with the industry, this is a matter for governments, social partners, scientists and companies together. The EESC believes that the EU should adopt policy frameworks herein and should play a global leadership role. “We have pan-European norms and standards required for AI, as we now have for food and household appliances. We need a pan-European code of ethics to ensure that remain compatible AI systems with the principles of dignity, integrity, freedom and cultural and gender diversity, as well as basic human rights, “said Catelijne Muller,” and we have employment strategies are needed to maintain or create jobs and ensure that employees remain autonomous and take pleasure in their work. “

The issue of the impact of AI on employment is indeed central to the debate on AI in Europe, where unemployment is still high because of the crisis. Although predictions about the number of jobs over the next 20 years will be lost due to the use of AI vary from a small 5% to a disastrous 100%, resulting in a society without jobs, the rapporteur believes, based on a recent report McKinsey that it is more likely that parts or parts of jobs, and not a complete job, will be taken over by AI. In this case, it comes down to education, lifelong learning and training, to ensure that workers benefit from these developments and not be victimized.

The EESC opinion also calls for a European AI infrastructure with open source privacy-respecting and learning environments, real-life test environments and high-quality data sets for training and development of AI systems. Artificial intelligence has been mainly developed by the “big five” (Amazon, Facebook, Apple, Google and Microsoft). Although these companies are in favor of the open development of AI, and some of their AI development platforms and offer open source, full accessibility this is not guaranteed. AI infrastructure for the EU, possibly even with a European AI certification or labeling, can not only help promote the development of responsible and sustainable AI but also the EU competitive advantage.

524th plenary session, Main debating chamber, European Parliament. Credit: EESC

Today, the European Economic and Social Committee (EESC) is going to debate its stance in the European discussion on AI and will express conflicting views on certain issues, especially on the question of legal personality for robots. The report, which has been drawn up by a Dutch rapporteur, Ms Catelijne Muller, member of the Workers’ Group, will be debated at the EESC’s plenary in Brussels on 31 May.

Click here to watch the livestream. Live coverage will begin at 14:30 with the debate on AI at 16:30 CEST.

You can also download and read referral related documents about the consequences of artificial intelligence on the (digital) single market, production, consumption, employment and society here.

From the EESC website:

“Artificial Intelligence (AI) technologies offer the potential for creating new and innovative solutions to improve people’s lives, grow the economy, and address challenges in health and wellbeing, climate change, safety and security. Like any disruptive technology, however, AI carries risks and presents complex societal challenges in several areas such as labour, safety, privacy, ethics, skills and so on.

A broad approach towards AI, covering all its effects (good and bad) on society as a whole, is crucial. Especially in a time where developments are accelerating.”

EU rules for the fast-evolving field of robotics, for example, compliance with ethical standards and liability for accidents involving driverless cars, should be put forward by the EU Commission, urged the Legal Affairs Committee.

Rapporteur Mady Delvaux (S&D, LU) said: “A growing number of areas of our daily lives are increasingly affected by robotics. In order to address this reality and to ensure that robots are and will remain in the service of humans, we urgently need to create a robust European legal framework”. Her report, approved by 17 votes to 2, with 2 abstentions, looks at robotics-related issues such as liability, safety and changes in the labour market.

MEPs stress that EU-wide rules are needed to fully exploit the economic potential of robotics and artificial intelligence and guarantee a standard level of safety and security. The EU needs to take the lead on regulatory standards, so as not to be forced to follow those set by third states, argues the report.

A new European Agency for robotics and a Code of Ethical Conduct

MEPs urge the Commission to consider creating a European agency for robotics and artificial intelligence to supply public authorities with technical, ethical and regulatory expertise.

They also propose a voluntary ethical conduct code to regulate who would be accountable for the social, environmental and human health impacts of robotics and ensure that they operate in accordance with legal, safety and ethical standards.

For example, this code should recommend that robot designers include “kill” switches so that robots can be turned off in emergencies, they add.

Liability rules

MEPs note that harmonised rules are urgently needed, especially for self-driving cars. They call for an obligatory insurance scheme and a fund to ensure victims are fully compensated in cases of accidents caused by driverless cars.

In the long-term, the possibility of creating a specific legal status of “electronic persons” for the most sophisticated autonomous robots, so as to clarify responsibility in cases of damage, should also be considered, MEPs say.

Social impact

The development of robotics could also result in big societal changes, including the creation and loss of jobs in certain fields, says the text. It urges the Commission to follow these trends closely, including new employment models and the viability of the current tax and social system for robotics.

Request for legislation

This legislative initiative invites the Commission to present a legislative proposal. It is not obliged to do so but must state its reasons if it refuses.

The full house will vote on draft proposals in February and needs an absolute majority.

If you like this article, you may also want to read:

• American law needs a reboot when it comes to robots
• Law-abiding robots? What should the legal status of robots be?
• A European perspective on robot law: Interview with Mady Delvaux
• The Robot Economy: Interview with MEP Mady Delvaux

See all the latest robotics news on Robohub, or sign up for our weekly newsletter.

As part of the UK’s National Robotics Week, The University of Sheffield hosted the 17th Towards Autonomous Systems (TAROS) conference from 28-30 June. Among the papers and discussions on the development of autonomous robotics research, two sessions on the last day looked at robots in the public eye and exploring the issue of responsible research in robotics.

Speakers at these panels included Sheffield Robotics’ Director Tony Prescott, Amanda Sharkey from Sheffield’s Department of Computer Science, and Bristol’s Professor Alan Winfield. The sessions looked broadly at the ethical issues confronting robotics research, but a particularly useful discussion, lead by Hilary Sutcliffe, Director of MATTER, examined how robots are regarded in the public imagination, and the vital need to confront these sometimes negative perceptions as we move forward with responsible research.

When I first started researching the public perception of robotics, I was tasked with answering a specific question: ‘Why are we afraid of robots?’ The – very legitimate – concern among many roboticists was that their research and innovations would crash upon the rocks of public resistance. Realising that robots are held in deep suspicion by a public fed a constant stream of dystopian science-fiction and newspapers that can’t get enough of THAT picture of the Terminator, many people researching robotics and AI were desperate to avoid the fraught battles faced by research into genetically modified organisms: dubbed ‘Frankenstein foods’, hostility in the UK and the EU more generally has been such that GMOs have been largely rejected by the public caught in the war of competing interests and the cacophony of voices, from scientists, corporations,  environmentalists, the media and politicians.

When we look at the case of GMOs, we are not seeking to determine whether GMOs are ‘good’ or ‘bad’, but merely, how the debate was shaped by particular interests, how the re-assurances of scientists and experts working in the field can be met by skeptical audiences and, especially, how public fear has been driven decision-making.

Hilary Sutcliffe and MATTER have been working with the University of Sheffield across a number of departments and faculties to create an agenda for future responsible research and innovation; more than merely putting plasters over public concerns, we are trying to genuinely work with both internal and external stakeholders, bringing together researchers, industry and specific public interests, to include all concerns at every level of decision-making and research initiatives. The case of GMOs has long been one of keen interest to us as we try to learn lessons from the past and move forward with new ideas about how to do things differently. But the case of Brexit – the British vote to leave the European Union – has provided a new set of questions, and some new lessons, and  made clear that there are a new set of challenges facing public attitudes to innovation.

This is a summary of some of Sutcliffe’s ideas, to which, I have added some more specific and historical contexts, the core of my own research into the cultural and social influences and impacts of robotics, in an attempt to understand not only where we are, but how we got here.

Anxieties about loss of control

Sutcliffe pointed out that ‘protests are proxies for other issues’. Brexit wasn’t just about the people of Britain being unhappy with the direction of the EU, or with the EU’s regulation of trade, the European Convention on Human Rights, or even, arguably, immigration to Britain from the rest of the EU. The vote in favour of Brexit, and the debate that lead up to that vote, was clearly about wider concerns among the British population: a feeling of loss of control, being ignored by a distant, elite class of politicians and ‘experts’ who too often have little time for the concerns of the public.

Boris Johnson at Conservative Party Conference, 2011. Credit: Flickr

The principle slogan for the pro-Brexit campaigners was ‘Take Control‘ or ‘Take Back Control‘, and it’s clear that a primary motivation for people voting in favour of Brexit was reclaiming some imagined powers that were lost. Whether or not there has been a genuine loss of power or control is not the point: for now, let us set aside criticisms that the Leave campaign flatly lied, by misrepresented the powers claimed by the EU and the extent to which the European Commission, for example, controls aspects of life in Britain. (Though make no mistake – these were terrible, consciously manipulated falsehoods and the Leave campaign exploited both fear and ignorance in propagating these lies.) We also need to set aside, for now, the challenge that people did not have ‘control’, i.e. political authority, of their lives before Britain joined the EEC in 1973.

Whatever the validity of the feelings, sentiments and ideas that give rise to anxiety, it is important for us to remember that the anxiety itself is real. We can and should counter fears of immigration with the genuine statistics about the levels and impacts of immigration (especially since so many in Britain, and particularly Leave voters, overestimate the levels of immigration in their country), just as we should reassure people that the increasing automation of workplaces will mean more job opportunities elsewhere (or, perhaps even more leisure time) in a society that can be more, not less, equal. But to provide these arguments while dismissing the public’s fears, and assuming that reasonable arguments will easily triumph over the irrationality of anxiety is both to underestimate the power of storytelling and the imagination and to patronise the genuine concerns of whole sections of our societies that have genuine worries that the rosy utopia promised by politicians, policy-makers and scientists might not come to pass.

While it is clear that this loss of control, real or imagined, can be traced to the vicissitudes of global (late-)capitalism, that attribution to such a nebulous, complex force, complicates the argument, and so this genuine problem often escapes blame for much of what it has wrought upon modern societies because it is hard to explain and, most problematically, it is faceless. It is much easier to identify and blame a bogeyman – and it is much easier for politicians and the media to ‘sell’ bogeymen as responsible for stealing control away from people and their traditional communities. The greatest of these bogeymen, the one that bears the brunt of people’s frustration, is the immigrant, as the Brexit debate demonstrated. The face that has to bear the blame is dark-skinned, with a beard or a hijab (and not at all representative of the dominant ethnic make-up of the EU itself).

However, after the dreaded ‘Schrödinger’s immigrant’, little in modern life threatens to take control away from people and traditional communities as much as robots. Like immigrants, robots are imagined to be mysterious beings with inexplicable motivations, and though we may at first welcome them and the promise they offer we will soon rue our decision as they move to steal our jobs and leave our communities empty and bereft of the power to sustain themselves. The robot even has a face that we can identify and fear: just as so many stories about immigrants – including UKIP’s shameless poster of refugees trying to enter Eastern Europe – are accompanied by pictures of Muslims in order to associate all immigration with the image most feared by the British public (the radical, mysterious, religious terrorist), so many stories about robots are accompanied by pictures of the Terminator, associating all robots in the minds of the British public with an mercilessly rational killing machine bent on the extermination of the human race.

This is why, for example, robots – with their humanoid appearance, not to mention how well they can be cast as villains in a Hollywood plot – cause more anxiety in the population than the much more immediate threats of, for example, climate change.

The danger of hype

Part of the problem faced by the Remain camp was that their arguments, warning of the negative consequences of Brexit (many of which have already come to pass, incidentally, or look soon to do so) were easily branded as ‘Project Fear’ by Brexit supporters (ignoring the irony, of course, of the Leave campaign’s own scaremongering, particularly around the issue of immigration). By thus portraying the Remain camp’s warnings, pro-Brexit campaigners were not only able to largely discredit these potential consequences, but also to increase hostility towards Remain more generally.

The lesson from this for robotics is simply that hype breeds distrust. Big, shouty arguments, made in CAPITAL LETTERS! seem to be losing their effectiveness. Again, if we look at this historically, we might notice how we have become a society not only inured against sensationalism – the grandiose promise of New! Improved! and the dire warnings of the consequences of our clothes being anything less than spotlessly white – but that we may be becoming a society increasingly angered by this hysterical consumerism.

As academics, we are sometimes our own worst enemies in this regard, by hyping either what we can do (e.g. ‘if you provide us with the £80K grant, in two years we will have a fully cognizant humanoid robot’), or by overstating the threat is posed by what is on the horizon (e.g. we’ve often wondered how much money we could attract if we ran a Sheffield Centre for Robots Will Kill Us All, Run! Run for Your Lives!)

Lack of faith in ‘expertise’

This apparent immunity to hype and hyperbole is compounded by an apparent confusion as to where reliable information can be found. Time and again in my crusades on social media people expressed a desire to find ‘objective’ facts. There was a frustration that the government were not providing such objectivity, and were instead, in leading the campaign to Remain, mired in the same games of spin and hyperbole as the Leave campaign. But while the government, and by extension the Remain campaign, were subject to blame and frustration for their campaign, the Leave campaign, much more demonstrably based on lies and falsehoods, were excused and indulged their fallacious arguments. It is as if such deceitful behaviour was expected of the pro-Brexiters, and the anger directed at the pro-EU leaders was less about what they said and more about their perceived betrayal of the electorate, for daring to take sides at all. This allowed the Brexiters to portray themselves – laughably, given their funding, leadership and core demographic – as ‘anti-establishment’, and somehow, therefore, blameless for all of the feelings of confusion, powerlessness and the anxiety that was behind much of the Brexit support among the electorate.

Sutcliffe noted that Brexit demonstrated that people simply aren’t listening to ‘experts’ anymore. The distrust of politicians and corporations, it seems, seems to have infected other professions, including economists and scientists (despite the courageous efforts of groups like Scientists for the EU). In this respect alone, academics seeking to engage the public about robotics research are facing an uphill struggle as we try to counter the mythologies that have so grabbed the popular imagination, from Frankenstein-styled genocidal killing machines to completely empathetic, mass-unemployment inducing humanoids with vastly superior intellects.

The loss of faith in expertise is a complex issue that has a long-festering history, little of which is easily remedied. Cultural theorists have pointed out for decades how, since the catastrophes of WWII, we have moved to a ‘postmodern condition‘, a general mistrust of ‘metanarratives‘ – any argument that poses as ‘The Truth’. (To what extent academics themselves, with a healthy ‘hermeneutics of suspicion‘ or promoting a radical relativism, has sown the seeds of this popular uprising is a topic to be investigated in more depth another time.)

This questioning of science also has historical foundations in the fear of hubris, long-nurtured in the Romantic imagination in the Frankenstein mythology and what Tony Stark – yes, Iron Man – describes in Avengers: Age of Ultron as the ‘man was not meant to meddle medley’. The public (such as ‘they’ can be described as a homogeneous entity) has had over 200 years to get used to the idea that scientists’ ambition knows no bounds, and that their arrogance will lead not only to their own downfall but, eventually, inevitably, to the downfall of the entire human race. Scientists, we have been told over and over again in novels, in film, and now in video games, are so enamoured of technology, of what is possible, that they never stop to ask if they should.

And while these fears were at the heart of the GMO debates, no ‘experts’ suffer more from this fear of hubris than roboticists, who are very literally building the machines that will, of course, destroy the entire race. We see parallels in the way that the Faustian & Frankenstein mythology has been employed so widely in the popular conception of both GMO, ‘Frankenstein-foods’, and robotics: time and again, for example, even our most recent films about robots are just versions of this mythology, from Metropolis to Terminator to last year’s Ex_Machina and Chappie.

(There has been a noticeable shift, which is interesting to note, too, from the fear of the hubris of the individual scientist – as evident in Frankenstein and Metropolis – to mistrust of corporations, such as in Chappie, which might give scientists some hope that public opinion is moving, or can be swayed, in their favour.)

Nostalgia for simpler times

Sutcliffe noted how both the anxiety about the loss of personal control and mistrust of expert opinion, can be seen as a nostalgia for simpler times, for an era when people enjoyed the comfort of metanarratives and felt that they had a more direct stake in the direction of their lives. What historical analyses demonstrates, however, is that such an era is a fantasy. Communities may have enjoyed the illusion of stability under earlier, less sophisticated forms of capitalism, but they were always ultimately subject to the whims of the market and the decision-making of industrial powers.

And while it may have taken time for the postmodern ideas of academics to seep down into the popular imagination, mistrust of those in power, or perceived to be in power, is a process that started with the hermeneutics of suspicion undertaken in the nineteenth century (thinking of Marx and Freud, for example). We could go even further back, and note  how the lionisation of rebellion, opposition to authority and anti-establishment sentiment were to be found at the very heart of the Romantic project, at the very birth of our new, brave (isolated) modern individual. (Consider, for example, Blake’s re-conception of Milton’s Satan as a Romantic hero). All of this happened long before even the Second World War which, according to the ‘official’ postmodern line, marked the ‘death of metanarratives’ – so we’ve had at least 50 years, if not 250 years, to get used to these ideas.

The lessons, and what to do

There is perhaps little that we can do, immediately, to overturn 200 years of post-Romantic ideology (which would involve nothing less than a complete reconception of what it means to be human), however, there are some lessons from Brexit that we can more readily and easily implement with regard to robotics research and innovation:

• Get a good soundbite! It may sound trivial, but in our media age this is a potent weapon in the war for hearts and minds. GMOs were permanently tarred with the label ‘Frankenfoods‘, and the Brexit campaign used the simple, if wholly vague and inaccurate, slogan of #TakeControl.
• Develop a strong narrative. There is little roboticists can do to counter such terrific stories as Frankenstein, Metropolis, The Terminator and the scores of other films, books and video games with such mass appeal without slipping into the hyperbole of utopias, and so falling victim to hype. For every Andrew from Bicentennial Man, there are a thousand Terminators (and we all know who would win that fight). You do not need to be a relativist to understand and accept the importance of the popular imagination in constructing reality. Do not underestimate the power of a really good story.
• Be careful what you promise. Sutcliffe cites Richard Jones and the ‘economy of promises’: the balance between ‘optimism’ and ‘hype’ from research proposals to headlines in popular tabloids.
• It is vital, therefore, to communicate your vision carefully, authentically and early. It is important, to be engaging from the outset, to break up counter-narratives and prevent them from catching hold of the popular imagination, from becoming ‘common sense’. Try countering common beliefs such as ‘GMO foods harm the environment’ or that ‘The are too many immigrants in this country’. Once a belief takes hold, and has been supported by a large number of people, certain laws governing cognitive dissonance makes it very hard to shift opinions.

As we’ve seen from Brexit, because of the coming together of these factors, of history, of popular mood and cultural climate, if you wait to engage the public and other stakeholders until there is a clearly defined problem that you need to counteract, it’s probably already too late.

But messages also need to be communicated authentically: many people seem unable to discriminate between competing claims of truth (e.g. can’t judge what is ‘true’ between an academic study supported by strong evidence and a screeching headline at the top of an opinion piece in an ideologically-interested tabloid). In the absence of skills that allow such distinctions to be made, people seem more prepared to believe that voice that is more akin to their own. Nigel Farage and his folksy populism is more readily perceived as ‘authentic’ than David Cameron’s convoluted and carefully focus-grouped statements. Boris the Bumbler is regarded as more honest than Ed Miliband’s carefully argued ideas. ‘Authenticity’, or the perception of authenticity, matter. People feel as though they are capable of sniffing out bullshit, even if they are, in fact, not.

This makes a strong case for more and varied people to enter into STEM subjects, so that we have more and varied voices speaking on their behalf. And, we need to learn how to speak in a language that is understood by wider audiences. This is not the same as ‘dumbing down’, and it is important not to be seen to be patronising those stakeholders with whom we need to engage. But, if we do not learn how to articulate ourselves in a language that can be understood then our messages will always fall on deaf ears, and we will always lose to those that are more effective at communicating.

Keyhole, or minimally invasive, surgery can offer many benefits over more traditional, open operations, including reduced risk of infections, quicker recovery times and less scarring. But internal organs can get in the way when hard robotic arms are used, given that access can be very limited and soft tissue can sometimes move in unexpected ways.

The EU-funded STIFF-FLOP project has designed, built and operated a soft robotic arm that can squeeze into the body, manoeuvre gently around soft tissue, reconfigure itself, and stiffen to perform tasks that need force.

‘The aim is to develop soft robotics systems that can elongate, bend and move around organs,’ said project coordinator Professor Kaspar Althoefer who conducted the research at King’s College London, UK, and is now at Queen Mary University of London, UK.

‘The octopus provided some inspiration. It has no bones or skeletal structure, and it can squeeze through very narrow openings, but stiffen when required,’ he said.

The robotic arm works through a combination of air and granules. When air is pumped in, the granules inside it are able to move freely and allow both flexibility and a large range of motion. When the air is sucked out again, the granules clump together, making the structure stiff and rigid in the required position.

The system also helps surgeons to deal with complex soft tissue movements and uncertain situations, such as when organs shift, or move with the patient’s breathing and heartbeat.

With keyhole surgery, the instruments are inserted through narrow openings and they have to pivot around that small incision. And because the surgeon is unable to use a hand directly to feel inside the body, for example to identify the borders of a tumour, a successful operation is dependent on visual feedback from a camera at the end of the robotic arm.

Researchers have developed a prototype of an arm that can stiffen or become flexible on demand. Image courtesy of StiffFlop

So among the next steps is developing technology allowing surgeons to receive feedback from the operation site through touch, a field known as haptics.

In addition to joysticks and data gloves, haptic devices include possibilities such as vibratory actuators and pressure pads on the surgeon’s arm to simulate the feeling of operating through a much larger incision.

Dr Helge Wurdemann, project manager of STIFF-FLOP, said: ‘In particular, haptics has great potential to offer benefits to surgeons but, more importantly, to patients’ outcomes, when it comes to interventions that are less and less invasive.’

Cadaver

The STIFF-FLOP project put the soft robotic arm through a series of successful tests on a cadaver. The collaborators are now developing it further, with a view to possibly testing it in veterinary surgery, and eventually in operations on live people.

‘We have demonstrated the feasibility of the approach and so we would like to try it out on a living system, though that will require much further development,’ Prof. Althoefer said.

Other EU-supported researchers have been working to improve the software that controls surgical robots and tools such as graspers or scalpels and provide the surgeons who use them with the sense of touch when tissue is palpated, grasped or cut.

‘Any kind of design choice, any kind of device, any new control system, has to be grounded in what we as motor neuroscientists understand about how people control motion and perceive information,’ said Dr Ilana Nisky, senior lecturer in the Department of Biomedical Engineering and head of the Biomedical Robotics Lab at Ben-Gurion University of the Negev, Israel.

It can squeeze through very narrow openings, but stiffen when required. Professor Kaspar Althoefer, King’s College London, UK

‘From the side of the surgeon, we are developing the software that will make them feel as if they are present there, so that it is really natural,’ added Dr Nisky, whose TELEPRESENCE SURGERY project has been developing new control software for existing robotic surgical equipment.

Her research has found that very experienced surgeons operating with robotic equipment use a far greater ‘toolbox’ of hand and arm movements in carrying out operations than novices do. While experience obviously brings increased skill, the contrast was much bigger than expected and was present even in the performance of very basic motor tasks that do not require surgical knowledge. Those findings provided inspiration for further developments in robotic arms and controls.

‘We hope that eventually robots will make it easier to learn how to use them too,’ Dr Nisky said. ‘Lead surgeons can do marvellous things with the robots, and by improving the controls and systems we hope that will shorten the learning curve for novices and they will be able to master complicated procedures faster.’

More info:

STIFF-FLOP

TELEPRESENCE SURGERY

Source: Fraunhofer IPA/photo: Jens Kilian

By 2020, a quarter of Europeans will be over 60. In their silver age, many would like to stay in their homes and will require care from family or social workers. Unfortunately, the number of caregivers is diminishing year-after-year due to shifting demographics and an increase in working families. This leads to a ‘care deficit’ that poses a major challenge to most European societies. And today’s social workers are often hard pressed, wishing they had more time to connect with the people they care for, rather than the minuted dance of tasks that need to be done. It’s also hard physical work requiring workers to bend over up to 1300 times per shift .

It is like you are part of a machine. You’ve got to be here at this time and you’ve got to finish at this time. [. . .] It’s all down to minutes. – Peter, care worker

It’s an area that is ripe for innovation, enabling both day to day care, and more meaningful human interactions.

So, how can robotics technology help as you grow older?

Connecting you with loved ones
Telepresence robots allow care workers and family to drop by your house remotely. There is no need to pick up a phone, or start a computer. The robot, essentially a videoconference system on wheels, will drive up to you and initiate a conversation. It’s the modern day equivalent of a knock on the door. The idea is not to replace in person visits, but to allow them to happen more frequently, and at the times that matter most. Imagine having your daughter drop by – albeit sometimes virtually – multiple times a day, or being able to ask for help when needed.

Giraff, a telepresence robot developed through two European Projects (ExCITE and Giraff+) is currently undergoing tests in homes across Europe and is already available for purchase.

Helping you get around
Reduced mobility is one of the main causes for people joining a care home. Whether it’s walking, lifting everyday objects, eating, bathing, or getting up from a chair or bed.

An estimated 9 million people in the EU need help getting out of bed. – Multi-Annual Roadmap for Robotics

Focus has been on making robots that can help with specific mobility-related tasks. The MOBOT project for example is currently developing an intelligent robotic walker that could help you sit down in a chair, or assist as you move around your house.

MOBOT Project

LEA from Robot Care Systems is also a carebot disguised as a stroller that may help you get out of bed, walk, or hold a cup. LEA also knows about your daily routine, and can sense if you’re not taking medication, eating, or drinking.
And Company Besticinc, founded by Sten Hemmingsson who was disabled by Polio, looks at how robots can help you eat.

It is extremely important for a person’s integrity that you’re able to eat independently. – Sten Hemmingsson

Rather than buy a robot for your home, you may instead be wearing it as an exoskeleton to help with everyday movements. The AXO-SUIT project is providing inroads into developing an exoskeleton specifically adapted to help the elderly move, reach, and grasp. This is not an easy task as special consideration is needed to make the material light-weight, and delicate. In the future, these suits may even feel more like soft smart pants, than rigid bodies made of bolts and metal.

AXO-SUIT Project

Getting things done

Care-o-bot 4

The next step is to allow these robots to help around the home. This will require them to have grippers so they can fetch medicine, or a bottle of water. The robots may be remote operated, or may follow your commands in an autonomous manner. This has been the focus of the team behind the Care-o-bot robot. Their robot for assistive living, now in its fourth version, is the result of years of development and more than six related European projects.

The team behind the Care-o-bot also worked with CASERO, a robot that can help workers in care homes take over the heavy lifting. The robot can be used to collect the laundry, or carry water bottles around.

CASERO has certainly been a great help for us in our day to day work, transporting things [. . .]. It saves us time, and we can spend more time with the residents. – Silke Mlakar – care home worker

And if you believe the Robot-Era project, you might even send your robot out to shop for groceries, or pick up a prescription at the pharmacy.

Keeping you company
However sophisticated the robot, you may find yourself emotionally attached to its daily presence and enjoying its companionship. Human-robot interactions with the elderly need to be carefully assessed to make sure they are providing just the right level of interaction to be as helpful as possible, without being misleading. One of the most successful companion robots to date has been Paro the robot seal developed by AIST in Japan. The robot pet reacts to touch and has been shown to calm dementia patients and improve social interactions. This new form of Robot Therapy has also been shown to have benefits beyond eldercare, including to improve social interactions in children with autism.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uFMenahpJtI

Making your home smart
And why not make your home a robot? A connected home could automatically check that the cooker is off, order food when the fridge is empty, remind you of appointments, and handle the entertainment system. The home may also coordinate a suite of mobile robots, including your vacuum cleaner, or other task-specific helpers. These smart living spaces, which build on the latest trends in Internet of Things, machine learning, and robotics, could deliver on the promise of better care outcomes.

Like many robotics technologies, integration is key. To move things along, universities are building dedicating assistive living spaces that will allow them to explore integrated homes in a well controlled research environment.

Barriers and prospects
Technology for assistive living leads to real challenges with privacy, ethics, and liability. The act of caring comes with deep responsibility, and potential for harm if not done carefully. In fact, most carebots developed in the laboratory have not made their way to the home. Public acceptance is still quite low, with the latest Eurobaromoter survey on autonomous systems reporting that 51% of European respondents are uncomfortable with having a robot to provide services and companionship to elderly or infirm people. Much of this is due to a lack of exposure to the technology, which will improve as robots become more prominent in the care sector. Thanks to the International Standards Organisation (ISO), there are also new standards for carebots, which should help pave the way for startups and SMEs who would like to enter the sector. The EU market for robots and devices assisting elderly people is estimated to reach €13 billion by 2016. Given this potential, Europe has been heavily investing in assistive living within the Horizon2020 robotics programmes, and also through the European Innovation Partnership on Active and Healthy Ageing, the Active Assisted Living Joint Programme, and national programmes such as the UKs Long Term Care Revolution project.

This is needed as we are still very far from the robot in the movie Frank and Me. Making robots is hard, and we’re just starting to see robots for assistive living leave the laboratory to help with specific tasks such as walking or eating. More versatile carebots still require some work, and most important, plenty of real-word experiments. Fortunately, any developments in assistive living have the potential to improve quality of life for the elderly and carers. And it will become a necessity in the future.

Read the previous article in the series here.

The ten-part series on European Robotics will be published every two weeks on the SPARC website and Robohub. Funding for the series was provided by RockEU – a Coordination and Support Action funded under FP7 by the European Commission, Grant Agreement Number 611247.

It was quite a lively exhibit hall, so apologies for some of the background noise.

Mary Ellen Foster – University of Glasgow
MuMMER: MultiModal Mall Entertainment Robot

Ales Ude – Jožef Stefan Institute, Slovenia
ReconCell: A Reconfigurable robot workCell for fast set-up of automated assembly processes in SMEs

Elena De Momi – Politecnico De Milano, Italy
EDEN2020: Enhanced Delivery Ecosystem for Neurosurgery in 2020

Stefano Stramigioli – University of Twente
MURAB: MRI and Ultrasound Robotic Assisted Biopsy

Franziska Kirstein – Blue Ocean Robotics
BabyRobot: Child-Robot Communication and Collaboration: Edutainment, Behavioural Modelling and Cognitive Development in Typically Developing and Autistic Spectrum Children

Tamim Asfour – Karlsruhe Institute of Technology
Xperience and SecondHands

We also had startup Robbo stop by the ERFCam.
Kristina Karkkonen

Many of the projects focus on industrial and service robotics — or medical robotics — and their potential for translation. Additional highlights include robots for gardening or asbestos removal, drone inspection, and entertainment robots.

A full list of proposals funded can be found here — many of these projects will be presented at the European Robotics Forum in Ljubljana, Slovenia this March. Their names and acronyms should give hint of the areas of focus:

AEROBI: AErial RObotic System for In-Depth Bridge Inspection by Contact

BabyRobot: Child-Robot Communication and Collaboration: Edutainment, Behavioural Modelling and Cognitive Development in Typically Developing and Autistic Spectrum Children

Bots2ReC: Robots to Re-Construction

ColRobot: Collaborative Robotics for Assembly and Kitting in Smart Manufacturing

DeTOP: Dexterous Transradial Osseointegrated Prosthesis with neural control and sensory feedback

EDEN2020: Enhanced Delivery Ecosystem for Neurosurgery in 2020

EndoVESPA: Endoscopic Versatile robotic guidancE, diagnoSis and theraPy of magnetic-driven soft-tethered endoluminAl robots

INPUT: Intuitive Natural Prosthesis UTilization

MuMMER: MultiModal Mall Entertainment Robot

MURAB: MRI and Ultrasound Robotic Assisted Biopsy

RAMPup: Robotic Automation Modules for Production

RockEU2: Robotics Coordination Action for Europe Two

SafeLog: Safe human-robot interaction in logistic applications for highly flexible warehouses

SoftPro: Synergy-based Open-source Foundations and Technologies for Prosthetics and RehabilitatiOn

SPEXOR: Spinal Exoskeletal Robot for Low Back Pain Prevention and Vocational Reintegration

TrimBot2020: A gardening robot for rose, hedge and topiary trimming

TT-NET: A shared infrastructure to sustainably optimise technology transfer throughout Europe

UP-Drive: Automated Urban Parking and Driving

XoSoft: Soft modular biomimetic exoskeleton to assist people with mobility impairments

HORSE: Smart integrated Robotics system for SMEs controlled by Internet of Things based on dynamic manufacturing processes

ReconCell: A Reconfigurable robot workCell for fast set-up of automated assembly processes in SMEs

The research found that drones with an insect-inspired vision strategy become unstable as they approach an object, and that this happens at a specific distance. Turning this weakness into a strength, drones can use the timely detection of that emerging instability to estimate distance.

Two landing trajectories over time, starting from 4 meters. The light blue drone has stronger reactions to optical flow deviations than the magenta drone, and hence starts to oscillate further away from the landing surface.

In an effort to make ever smaller drones navigate by themselves, researchers increasingly turn to flying insects for inspiration. For example, current consumer drones for indoor flight use an insect-inspired strategy for estimating their velocity. They use a downward looking camera that determines optical flow – the speed at which objects move through the camera’s field of view. However, optical flow only provides information on the ratio between distance and velocity. Hence, an additional sonar is generally added to indoor flying drones. The sonar provides the distance to the ground, after which the velocity can be calculated from the optical flow. With the new strategy it becomes possible to get rid of the sonar, allowing indoor flying drones to become even smaller.

Soft landings

Although flying insects such as honeybees have two facet eyes, these are placed so close together that they cannot use stereo vision to estimate distances useful for navigation. They heavily rely on the distance-less cue of optical flow, and yet they lack the sensors to retrieve the actual distance to objects in their environment. So how do insects navigate successfully? Previous research has shown that simple optical flow control laws ensure safe navigation. For instance, keeping the optical flow constant during descent ensures that a drone makes a soft landing.

Further reading:

A new artificial compound eye

Fully autonomous flapping-wing micro air vehicle weighs about as much as 4 sheets of A4 paper

Parrot AR.Drone app harnesses crowd power to fast-track vision learning in robotic spacecraft

DALER: A bio-inspired robot that can both fly and walk

Bioinspired robotics: Materials, manufacturing & design, with Robert Wood

Sign up for our newsletter.

However, implementing this strategy on a real drone turned out to be very difficult as it is extremely difficult to recreate fast and smooth optical flow landings because the drones tend to oscillate up and down as they approach the ground when landing.

While I initially thought that this was due to the computer vision algorithms not working well enough when close to the ground, I eventually determined that the effect is still there even when the drone has perfect vision.

Using instability

In fact, theoretical analysis of the drone’s control laws showed that a robot that is trying to keep the optical flow constant will start to oscillate at a specific distance from the landing surface. The oscillations are induced by the robot itself, because a movement that occurs close to the ground has a much quicker and larger effect on the optical flow than a movement that occurs further away from the ground.

The core idea is that timely detection of such oscillations allows the drone to know how far it is from the landing surface. In other words, the robot exploits the impending instability of its control system to perceive distances. This could be used to determine when to switch off its propellers during landing, for instance.

Of course I had many strange looks in the flight arena when I was cheering on a flying robot that seemed to be on the verge of going out of control!

A Parrot AR drone making a constant optical flow landing outdoors.

Biological hypothesis

A closer look at the biological literature shows that flying insects do have some behaviours that are triggered at specific distances. For example, both honeybees and fruitflies extend their legs at a fairly consistent distance from the landing surface [1,2]. The new theory provides a hypothesis on how insects may perceive the distances necessary for such behaviors.

More info

‘Monocular distance estimation with optical flow maneuvers and efference copies: a stability-based strategy’ in Bioinspiration & Biomimetics, article published online on 7 January 2016.

http://mavlab.tudelft.nl/
http://www.bene-guido.eu/

Contact
Guido de Croon: +31 (0)15 278 1402, G.C.H.E.deCroon@tudelft.nl

References 

[1] Van Breugel F and Dickinson M H 2012 The visual control of landing and obstacle avoidance in the fruit fly Drosophila melanogaster J. Exp. Biol. 215 1783–98

[2] Evangelista C, Kraft P, Dacke M, Reinhard J and Srinivasan M V 2010 The moment before touchdown: landing manoeuvres of the honeybee apis mellifera J. Exp. Biol. 213 262–70

Transcript below.

In this episode Audrow Nash interviews Konrad Fagertun, Chief Operating Officer of nLink in Norway.They speak about a mobile robotic platform for the construction industry. The problem that they’ve chosen to solve is drilling holes in the ceiling. For a shopping mall, 400,000 holes may have to be drilled — by hand. This is a task Fagertun says “no one likes” so nLink built a robot to automate it. Fagertun discusses their robotic platform, how they chose their application, and the future plans of nLink.

Konrad Fagertun

Konrad has been involved with technology startups since 2006 and holds a masters degree from NTNU School of Entrepreneurship (and Boston University), with a cybernetics technology background. As one of the founders, and Chief Operating Officer, he focuses on business development, partner relations and sales in nLink’s quest to revolutionize the construction industry.

Links:

• Download mp3 (18.4 MB)
• Subscribe to Robots using iTunes
• Subscribe to Robots using RSS
• nLink’s Website

Transcript

This transcript has been edited for clarity.

Audrow: Welcome to Robots Podcast. Can you introduce yourself to our listeners and talk a bit about your company?

Konrad: My name is Konrad Fagertun, I’m the cofounder of nLink Robotics. We make the world’s first mobile drilling robot for construction. In fact, I’ve just started commercializing our first robots.

We’re a small robotics company with only four fulltime engineers and several more who work by the hour. We are developing a robotics system that helps contractors do heavy work on large construction sites. The first task we started is on concrete ceiling drilling. It’s a small niche, but it is heavy and time consuming.

Audrow: Can you describe the robot and discuss more about this issue? Why construction robotics?

Konrad: With large-scale construction, for example, shopping malls or office buildings, electricians and plumbers drill thousands of holes in the ceiling before mounting constriction equipment – like cable trace, light fittings, ventilation, and air-conditioners. You have to measure every single hole and drill, which makes it very time-consuming and creates lots of noise and dust. Nobody – trust me – nobody likes this job!

We solved this by adding an industrial robot arm to a lift, then sensors and a drill. Now the robot can measure and position itself inside the room and drill with better accuracy than manual labor. It’s much faster.

Audrow: How is the user interaction? How would someone set up the robot?

Konrad: In the current version there is a laser station which is a tripod with a laser in the corner of the room. Then using an iPad, that we will supply, we made an easy to use app. You can use it manually and enter one-on-one hole or upload data from a CAD drawing. For example, you can use x and y coordinates and so forth.

Audrow: What kind of pattern does the laser tripod display so the robot knows where to drill?

Konrad: Right now it’s a laser cross in the first position to drill, or as a reference point.

Audrow: Does it create a cross or an angle? Or does it create lines of lasers where at the intersections of lines is where the machine drills?

Konrad: Somewhat. You put one laser cross where you want to start drilling or where you want the robot to look. Afterwards, the robot displays its own laser lines in the ceiling and calculates where to drill the next holes. So there’s no additional measurements it’s just getting that first hole, first light hitting, or a reference point. There may be quite a few laser lines in the ceiling, but that’s the robot trying to figure out if the ceiling or floor is tilted. It always drills perpendicular to the ceiling.

Audrow: What do you mean tilted?

Konrad: In a parking garage the floor is tilted for water allowing different floors and areas to be at alternate heights. When you drive the robot they will, in some positions, be at an angle to the ceiling. The robot will compensate and always drill perpendicular to the ceiling. There doesn’t have to be any accuracy on how to position the robot itself.

Audrow: I see. So the user puts down the laser tripod, uses an iOS or Android app to tell the robot to go, points out the spacing between the holes … is that right?

Konrad: That’s the basic function. You can also use BIM files; 3D drawings that will help subtract the holes from the drawing.

Audrow: BIM are binary files. So something you compile or build?

Konrad: Yes, it is building information modeling. These are getting popular in the US and Europe. You can subtract whole data, for example, x, y and z data – for each hole. That’s easy for the robot to interpret and drill. We even drilled a ‘smiley face’ using the information modeling. I don’t know how useful it is but does show what it’s capable of doing!

Audrow: Is it like a snowman smiley face, like a whole series of dots or is the mouth connected?

Konrad: We made a whole series of dots … 256 actually!

Audrow: Oh wow! What kind of sensors do you use to instruct the robotic arm to go to the correct location and drill the hole?

Konrad: The system uses two different sensors. One is a laser station and can be put anywhere in the room as a reference point. The second is a stereo camera system attached to the robot. This system will always look up at the ceiling and look for the laser lines it makes, then calculate how the ceiling looks if creating a model. That way it always knows where to drill and the exact height of the ceiling. It drills, for example, 1.1 inch up if that’s what want from it.

Sometimes there are restrictions in the concrete, you can’t drill too far. It’s important to control the depth of the hole. That’s very easy combining both the laser system and the camera system.

Audrow: What sensors are you using on the robotic arm so it can orientate itself? Is it the vision system or are you’re modeling the robotic arm?

Konrad: We can control each joint of the robot and calculate where it is. It’s pretty easy and something all industrial robots can do. They can tell where each of the joints of the arm is located every second. We combine with the app so the user sees any progress, like what holes have or have not been drilled. At any point you can monitor if you’re thinking, “Okay, what progress is left on this particular job? Oh, okay, we are 70% done, only a few more holes left.”

If you have any problems with a single hole the system will mark as unsolved. A worker can come back and change or fix that problem hole. There could be something in the concrete or it could be something else. There are always some irregularities.

Audrow: On the website it states this robot is constructed using off the shelf components. Can you talk a bit about that?

Konrad: We mainly use off the shelf components. We do make key components ourselves, such as the software. The largest part is the robot arm and we use a UR10 from Universal Robots, a Danish company recently bought by a US company. We also use the later laser and standard drills – standard cameras and standard vacuum cleaner and other components. We also have a patent pending system and key components that will help the system drill with increased accuracy.

Audrow: Are you also buying the lift that ‘lifts’ the robot up to the ceiling?

Konrad: That’s right. Depending on the height, we use different type of lifts. For high ceilings we need large lifts. Sometimes we need belt-driven lifts instead of wheels when there’s a difficult surface.

Audrow:  Do you connect the robot to the lift, or does the operator drive the robot where it should drill the hole?

Konrad: Right now the operator has to drive the lifts.

Audrow: What should we call this particular robot? The robotic arm that drills holes in the ceiling, does it have a name?

Konrad: Actually, so far we don’t have a name. If any listeners have a good name for us we’re happy to hear it! We just call it the “mobile drilling robot” or just Drilli.

Audrow: Nice! Tell me a bit about the business model for this robot. What is the thought process behind renting it out to companies?

Konrad: Most contractors rent equipment like lifts. People are used to renting drills, excavators, all kind of machinery. They’re used to this model and they’ve asked for it so they don’t need to invest in robots. Typically, they will rent a robot for a week or two in a building, so there’s no need to own it. It’s better for them and easier. They just pay the hiring fee and save money and time right off the get go. It’s easy for all everyone, actually.

In the beginning we’ll rent it out with an operator, but eventually we want to train operators at our customers’ request. That way they can operate the robot and just rent the robots, like you rent a car.

Audrow: How large is your company?

Konrad: It’s less than ten. We’re working with large potential distributors and wholesalers who can help with distribution and logistics because these machines have to be moved from location to location in order to be effective. We will need professional logistics partners, we’re looking at Europeans companies to help with logistics in Europe and eventually worldwide.

Audrow: Does having worldwide interest make it difficult since you’re using this renting model?

Konrad: It’s a luxury problem. Right now we don’t have the capacity to fly to Hong Kong, Australia and the US at the same time. For scaling up, this is something we have to solve. In the beginning we’ll start with the two robots we have and build success stories with private customers. Then, we’ll invite people here to train and look at demos and that will make it easier for us to expand. When we want to do a job in — let’s say Brazil — we can go there for a couple of weeks, train them, then leave the robot for them to finish. That’s how we’ll solve this in the short run.

Audrow: How long is the short run?

Konrad: Probably six months, the rest of 2015 and start of 2016. It is important our own crew is with the robot to ensure the good customer care quality and the ensuring customers have no problems. We don’t want to leave customers alone with a robot that turns out to be a problem.

Audrow: Eventually will you do something similar in distribution centers at these locations that carry your robot?

Konrad: Probably, that sounds smart!

Audrow: One of your company ambitions is to revolutionize the construction industry. Can you tell me about that and why you’ve chosen this goal?

Konrad: We believe robotics is the solution to change the construction industry. Maybe in the future, the far future, we’ll see 3D printing of houses as they become more popular and feasible. However right now in the next five to 10 years I believe digital solutions and robotics will be a major part of this significant change in the construction industry.

Every time we show someone the robot they start questioning other things it can do. “Can it drill? Can it paint? Can it lay tiles? Can it do other things?” Of course it can! The important thing is positioning and navigating. When you know how to do that you can put whatever tool you want on the tip. There are possibilities in the construction industry and that’s where our hearts are right now.

Audrow: How did you choose the construction industry?

Konrad: We wanted to do something with robots and began considering industries not familiar with robotics or automation. The construction industry is a little bit behind when it comes to productivity and innovation. It seemed like a good place to start.

Audrow: How did you determine that you’re behind in terms of productivity?

Konrad: If you take a walk at the construction site you’ll see one guy with one hammer or one man with one drill working slow, carrying things. It’s heavy work. I have a lot of respect for people working there. It’s difficult.

The construction industry has also been struggling with productivity.  However other industries, like the, car industry has skyrocketed in productivity. One man can produce 10 cars because robot and computer automation. There’s significant difference.

Audrow: What other industries did you consider before settling on the construction industry?

Konrad: We did consider offshore oil and gas, it’s a large industry.  We also considered the medical industry and healthcare. Essentially oil, gas, healthcare, maybe education and farming, agriculture, it’s interesting and hard manual labor. Lots of opportunities!

Audrow: Definitely. How did you come on this specific issue of drilling holes in the ceiling?

Konrad: We talked to as many people as possible in the construction industry. We thought about painting and tiling first. An electricians company spoke to us and said, “Well that’s nice, but what we really need is help with measuring and drilling holes. We do this every day and its back breaking work.” They didn’t use those exact words, but that’s how we felt they said it. The idea came from an industry need.

Audrow: So then you present your robot as a solution to this problem. What has the feedback been between industry and what you’ve done with the robot?

Konrad: The feedback is pretty good so far. Everyone from workers on the floor, to CFOs, everyone loves it. The workers are happy not to continue doing a heavy workload and the CFOs see buildings completed a week ahead of schedule.

They get documentation that can be valuable for 50 to 100 years afterwards. When you do maintenance you know exactly where every important part of the building is. The documentation part has positive effects, as health and safety issues are major benefits. Plus, workers are delighted to control a robot instead of just a drill.

Audrow: How has the robot changed since you’ve introduced it to industry?

Konrad: The main form hasn’t changed much. What has changed is the way we measure how we drill in the ceiling. It’s difficult to explain. We’ve changed how we use lasers and prisms so the operator doesn’t have to do it for every single move of the robot. You measure the start and ending points where you want to drill and basically the robot calculates everything in between. There are some major savings there. Also, we have found some new solutions that will help the maintenance and service life but that’s not leasable for the operators. That’s just things we have discovered ourselves.

We’ve also seen the need for more rugged devices that can drive over heavy and difficult construction sites, especially with belts. Robots can drive over rubble and work and position it. That’s what we will learn over the next six months. We’re making a version now that will be a lot cooler!

Audrow: People that drive over rubble? Like tank treads?

Konrad: Yeah.

Audrow: Awesome. If the robot arm and vision system is separated from the lift, and if you’re connecting the two that means the system becomes a lot more complicated. How are you going to find a way so that the robot doesn’t bump into paint cans or something laying in the way? How are you investigating? Is this a current ambition of nLink?

Konrad: Yes, we’ll do this step by step. It won’t drive around at night by itself for now but in the near future we can do that. In the beginning we’ll still need our operator to take care of it and to look after it. We’ll use crash sensors for avoiding people and obstacles. I’m not going to say easy but there are a lot of solutions we can build on so we don’t have to start from scratch.

Audrow: So if the user is always driving avoiding collisions isn’t too much of an issue?

Konrad: Yeah, exactly. Our ambitions are fully autonomous robots but that’s not going to happen this year. But it’s coming.

Audrow: Fully autonomous as in you drive a truck to the construction site and tell the robots to go and they do it?

Konrad: Yeah. Tesla currently has semi-autonomous driving so maybe you don’t have to drive down to the construction sites either.

Audrow: That would be awesome. What are some of the ambitions of nLink moving forward? You mentioned tiling and painting, what is next?

Konrad: We’ll continue with drilling robots and upgrade it to do extra tasks.

Audrow: Extra tasks as a robotic platform? And changing the end of the robotic arm so it can do other tasks?

Konrad: Yeah, we’ll add more tools. I’m not going to go into detail but it’ll be related to measuring and drilling in ceilings, walls and floors. We’ll give it extra features that will make work quicker and easier for people. Of course we’re not going to do this all by ourselves. We’re looking for partners, distributors and logistics to help. We have a couple of very interesting names on our list. This fall and winter it’s going to be very exciting for us and I hope we’ll have good news to report.

Audrow: From all of your experience with nLinks what are major challenges you’ve encountered? Have you learned anything?

Konrad: One finding is that customers think it’s amazing and they are the most important assets. We need customers to help us develop this. Not the math and algorithms but telling us how they usually work, how the process should be, the sound of concrete. Customers have told us, “Oh that’s soft concrete, you have to push a little different or, okay, the drill bit needs to be changed.” We learned a lot that would have been impossible to do in lab.

One thing we have learned is that we have to be out there with the customers. Just helping them or getting feedback. Not getting mad when they’re frustrated. That’s the first thing. Second, we learned about vision systems. There are challenges there we have overcome. 3D vision is not easy. If you can use something that’s already developed – use it! That will save you a lot of time. That’s some of the challenges we have had.

Audrow: What advice do you have for those looking to build a company around some sort of niche industry?

Konrad: We have a defined niche, that’s really the best way to do it. There’s less competition and fewer customers to talk to and the customers you find are very important in that niche. Stay in that niche as long as possible before spreading out in all kinds of directions! Find a team that can handle the technology you’re working with and the business and customer side. If you don’t understand the industry or the business you’re working in, you’ll have a hard time with the technology part.

Audrow: Thank you for being on the podcast!

Konrad: Thanks!

Our penultimate video features the initial “Big Vision” trailer we produced at the beginning of this project. The video showcases the basic components of the robotic system we targeted (surface station, relay chain, ground swarm) and how we imagined our collective of underwater robots forming coherent swarms.

Our “Big Vision” helped us stay focussed on the project, ensuring that all project partners shared the same goal for their work. We based the video on a small simulator, written by us. Little did we know that this simple simulator would develop into a critical tool that would eventually include underwater physics with fluid dynamics for simulating underwater swarms. The simulator was also used in evolutionary computation to find good shoaling behavior for our robots.

Next week we will be publishing our final video in the Year of the CoCoRo. Our finale will show the whole system on real underwater robots in a comparable setting and how our initial vision finally became reality!

The EU-funded Collective Cognitive Robotics (CoCoRo) project has built a swarm of 41 autonomous underwater vehicles (AVs) that show collective cognition. Throughout 2015 – The Year of CoCoRo – we’ll be uploading a new weekly video detailing the latest stage in its development.

CoCoRo’s humble beginnings.

Our underwater swarm research started in a few cubic centimeters of water with some naked electronics on a table. Over the next three and a half years, our swarm increased by a factor of 40, and the size of our test waters increased by a factor of 40 million as we went from aquariums and pools, to ponds, rivers and lakes, and finally ending up in the salt water basin of the Livorno harbour. Quite a stretch for a small project!

Our new project, subCULTron, which extends the work of CoCoRo, will scale up the swarm size to 120+ robots, and will take place in an even larger body of water: the Venice Lagoon.

The EU-funded Collective Cognitive Robotics (CoCoRo) project has built a swarm of 41 autonomous underwater vehicles (AVs) that show collective cognition. Throughout 2015 – The Year of CoCoRo – we’ll be uploading a new weekly video detailing the latest stage in its development. 

During the past year we have shown many swarm algorithms in various experiments. The spotlight was always on the Lily and the Jeff robots. However, there is now another star in the team and this trailer is dedicated to this special agent: the base station!

The base station was finished towards the end of the project, thus, we had to develop (i.e. hack) many surrogates and placeholders for it over the course of the project. We got so experienced with it that we could quickly hack a surrogate base station from almost anything that was lying around in the lab: styrofoam, cans, boxes … whatever was around and handy. This video shows some of those creations.

A few months before the final review we had the real thing ready: a typical Italian machine (like Italian cars) made by our partners from SSSA (Pontedera). It was fast as hell, highly manoeuvrable, and elegant. The base station has a docking device and can actively manoeuvre, dock and undock robots and carry three attached spare robots with it. With this central masterpiece, we were ready for our final review.

The EU-funded Collective Cognitive Robotics (CoCoRo) project has built a swarm of 41 autonomous underwater vehicles (AVs) that show collective cognition. Throughout 2015 – The Year of CoCoRo – we’ll be uploading a new weekly video detailing the latest stage in its development.

Joel Gibbard started out designing prosthetic hands in his bedroom out of sheet metal, but found himself drawn to 3D printing because of its universality and low cost. Now his company, Open Bionics, believes it can cut the cost of a bionic hand by a factor of 20 from the current around EUR 100 000 price tag.

Not only that, but the prosthesis is fully customisable, meaning that reluctant kids can have one themed around characters from the films Iron Man, Frozen and Star Wars.

At the moment, kids don’t really like prosthetics, they’ll take them off, stick them under the bed, and never see them again,’ Gibbard told attendees at the European Robotics Week in Bristol, UK. ‘It makes them feel like a superhero for having (our) prosthetic hand.’

European Robotics Week is a series of events to encourage science, technology engineering and maths education around the theme of robots in society, which is coordinated by euRobotics aisbl, a non-profit organisation which combines around 250 European partners, including industrial groups, universities and users of robotics. It is part of SPARC, the European public-private partnership for robotics in Europe, alongside the European Commission.

Currently the EU-funded robotics programme is the largest civilian-funded robotics research and innovation programme in the world, and its development has been nurtured by the work of the EU-funded coordination project euRobotics and its successor RockEU.

Gibbard, whose company has been helped by a business incubator at the Bristol Robotics Laboratory, a collaborative lab run by the University of Bristol and the University of the West of England, was speaking at an event called From Imagination to Market, where companies and start-ups could explain how they have managed to get their innovations to market.

Grocery

Often companies have benefited from public research funding to help commercialise their innovations, such as that experienced by UK-based online grocery Ocado.

Currently, most of the two million items shipped to customers’ homes every day from Ocado are hand-picked in one of their twelve warehouses, but robotics could make this process more efficient, bringing down the cost of food for consumers.

Ocado engineers have already had success with a simple device – a suction cup mounted on a robotic arm which can pick up thickly packaged items and drop them into a basket. But the suction cup does not fare so well with delicate items such as fruit and vegetables, which can easily be bruised.

That is why Graham Deacon, the team leader of robotics research at Ocado, and his team have been experimenting with more complex robotic claws.

By examining the way humans themselves pick up soft objects – usually, by shaping their fingers around them – he and his colleagues have been trying to teach their robotic claws to do the same as part of an EU-funded research project known as SoMa.

‘We’re trying to get in now, to be part of that solution,’ he said, adding that his company will hopefully have some sort of usable claw to pick delicate items in five to six years.

Tight deadlines

Mike Aldred, the leader of robotics and cordless electronics at Dyson, the UK technology company, believes such timescales are important in business. Whereas in universities researchers tend to think in very long timescales, he said, companies must innovate to relatively tight deadlines.

Aldred gave the example of Dyson’s forthcoming autonomous vacuum cleaner, the Dyson 360 Eye. Once the engineers had established their goal, he said, they put a strict timeframe on getting the product to market.

Another difference between universities and companies, he said, is testing. Whereas academic researchers might be satisfied with a navigation system that works in their clean and tidy laboratory, he said, Dyson has had to test its 360 Eye in 100 000 real households, where it regularly encountered table legs, unruly children and grownups who were not especially tech-savvy.

Even so, Aldred did have some words of encouragement for aspirational roboticists: even if the challenge seems impossible, try it anyway, and you might just succeed. ‘The best person to follow your idea is you,’ he said.

Researchers are developing an exoskeleton prototype that makes it easier to carry heavy loads. Image courtesy of Robo-Mate.

‘We’re getting sufficient power for sufficiently low weight,’ said Jan Veneman, a roboticist at Tecnalia Research and Innovation in Donostia, Spain.

Exoskeletons typically consist of a framework that covers a person’s limbs. The framework has joints alongside the person’s own skeletal joints, and these are powered by motors or springs to assist in strength or endurance.

Exoskeletons with motors are more flexible and more powerful, whereas those with springs can be made much lighter, according Konrad Stadler, an engineer at the Zurich University of Applied Sciences in Switzerland. Stadler is the technical project manager of the Robo-Mate project, and is working on an exoskeleton that could help manual workers. As part of the EU-funded project, he and his colleagues are designing different exoskeleton ‘modules’ to suit the different tasks carried out by manual workers.

In order to help stimulate innovation in manufacturing, the EU has teamed up with industry and academia in public, private partnerships such as the Partnership for Robotics in Europe and Factories of the Future.

Compression forces

‘Musculoskeletal injuries and disorders are caused by lower back compression forces, which result from the load carried and the worker’s own body weight, as well as the posture of the worker,’ says Stadler.

‘Lifting loads with outstretched arms will produce much larger compression forces in the lower back than lifting the same object close to the body.’

By slipping on a Robo-Mate exoskeleton, a worker trying to carry a heavy object with outstretched arms ought to feel more like he or she is carrying it close to the body. Stadler and colleagues are currently testing a prototype in the lab, and hope to be doing industrial tests next year.

Robo-Mate has made a prototype of an exoskeleton. Image courtesy of Robo-Mate.

But exoskeletons are not all about strength. Veneman is investigating whether exoskeletons can also be used to keep people stable as part of the EU-funded BALANCE project.

The human body normally keeps itself balanced with two mechanisms: altering the stiffness of joints, or moving hands and feet to more stable positions. ‘It is very subtle where you place your foot,’ he explained. ‘If you place it too far, or too close, you can easily lose balance.’

The aim of the BALANCE exoskeleton is to learn how the body does this naturally, and see whether the exoskeleton can assist the body to do the same thing. It is currently in the design stage, but Veneman says the prototype should offer minimal resistance to movement, so that it can follow accurately the movements of healthy and infirm people.

Give a push

Once the system understands the human body’s balancing mechanisms sufficiently well, it should be able to replicate it. In theory, you should be able to give someone wearing the BALANCE prototype a push, and the system will move the person’s feet to stop them falling over.

That will require a rather complex exoskeleton with multiple joints, and sensors that can detect instability.

A simpler exoskeleton, and one with a good chance of commercialisation in the near future, is the one being developed within the EU-funded AXO-SUIT project, which is part of the EU’s Active and Assistive Living programme to enhance quality of life for the elderly. The idea behind AXO-SUIT is to help elderly or infirm people perform basic everyday tasks, such as standing up, walking, reaching and grasping.

The technology behind AXO-SUIT is not dissimilar to that in an electric bike, says project lead coordinator Shaoping Bai of Aalborg University in Denmark. Rather than completely taking over, the motors assist action that the user is already trying to perform, such as bending down to water the plants and standing back up again.

AXO-SUIT is currently at the prototype stage. In about five years, however, Bai hopes that his group will have a commercial version costing between EUR 8 000 and EUR 10 000.

That may sound expensive, but Bai believes the exoskeleton could replace a lot of costly personal care for the elderly. ‘It would be helpful for them to maintain their quality of life while staying at home, rather than move to a care centre,’ he said.

More info

Most of the videos from The Year of CoCoRo were shot during workshops we held throughout the project. These workshops, which were usually focussed on one or several specific demonstrators, were what drove our international team of collaborators to implement mechanical hardware, electronics and software into working installations. This form of workshop-driven development proved to be very successful, and by the end of the project we were able to show 17 working final demonstrators that show the versatility of robot swarms. 

The EU-funded Collective Cognitive Robotics (CoCoRo) project has built a swarm of 41 autonomous underwater vehicles (AVs) that show collective cognition. Throughout 2015 – The Year of CoCoRo – we’ll be uploading a new weekly video detailing the latest stage in its development.

Robothespian welcomes visitors to Bristol Robotics Lab during #ERW2015. Image: RIF@Bristol

Bridging the gap between cutting-edge research in academia and the vibrant robotics startup ecosystem is no easy task. This Wednesday in the UK city of Bristol, a free public event titled “From Imagination to Market” — the centre piece of European Robotics Week 2015 — took on that challenge by bringing together leading innovators, researchers, startups and strategists. Below are the key moments and insights from the event.

Organised by euRobotics AISBL (which represents robotics stakeholders in Europe) and the Bristol Robotics Laboratory (BRL — one of the largest facilities of its kind in Europe), this event was packed insight, stories and advice.

The day kicked off with an introduction to robots in science fiction by Michael Szollosy and a look at the field of RoboLaw by Andrea Bertolini, before taking a deep dive into the BRL’s state-of-the art research on swarms, human-robot interaction and soft robotics. Then we heard from up-and-coming startups Open Bionics and Reach Robotics, we got an overview of the UK robotics landscape, followed up by inside info from two of the UK’s most successful corporations: Dyson and Ocado. In the middle of all this, we were whisked off to BRL to meet real-life robots before being brought back for a rousing panel discussion to bring all that freshly gained knowledge together.

There was more: the day finished with a robot build-a-thon, where kids aged 5-14 years helped researchers build 100 robots to ‘treat’ artificial cancer cells. Robot stations were also placed throughout Bristol’s Science Museum, showcasing a swarm of 200 coin-sized robots, Thymio and TiddlyBot robots to program, the latest robots from the Robogals team, and students from Digimakers.

Here is a taste of what we learned in just one day:

What could be going from imagination to market in the future

Control in human-robot interaction can take four forms, BRL’s Angelika Peer told us. First is bilateral control, where transparency, task performance, telepresence, robust stability and conflicting requirements need to be taken into account. Then we have shared control — the kind found in robotic assistive walking devices, or in the automation of assembly and transportation tasks, which can be performed either collaboratively with a human operator, or learned from humans by imitation. For the third category — supervisory control — Peer outlined the EU-funded project, VERE, which stands for Virtual Embodiment and Robotic Re-embodiment. Autonomous control makes up the fourth category, and this can be sequential, parallel, or parallel and symmetric.

Sabine Hauert speaking at ERW2015

Taking swarming into the real world through the simulation of basic rules forms the basis for Sabine Hauert’s research at the BRL. Her interest in robot swarms inspired her research in nanoparticles to cure cancer. The challenge is to design the behaviour of the nanoparticles. How do you synchronise them? How sticky should they be to deal effectively with cancer cells? Hauert’s research also translates to robot swarms that work in the thousands, and we’re just now reaching that stage. Watch her TEDx talk here.

BRL’s Jonathan Rossiter has just received a £2.5m UK grant to make trousers out of soft robotics — a futuristic aide to enable those with mobility issues. The limitations of rigid robots have inspired his research, which forms part of the EU’s Robosoft action. With applications in everything from mobile phones to alleviating deep vein thrombosis, soft robotics is really taking off. While it took 15 years to develop adequate motors, Rossiter believes work on materials will move much faster.

So when can we buy this stuff?

“It’s just starting,” said euRobotics road-mapping expert David Bisset. “We tend to use the phrase ‘on the cusp.’ There are a lot of products out there, but long way to go.” The UK landscape, he said, is composed of four different areas: manufacturing and agricultural goods, healthcare and consumer, transport and cities and energy, and utilities and the environment. The drivers are economic, societal (such as the crisis in care for the elderly), markets (which are concerned with efficiency) and, finally, getting robots to do things we don’t want to, such as vacuuming. But, crucially, the infrastructure needs to be in place for robots to become a valued part of activity. The biggest market is healthcare, with a value of £323bn. But it’s not the value of the robots themselves, it’s their impact that’s important, and for this we need strategy, assets, skills clusters and challenges — landing a UAV at Heathrow, mapping out North Sea pipelines, and driving though a town, for instance. Here, SMEs are a very important part of the mix.

Coming soon to a market near you are cutting-edge robotic technologies from two of these SMEs: Open Bionics and Reach Robotics, both originating from the BRL incubator.

Open Bionics is the first company to use 3D scanning and printing to fit a prosthetic limb. The startups’ CEO, Joel Gibbard, relayed how a handheld device that cost a couple of hundred pounds now makes it possible to customise every device, remotely and cost-effectively. The company took time to ask amputees what they wanted, and it turned out they would rather have a prosthetic that is comfortable, light weight, and that helps them celebrate their limb difference over a prosthetic that offers high functionality. To this end, Open Bionics focused on fashion and design, creating a Swarovski crystal-encrusted prosthetic arm, and partnering with Disney for Ironman, Elsa and Star Wars hands that light up (which produces additional benefits). Plus there’s a subscription model in the works so that children can have the size of their prosthetic adjusted as they grow.

Reach Robotics CEO Silas Adekunle at ERW2015

Reach Robotics CEO Silas Adekunle sees a future where video game characters will leap out of the screen into our world. Their robot, MekaMon, can do battle in both the real and virtual worlds, can be customised, and has its very own universe complete with epic battles. The company recently had its first round of VC funding, from Qualcomm and Techstars, among others. “When creating, startups are in the sausage-making business,” he said, “It’s lovely in front but a mess in the back.” Team members have left and been replaced, and there have been 17 grants and 24 product iterations, said Adekunle. MekaMon is on track and due on the market for Christmas 2016.

The startup ecosystem

Support for startups, how to raise the funding, and what infrastructure is needed to allow startups to be successful were covered by the next two speakers, BRL’s Farid Dailami and Renaud Champion of Robolution Capital.

“I’m looking for products that will solve a problem but not to replace someone,” said Champion, speaking of his investment policies.  “What I’m looking for is a bicycle for the mind, and project linked to robotics to solve any kind of issue: ethical, legal or societal.” He had further advice for would-be entrepreneurs:

• Know what’s at the core of your product, not just the IP. What is the service you give to users? What is your competitive advantage?
• Don’t confuse getting feedback with convincing people.
• Be able to name failure in your product development.
• A low [financial] burn rate does not mean you have time to waste.
• Don’t validate your customer hypothesis with investors.
• Start off with Indiegogo and Kickstarter rather than VCs; it’s a question of strategy.

Meanwhile, for those ready to develop and test products, services or processes, Farid Dailami outlined the facilities available at BRL’s Robotics Innovation Facility (RIF).

Robots in the real world

Next up were two success stories from industry. Note that neither Dyson nor Ocado are companies that have previously worked with robots. The former is best known for vacuum cleaners and the latter is an online grocer. Their stories were inspiring because they show the power of robotics when it enters everyday life.

“The only way you are going to get something to work in the real world is by putting it in the real world,” said Dyson’s Mike Aldred. His key take away message was “test test test.” Dyson’s 360 Eye robot vacuum cleaner was 16 years in development and went through 110,000 trials in real homes over more than eight years. Two person-years were spent just in creating a test tool that identifies outliers and anomalies. But Aldred was keen to point out that, since it went on sale in Japan four weeks ago, the 360 Eye has already saved customers 250,000 hours that they could spend doing something else. However, for a robot be taken up, it has to perform better than a human, he said. His advice for would-be innovators was: “Always try to do something that can never possibly work. Innovation comes from thinking broadly and thinking differently.”

Thinking very differently from the average grocer is what got online supermarket Ocado interested in robotics. The company’s robotics research team leader Graham Deacon outlined the two major projects the company is involved with (in collaboration with European research institutes): Secondhands and SoMa, both funded via Horizon 2020 grants. SoMa is about using compliant robotic mechanisms to handle deformable products without conventional geometry, and Secondhands is seeking to develop a humanoid robot to assist maintenance technicians in routine and preventative maintenance. It’s a hugely ambitious exercise in collaborative robotics to develop a safe robot that can work shoulder to shoulder with a human.

Bringing it back to the table

Panel roundup at ERW2015

During the panel discussion that followed, three of the speakers were joined by the BRL’s Innovation Manager Jill Burnet, and there was some final advice on bringing imagination to market.

Researching and manufacturing robotics can be hugely expensive. Dyson spent  £28m on research for the 360 Eye, and manufacturing ran into eight figures, said Mike Aldred. But although this amount of investment is a barrier to many SMEs, Jill Burnet pointed out that incubators, such as the one at BRL, can tackle niche market problems.

Champion’s advice was to identify the core of the product, which might lead you to rethink your manufacturing. If it’s not linked to manufacturing, the SME should sub-contract.

And their top advice?

Mike Aldred: The best person to follow your idea is you. Own your own idea.

Jill Burnet: Find a community to work in, with like minded people, as we’ve done at BRL.

Renaud Champion: It’s a matter of having an idea, but the difference is in having and implementing. You don’t have to the go to the US to develop, Europe is a great place to start your business.

Graham Deacon: The companies I know that continue have passion – so it’s about sticking to it.

“Robots and Society” panel discussion during European Robotics Week 2015. #ERW2015

A mouthwatering array of over 750 events has been taking place throughout Europe this week as the continent celebrates Robotics Week 2015. The festivities began with an eye-opening debate on “Robots and Society” in the UK city of Bristol on Tuesday, with experts versed in strategy, business, academia, law and policy. But, for many, the star of the show was Nao, in his guise as robot avatar.

The event was organised by euRobotics AISBL, which represents robotics stakeholders in Europe, and by Bristol Robotics Laboratory (BRL), one of the largest facilities of its kind in Europe. “We’re moving into a future where devices that interact with us are going to be part of our everyday experience,” said BRL’s director, Chris Melhuish, setting the scene.

The concern in Europe is that the continent should remain the number one robotics producer worldwide, said politician Mady Delvaux, who heads a European working group on robotics working on concrete proposals to steer European Union policy. The group is expected to issue a report in May next year.

But for the technology to reach its full potential, she told the audience, public acceptance and education are key. Investment is necessary to achieve these aims and encourage innovation in the region, she said, noting that EU nations benefit from SPARC, the largest civilian robotics programme in the world.

Delvaux was followed by a taste of what’s to come in the future: robot avatars. Part of an Engineering and Physical Sciences Research Council (EPSRC) project, Being There focuses on robots and humans in public spaces. The project team is led by BRL’s Paul Bremner who, at a recent TEDx, presented the first talk using a tele-operated humanoid robot that replicates the movements of its human operator, showcasing the benefits of robotic avatars. The Bristol audience was able to see the experiment replicated with Nao.

Then came the main business of the evening — two panel discussions focussing on aspects underpinning the role of robots in society, the first focussing on economic considerations and the second on ethical implications.

Economics — The first panel featured Mike Aldred of Dyson’s Robotics unit, local council leader Amanda Deeks, London School of Economics professor Alan Manning, euRobotics road-mapping expert David Bisset, Phil Williams of the UK’s Knowledge Transfer Network, robolaw expert Andrea Bertolini, Technical Director of OC Robotics Andrew Graham, and Renaud Champion of Robolution Capital.

To put the enabling potential of robotic technologies into perspective, Amanda Deeks provided the audience with some eye-opening statistics. Over 60% of council work is in social care, she said, and as people live longer they need more and more help. The vast majority of adults live out a substantial part of their lives with some sort of disability. In the case of women, that’s an average of 18 years. For men, it’s 14 years, but only because they die earlier.

The KTN’s Phil Williams added some further figures to the mix, showing how much value many estimates placed on the robotics market: ranging from 15.5 billion euros to $25 billion, the widely differing figures had only one thing in common: they were huge. The question, as he sees it, is: why is the UK not taking more advantage of this?

Although the benefits of robotic technologies are demonstrable, the panel was keen to deal with the thorny question of robots replacing human jobs. In response to scaremongering reports, the LSE’s Alan Manning pointed out that, historically, everybody has ultimately benefited from past technological advances.

Issues of privacy (when it comes to data) and public perception were also touched on by the panel, particularly self-driving cars — a technological advance the UK is particularly keen to get behind. However, a recent survey by the UK’s Transport Systems Catapult, suggests that only 39% of UK citizens would allow themselves to be driven by an autonomous vehicle. The audience show of hands was roughly in accordance with this figure.

As with much else, the answer to this, in David Bisset’s opinion, is education. “Robots in research labs need to get out,” he said. “The problem with that is regulation and testing them. There are a stream of regulatory and ethical issues.”

Ethics — Ethical issues were at the heart of the second panel discussion, together with education. The panel featured robot ethics research specialists Alan Winfield of BRL and Fiorella Operto of the Genoa’s School of Robotics in Italy, as well as lawyer Andrea Bertolini of the Scuola Superiore, S. Anna in Pisa, Italy, Nikos Pronios from Innovate UK and David Bisset who was also on the prior panel.

Trust issues are at the core of the importance of robot ethics, said Alan Winfield. We have to define what kind of robot we don’t want in our lives. It’s also the start of the legislative process. It begins with ethics, which develop into standards and continue through to legislation. He urged the audience to look at BS8611 — the world’s first standard on robot ethics.

However, robots cannot be more ethical than humans. The ethics have to be predetermined by us and there has to collaboration with lawyers and ethicists, he said.

The panel were in accord that there will undoubtedly eventually be an accident with an autonomous vehicle or other robot, and the idea of a trusted robot commission that investigates accidents was put forward. Only through having a transparent process will we overcome the trauma of that first accident.

The importance of design in terms of interaction, to facilitate the right interfaces and experiences, was pointed out by David Bisset, who also advocated for lifelong education. “To be trained for second career in midlife needs to be a right,” he said. “There needs to be a sea change.”

EuRobotics acting President Uwe Haass provided further evidence for this. He told the audience about a scheme for giving educational robot kits to 45-year-old women returning to work after having had their children. It was very effective in helping these women develop a great sense of esteem, he said.

But learning about robots also holds great benefits early on in life, said Fiorello Operto. “Education in robotics is the best way to teach STEM.”

The audience had a great many questions, for instance: should you develop a robot that decides its own ethics? The panel was doubtful that this was advisable, or even likely, but it should be a public decision in any case. In a similar vein, another member of the audience wanted to know whether we should be able to design the ethics of our own car.

At this point the debate turned to data and privacy considerations that are likely to become commonplace with self driving vehicles. Putting this into perspective, David Bisset said that he believed that the larger ethical problems will arise from the data accruing from elderly care robots rather than from cars.

Echoing an earlier statement from Mike Aldred that the real benefit comes when things join up. “In robotics,” said Bisset, “ethics, law, engineering and design all need to interact together.”

In March 2014, we exhibited CoCoRo in Hannover, Germany at the CEBIT — Europe’s largest consumer electronics fair. At first we thought we might be out of place and that our exhibit would be overshadowed by the latest flatscreen TVs, smartphones and gaming consoles. We were very wrong: though we had the smallest booth, we were overrun with thousands of people throughout the week, and television and radio crews also stopped by for interviews. By our own estimates, we may just have had the highest rate of visitors per square meter in the whole fair.

It’s not easy to bring a swarm of underwater robots and run live experiments at a consumer electronic show, but we gained a lot of motivation from the public interest we felt there. Thanks to our enduring team members and also to all the people who visited us!

The EU-funded Collective Cognitive Robotics (CoCoRo) project has built a swarm of 41 autonomous underwater vehicles (AVs) that show collective cognition. Throughout 2015 – The Year of CoCoRo – we’ll be uploading a new weekly video detailing the latest stage in its development.

Research labs around Europe open their doors to the public November 23-29 for European Robotics Week #ERW15. Photo credit: Bristol Robotics Laboratory

Over 600 events across the region will look at how robots will impact the way European citizens work, live and learn, as part of the 2015 European Robotics Week (#ERW2015), running 23-29 November.

Robots and Society is the theme of European Robotics Week 2015, a weeklong event that aims to inspire the next generation of technologists by hosting public events and opening the doors to research and industry labs across the region. Following the recent Eurobarometer Survey on Autonomous Systems (June 2015) – which showed that the more personal experience Europeans have with robots, the better their opinion of them – the event aims to give members of the public plenty of opportunities to interact with robots and be part of the discussion. The European Robotics Week has attracted over 200K participants since its launch five years ago.

Throughout the week, the impact of robots on society will be explored across the board: while Finland looks at robots to improve independent living, Poland discusses mining robots, Spain explores the opportunities and dilemmas for AI, and Germany ponders the implications of robots working alongside people. Plus a range of competitions, challenges and hackathons are being held to inspire the next generation of engineers needed to drive the European economy.

A full list of activities can be found here. 

“The European Robotics Week is an opportunity for robotics pioneers from industry and research to radiate excitement about robotics throughout Europe”, said Uwe Haas, Acting Secretary General of euRobotics AISBL – the non-profit association that is the main organizer of the event.

Public engagement and discussion

This year, the heart of the European Robotics Week is a series of events in Bristol UK organised by euRobotics AISBL and the Bristol Robotics Laboratory. The highlight is a debate with leading European and UK experts on various aspects of “Robots and Society”, covering law, ethics, policy, education, innovation and economics. The public is invited to contribute and vote on their favourite questions here: http://robohub.org/join-the-debate-on-robots-society-during-erw2015. The Bristol audience will then join a full-day workshop on translating the latest research in robotics to market, and a buildathon where kids will help build 100 robots to “treat cancer”. Register for the Bristol events here: http://brl.ac.uk/euroboticsweek

Kids will build 100 robots to help them learn about nano-medicine at the Bristol Robotics Laboratory.

“The Bristol Robotics Laboratory (BRL) is committed to research that has a positive impact on society,” said BRL Director Professor Chris Melhuish. “The European Robotics Week is an opportunity for us to share latest thinking, and develop further links between research academia, industry, and the public.”

Hundreds more events across Europe

Robotics researchers and industry members right across Europe are opening their doors to the public. Here are just some of the highlights:

• France and Spain will host variety of events including robot nights and startup weekends focused on helping new robots reach the market.
• At the EU-funded RoCKIn Competition in Portugal, 14 teams from 6 countries will showcase their robots for the home and factory in front of a live audience.
• The R2T2 robotic space rescue mission will allow over 100 kids in 6 countries to operate a robot in scenarios akin to the movie “The Martian”.
• And in Germany, kids will compete in a robo-sport event as part of the FIRST LEGO League Trash TREK Challenge. Their goal: make a robot that can collect, sort, and reuse trash.

About euRobotics

euRobotics is a non-profit organisation based in Brussels with the objective to make robotics beneficial for Europe’s economy and society. With more than 250 member organisations, euRobotics also provides the European robotics community with a legal framework with which to engage in public/private partnerships with the European Commission though SPARC, the largest civilian-funded robotics innovation programme in the world. SPARC aims to strategically position European robotics for the benefit of the European economy and society at large.

Tweets about #ERW2015, OR #ERW15

Relevant Links

• ERW Website: http://roboticsweek.eu
• European Events Listings:  http://www.eu-robotics.net/robotics-week/events-2015/index.html

Social Media

• Hashtag: #ERW2015
• Twitter: https://twitter.com/eu_Robotics
• Facebook: https://www.facebook.com/euRobotics
• LinkedIn: https://www.linkedin.com/company/eurobotics-aisbl
• Youtube: https://www.youtube.com/user/EuropeanRoboticsWeek

Media inquiries
media@roboticsweek.eu

National Coordinators
http://www.eu-robotics.net/robotics-week/national-coordinators/index.html

The EU-funded Collective Cognitive Robotics (CoCoRo) project has built a swarm of 41 autonomous underwater vehicles (AVs) that show collective cognition. Throughout 2015 – The Year of CoCoRo – we’ll be uploading a new weekly video detailing the latest stage in its development. This week’s video shows an autonomous swarm of underwater robots coordinating their motion to form coherent shoals.

The body shape of Jeff robots is much closer to that of a fish than the Lily robots are. With their slim bodies, Jeff robots can tightly flock together and move in one direction as a group. We implemented a simple blue-light-LED-based algorithm that allows neighboring robots to align to each other. This doesn’t work 100% of the time, but it still works quite often. And when we filmed the little fish that observed our experiments with robots in Livorno harbor (see at beginning of the movie), we observed that the natural fish also did not align 100% of the time. In other words, we came pretty close.

We implemented this code in a very short period of time (hours!) towards the end of the project. With more time and more local neighbor communication, the shoaling can be much improved in future. We hope to be able to further extend this in our follow up project, subCULTron.

Researchers believe robots can be more effective than puppets and other traditional methods of treating autism. Image courtesy of the DREAM project.

Few could deny the power of computer games and avatars to entertain us and perhaps even educate us. But now researchers are turning to internet and robotic technologies to develop new ways of helping children with autism interact with the world around them.

It’s thanks to developments in artificial intelligence that enable computers to read our emotions through our facial expressions, gestures and tone of voice.

Autistic children often struggle to recognise and express emotions, making it difficult to behave appropriately in social situations and leaving them vulnerable to getting bullied at school.

Now, researchers have developed an online game called Camp Exploration, which aims to help autistic children recognise and express emotions.

‘There are a lot of computer games for autistic children, but what makes ours unique is using technology to recognise behaviour and give the children feedback about the way they show emotion,’ says Bjorn Schuller, an Associate Professor at Imperial College London, UK, who led the EU-funded ASC-Inclusion project which developed the game.

To progress through Camp Exploration, players have to interact through facial expressions, body gestures and vocalisations to express emotions, which are picked up via a webcam and microphone. The intelligent software can then give the player feedback about their communication.

Testing the game in an open trial involving high-functioning autistic children showed not only that they enjoyed playing it, but also that there were significant improvements in the children’s ability to show their emotions and social recognition.

Camp Exploration is being commercialised and should be widely available soon. ‘The technology is definitely ready,’ said Prof. Schuller. ‘We hope it will help the autistic community access therapy, as professional care therapists and specialist schools are not available for autistic children the world over.’

Therapy
When therapists do work with autistic children, they often use puppets and animated characters to engage them in interactive play. However, researchers believe that small, friendly looking robots could be even more effective, not just to act as a go-between, but because they can learn how to respond to a child’s emotional state and infer his or her intentions.

‘We hope it will help the autistic community access therapy.’

Professor Bjorn Schuller, Imperial College London, UK

‘Children with autistic spectrum disorders prefer to interact with non-human agents, and robots are simpler and more predictive than humans, so can serve as an intermediate step for developing better human-to-human interaction,’ said Professor Bram Vanderborght of Vrije Universiteit Brussel, Belgium.

He is part of the EU-funded DREAM project, which is developing robots that can operate autonomously for limited periods of time under the supervision of a therapist and decipher emotions to help autistic children interact in a social environment.

The researchers are programming the robots to contain software to detect where the children are looking during the session, which enables them to evaluate a child’s level of engagement and automatically adapt their behaviour to grab attention, if necessary. Quantifying the level of engagement through markers like these will also help therapists to measure a child’s progress more objectively than is currently possible.

‘Researchers have found that children with autism spectrum disorders are more responsive to social feedback when it is provided by technological means, rather than a human,’ said Prof. Vanderborght.

The ethical and legal considerations of using robots to interact with children are enormous: there are fears about safety, trust, and who should take responsibility for the robot’s behaviour. These considerations are being evaluated hand-in-hand, as DREAM reserachers are developing and testing the technology within an integrated research programme.

‘DREAM is paving the way, not only for other forms of robot-enhanced therapy, but also for more integration between research and innovation and ethics,’ said Professor Mark Coeckelbergh of De Montfort University, UK, who is also working on the project.

Combatting social disorders
Humanoid robotics and computer avatars could also help rehabilitate people suffering from social disorders such as schizophrenia or social phobia. It’s thanks to the theory of similarity, which suggests that it is easier to interact socially with someone who looks, behaves or moves like us.

Researchers on the EU-funded AlterEgo project have developed a system to enable a robot or computer avatar to interact with a patient whilst playing a version of the mirror game, in which two players try to copy each other’s motion whilst playing with coloured balls that can move horizontally on a string.

Initially the avatar is like an alter ego, created to look and move like the patient to enhance his or her feelings of attachment. Over time the avatar is slowly altered to become less similar, thus helping with social rehabilitation.

‘It is very challenging to build an avatar that is intelligent enough to synchronise its motion with a human player, but our initial results are very exciting,’ says Professor Mario di Bernardo, from the University of Bristol, UK. He says the researchers are now looking at getting groups of people and avatars interacting with one another, setting up multiple human-machine interactions for social rehabilitation.

• DREAM
• ASC-Inclusion
• AlterEgo.

Monitoring the ocean for pollution, ecology and climate change effects is a costly and elaborate task, especially in a complex area like Venice, with its lagoon, its many channels, cable and pipe infrastructure, industrial areas, harbor, marshland, and mussel farms. An interdisciplinary team of European scientists is breaking new ground in underwater environmental monitoring with the EU-funded subCULTron project. With a budget of 4M Euros, they are developing the world’s largest intelligent underwater monitoring system that coordinates, communicates and collects data autonomously. 

subCULTron is coordinated by the Artificial Life Lab of the University of Graz, working together with scientists from Italy, Belgium, France, Germany and Croatia. The group is developing a swarm of 120 autonomous underwater robots that will collect environmental data to help provide insight on how the Venice waters are influenced by the complex interplay of industry, tourism, transport, and local inhabitants. One of the long term goals of the project is to find ways to prevent future damage in the region.

A smart monitoring-system based on bio-inspired autonomous robots

Scientists have chosen an autonomous swarm approach for this challenging task because such systems are known to be very robust, flexible and scalable, especially in unpredictable, changing environments. Bio-inspired algorithms derived from derived from social insects, fish or slime molds are used for the swarm communication, as these systems can work without any central unit of control, and the loss of individual robots doesn’t lead to the failure of the whole system.

Another advantage of developing a self-organizing robot society is that the single robots are inexpensive and small compared to most conventional underwater robots, which makes it possible to build a larger fleet (in this case 120 robots) to maximize the sampling area and to collect large amounts of very diverse data in parallel. 

How does the subCULTron swarm work?

The subCULTron swarm will consist of three different robot types that are designed and developed especially for the project and which represent cutting edge technology and software: 

• artificialMussels (aMussels) are novel autonomous robots that sit on the ground after being deployed in the water to collect various data over a long period of time, establishing a dedicated sensory network. When necessary, they will also be able to move as a group, exploiting given energy sources, e.g., turbulences or water currents. 
• artificialFish (aFish) are fast and agile underwater robots that are used to monitor the ground and to search for given targets. They also bridge communication from aMussels to artificialPads (aPads).
• aPads are robots that float on the water surface, inspired by lily pads on a pond. They complete the communication chain from aMussels on the seabed via aFish to aPads and finally to the scientists in the lab.

The goal is to have these three different robot types running efficiently by exploiting advanced energy harvesting techniques developed by the project team.

What novel knowledge is expected from the subCULTron swarm?  

Thanks to the large number of swarm-robots, the autonomous communication system and the novel robot types, an enormous amount of environmental data about the Venetian underwater world will be collected in parallel. The hope is that this data will yield new insights into the effects of human intervention on the natural water habitat in and around Venice, helping to preserve this world heritage site from the effects of climate change.

Biologists and ecologists should also benefit from insight gained into ecological systems, and it is hoped that the tech industry will be able to build on subCULTron to innovate technology for underwater applications.

subCULTron goes to EXPO 2015

From October 15-16, subCULTron 2015 scientists will demonstrate their first robot prototypes live in small pool experiments at the Venice EXPO 2015. 

• WHEN: 15^th-16^th of Oct. 2015
• WHERE:  AQUAE VENICE 2015 Pavillion
• ADRESS: Via Galileo Ferraris, 5 , Venezia Marghera
• LINK: (http://www.aquae2015.org/where/?lang=en)

The 2015 IEEE/RSJ International Conference on Intelligent Robots and Systems (IROS) is taking place this week in Hamburg, Germany.

The conference, which is one of the largest in robotics, will include plenary and contributed paper sessions, workshops, exhibitions, as well as some events that are new to IROS, including a startup competition and a citizens forum open to the public.

Sabine and Per from Robohub will be around, so watch this space for updates, including features of more than 50 EU-funded projects presenting in the exhibit hall.

#IROS2015 Tweets

The EU-funded Collective Cognitive Robotics (CoCoRo) project has built a swarm of 41 autonomous underwater vehicles (AVs) that show collective cognition. Throughout 2015 – The Year of CooRo – we’ll be uploading a new weekly video detailing the latest stage in its development. This week we’ve once again uploaded two videos. The first is a computer animation of our “combined scenario number two” and the second shows several runs of this scenario.

In a fragmented habitat only one compartment holds the magnetic search target. In every compartment a swarm of Jeff robots searches the ground. Those that find the target inform the Lily robots who disseminate the information to other compartments, moving randomly. When the Jeff robots who did not find the target are informed that other Jeff robots in a different compartment did, they rise up to the surface, perform a random walk and then sink back down into a new compartment. Over time, the swarm converges on the place where the target was found. Upward signalling  by Jeff and Lily robots also attracts the surface station to the location above the search target.

The second video shows several runs of “combined scenario number two.” Jeff robots (on the ground), Lily robots (information carriers at all depths) and a simple surface station (we used a special Lily robot as a surrogate ) cooperate to identify the compartment containing the magnetic search target. The robots perform the same algorithms, or behaviors, in the computer animation. Initially, each one of the four compartments holds one Jeff robot. At the end of the run, three of these robots are located in the compartment with the target, together with a number of Lily robots and the surrogate of the surface station. The remaining Jeff robot could not reach the target compartment for mechanical reasons, although it tried several times, as indicated by the green LED signals it shows from time to time. This is a good example of how things work in swarm robotics; there are always robots that don’t perform well but they do stay functional as a collective.

The EU-funded Collective Cognitive Robotics (CoCoRo) project has built a swarm of 41 autonomous underwater vehicles (AVs) that show collective cognition. Throughout 2015 – The Year of CoCoRo – we’ll be uploading a new weekly video detailing the latest stage in its development. Over the last four posts we demonstrated how the robots use a relay chain to communicate between the sea ground and the surface station. The following two videos show an alternative to this communication principle. The “relay swarm” scenario uses a swarm of Lily robots performing random walks in 3D for transmitting information about the status of the search swarm of Jeff robots on the ground. 

This first video explains the scenario in a computer animation:

The second video shows the real-world experiments performed in the “relay swarm” scenario. First Jeff robots search the ground of a fragmented habitat for a magnetic target. As soon as it finds the target it signals this locally with blue-light LEDs. Lily robots that also roam the habitat can pick up the signal from this Jeff robot. The info can also spread from Lily robot to Lily robot as they meet, spreading like an infectious process. Finally, Lily robots inform the surface station that the Jeff robot on the ground has found an interesting target. Future extensions foresee that after informing the surface station another phase starts: a second signal spreads from the surface station through the Lily robots back to the Jeff robot on the ground, and ultimately makes the Jeff robot to go up to the surface above the found target.

The EU-funded Collective Cognitive Robotics (CoCoRo) project has built the world’s largest swarm of 41 autonomous underwater vehicles (AVs) that show collective cognition. Throughout the first half of 2015 – The Year of CoCoRo – a new video on the latest stage in its development has been uploaded every week, with dozens online to date and more to come! This article provides some insights and background about some of the videos already online.

Carried out by an interdisciplinary and international team of scientists from Austria, Italy, the UK, Belgium and Germany, the CoCoRo project ran from 2011-2014 and has its own YouTube playlist. It offers a novel information platform for the scientific community and anyone interested in how new high-end technologies are developed and what impact they could have on people’s lives.

The footage tracks the development of this unique, autonomous swarm and also demonstrates how it gained the necessary self-awareness to solve tasks such as search missions on the seabed.

In the videos already online, three different autonomous underwater robots, designed and produced for the project, are introduced: very agile and fast Jeff robots, which search the waterbed, and smaller Lily robots, functioning as communicators to relay the information found by Jeffs to the third robot type: a base-station which floats on the water surface and is able to pass information to scientists on the ground.

The videos also show many different experiments, showcasing the broad functionality of the autonomous swarm. They demonstrate how novel, bio-inspired algorithms, developed by the team, give the swarm a form of self awareness to provide a much broader knowledge base than is in the possession of each single member. This enables the swarm to make collective decisions.

Thus, the videos demonstrate the functionality of the swarm, in collective search missions, as well as the abilities and the specialties and strengths of the different robot types. Below, we look at some of the highlights of this research.

Autonomously driven camera agents, exploring seas, rivers and ponds

The Jeff and Lily robots were tested as autonomous diving robots with cameras mounted to collect material on the underwater ecosystem. Their recorded diving trips provide lively insights into the underwater world: the sea, mountain lakes, ponds and rivers. Although not the main focus of the project, this work developed into a set of interesting spin-off experiments. It is always nice to discover that a tool can also be used something other than what it was originally designed for. In the first set of experiments, an underwater camera was mounted on a Lily robot. The setup was initially tested in a small fishpond, then in a larger Austrian lake and, finally, some mad scientists even threw the poor robot into a whitewater river!

Once it was discovered that the robots could be used as autonomous camera agents, cameras were also mounted on the Jeffs and the research team moved on to larger lakes and more complex habitats to get an inside view.

Blue light and electric sensing for novel AUV underwater communication

The CoCoRo team established a new approach to underwater communication that is showcased in the videos.

In contrast to the majority of underwater swarms, these robots don’t communicate using sonic or echo technology but instead make use of blue-light LEDs, WLAN and potential electric fields. Blue-light blinks are used to keep the swarm together and in the vicinity of the moving base station. Because of this “confinement,” the radio-controlled base-station can pull a whole swarm of Lily robots behind it, much like a tail. In larger water bodies, it is important to confine the robots into specific areas because, if agents are to work efficiently, the swarm normally requires a minimum of connectivity that is achieved only with a critical density; if they’re not confined to a controlled area, robots could get lost and the density could fall below the critical level. Thus, confinement was identified as a key function.

“Electric sense” (coupled potential electric fields) is another important CoCoRo feature. An electrode was placed underwater, beneath the CoCoRo surface station, to generate a pulsing electric field. Jeff robots, with electrodes attached to their outer hulls, are able to sense such fields. In this way, it’s possible to confine the robots to a specific area, around the base station, so that they don’t go astray. Electric-field confinement was tested in a pool, under laboratory conditions, and then in the Italian harbor of Livorno.

Self-charging mechanisms guarantee long-term autonomy in energy

An important goal of the CoCoRo project was to develop an underwater swarm able to achieve long-term autonomy in respect of energy. To this end, a special docking/undocking mechanism was constructed for Jeff robots, on the base station. Later versions of these robots that run out of power will not only be able to dock or undock autonomously there, but also recharge. Several videos demonstrate this docking mechanism in action, both in a pool and in the Mediterranean.

Collective decision making on underwater search missions in highly fragmented areas

Another important aspect of the CoCoRo swarm is that it is able to make collective decisions, the result of a set of bio-inspired algorithms developed for it. To test this ability, a set of collective choice experiments was performed.

The Lily swarm, as a whole, was tasked with choosing a global magnetic optimum over several local optima. To make the experiment even trickier, and the results more clearly interpretable, the scientists constructed a T-Maze offering only a binary choice. In another experiment a similar task was performed in an open field. In each of these settings, the swarm reached a clear-cut decision in favor of the global optimum. In CoCoRo, the ability to make a decision is a property of the collective, not of the individual.

However, habitats are often more structured than a T-maze. To test the capabilities of Jeff robots in highly structured environments, area coverage was achieved through autonomous motion behavior; a specific random walk, with the robots browsing through the habitat, performing a simple program named “correlated random walk with obstacle avoidance.” This consists of a straight-forward motion alternated with infrequent, randomly triggered turns and collision avoidance based on blue-light emission and the robot’s sensing of its reflection. As a result, the first robot is able to traverse the habitat relatively quickly, and subsequent robots even faster. The experiments demonstrate that, here, scalability is key in generating a viable robot swarm. To gain further insight into how Jeff robots navigate through highly fragmented areas, the researchers equipped them with cameras to film their behavior.

In order to further complicate the Jeff robots’ task of searching and navigating, the team constructed a fragmented habitat in a pool, with four compartments separated by medium-height walls. Only one of these contained a magnetic/metallic object, acting as a search target. To complete the experiment, the random-walk based motion program was occasionally interrupted by “jump-over-the-wall” behavior. This allowed the test robot to switch between compartments when it detected a near-collision event via its blue-light LEDs.

The autonomous robot observes its internal magnetic sensor in order to identify whether it is close to the magnetic/metallic target. When it is, it stops, descends and switches on all of its LEDs to mark the spot.

In another experimental video, the scientists demonstrate the use of the search algorithm in pools with increasing volumes of water and with a number of Jeff robots. Building on the previous experiment, social swarm behavior is exhibited as the robots attract each other to the target after they have found it. In a preliminary experiment, for the first time the robots went deeper than two meters, although software bugs were an issue. However, these late-night experiments brought to light crucial insights and allowed the team to develop the more complex search scenarios that will feature in the second half of the Year of CoCoRo.

In another extension of the scenario, a swarm of Lily robots was introduced, with one Lily emulating the behavior of the base station on the water’s surface. A searching Jeff robot on the ground first autonomously looks for a magnetic target. When it finds this, it stops and switches on its vertical blue-light and red LEDs. This attracts some Lily robots browsing near the surface. They pick up the signal from the ground and recruit other Lily robots with their horizontal blue-light LEDs. This attracts even more Lily robots, forming a positive feedback loop through the growing aggregation of robots. Ultimately, all the Lily robots meet at the target spot as well as the one emulating the surface station.

What’s next in The Year of CoCoRo?

In the second half of The Year of CoCoRo, the videos will emphasize more complex waterbed search tasks, showing several different approaches to this. In addition, they will focus on swarm-level self-awareness, internal homeostatic self-regulation and self-repair. The CoCoRo team will also demonstrate shoaling behavior, how the swarm can communicate, even in murky waters, and that it’s not tricked easily, not even by its own mirror image; it knows whether what it “sees” is a reflection of itself or another robot swarm. Aside from scientific experiments, further videos will cover special CoCoRo events, providing some humorous insights into EU-project driven research. Some of these will include: an exhibition at CEBIT (a consumer electronics fair) overnight project workshops and overview videos to round off the big picture: The Year of CoCoRo.

CoCoRo evolves into subCULTron

The experiments and developments shown in The Year of CoCoRo are being fed into subCULTron, a follow-up project that has already started. Here, an even larger swarm of robots – novel types with more bio-inspired algorithms – are being developed. Leading scientists from other projects, including CADDY and ANGELS have joined the consortium. This CoCoRo offspring is planning missions in the Venice lagoon, as well as in a complex, structured, aquatic mussel farm. In these environments, the water is deeper and murky, and the habitat even more fragmented, posing ever-greater challenges for this novel collective system.

If you liked this article, you may also be interested in:

• 3’600-strong underwater robot sensor network returns 1’000’000th measurement, has scientists craving for more
• Thousand-robot swarm self-assembles into arbitrary shapes
• Surgical micro-robot swarms: Science fiction, or realistic prospect?
• Underwater Dreams: The story of undocumented teens who win underwater robot competition
• Crowdsourcing new strategies for cancer treatment: Towards swarming nanobots
• Robots Podcast: Termite-Inspired Construction

See all the latest robotics news on Robohub, or sign up for our weekly newsletter.

The EU-funded Collective Cognitive Robotics (CoCoRo) project has built a swarm of 41 autonomous underwater vehicles (AVs) that show collective cognition. Throughout 2015 – The Year of CoCoRo – we’ll be uploading a new weekly video detailing the latest stage in its development. This video shows a set of experiments that investigate the capability of the relay chain (formed by Lily robots) to transmit (relay) information between two spatially separated places.

At one of these places we trigger a special RF (radio frequency) pulse to be emitted by a robot. Neighboring robots that receive this pulse send out a similar pulse, relaying the signal along the chain. To control the directionality of the spreading signal, there is also a refractory period after each relaying act in which the robot is unreceptive for the relayed signal. This system is inspired by slime mold amoebas and giant honeybees and serves very well for the underwater communication purpose.

The EU-funded Collective Cognitive Robotics (CoCoRo) project has built a swarm of 41 autonomous underwater vehicles (AVs) that show collective cognition. Throughout 2015 – The Year of CoCoRo – we’ll be uploading a new weekly video detailing the latest stage in its development. This video shows a series of experiments we performed on the relay chain, a chain of Lily robots that connects two spatially separated points in the underwater habitat.

In the first set of experiments these two end points are fixed, while in the second set they are moving, thus the relay chain formed by the robot swarm has to reconfigure and reshape. The robots in the chain perform an algorithm inspired by the shoaling behavior of fish. Using their photoreceptors (photodiodes), they look out for the blue-light blinks of neighboring robots and estimate distance and angle from the light intensity. This helps them decide which direction to follow.  The algorithm can also function “communication free,” using, instead, an onboard camera, with image processing replacing the sensing activity and no need for signals from neighboring AUVs. Operating with passive sensing is important for the scalability of the method.

The EU-funded Collective Cognitive Robotics (CoCoRo) project has built a swarm of 41 autonomous underwater vehicles (AVs) that show collective cognition. Throughout 2015 – The Year of CoCoRo – we’ll be uploading a new weekly video detailing the latest stage in its development. This week, we show several instances of a relay chain, in the middle phase of our “combined scenario #1” 

In the CoCoRo system there is often a large gap between the swarm of Jeff robots on the ground, that have found a search target, and the base station at the water surface. Underwater communication is often difficult and limited so, to bridge this gap, a swarm of Lily robots build a chain, which we call a “relay chain.” It allows the ground swarm and the surface station to communicate with each other through light pulses, RF or electric pulses. In this scenario we test information transfer in both directions by triggering either the ground swarm or the base station with a flashlight pulse.

The relay chain is formed by Lily robots executing a special “shoaling algorithm.” Inspired by fish shoaling behavior,  It is based on their reactions to their nearest neighbors sensed passively by photodiodes on the outer hull of the Lily robots. Reception of periodic blue-light blinks allows the robots to detect each other and to align and orient themselves relative to their neighbors’ configuration. Thus, the relay chain formation itself is almost communication-free, as the photodiodes and blinks can be easily replaced by a video camera and object detection. The only actual communication is the relaying of RF pulse information, based on the strategy used by slime-mould amoebas.

The EU-funded Collective Cognitive Robotics (CoCoRo) project has built a swarm of 41 autonomous underwater vehicles (AVs) that show collective cognition. Throughout 2015 – The Year of CoCoRo – we’ll be uploading a new weekly video detailing the latest stage in its development. This week, in another important phase of our “combined scenario #1, the Jeff robots perform a collective search on the water bed for a sunken metallic/magnetic target object.

We conducted an extra series of experiments on this phase of “combined scenario #1” to test the efficiency and robustness of the autonomous swarming behavior. When the object is located, other robots are recruited to the spot by horizontal blue-light signals, Ultimately, there’s an aggregation of Jeff robots around the target that marks the location for the Lily robots who then form a “relay chain” to the surface station.

Following this event, the only human intervention in the execution of the scenario ocurrs: a button pressed by a human operator sends a WLAN signal and the swarm is released. For this very important security measure, we purposely kept the human in the loop, because a robot swarm is just a tool that a human operator, who is responsible for it, can use to achieve or facilitate a certain task. After the release of the swarm, the Jeff robots sink to the base of the pool and begin their search for the metallic/magnetic target object. Meanwhile, the Lily robots swarm out to build the “relay chain” between the target spot and the surface station.

In CoCoRo, the search for a sunken metallic object on the waterbed was dealt with in several scenarios. The first video is a computer animation illustrating the phases of the most complex, “scenario #1:”

1. The base station at the water surface moves into the habitat, with docked Jeff robots and a swarm of Lily robots confined to it.
2. The Jeff robots are released. They sink to the ground and search the habitat.
3. As soon as the first Jeff robot has found the target, it recruits other Jeff robots to the location via blue-light LED signals, leading to a positive feedback loop that attracts more and more Jeff robots to the area.
4. Meanwhile, the Lily robots build a chain that connects the surface station to the aggregated Jeff robots on the ground.
5. Through this “relay chain,” information (blink signals or other data) can be sent from the ground swarm to the surface station (and human operators) and vice versa.

Scenario #1 combines many of the individual algorithms and functionalities shown in previous videos in “The Year of CoCoRo.”

The second video shows how this scenario was performed by real robots in the water. It is noteworthy that all the phases in the scenario were executed in one single run and not split into different experiments. It was important for us to demonstrate that, using the modular algorithmic design of CoCoRo, it is possible to build up complex behavioral programs to solve composite tasks.

To date, in bio-inspired and swarm robotics, there have either been simple algorithms to enable robots to perform basic tasks or complex scenarios achieved by very complicated and specifically written software. To our knowledge, this is the first time in swarm robotics that several very simple signal exchange patterns and behavioral responses, triggered by simple signals within the environment, are combined with an elementary piece of code that allows the robot swarm to perform a very sophisticated behavioral program. There is no recourse to global knowledge, mapping, ego-positioning, image tracking or computer vision within this autonomous swarm. There are only: a few blue-light blinks, photoreceptors to receive these, random-walk programs, communication-free shoaling-behavior for the relay chain, radio-frequency pulsing and a simple internal-robot compass. This is how swarm robotics should be: simple, robust, flexible, scalable and – most importantly – it works!

Our test of “dead reckoning” was performed by a Jeff robot in Livorno harbor. The robot was programmed to follow a straight-line trajectory, then perform a circular search pattern (including collision avoidance) and end with a direct return to the starting point. The robot used only a magnetic compass sensor, an internal clock and blue-light LEDs for collision avoidance. Considering the simplicity of the technology, we were surprised at how efficiently it performed, despite the currents in the harbor and occasional collision-avoidance behavior triggered by the buoys.

The EU-funded Collective Cognitive Robotics (CoCoRo) project has built a swarm of 41 autonomous underwater vehicles (AVs) that show collective cognition. Throughout 2015 – The Year of CoCoRo – we’ll be uploading a new weekly video detailing the latest stage in its development. This video shows the robots finding magnetic targets.

A heterogeneous swarm of Lily robots, Jeff robots and a surrogate for a surface station were used for this experiment. The search target was again a magnetic target in a fragmented habitat. The Jeff robot first autonomously searches for the target, stops when it’s located and switches on its vertical blue-light and red LEDs. This attracts Lily robots browsing near the surface. They stop and recruit other Lily robots with their horizontal blue-light LEDs. This attracts even more Lily robots and establishes a positive feedback loop – a growing aggregation of robots. Ultimately, all the Lily robots aggregate at the target spot, together with the one that emulates the surface station.

The EU-funded Collective Cognitive Robotics (CoCoRo) project has built a swarm of 41 autonomous underwater vehicles (AUVs) that show collective cognition. Throughout 2015 – The Year of CoCoRo – we’ll be uploading a new weekly video detailing the latest stage in its development. This video shows four autonomous Jeff robots performing a random-walk based search program in a large pool.

After we tested our search algorithm for magnetic targets in the small pool, we set out for one with several times the water volume. This time, we used four Jeff robots, performing a random-walk based search program. Although we experienced many problems during the  long night of the experiment, we did achieve some success with this extended search scenario. Our issues were mostly software related: the robots were running along cyclic trajectories instead of doing an efficient random walk. These were problems which we experienced in early summer 2014 and later in the year we made significant progress, as later videos will show. Although the finding rate was not perfect, the robots still managed to locate the target on several occasions, and it was the first time we operated our robots successfully at depths below 2m.

Tweets about #innorobo2015 #innorobo

RoCKIn@home (left) and RoCKIn@work (right). Source: RoCKIn

Over the last 20 years, robot competitions have emerged as a powerful means to foster progress in robotics research and development (R&D). RoCKIn is part a of new generation of scientific robotics competitions that were launched out of the European Commission’s Seventh Framework Programme.

By combining the scientific rigor and repeatability of experiments with the real-world relevance and spectacle of competitive events, robot competitions are able to offer a highly complementary approach to traditional lab-based R&D. Through competition events and the development of a robust benchmarking methodology, RoCKIn aims to further innovation in the field of industrial and domestic robotics. From the 21-23 November, we will be holding our second and major competition event in Lisbon, Portugal.

Here, within purpose-built domestic and industrial arenas, teams from around the world will compete in tasks designed to be highly relevant to the real-world challenges, all in front of a live audience. For the teams, the event gives them an opportunity to network, share tips and tricks with their peers, learn from seasoned robotics experts, and gain key insights into the strengths and weaknesses of their robotic systems. There are two ‘Challenges’ or streams in which teams can compete in – RoCKIn@Home or RoCKIn@Work.

RoCKIn@Home

This Challenge focuses on assisting the elderly or impaired and is set within the apartment of Granny Annie – an elderly lady who needs some support to keep her healthy, active and safe. Robots are benchmarked on three tasks and three specific functionalities. The tasks include interacting appropriately with known and unknown visitors to the apartment, and helping Granny Annie with everyday actions such as opening and closing the window blinds. These require the robot to correctly understand a set of predefined and recognisable commands, work interactively with other devices (such as security cameras and remotely controllable lights and blinds) and navigate the arena without colliding into anything. The three specific functionalities being tested include how accurately the robots perceive objects.

RoCKIn@Work

This Challenge looks for innovative industrial robots that can help businesses meet increasing demand from their customers. Once again, robots will be benchmarked on three tasks and three functionalities. Set in the RoCKIn & RoLLIn factory, a robot will assist with the assembly of a drive axel – this a component of the robot itself and therefore a step towards self-replicating robots. Tasks include locating, transporting and assembling necessary parts, checking their quality and prepping them for other machines and workers. Ultimately, the robots will be working interactively as personal mobile assistants in a highly flexible and continuously changing production line.

In both Challenges, data is taken directly from the robots and compared with ground truth data captured from specialized infrared cameras set up around the arena that, through marker sets attached to the robots, can accurately determine their true movements within the arena. This data is used not only for evaluation purposes but also allows teams to get detailed feedback on their performance and isolates the areas they need to improve. It also aims to provide the international robotics community with rich datasets and metrics for task and functionality benchmarking.

RoCKIn2015 is open free-of-charge to the public, who will get to see the state-of-the-art robots autonomously perform these challenging tasks. The competition will be held in the ‘Portugal Pavilion’ and Lisbon’s premier science museum – ‘The Pavilion of Knowledge’. The Portugal Pavilion will host the RoCKIn@Home and RoCKIn@Work arenas, where the competition activities and demonstrations will take place. The opening and closing ceremonies, along with various satellite events throughout the three days, will be held in The Pavilion of Knowledge. Both are situated within Parque das Nações, in Lisbon.

The event is currently accepting applications and is open to new teams, as well as seasoned ‘RoCKIans’. Vistors, make sure you save the date and join RoCKIn for the final showdown in November to see what the future could have in store for all of us.

Key dates

Deadline for Applications: 31 August 2015

Decision on Qualified Teams: 8 September 2015

Registration open (qualified teams only): 9 – 30 September 2015

Website: http://rockinrobotchallenge.eu

Source: Special Eurobarometer 427 – Autonomous Systems

A major study into European attitudes toward automation has found that while almost two thirds of people polled feel generally positive about robots, public acceptance of them in the EU is in decline. This comes despite the finding that personal experience with robots is on the rise, and the more personal experience people have with robots, the more favourably they tend to think of them.

The study looks at ways in which public attitudes about robotics may have changed over the last two years. In the last quarter of 2014, the Special Eurobarometer polled some 27,801 people from the 28 Member States of the European Union to gauge public attitudes and acceptance in regard to robots and automation. While 64% of people interviewed in the recent poll have a positive view of robots, this is down from the 70% reported in the previous 2012 study. With the exception of Malta, where figures remain at 2012 levels, all countries experienced a decline in the proportion of respondents who have a positive view of robots.

Views about robots, by country. Source: Special Eurobarometer 427 – Autonomous Systems

Though the public continues to see robots as beneficial, regulation and jobs remain key issues 

While 85% agreed that robots are necessary to do dangerous or difficult jobs, this has declined 3% since 2012. Similarly, while 72% now think they are a good thing for society, 76% believed this to be the case in 2012.

A vast majority (89%) of respondents believe that robots are a form technology that requires careful management, similar to 2012 levels (91%). Likewise, 70% of respondents believe that robots steal people’s jobs – the same as in the previous study.

Source: Special Eurobarometer 427 – Autonomous Systems

Mixed feelings on workplace assistants

People’s attitudes are shifting on the acceptance of robots as workplace assistants. Since 2012 several countries have recorded a sizeable decline in the proportion of respondents who say they would feel comfortable using this technology at work, including Slovakia (61%, -19 pp.), Finland (55%, -11 pp.), Slovenia (52%, -8 pp.), Denmark (65%, -8 pp.) and the Czech Republic (63%, -8 pp.). However, noticeable increases were also recorded in Luxembourg (49%, +12 pp.), Austria (49%, +8 pp.) and Malta (42%, +5 pp.).

Greater acceptance of autonomous cars for transporting goods than for people

The study also looked at whether respondents would be willing to accept self-driving vehicles in the future. While only 35% of respondents reported that they would feel comfortable travelling in an autonomous car themselves, 42% were warm to the idea of having goods transported this way.

Comfort level (1-10) with travelling in an autonomous car. Source: Special Eurobarometer 427 – Autonomous Systems

Comfort level (1-10) with transporting goods in an autonomous car. Source: Special Eurobarometer 427 – Autonomous Systems

Drones seen as bad for privacy but good for delivery

While 66% of respondents are concerned that civil drones are a threat to privacy, a majority (57%) also believe that they are an efficient way of transporting and delivering goods.

Attitude to civilian drones. Source: Special Eurobarometer 427 – Autonomous Systems

Divided continent?

The study makes use of extensive comparisons: between European states, in terms of age, employment, income and internet use. Geographically, analysis shows that people polled in southern European countries tend to be more negative and less engaged with robotics than their northern counterparts. And certain social groups also emerge as more negative and less engaged: “house persons” (42%), retirees (37%), unemployed respondents (35%) and manual workers (29%).
Robot use is on the rise, and the more people know them the more they like them

One European in seven has now used a robot either at home, at work or elsewhere; up from one in eight in 2012. Overall, when looking at the total use of robots, 24 Member States recorded an increase in the level of use of robots since 2012, with the largest increases occurring in the Czech Republic (21%, +7 pp.), Luxembourg (17%, +7 pp.) and Italy (24%, +6 pp.). Only Germany (7%, -2 pp.) registered a fall in the level of use.

The research shows that the more exposure to robots you have, the more positively you feel about them ; 82% of respondents have a positive view of robots if they have experience with them, where as only 60% of respondents have a positive view if they lack robot experience.

And experience with robots maps to consumer interest, too: 29% of respondents say they would purchase a robot if they have used one already, but only 7% of respondents would do so if they have no experience.

Access the full report: Special Eurobarometer 427: Autonomous Systems

If you liked this article, you may also be interested in:

• Europeans attitudes towards robots 2012

• A crisis of expectations

• What does the UK public think about robots? Sciencewise wants to know

• Driven by care needs, will it be the booming senior population that spurs wider acceptance of robots?

See all the latest robotics news on Robohub, or sign up for our weekly newsletter.

The EU-funded Collective Cognitive Robotics (CoCoRo) project has built a swarm of 41 autonomous underwater vehicles (AUVs) that show collective cognition. Throughout 2015 – The Year of CoCoRo – we will be uploading a new weekly video detailing the latest stage in its development. This video shows the Jeff robots docking and undocking autonomously in Livorno harbor.

After a successful test of autonomous docking in our pool, we then tested this functionality  in Livorno harbor. Despite all the waves, turbulence, wind, rain and other challenges, docking was very reliable and fast. We could also use docking to deploy a robot to a specific site with our radio-controlled surface station. Bear in mind: docking and undocking is autonomous, as is the Jeff robot – as soon as it undocks from the base station.

To learn more about the project, see this introductory post, or check out all the videos from the Year of CoCoRo on Robohub.

The EU-funded Collective Cognitive Robotics (CoCoRo) project has built a swarm of 41 autonomous underwater vehicles (AUVs) that show collective cognition. Throughout 2015 – The Year of CoCoRo – we will be uploading a new weekly video detailing the latest stage in its development. This video shows the Jeff robots docking and undocking autonomously with the surface station.

For the sake of achieving long-term energy autonomy with our CoCoRo system, we constructed a docking/undocking mechanism for Jeff robots on our surface station. This functionality was first tested with a fixed mounted docking device, and then with a docking device floating around in our pool. The autonomous docking worked exceptionally well under all conditions.

To learn more about the project, see this introductory post, or check out all the videos from the Year of CoCoRo on Robohub.

The EU-funded Collective Cognitive Robotics (CoCoRo) project has built a swarm of 41 autonomous underwater vehicles (AUVs) that show collective cognition. Throughout 2015 – The Year of CoCoRo – we will be uploading a new weekly video detailing the latest stage in its development. This video shows how we used an electric underwater field in Livorno harbour to field test confining the robots to a specific area around the base station so that they don’t get lost.

After having tested the electric-field confinement of the Jeff robots to the base station in our pool, we went out to Livorno harbour to test it under out-of-the-lab conditions. Although our CoCoRo prototype robots were not designed to operate in salty ocean water — there is a significantly different electrical conductivity compared to freshwater — the electrical confinement worked there quite well.

To learn more about the project, see this introductory post, or check out all the videos from the Year of CoCoRo on Robohub.

The EU-funded Collective Cognitive Robotics (CoCoRo) project has built a swarm of 41 autonomous underwater vehicles (AUVs) that show collective cognition. Throughout 2015 – The Year of CoCoRo – we will be uploading a new weekly video detailing the latest stage in its development. This video shows how we used an electric underwater field to confine the robots of a specific area around the base station so that they don’t get lost.

We use a submerged electrode below the CoCoRo surface station to generate a pulsing electric field underwater around this station. The Jeff robots have electrodes on their outer hull to be able to sense such fields. This way we can confine the robots into a specific area (volume) around the base station. This is important to keep the swarm together in the water, otherwise robots can get lost. We first tested this system in a pool, as it is shown in this video here.

To learn more about the project, see this introductory post, or check out all the videos from the Year of CoCoRo on Robohub.

The EU-funded Collective Cognitive Robotics (CoCoRo) project has built a swarm of 41 autonomous underwater vehicles (AUVs) that show collective cognition. Throughout 2015 – The Year of CoCoRo – we will be uploading a new weekly video detailing the latest stage in its development. In this video we use blue-light blinks to keep the swarm together and to keep it in vicinity of the moving base station.

Due to this “confinement”, the radio-controlled base-station can pull a whole swarm of Lily robots like a tail behind itself. It is important to confine the robots into specific areas in larger water bodies because the swarm requires normally a minimum connectivity among agents to work efficiently, which is achieved only with a critical minimum swarm density. Without keeping the robots in a controlled area, robots could get lost and the robot density could fall below the critical density. Thus, confinement was identified to be a critical functionality.

To learn more about the project, see this introductory post, or check out all the videos from the Year of CoCoRo on Robohub.

The EU-funded Collective Cognitive Robotics (CoCoRo) project comprises the largest autonomous underwater swarm in the world. Following three-and-a-half years of intensive research, CoCoRo’s interdisciplinary team of scientists from universities in Austria, Italy, Germany, Belgium, and the UK built a swarm of 41 autonomous underwater vehicles (AUVs) that show collective cognition. Swarm members are not only aware of their own surroundings, but also of their own and other vehicles’ experiences. Throughout 2015 – The Year of CoCoRo – the research team will be uploading a new weekly video detailing a new stage in its development and reporting updates here on Robohub. Check out the first ten videos below!

Overview of the CoCoRo system

The swarm consists of Jeff robots (the highlight of the project),  20 smaller (and slower) Lily robots, as well as a base station at the surface. The setting is shown in a short overview video.

In this simple form of collective self-awareness, the swarm processes information collectively, such that, as a whole it knows more than any single swarm member. The swarm not only collects information about the environment, but also about its own state. As well as staying together as a swarm, it’s also capable of navigating and diving, searching for sunken targets and communicating and processing information as a group.

Research highlights

The swarm communicates findings via a self-established bridge to the “world above”

Not only can the swarm interact with itself, it can also communicate its findings and inner state to the world above. It does this by establishing, self-maintaining and even repairing a bridge between the swarm, located on the sea bed, and a human-controlled floating station that is located on the water’s surface.

During the project, many algorithms were developed and tested with the CoCoRo prototype swarm. Future applications include environmental monitoring and oceanic search missions.

Three-layer decentralized swarm design

When designing the swarm, the scientists decided to follow the KISS principle — Keep it Simple and Stupid. A decentralized approach was chosen for the CoCoRo project because in a swarm there is no single point of failure. Swarms are robust, flexible and scalable systems that can adapt easily to changing environments. Additionally, the technical and cost requirements for a single robot are less than in non-swarm systems.

Three different layers were implemented for the cognition: individual, group and global. Single AUVs collect information, local groups share and compare it and, finally, the whole swarm makes collective decisions.

Bio-inspired algorithms build core functions

While designing the software, the scientists decided to focus on bio-inspired algorithms because they are known to be very flexible and robust. The focal animals were slime mold, fireflies, honeybees, cockroaches or fish. The algorithms were programmed in a modular way; self-organizing cognition algorithms were merged with self-organizing motion algorithms that were inspired by various animals. In this way, totally new algorithms emerged.

Three types of AUVs communicate via a novel multichannel underwater network

A swarm of 41 prototype AUVs was built for the CoCoRo project, consisting of three different types of AUVs that range in size from a human hand to a man’s foot. Depending on their activity, the robots run from two to six hours without required a charge. A unique feature of the CoCoRo project is that sensors were implemented in a combination never used before in underwater robotics. These combinations were necessary to allow the construction of a autonomous underwater swarm that can coordinate mainly through simple signalling between nearest neighbors. In this way, a totally new heterogeneous underwater swarm system was created, consisting of three different types of AUVs: “Jeff” robots that search the sea bed; a base station on the water’s surface (connected to humans); and “Lilly” robots that bridge and communicate information between the Jeff robots and the base station.

Check out our other videos below!

Introducing Jeff

The Jeff robots are extremely agile and can resist water currents of 1m/sec. They have autonomous buoyancy control, lateral and vertical motion with optimized propellers and a rich set of sensors. For all these functions, novel energy-saving methods were implemented that guarantee autonomy and durability.

Jeff in turbulent waters

Jeff’s body shape and actuation also allows it to operate in turbulent waters, as is tested in the following video with a remote-controlled Jeff. In this video it was purposely driven into the most turbulent areas to see how it would be affected by the water currents.

Feeding Jeff with magnets

Even in turbulent water, Jeff can be controlled with enough precision to reach a specific point in 3D space. This is demonstrated by holding a small magnet in the water for Jeff to pick up.

The Jeff swarm explores its habitat

The researchers have produced 20 Jeff robots, able to swarm out and search complex habitats in parallel, as shown in the following video.

Collective search by Jeff and Lily Robots

An important aspect of the project is that all three types of robots help each other in the performance of their collective task. To achieve this, the scientists took inspiration from nature and combined several algorithms to generate a new collective program for the whole swarm. An example of this is their collective search for a magnetic (metallic) target on the sea ground, shown in a pool-based scenario. In this setting, a target is marked by a metal plate and some magnets. Several blocking objects, surrogates for debris and rocks, produce a structured habitat. The Jeff robots, on the ground, first have to spot the target by doing a search and observing their magnetic sense. After the first robot finds the target, it attracts others through the use of blue-light signals. The aggregation of Jeff robots then summons a swarm of Lily robots at higher water levels, which serve to pinpoint the site to humans.

Swarm-size awareness exhibited by Lily robots

It’s important for a swarm of robots to know its own size. In CoCoRo, this was achieved by a novel algorithm inspired by slime mold amoebas; in this case, however, the chemical signals amoebas exchange were substituted in the algorithm for blue-light blinks. These are transmitted by the robots to their neighbors and propagated to other robots in a wave-like manner. This behavior was first tested on the smaller Lily robots.

Swarm-size awareness exhibited by Jeff robots

After the algorithm was successfully tested on Lily robots, it was further polished to improve its reaction speed and prediction quality before it was implemented in Jeff robots, as shown by the following video.

Flocking by slime mold

The slime mold inspired algorithm doesn’t just allow the robots to know the size of the swarm. Combined with directed motion, it can also be used to generate slime mold-like flocks of underwater robots.

Emergent taxis of robots

After adding an additional environmental light sensor, this bio-mimicking collective behavior is turned into something the scientists call “emergent taxis.” When the entire swarm of robots run uphill in a light gradient, although individual members can’t read it (having only a very rough sensor impression of the local area), the swarm turns into a kind of moving compound eye, with all the robots observing their local environmental and influencing each other. Finally, an algorithm designed for counting swarm members transforms it into an acting organ, what might even be called a “super-organism”.

Outlook

The CoCoRo project developed and tested a whole set of “enabling technologies”, mostly in pools but sometimes in out-of-lab conditions. When the project ended in late 2014, it was clear to the research team that these technologies should be further developed and brought out of the lab. As a next step in their long-term roadmap, the research team (with additional partners) started a new project called “subCULTron” to develop the next generation of swarm robots and apply them in areas of high impact: fish and mussel farms and the Venice lagoon.

New footage of CoCoRo available on YouTube each week

During the runtime of CoCoRo, the swarm developed an enormous variety of functionalities, which were presented in several demonstrators at the project’s final review. A lot of footage was recorded and many videos were produced. These films not only give a deep insight into the different features of the CoCoRo swarm as it evolved, but also provide a behind-the-scenes glimpse into the scientific work and development that went into the project. The CoCoRo team will be uploading a new video on YouTube each week until the end of the year to celebrate the “The Year of CoCoRo” – stay tuned on Robohub for regular updates.

Links

CoCoRo Homepage
CoCoRo on Youtube
CoCoRo on Facebook

• 3’600-strong underwater robot sensor network returns 1’000’000th measurement, has scientists craving for more
• Thousand-robot swarm self-assembles into arbitrary shapes
• Surgical micro-robot swarms: Science fiction, or realistic prospect?
• Underwater Dreams: The story of undocumented teens who win underwater robot competition
• Crowdsourcing new strategies for cancer treatment: Towards swarming nanobots
• Robots Podcast: Termite-Inspired Construction

See all the latest robotics news on Robohub, or sign up for our weekly newsletter.

]]> https://robohub.org/the-year-of-cocoro-video-1652-jeffcam-in-a-lake/ Sun, 19 Apr 2015 22:25:32 +0000 http://robohub.org/the-year-of-cocoro-video-1652-jeffcam-in-a-lake/

The EU-funded Collective Cognitive Robotics (CoCoRo) project has built a swarm of 41 autonomous underwater vehicles (AUVs) that show collective cognition. Throughout 2015 – The Year of CoCoRo – we will be uploading a new weekly video detailing the latest stage in its development. In this video a Jeff-Cam takes us on a trip below an Italian lake.

Jeff is much more agile and powerful then Lily. So mounting a camera ontop of an autonomous Jeff robot produced an even better autonomous camera agent. After some preliminary tests and tuning in a pool, we went to an Italian lake to see how it looks down there below the surface.

To learn more about the project, see this introductory post, or check out all the videos from the Year of CoCoRo on Robohub.

The EU-funded Collective Cognitive Robotics (CoCoRo) project has built a swarm of 41 autonomous underwater vehicles (AUVs) that show collective cognition. Throughout 2015 – The Year of CoCoRo – we will be uploading a new weekly video detailing the latest stage in its development. In this video, we take Lily-Cam into rough water.

Austria is home not only to beautiful lakes, it also has wild rivers and creeks. After “Lily-Cam” did its job in the lakes, we threw it also into a fast whitewater river. We were lucky to catch it downriver after some minutes and the robot survived this adventure. However, our engineers, who have also to constantly maintain and repair the robots, didn’t like the movie. ;-)

To learn more about the project, see this introductory post, or check out all the videos from the Year of CoCoRo on Robohub.

The EU-funded Collective Cognitive Robotics (CoCoRo) project has built a swarm of 41 autonomous underwater vehicles (AUVs) that show collective cognition. Throughout 2015 – The Year of CoCoRo – we will be uploading a new weekly video detailing the latest stage in its development. In this video, the Lily robot takes us below a lake in Austria.

After our successful application of “Lily-Cam” in our small ponds, we went further. At several lovely places at Styria (Austria) we took a look below the water surface and encountered beautiful and pittoresque landscapes, fish and even diving ducks.

In this episode, Sabine Hauert interviews main stakeholders in European Robotics at the European Robotics Forum in Vienna.

Cécile Huet, Deputy Head of the Robotics Unit at the European Commission, gives us an overview of the new wave of robotics projects funded under Horizon2020, with a focus on robots that can help people and drive application. She also tells us about the tools available to fund the full pipeline from research projects to hubs of excellence in robotics.

Uwe Haass, previous Secretary General of the non-profit EURobotics, looks at the Association’s work to develop a roadmap for European Robotics and their efforts to bring industry and academia closer. The recommendations from EURobotics are then used to help drive the funding strategy of the European Commission.

Together, the European Commission and EURobotics form a public-private partnership named SPARC which invests over €2.8 billion in robotics. You can learn more about SPARC here.

Links:

• Download mp3 (17.6 MB)
• Subscribe to Robots using iTunes
• Subscribe to Robots using RSS
• European Commission
• EURobotics

The EU-funded Collective Cognitive Robotics (CoCoRo) project has built a swarm of 41 autonomous underwater vehicles (AUVs) that show collective cognition. Throughout 2015 – The Year of CoCoRo – we will be uploading a new weekly video detailing the latest stage in its development. In this video, the Lily robot gives us an underwater view of a fishing pond.

Lily is an autonomously diving robot. After we attached an underwater camera onto it, it became an autonomously driving camera agent. We used this “Lily-Cam” to look into the little fishing ponds that we have at our Zoological Department. The look below the surface offered a fascinating glimpse of the underwater world, including algae forests, fish and other water organisms.

To learn more about the project, see this introductory post, or check out all the videos

There is not a week that goes by where regulation isn’t a hot topic when it comes to drones. But for any regulated industry where technology is advancing greater than new rules can be agreed upon, it will undoubtedly cause a few headaches. This week closes with a very positive announcement from European stakeholders on the future of drones. During a two-day conference in Riga, the European aviation community found broad agreement on the main principles to guide the regulatory framework to allow RPAS (Remotely Piloted Aircraft Systems) operations throughout Europe from 2016 onwards. 

The principles formed from this week are as below:

1. Drones need to be treated as new types of aircraft with proportionate rules based on the risk of each operation.

The provision of drone services must not be less safe than is accepted from civil aviation in general. The incremental integration of drones in the aviation system must not reduce the level of safety presently achieved in civil aviation. Although no-one is on board the drone, people in other aircraft or on the ground could get hurt in case of an accident or an unscheduled landing. The way safety is regulated must be proportional to the operational risk involved.

Rules should be simple and performance based to allow a small start-up company or individuals to start low-risk, low-altitude operations under minimal rules, and to develop with light-touch risk-based regulation, similar to the modern product safety regulations applied in other sectors. Higher risk operations would be gradually subject to more stringent regulations or operational limitations. At the other end of the spectrum, where the operational risk is highest, such as with large drones operating alongside manned aircraft, the regulation will need to be quite similar to that applying to manned aviation, with strict standards on the design, manufacturing, maintenance and operation of drones, as well as on the training of drone pilots and maintenance personnel.

2. EU rules for the safe provision of drone services need to be developed now.

Safety rules, including on remote pilot and operator qualifications, should be developed at the European level by the European Aviation Safety Agency, building on the experience developed in the EU Member States. The essential requirements should be harmonised at the global level to the maximum extent possible; full use should be made of the established cooperation in the Joint Authorities for Rulemaking on Unmanned Systems (JARUS) and at ICAO, and should be completed by international industry standard setting bodies. Efforts need to be put into resourcing these activities, especially JARUS, in order to ensure that the progressive risk-based approach is consistent with what is done in the rest of the world.

This basic regulatory framework should be put in place without delay, in order to help the private sector to take well-informed investment decisions, and to provide a basic set of rules for the many operators who are increasingly eager to begin providing services. The European Aviation Safety Agency should consult stakeholders by the middle of 2015 on the regulatory framework for the operations of drones and on concrete regulatory proposals for low-risk operations. By the end of 2015, the Agency will use the results of the consultation to propose a position on these matters. The proposal for the revision of the basic European Safety Regulation, which the European Commission has announced for 2015, should contain the necessary new provisions and essential requirements for the progressive risk-based regulation of drones, based on the Agency’s recommendations.

3. Technologies and standards need to be developed for the full integration of drones in the European airspace.

The success of drone activities and safety regulations also depends on the financial effort to develop and validate key missing technologies and the ensuing required standards. Both industry and public authorities stressed the need for adequate investment in the technologies that are required to integrate drones into the aviation system – the SESAR programme. CleanSky and other initiatives should complete the SESAR investments. That would create spin-off benefits for traditional aviation and so frame the future of flying.

4. Public acceptance is key to the growth of drone services.

The respect of citizens’ fundamental rights, such as the right to privacy and the protection of personal data, must be guaranteed. Many drone services involve data-gathering such as filming, etc. The responsible authorities, such as the national and European Data Protection Authorities, should develop the necessary guidelines and monitoring mechanisms to ensure the full respect of existing protection rules, including in relation to drones. Rules need to clarify what is acceptable and what is not, and must be properly enforced.

Drones may cause nuisances and negative externalities, such as noise. These nuisances need to be addressed, possibly at the local level, to maintain public acceptance.

Drones also pose potential security risks. The design of drones can and should take into account those risks by using methods such as cyber-defence or geofencing. However, the malicious use of drones cannot be entirely prevented by design or operational restrictions. It is the task of the national police and justice systems to address those risks.

5. The operator of a drone is responsible for its use.

When a drone service is delivered in prohibited airspace, in an unsafe manner, or for illegal purposes, the authorities should be able to act and hold the operator accountable. Where lacking, this will need to be clarified in national law. Moreover, in order to enforce responsibility, it will be necessary for drones to have at all times an identifiable owner or operator. The regulator should seek the least bureaucratic way to achieve this. For instance, the mandating of electronic identity chips on drones – “IDrones” – as is today envisaged in some states, could be formalised through a safety rule, which would contribute to the effective implementation of privacy and security requirements. Standardised web-portals in the Member States for the registration of operators and their operations could be another solution. The involved authorities need to work closely together.

Drone accidents will happen. Member States should clarify the applicable insurance and third-party liability regime and monitor the compensation mechanisms for potential victims. The establishment of compensation funds to cover victims of accidents caused by uninsured drone users, as used in the motor insurance sector, could be envisaged. Reporting on drone incidents should be integrated into the overall incident reporting requirements. Systematic and coherent incident reporting will improve safety and will be instrumental for insurance companies in their risk analysis on which third party liability insurance premiums are based.

Riga wasn’t the only place where stakeholders have been making progressive steps forward with regulation. In Montreal, Canada, The ICAO (International Civil Aviation Organisation) held a symposium for RPAS delegates around the world. In the US, the FAA recently released an interim measure to streamline an exception which will grant operators permission to carry out aerial work, albeit, it is still restrictive compared to European policy. And finally, in the UK, the CAA released the sixth edition to its policy on the use of drones.

All round it’s been a very reflective yet positive step forward to integrate commercial drones into airspace.

If you liked this article, you may also be interested in:

• New CAA rules govern use of drones in built up areas
• House of Lords looks to media regulators for guidance on drone journalism
• Transport Canada releases new framework for governing UAV operations
• Does the Small UAV industry need its own coalition?

See all the latest robotics news on Robohub, or sign up for our weekly newsletter.

The EU-funded Collective Cognitive Robotics (CoCoRo) project has built a swarm of 41 autonomous underwater vehicles (AUVs) that show collective cognition. Throughout 2015 – The Year of CoCoRo – we will be uploading a new weekly video detailing the latest stage in its development. One day in early 2014, at one of those long workshops, we stayed at a hotel that had a large and deep outside pool. It was a nice day in Italy, so what else could we do than taking a JEFF robot in autonomous driving mode to this pool and have some fun with it?

It didn’t take long and more and more hotel guests gathered and watched. Special applause to Vega and Finn, the kids of the project coordinator, for helping with the filming (above and under the water), catching the robot and rescuing it sometimes from the ground after we pushed the robot beyond its limits.

This is the second part of a three-part series, check out the first five videos here.

You can also read about all the approved projects here.

FLOBOT
Title: Floor Washing Robot for Professional Users
Duration (months): 36
Presenter: Thomas Moerwald, Technische Universitaet Wien, AT
Partners: Cyprus Research And Innovation Center Ltd, CY | Fimap Spa, IT | Robosoft Services Robots, FR | University Of Lincoln, UK | Technische Universitaet Wien, AT | S.s.c. Societa’ Sviluppo Commerciale, IT | Manutencoop Facility Management Spa, IT | Ridgeback S.a.s. Di Paolo Barattini & C., IT | Groupe Services France, FR

RETRAINER
Title: REaching and grasping Training based on Robotic hybrid AssIstance for Neurological patients: End users Real life evaluation
Duration (months): 48
Presenter: Maria Bulgheroni, Ab.Acus srl, IT
Participant: Ab.Acus srl, IT | Politecnico Di Milano, IT | Technische Universitaet Wien, AT | Ecole Polytechnique Federale De Lausanne, CH | Otto Bock Healthcare Products Gmbh, AT | Congregazione Delle Suore Infermiere Dell Addolorata, IT | Asklepios Klinik Alsbach Gmbh, DE | Technische Universitaet Berlin, DE | Hasomed Hard-und Software Fuer Medizin Gesellschaft Mbh, DE

WiMUST
Title: Widely scalable Mobile Underwater Sonar Technology
Duration (months): 36
Presenter: Giovanni Indiveri, Università del Salento, IT
Partners: ISME (Inter-university Center of Integrated Systems for the Marine Environment), IT | Associacao Do Instituto Superior Tecnico Para A Investigacao E Desenvolvimento, PT | Cintal – Centro Investigacao Tecnologica Do Algarve, PT | The University Of Hertfordshire Higher Education Corporation, UK | Evologics Gmbh, DE | Graal Tech Srl, IT | CGG, Fr | Geo Marine Survey Systems Bv, NL | Geosurveys – Consultores Em Geofisica Lda, PT

AEROARMS
Title: AErial RObotic system integrating multiple ARMS and advanced manipulation capabilities for inspection and maintenance
Duration (months): 48
Presenter: Anibal Ollero, Universidad de Sevilla, SP
Partners: Universidad De Sevilla, ES | Deutsches Zentrum Fuer Luft – Und Raumfahrt Ev, DE | Centre National De La Recherche Scientifique, FR | Consorzio Di Ricerca Per L’Energia e Le Applicazioni Technologiche Dell’elettromagnetismo, IT | Fundacion Andaluza Para El Desarrollo Aeroespacial, ES | Tüv Nord Systems Gmbh & Co. Kg, DE | Universitat Politecnica De Catalunya, ES | Elektra Uas Gmbh, DE | Alstom Inspection Robotics Ag, CH | Sensima Inspection Sarl, CH

All the #ERF2015 videos can be found here.

There will be more detailed videos following throughout this year showing some of those activities more specifically. The activities shown here show autonomous robots in larger outdoor pools, ponds, lakes, rivers and ocean harbours. They act there either alone (e.g. as autonomous underwater camera agents) or in smaller groups (swarms).

To learn more about the project, see this introductory post, or check out all the videos from the Year of CoCoRo on Robohub.

EU Robotics Forum 2015. Credits: Viennamotion KG

The SCHUNK hand.

EU Robotics Forum 2015. Credits: Viennamotion KG

The SCHUNK booth.

EU Robotics Forum 2015. Credits: Viennamotion KG

TUM Skin sensors.

EU Robotics Forum 2015. Credits: Viennamotion KG

The TUM team.

EU Robotics Forum 2015. Credits: Viennamotion KG

The ABB display

EU Robotics Forum 2015. Credits: Viennamotion KG

The KUKA youBot.

EU Robotics Forum 2015. Credits: Viennamotion KG

Exhibit hall.

EU Robotics Forum 2015. Credits: Viennamotion KG

Factory in a Day.

EU Robotics Forum 2015. Credits: Viennamotion KG

The Exhibit Hall.

EU Robotics Forum 2015. Credits: Viennamotion KG

Zoran Stancic, Deputy Director-General at the European Commission, DG CONNECT, with Chris Bourillon, new Secretary-General of EURobotics

EU Robotics Forum 2015. Credits: Viennamotion KG

Speakers from the Opening Session.

EU Robotics Forum 2015. Credits: Viennamotion KG

European Robotic Forum 2015. Credits: Viennamotion KG.

The importance of allaying public fears that robots will create mass unemployment was the theme of the opening session at the 2015 European Robotics Forum (ERF), which kicked off in Vienna on Tuesday.

ERF is the largest robotics networking event in Europe and this year attracted a record number of delegates. Over 600 were in attendance, including industrialists, researchers, investors, politicians and media.

The opening session featured a panel discussion entitled Robots or Jobs? The issue was introduced by Bernd Liepert, President of the European stakeholders association, euRobotics and CTO of industrial robotics manufacturer, KUKA.

“There are fears from economists that robots are replacing jobs in large numbers,” he said, quoting statistics indicating that up to 50% of jobs could be lost to automation.

Zoran Stancic, Deputy Director-General at the European Commission, DG CONNECT, followed Mr Liepert on the podium and was quick to point out that “there is clearly information that robots don’t steal jobs. We have to make this information freely available to all stakeholders.”

Jorg Hofmann, who is on the board of car manufacturer Daimler, and Vice Chairman of the German Metalworker’s Union (IG Metall), followed up, saying that “past waves of innovation have been counterbalanced by gains in other sectors.”

“It’s not a question of jobs, it’s a question of quality of jobs…” he said. “And how we qualify our workforce to manage this change.”

The session developed into a wider panel discussion with the addition of Mady Delvaux-Stehres, MEP, Vice-Chair of the European Parliament’s Legal Affairs Committee and Maarten Goos of Leuven University’s Research Centre of Monetary and Information Economics.

Mr Goos was introduced as one of the leading researchers in this area, and spoke about the “complimentary effect” of robotics.

“If you look at the academic literature, you have to conclude that, in general, introducing robotics increases employment,” he said, explaining that, as we work with robots, productivity goes up and generates income.

He pointed out that the studies warning of up to 50% in job losses use a specific methodology, which he called “a set of subjective guesses.” His view is that we should move away from that methodology.

However, a number of challenges need to be addressed, he believes. One of these is the nature of work, which will undoubtedly change. Pushing people into programming is, he said, not the only solution to this. We should also develop more creative, communicative skills, which can compliment robotics.

But he warned that we may be lacking the right institutions to support these upcoming changes. In addition, we need to change from top down to bottom up policy in order to deal with the issues robotics will present.

European Robotic Forum 2015. Credits: Viennamotion KG.

The European Commission is, however, determined to play a leading role in developing a framework that national institutions will be able to emulate when they come to legislate on the changes jn employment and society brought about by robotics.

To this end, a new working group has been established to develop concrete proposals that it hopes to present to the European Parliament next month, Mady Delvaux-Stehres informed delegates.

The group will address topics including liability for damage, social impact and data privacy. The overall goals are to strengthen the European economy, protect the social and fundamental rights of the citizen, and bridge the gap between politicians and the scientific community.

But, on the ground level, developing systems that are easy for people to use is key to public acceptance of robotics , a view shared by many on the panel.

“We need the human being, we need smart factories, not dark factories. We need to train people to work in these factories, with increased skills,” said Mr Liepert.

“A new generation R [for robots] is growing up with vacuum cleaning robots, autonomous cars and co-working robots.  To develop robot systems that are easy to use by people – that’s a key driver.”

Co-working with robots, the panel agreed, is a necessary part of our community in Europe and we need to develop strategies to convince the general public about the benefit of robotics.

The panel offered a number of solutions as to how this may be achieved:

“We can only solve the problem if we address the usability,” was the view of Mr Liepert. He used the smartphone as analogy, saying people have no fear of it because they understand it and robotics could benefit by emulating similar ease of use, which would in turn promote acceptability. On the academic front, he believes there is a lot of work to be done to achieve this objective.

Mr Stannic believes that communication with the wider public is key, particularly when it comes to older users. He urged delegates to view an inspirational video of a 94-year-old describing the difference technology has made to her life. The commission has made the video available on You Tube.

“We all have prejudices,” he said. “We need to address our fears and problems. When you can see concretely how you can benefit, it helps.”

Mr Goos pointed out that public mistrust of technology is nothing new; similar issues were present at the dawn of the industrial revolution. The answer then was mass education, teaching people how to read and write. He believes that we haven’t yet pinned down strategies to reassure the public in respect of robotics. “Dealing with their fears,” he said, “should be part of the overall policy.”

The sixth edition of the European Robotics Forum is kicking off today in Vienna.

This 3-day event, from March 11-13, is a meeting point for at least 600 scientists, companies and robotics officials from the European Commission. The program is designed to provide an opportunity for the companies and researchers to meet and interact in workshops and seminars in order to expand their networks, gather the latest relevant information, and build new business and collaborations.

Sabine and Adriana from Robohub are covering the conference, check back here for our latest coverage, including podcasts, videos, blogs and tweets:

• ‘Robots or jobs’ is key focus of #ERF2015
• #ERF2015 webcam: Horizon2020 project pitches Part I
• #ERF2015 in pictures

#ERF2015 Tweets

The EU-funded Collective Cognitive Robotics (CoCoRo) project has built a swarm of 41 autonomous underwater vehicles (AUVs) that show collective cognition. Throughout 2015 – The Year of CoCoRo – we will be uploading a new weekly video detailing the latest stage in its development. In this video we test Jeff’s ability to pick up a target (the magnet) while swimming in a current.

In this video we again generate water currents and turbulences by using a water hose in our outdoor pool. By radio-frequency control we navigate a Jeff robot remotely in those currents. To test the precision of the steering under these conditions we use some small magnets in our hands as targets that have to be picked up by the Jeff robot. Thus it looks like we feed the robot with magnets :-)

To learn more about the project, see this introductory post, or check out all the videos from the Year of CoCoRo on Robohub.

The EU-funded Collective Cognitive Robotics (CoCoRo) project has built a swarm of 41 autonomous underwater vehicles (AUVs) that show collective cognition. Throughout 2015 – The Year of CoCoRo – we will be uploading a new weekly video detailing the latest stage in its development. In this video we generate some water currents and turbulences by using a water hose in our outdoor pool. 

The video shows our first tests of the Jeff robot performed under such conditions (performed in summer 2013 and spring 2014). Those tests clearly indicated that the maneuverability of the robot (steering, forward drive) is strong enough to compensate for currents and drifts up to approximately 1m/sec. In those days we were very happy to realize such impressive capabilities for such a small robot, as this maneuverability is a prerequisite for the good performance in an underwater swarm under out-of-the lab conditions (large outside tanks, lazy river arms, ponds, lakes).

The EU-funded Collective Cognitive Robotics (CoCoRo) project has built a swarm of 41 autonomous underwater vehicles (AUVs) that show collective cognition. Throughout 2015 – The Year of CoCoRo – we will be uploading a new weekly video detailing the latest stage in its development. This video shows how a swarm of Lily robots can form a coherent group by exchanging light pulses among the group members, similar to how slime-mold does in biology.

By modulating the frequency of these signals the group can alter the path of the emerging blinking wave to turn the whole group towards the aggregation target. Such a target can be any form of gradient emitting source, regardless of the type of the emitted signal. We demonstrate this here by using a light source as a target.

The EU-funded Collective Cognitive Robotics (CoCoRo) project has built a swarm of 41 autonomous underwater vehicles (AUVs) that show collective cognition. Throughout 2015 – The Year of CoCoRo – we will be uploading a new weekly video detailing the latest stage in its development. This video shows how signal waves can be used to keep a swarm of Lily robots together as a group.

A group of Lily robots can achieve a coherent shoaling or flocking configuration by emitting and receiving pulsed light signals. Similar to slime mold or fireflies, such pulsed signals are relayed from one agent to the next, forming signal waves that move through the whole swarm. We use such waves to keep the swarm of Lily robots together as a group, to coordinate the swarm and to move it in a desired direction.

To learn more about the project, see this introductory post, or check out all the videos from the Year of CoCoRo on Robohub.

The EU-funded Collective Cognitive Robotics (CoCoRo) project has built a swarm of 41 autonomous underwater vehicles (AUVs) that show collective cognition. Throughout 2015 – The Year of CoCoRo – we will be uploading a new weekly video detailing the latest stage in its development. This video shows the Jeff robot using an algorithm to estimate the size of the swarm.

It is important for our robot swarm that the swarm as a whole is aware of its size. We use a bio-inspired method, called the „fireslime algorithm“ to achieve this form of collective awareness. The algorithm makes the robots to spread a one-bit signal (pulse) among the swarm members allowing them to make quite reliable and precise estimates of the size of their swarm. This video shows an advanced version of the algorithm implemented on Jeff robots.

The EU-funded Collective Cognitive Robotics (CoCoRo) project has built a swarm of 41 autonomous underwater vehicles (AUVs) that show collective cognition. Throughout 2015 – The Year of CoCoRo – we will be uploading a new weekly video detailing the latest stage in its development. This video shows how the swarm can estimate its own size.

Lily robots build swarms that change in size over time. By using a bio-inspired method of signal exchange these swarms can make reliable estimates of their own swarm size. Our Lily robots emit a pulsed signal that is relayed by other Lily robots in the swarm, just like slime mold amoebas or fireflies relay their signals in nature. Based on this simple signal exchange every member can estimate the number of other swarm members around it.

To learn more about the project, see this introductory post, or check out all the videos from the Year of CoCoRo on Robohub.

Flourish, which has been funded at just over €3.5 Million for 42 months, will be managed by Cyrill Stachniss of the University of Bonn, Germany. It is described both in the H2020 document and on the university’s website as follows:

To feed a growing world population with the given amount of available farm land, we must develop new methods of sustainable farming that increase yield while reducing reliance on herbicides and pesticides. Precision agricultural techniques seek to address this challenge by monitoring key indicators of crop health and targeting treatment only to plants that need it. This is a time consuming and expensive activity and while there has been great progress on autonomous farm robots, most systems have been developed to solve only specialized tasks. This lack of flexibility poses a high risk of no return on investment for farmers. The goal of the Flourish project is to bridge the gap between the current and desired capabilities of agricultural robots by developing an adaptable robotic solution for precision farming. By combining the aerial survey capabilities of a small autonomous multi-copter Unmanned Aerial Vehicle (UAV) with a multi-purpose agricultural Unmanned Ground Vehicle, the system will be able to survey a field from the air, perform targeted intervention on the ground, and provide detailed information for decision support, all with minimal user intervention. The system can be adapted to a wide range of crops by choosing different sensors and ground treatment packages. This development requires improvements in technological abilities for safe accurate navigation within farms, coordinated multi-robot mission planning that enables large field survey even with short UAV flight times, multispectral three-dimensional mapping with high temporal and spatial resolution, ground intervention tools and techniques, data analysis tools for crop monitoring and weed detection, and user interface design to support agricultural decision making. As these aspects are addressed in Flourish, the project will unlock new prospects for commercial agricultural robotics in the near future.

SWEEPER, which has been funded at just over €4 Million for 36 months, will be managed by Jan Bontsema of Wageningen UR, Netherlands. It is described in the H2020 document as follows:

In modern greenhouses there is a high demand to automate labour. The availability of a skilled workforce that accepts repetitive tasks in the harsh climate conditions of a greenhouse is decreasing rapidly. The resulting increase in labour costs and reduced capacity puts major pressure on the competitiveness of the European greenhouse sector. Present robotization of this labour has entered a high level of technological readiness. However, a gap remains which halts the transition from science to economic and societal impact; the so called ‘Technological Innovation Gap’. In the EU-FP7-project CROPS, extensive research has been performed on agricultural robotics. One of the applications was a sweet pepper harvesting robot. It was shown that such a robot is economically and technically viable. The proven hardware and software modules (TRL: 6) developed in CROPS will be used as the groundwork. The successful CROPS software modules based on the Robotic-Operating-System (ROS) will be maintained and expanded in SWEEPER. Also the gripper end-effector will be retained. This patent pending module is able to grasp the sweet pepper without the need of an accurate measurement of the position and orientation of the fruit. In several experiments, it turned out that different growers use different cropping systems ranging in crop density. In SWEEPER, the cropping system itself will be optimized to facilitate robotic harvesting. In CROPS it was concluded that instead of a 9DOF, a 4DOF robot arm is sufficient, greatly reducing costs. To improve the level of robotic cognitive abilities, plant models will be applied to approximate location of sweet peppers. This “model-based vision” will increase and speed up fruit detection. Based on the insights of CROPS, sensors will be placed onto the gripper only. Also a LightField sensor will be introduced, which is able to record both colour and 3D information simultaneously.

The “CROPS” referred to above is Clever Robots for Crops, a program of the 7th Framework, which preceded H2020.

The first H2020 call for proposals was issued last year as a follow up to the EU’s Seventh Framework Programme for Research (FP7), and includes over 100 collaborative robotics projects under the Digital Agenda framework. To learn more about the other robotics projects funded under H2020, see this post by Frank Tobe.

The EU-funded Collective Cognitive Robotics (CoCoRo) project has built a swarm of 41 autonomous underwater vehicles (AUVs) that show collective cognition. Throughout 2015 – The Year of CoCoRo – we will be uploading a new weekly video detailing the latest stage in its development. This video shows how, in a complex underwater habitat, a swarm of Jeff robots searches for a magnetic target and then the communicate to Lily robots at smaller depths to join the group.

To learn more about the project, see this introductory post, or check out all the videos from the Year of CoCoRo on Robohub.

A downside, however, is that European Commission President Jean-Claude Juncker recently proposed shifting the overall Horizon 2020 program to reduce the research aspect and use the saved funds to pay for general economic stimulus. The results of his push are, at present, unknown.

Here are the 17 robotics-related projects, whose funding was started in 2014 and will continue to 2018:

• AEROARMS – developing an aerial robotic system with multiple arms and advanced manipulation capabilities for application in industrial inspection and maintenance. Corporate partners: Elektra UAS, Alstom Inspection, Sensima Inspection.
• AEROWORKS – developing an aerial robotic team to autonomously conduct infrastructure inspection and maintenance tasks, while additionally providing intuitive and user-friendly interfaces to human-operators. Corporate partners: Ascending Technologies, Skybotix, Alstom Inspection, Skelleftea Kraft.
• COMANOID – investigates the deployment of robotic solutions in well-identified Airbus airliner assembly operations that are laborious or tedious for human workers and for which access is impossible for wheeled or rail-ported robotic platforms. Corporate partners: European Aeronautic Defence & Space (EADS).
• CENTAURO – developing a human-robot symbiotic system, where a human operator is tele-present with its whole body in a Centaur-like robot, which is capable of robust locomotion and dexterous manipulation in the rough terrains of various disaster situations. Corporate partners: ProgenoX, Kermtechnische Hilfsdienst.
• CogIMon – This Cognitive Interactive in Motion research aims at human-robot interaction with systemic integration of teams of humans and compliant robots. Corporate partners: none.
• EurEyeCase – Large numbers of patients suffer from various types of vitreo-retinal eye diseases and the majority of these intra−ocular interventions lie on or even beyond the boundaries of human skills in terms of manipulation and positioning precision. Hence the need for robotic technology to augment surgeons’ skills. Corporate partners: Medical Robotic Technologies, ACMIT, Optomedical Technologies, Medizinisches Laserzentrum Lubeck.
• FLOBOT – developing a floor washing robot for professional users. The project integrates existing solutions to produce a professional floor washing robot for a wide area of industrial, civil and commercial premises. Corporate partners: FIMAP, Robosoft Services, 7 Manutencoop Facility Management, Groupe Services France.
• Flourish – to bridge the gap between the current and desired capabilities of agricultural robots by developing an adaptable robotic solution for precision farming. The system will be able to survey a field from the air, perform targeted intervention on the ground, and provide detailed information for decision support. Corporate partners: Robert Bosch, Agenzia Servizi Settore Agroalimentare delle Marche.
• RETRAINER – to tune and validate advanced robot-based technologies to facilitate recovery of arm and hand function in stroke survivors. Will allow the users to use their own arm and hand as much and as soon as possible after the trauma so to achieve the best outcomes in rehabilitation. Corporate partners: Robert Bosch, Agenzia Servizi Settore Agroalimentare delle Marche. 
• RobDREAM – improve industrial mobile manipulators’ perception, navigation, manipulation and grasping capabilities by automatic optimization of parameters, strategies and selection of tools within a portfolio of key algorithms. Corporate partners: KUKA, Convergent Information Technologies.
• RoMaNS – This (Robotic Manipulation for Nuclear Sort and Segregation) project will solve an urgent market and societal need cleaning up the past half century of nuclear waste. Corporate partners: National Nuclear Lab.
• SARAFun – a project to enable a non-expert user to train/integrate a new bi-manual assembly task on an ABB YuMi robot in less than a day. The robot will be equipped with sensory and cognitive abilities as well as reasoning abilities required to plan and execute any assembly task in a human like manner. Corporate partners: ABB.
• SecondHands – a robot assistant that is trained to understand maintenance tasks so that it can either pro-actively or as a result of prompting, offer assistance to maintenance technicians performing routine and preventative maintenance. Corporate partners: OCADO Group.
• Smokebot – a project to develop and equip mobile robots with novel environmental sensors for inspection of disaster sites with low visibility. Corporate partners: Taurob GmbH.
• SoMa – a plan to provide soft, uncertain interactions between robotic manipulation and the environment. Corporate partners: OCADO Group and The Walt Disney Company.
• Sweeper – using modules from the FP7 CROPS project, this new project is to detect, grasp and harvest sweet peppers under various growing situations. Corporate partners: de Tuindershoek, Irmato Group.
• WiMUST – a Widely scalable Mobile Underwater Sonar Technology project to expand and improve the functionalities of current cooperative marine robotic systems, effectively enabling distributed acoustic array technologies for geophysical surveying with a view to exploration and geotechnical surveying for civil and commercial applications. Corporate partners: Graal Tech, Evo Logics, CGG Veritas Services, Geo Marine Survey Systems, GeoSurveys.

If you liked this article, you may also be interested in:

• Japan’s new robotics push: Funding and deregulation
• National Science Foundation and federal partners award $31.5M to advance co-robots in US
• Governmental funding of strategic robotic projects
• China takes long view in funding robotics, innovation
• South Korean private-public partnership to invest $2.6B in robot industry by 2018

See all the latest robotics news on Robohub, or sign up for our weekly newsletter.

The EU-funded Collective Cognitive Robotics (CoCoRo) project has built a swarm of 41 autonomous underwater vehicles (AUVs) that show collective cognition. Throughout 2015 – The Year of CoCoRo – we will be uploading a new weekly video detailing the latest stage in its development. In this video, a swarm of Jeff robots is browsing the environment.

They use their front blue-light sensors to detect and avoid obstacles.

To learn more about the project, see this introductory post, or check out all the videos from the Year of CoCoRo on Robohub.

The EU-funded Collective Cognitive Robotics (CoCoRo) project has built a swarm of 41 autonomous underwater vehicles (AUVs) that show collective cognition. Throughout 2015 – The Year of CoCoRo – we will be uploading a new weekly video detailing the latest stage in its development.The CoCoRo system is currently the largest autonomous underwater swarm in the world. This video briefly shows some of its components and functions.

To learn more about the project, see this introductory post, or check out all the videos from the Year of CoCoRo on Robohub.

Transcript below

In today’s podcast, Ron Vanderkley speaks with Will Jackson from Engineered Arts Limited about his team’s work making robot actors.

Engineered Arts was founded in October 2004 by Will Jackson, to produce mixed media installations for UK science centres and museums, many of which involved simple mechanical figures, animated by standard industrial controllers.

In early in 2005, the Company began work on the Mechanical Theatre for the Eden Project. This involved three figures, with storylines focused on genetic modification. Rather than designing another set of figures for this new commission, Engineered Arts decided to develop a generic programmable figure that would be used for the Mechanical Theatre, and the succession of similar commissions that would hopefully follow. The result was RoboThespian Mark 1 (RT1).

From thereon, Engineered Arts took a change of direction and now concentrates entirely on development and sales of an ever expanding range of humanoid and semi-humanoid robots featuring natural human-like movement and advanced social behaviours.

RoboThespian, now in its third version, is a life sized humanoid robot designed for human interaction in a public environment. It is fully interactive, multilingual, and user-friendly. Clients range from NASA’s Kennedy Space Centre through to Questacon, The National Science and Technology Centre in Australia. You can watch it in action in the video below.

Will Jackson
Will Jackson has a BA in 3D design from University of Brighton, UK and is the Founder of Engineered Arts Ltd.

Links:

• Download mp3 (13.5MB)
• Subscribe to Robots using iTunes
• Subscribe to Robots using RSS
• Engineered Arts

In this lecture, Giorgio Metta describes the history and philosophy behind the iCub project, and presents some recent results.

The iCub project was started 10 years ago within the field of Human Robotics, focused mostly on building models of cognitive behaviours. The goals of the project include understanding how the human brain resolves certain problems just to use this knowledge within robotics and build models that can allow robots to solve autonomously the same problems, hence become highly intelligent systems.

20 years ago neurophysiologists discovered special types of neurons called visuomotor neurons. This discovery triggered a shift in the way robots were programmed to learn and perceive as now, mirroring the function of these neurons, the goal was not only for the robot to perceive the surroundings but also to act upon the new information acquired, to carry out a task, solve a problem, imitate what a person would do when he or she perceives and processes external information.

To translate these goals into practice, first experiments where focused on registering human grasping actions via data gloves and trackers and then these registered actions, translated into images, were used to build a classifier which would aid the robot to predict better what action to carry out when perceiving certain information. Furthermore, neuro studies showing that it is not that important to recognise the object to be grasped it but it’s enough to recognise it’s shape, helped Metta and his team build models that prepared the robot to recognise the shape of an object just before executing an action like grasping it. This made possible for the robot to execute more complex behaviours such as recognise not only the objects to be grasped or pushed, but also to recognise tools which may help the robot to do something with the object in question. In one of the experiments lead by Metta, this was translated into an iCub grasping a tool to bring closer an object placed too far away from the robot, in order for the iCub to grasp it.

Watch Metta’s presentation to find out more about his amazing experiments using the iCub robot and what he’s latest research efforts are all about. (You can download the full .pptx presentation here.)

Giorgio Metta is the Director of the well-known iCub Facility. He is currently on leave of absence from the University of Genoa (Italy) where he used to teach courses on Anthropomorphic Robotics and Intelligent Systems for the Bioengineering curricula. He holds a MSc cum laude (1994), and PhD (2000) in Electronic Engineering from the University of Genoa.

From 2001 to 2002 he was postdoctoral associate at the MIT AI-Lab . He has been assistant Professor at the University of Genoa since 2005 and he works at the Italian Institute of Technology where the iCub Facility is to be found since 2006. He is Professor of Cognitive Robotics at the University of Plymouth (UK) since 2012.

Giorgio Metta’s research activities are in the fields of biologically motivated and humanoid robotics and, in particular, in developing humanoid robots that can adapt and learn from experience. His research efforts have stemmed from collaborations with leading European and international scientists from different disciplines like neuroscience, psychology, computer science and robotics.

Metta has authored approximately 250 publications and has been working as principal investigator and research scientist in about a dozen international as well as national funded projects.

Metta G. IJARS Video Series: iCub Philosophy, Some History & Recent Results [online video]. International Journal of Advanced Robotic Systems, 2014, 11:V5. DOI: 10.5772/60065

The EU-funded Collective Cognitive Robotics (CoCoRo) project has built a swarm of 41 autonomous underwater vehicles (AUVs) that show collective cognition. Throughout 2015 – The Year of CoCoRo – we will be uploading a new weekly video detailing the latest stage in its development. Our CoCoRo system consists of 3 types of robots. One is Jeff, a very fast and agile small autonomous swarm robot. This is an overview of its capabilities.

source images: Webots by Cyberbotics Ltd.

Dear robotics and AI researcher,

Do you use simulation as a research tool? If you write papers with results based on simulation and submit them for peer-review, then be warned: if I should review your paper then I will probably recommend it is rejected. Why? Because all of the many simulation-based papers I’ve reviewed in the last couple of years have been flawed. These papers invariably fall into the pattern: propose new/improved/extended algorithm X; test X in simulation S and provide test results T; on the basis of T declare X to work; the end.

So, what exactly is wrong with these papers? Here are my most common review questions and criticisms.

1. Which simulation tool did you use? Was it a well-known robot simulator, like Webots or Player–Stage–Gazebo, or a custom written simulation? It’s amazing how many papers describe X, then simply write “We have tested X in simulation, and the results are…”
2. If your simulation was custom built, how did you validate the correctness of your simulator? Without such validation how can you have any confidence in the the results you describe in your paper? Even if you didn’t carry out any validation, please give us a clue about your simulator; is it for instance sensor-based (i.e. models specific robot sensors, like infra-red collision sensors, or cameras)? Does it model physics in 3D (i.e. dynamics), or 2D kinematics? 
3. You must specify the robots that you are using to test your algorithm X. Are they particular real-world robots, like e-pucks or the NAO, or are they an abstraction of a robot, i.e. an idealised robot? If the latter, describe that idealised robot: does it have a body with sensors and actuators, or is your idealised robot just a point moving in space? How does it interact with other robots and its environment? 
4. How is your robot modelled in the simulator? If you’re using a well-known simulator and one of its pre-defined library robots, then this is an easy question to answer. But for a custom designed simulator or an idealised robot it is very important to explain how your robot is modelled. Equally important is how your robot model is controlled, since the algorithm X you are testing is – presumably – instantiated or coded within the controller. It’s surprising how many papers leave this to the reader’s imagination.
5. In your results section you must provide some analysis of how the limitations of the simulator, the simulated environment, and the modelled robot are likely to have affected your results. It is very important that your interpretation of your results, and any conclusions you draw about algorithm X, explicitly take account of these limitations. All robot simulators, no matter how well proven and well debugged, are simplified models of real robots and real environments. The so-called reality gap is especially problematical if you are evolving robots in simulation, but even if you are not, you cannot confidently interpret your results without understanding the reality gap.
6. If you are using an existing simulator then specify exactly which version of the simulator you used, and provide somewhere – a link perhaps to a github project – your robot model and controller code. If your simulator is custom built then you need to provide access to all of your code. Without this your work is unrepeatable and therefore of very limited value.

Ok. At this point I should confess that I’ve made most of these mistakes in my own papers. In fact one of my most cited papers was based on a simple custom built simulation model with little or no explanation of how I validated the simulation. But that was 15 years ago, and what was acceptable then is not ok now.

Modern simulation tools are powerful but also dangerous. Dangerous because it is too easy to assume that they are telling us the truth. Especially beguiling is the renderer, which provides an animated visualisation of the simulated world and the robots in it. Often the renderer provides all kinds of fancy effects borrowed from video games, like shadows, lighting and reflections, which all serve to strengthen the illusion that what we are seeing is real. I puzzle and disappoint my students because, when they proudly show me their work, I insist that they turn off the renderer. I don’t want to see a (cool) animation of simulated robots, instead I want to see (dull) graphs or other numerical data showing how the improved algorithm is being tested and validated, in simulation.

An engineering simulation is a scientific instrument* and, like any scientific instrument, it must be (i) fit for purpose, (ii) setup and calibrated for the task in hand, and (iii) understood – especially its limitations – so that any results obtained using it are carefully interpreted and qualified in the light of those limitations.

Good luck with your research paper!

*Engineering Simulations as Scientific Instruments is the working title of a book, edited by Susan Stepney, which will be a major output of the project Complex Systems Modelling and Simulation (CoSMoS).

Industry, research institutes and universities all over Europe will be offering a host of robotics activities for all ages – from open lab visits, public exhibitions, challenges and competitions, school visits and guided tours – in order to build public awareness and interest in robotics across the EU.

Highlights of this year’s events include:

Czech Republic – Café Neu Romance: “Golem & the Mechanical Man of the Future” – Meet some of the World’s best LEGO MINDSTORMS experts and robotics artist headliner Fernando Orellana from El Salvador, Slovakian AI-professor Jozef Kelemen, Dr. Rupert Young and the “bionic robotics arm man” Nigel Ackland, both from the UK.

Finland – Innokas Network: Interested in Coding and Robotics? Event roadshow for teachers and teacher students during the EU Code Week and Robotics Week in Fall 2014. You will learn in fun and engaging ways about coding and robotics during workshops run by teachers and students from Innokas Network schools.

Italy – The 2nd edition of the AI and Cognition workshop 2014 (AIC 2014) will bring together researchers coming from different domains (e.g., artificial intelligence, cognitive science, computer science, engineering, philosophy, social sciences, etc.) to work on the interdisciplinary field of cognitively inspired artificial systems.

Spain – Over 100 robotics related events will take place all over Spain, from Madrid to Barcelona, from San Sebastian to La Coruna. Events target: pupils of all ages, as young as 3 years old, parents and teachers. Workshops will be built around various topics such as building robots, 3D printing, programming or flying drones.

Get the full list of activities by date and location here.

#ERW2014 Tweets

Media and financial community attention (see links below) were directed to the recent introduction of the ROBO-STOX® Global Robotics and Automation UCITS Index. Kuka GmbH provided one of their new lightweight iiwa one-armed robots to perform the countdown to the opening of markets at the London Stock Exchanged on Monday, November 27th.

To provide diversified access to the robotics and automation investment theme in Europe, ROBO-STOX® developed an index that’s specifically catered for investment opportunities that are compliant with the European UCITS requirements. ETF Securities is the first to license the ROBO-STOX® Global Robotics and Automation UCITS Index for use in an exchange traded fund (ETF) that is listed on the London Stock Exchange.

The ROBO-STOX® Global Robotics and Automation UCITS Index comprises 82 constituent companies involved in the global robotics and automation industry, spanning the world’s major regions. The index covers a range of key segments, currently with a 47% allocation to industrials, 33% information technology, 11% healthcare, 5% energy and 4% in consumer discretionary. The historical performance of the index has appreciated four-fold, achieving an annualized rate of return of over 16% over the past 10 years, substantially outperforming most major equity, tech and other asset class benchmarks over the same period.

Making Robotics and Automation Investable

For investors, the growth prospects of the robotics and automation sector are compelling. However, neither the traditional Global Industry Classification Standard (GICS) nor the Industry Classification Benchmark (ICB), each of which attempts to standardise the world’s industry classifications, recognises “robotics” and/or “automation” as an official sector classification. By creating the ROBO-STOX® Industry Classification, that gap in the market has been filled and investors and other interested parties can now better acquaint themselves with the corporate landscape of the robotics and automation industry.

To capture the full economic value of the robotics and automation industry, the ROBO-STOX® Industry Classification has identified companies all along the production value chain. This ranges, for example, from companies that physically manufacture robots and automation machinery, to companies specialising in the types of software and technology that enable automation. This approach allows the ROBO-STOX® Industry Classification to truly capture today’s and tomorrow’s “makers” within the robotics and automation industry.

The index constituents are selected from the ROBO-STOX® Industry Classification by reference to a series of filters including the requirement that they be listed on a recognised global stock exchange and satisfy minimum criteria relating to market capitalization and average daily value traded.

Within the Index, a two-tiered, equal weighting approach captures robotic ‘pure plays’ (so called “bellwethers”, currently 40% of the Index) and stocks with robotic segments (“non-bellwethers”, currently 60% of the Index). This “smart beta” configuration allows each constituent company to meaningfully contribute to the index’s performance (rather than allow it to be influenced by a company’s market capitalisation). The constituents are reviewed and rebalanced on a quarterly basis.

_______________

Resources:

ETF Securities product page: ROBO-STOX® Global Robotics and Automation GO UCITS ETF
WSJ MoneyBeat article: Launching a Stocks Index? Try a Robot
International Advisor article: ‘ROBO-STOX’: Europe’s first robotics ETF
ETF Strategy article: ETF Securities teams up with Robo-Stox for global robotics ETF
FundWeb article: ETF Securities launch to track the rise of robotics
Solactive and Robo-stox® Calculation Guidelines
Robo-stox pdf: The Investment Case for Robotics