Home Robot Picker / Science
Science · home robots
Here are four research papers on home robots, all free to read on arXiv. Each summary is ours, written from the paper's abstract.
Our own artist's impression. No figures are taken from the papers.
Every number links to the paper it comes from.
What actually goes wrong with home robots, according to owners.
What they found10,072 Amazon reviews of home robots were sorted into 12 failure types; technical failures, especially task completion and robustness, hurt ratings most.
Classification of reviews into an updated failure taxonomy.
Source for: Owner reviews analysed for failures
Designing affordable home robots for useful jobs such as health monitoring.
What they foundThe paper looks at affordable home robot designs for health monitoring, between cheap limited robots and expensive humanoids.
A design study of low-cost robot solutions.
Trust, privacy and what makes people actually use a home robot.
What they foundMulti-person households distrusted robots' data handling and proposed their own privacy designs.
Participatory design sessions with 15 households.
What they foundExpected usefulness, social influence and enjoyment best predicted whether people would use a home robot, with usability, trust and competence also promising.
Regularised regression on survey data within the UTAUT2 framework.
New papers on home robots, checked weekly, summarized after a person reads it.
No new papers on home robots this week. We check arXiv every week.
We search arXiv for home robots papers and keep the ones that add something new, are clearly written up and are relevant to a general reader. A person reads every abstract.
Summaries are written by us from each paper’s abstract, not copied. Diagrams are our own simplified drawings, not figures from the papers.
“Peer-reviewed” means arXiv lists a journal reference for the paper. Everything else is marked “Preprint”: shared openly, possibly before or without journal review.
Paper metadata courtesy of arXiv. Summaries written by us; read the original papers via the links. Paper metadata from arXiv.org, which does not endorse this site.