What does a light-tailed simulated human do to a collaborative robot's timeout?
research/handover-twin
When a collaborative robot should give up waiting for a human: J'(τ)=S(τ)(w−c·h(τ)) makes exponential/Weibull simulated humans corner-only (never abort), 3.7% regret in the base case rising to 37–81% for heavy tails and cheap aborts, plug-in lognormal fit regret 1/n (delta method within 11%).
What it found
A robot that waits for a human and aborts after τ has cost J(τ) = wE[min(T,τ)] + cP(T>τ), with slope S(τ)(w − c·h(τ)). Simulated humans with constant or increasing hazard (exponential, Weibull) therefore have only corner-optimal timeouts and, when aborting costs more than the mean wait, never give up. Against a lognormal human (σ=1.2, an assumed model) the interior optimum is 9.4 s and the light-tailed twin’s regret is 3.7% of the optimum, rising to 37% (σ=1.6) and 81% (σ=2) for heavier tails and cheap aborts. A lognormal twin with the right mean and σ off by 0.2 recovers all but 0.5%. Fitting the correct family from n real trials costs regret ∝ 1/n, matched by the delta method to within 11% (0.0323 at n=10, 0.00034 at n=1000). Stylised: scalar i.i.d. response time, one fixed timeout, no real human data.
A figure from its own output
Paper, code and results
More in Digital twins & sim-to-real
- What does a too-clean sensor twin do to a mapper's commit error?What a too-clean sensor twin does to a mapper's commit error: exact real error via the Lundberg exponent (false-hit 0.05 twin vs 0.15 real turns 1e-3 into 1.45e-2, 14.5×), tempering restores the target at 1.4–16× latency, and the exponent needs several hundred real samples to estimate.
- Does cloning an expert from logs recorded in a digital twin recover the expert?Cloning an expert from twin-logged demonstrations under actuator saturation: applied-action logs bias the clone even in a perfect twin (gain 0.58 vs 0.96, +9.8% cost), Stein closed form, quieter or looser twins help, narrow coverage fixes it, DAgger with applied labels is worse.
- What does a too-clean digital twin do to a student cloned from a privileged teacher?Cloning a privileged teacher from a digital twin into a noisy-sensor student: BC gain
gP/(P+s)is set by the twin's noise-to-sensor ratio, a too-clean twin (¼ the noise) gives 0.36–1.11 excess cost vs 0.005–0.10, on-policy imitation is within 3.5% of optimal, cancellation with actuator error is accidental, and matching one real scalar by demonstration noise fixes it in two rounds. - What does a digital twin without sensor latency do to a tuned controller?What a twin without sensor latency does to a tuned controller: exact stable-gain interval shrinks with delay, the zero-delay LQR gain tolerates one step (1.6× cost) and is unstable from two, retuned static gains cost 1.1–2.6×, wrong-delay predictors are mostly unstable, and delay identification needs
≈2z²(1+1/snr)samples. - When does a forecast-ensemble twin send the UAV to the wrong place, or make the update worse?UAV targeted observation planned in a forecast-ensemble twin: exact real error after twin-gain updates, a 2×-too-long correlation length claims −65% and delivers +28% (closed-form harm radius), 10 correct-model members already hurt, localisation and a fitted length scale (m≈50) repair it.
- What does a deterministic-duration twin of a lab workcell promise, and how many stations does it buy?What a deterministic-duration twin of a lab workcell promises: exact expected max of gamma branches, 1.86× promise miss with exponential branches (3× at the 95% quantile), station count under- or right-bought depending on how variability scales, and ~5 real durations fix the decision but ~50 the makespan.
All 164 Digital twins & sim-to-real projects →
Other research topics
Proper scoring & elicitation28Effort & peer prediction9Verification games & slashing19Detection & tolerances14Markets as routers13Prediction-market design9Paying contributors8Decentralised training systems23Digital twins & sim-to-real164LLM chip design loops40Robot manufacturing loops53Ambient AI assistant46Self-replicating manufacturing34Simulation-first design64Engineered clothing45Task-specific AI accelerators40Algorithmic chip-design loops42Open-source purpose-built robots44The software-engineering loop43Adversarial human imitation41Open-source residential construction41Autonomous multi-angle capture34Sensing, imaging and 3D31Energy supply and dense energy storage39Robot societies among people31Agentic co-design of low-cost robots27Laundry-hanging robots25Machine learning on qualitative data23Robots on the building site27Civilizations & group psychology1History & human sciences1
Produced with AI assistance (Claude). Results are from the code in this repository and are simulated or stylised unless the abstract says otherwise; nothing here implies affiliation with or endorsement by any lab, researcher or company cited. MIT licensed.