In advanced manufacturing systems, humans and robots collaborate to conduct the production process. Effective task planning and allocation (TPA) is crucial for achieving high production efficiency, yet it remains challenging in complex and dynamic manufacturing environments. The dynamic nature of humans and robots, particularly the need to consider spatial information (e.g., humans' real-time position and the distance they need to move to complete a task), substantially complicates TPA. To address the above challenges, we decompose production tasks into manageable subtasks. We then implement a real-time hierarchical human-robot TPA algorithm, including a high-level agent for task planning and a low-level agent for task allocation. For the high-level agent, we propose an efficient buffer-based deep Q-learning method (EBQ), which reduces training time and enhances performance in production problems with long-term and sparse reward challenges. For the low-level agent, a path planning-based spatially aware method (SAP) is designed to allocate tasks to the appropriate human-robot resources, thereby achieving the corresponding sequential subtasks. We conducted experiments on a complex real-time production process in a 3D simulator. The results demonstrate that our proposed EBQ&SAP method effectively addresses human-robot TPA problems in complex and dynamic production processes.
Figures & tables
Figure 1: Illustration of the real-time production process flow and state information.
Figure 2: Our proposed hierarchical human-robot TPA algorithm with the high-level agent for real-time task planning, and a low-level agent for task allocation. The details of the high-level agent and low-level agent are expressed in Sec. 3.3 and Sec. 3.5 .
Notation
Description
T
Task set
O
Subtask set
E
Entity set of production participants
st
State of environment at time step t
R
Reward function
Table 1: Notations table.
Figure 3: Efficient buffer mechanism: episode-end processing. We modify the rewards of each episode’s transitions and duplicate the positive data before transferring it to the training buffer, increasing and prioritizing positive data, and shortening training time.
Figure 4: Network architecture for high-level agent, including feature embedding, transformer architecture, dueling network and Noisy Net.
Figure 5: SAP: Spatial aware by path planning for low-level agent.
Figure 6: SAP: offline node graph generation and real-time usage for task allocation.
Figure 7: Production workspace including humans, robots, machines, and materials.
Figure 8: Details of the task dependency graph, machine tasks, and human-robot tasks including subtasks.
Table 2: Comparison for efficient buffer mechanism proposed in Sec. 3.3.3 . Our proposed method is indicated by a “ † ”.
Table 3: Comparison for high-level algorithms. Our proposed method is indicated by a “ † ”.
Explanation
NoSpatial
Randomly allocates tasks to entities
LongestPath
allocates tasks to the farthest entities
EBQ-G †
allocates tasks to the closest entities
Table 4: Comparisons for low-level algorithms. See Sec. 3.5 for SAP algorithm details.
Training time
D3QN
≥ 40 hours
NoModify
10 ∼ 11 hours
EBQ-G †
10 ∼ 11 hours
Table 5: Training time comparison. See Sec. 3.3.3 for efficient buffer mechanism.
Figure 9: Evaluation curves during training intervals for efficient buffer mechanism.
Algorithm
Metric: Makespan
H1,R1
H1,R2
H1,R3
H2,R1
H2,R2
H2,R3
H3, R1
H3,R2
H3,R3
Mean
D3QN
1013.93
983.03
961.05
837.25
855.96
746.61
871.47
865.49
737.82
874.73
NoModify
990.35
1018.21
1004.94
758.72
789.63
735.42
825.92
782.96
702.07
845.36
EDQN1
1032.35
1069.95
1019.08
755.75
751.14
752.90
750.01
692.63
690.46
834.92
Table 6: Makespan performance in the testing phase. Note that a ” † ” indicates the performance of our proposed algorithm. ”Hn” denotes the number of humans is set to n, while ”Rn” indicates n robots during testing.
Figure 10: Training curves of high-level algorithms, all use SAP as the low-level algorithm.
Figure 11: Evaluation of high-level algorithms during training, all use SAP as the low-level algorithm.
Figure 12: Visualized results of Table 6 . Makespan under varying numbers of humans and robots.
Figure 13: Visualization of Table 7 . Makespan in unseen product quantities.
Table 7: The table presents zero-shot results, evaluating algorithms on unseen product quantities post-training. ”NumN” means producing N products. The performance of our proposed model is marked with a “ † ”.
Figure 14: The improvement degree of EBQ- ∗ Vs. D3QN and others, D3QN is the baseline.
Figure 15: Showcase of path planning for offline node graph generation. For both humans and robots, we present two cases each, using diverse start nodes from task-related working area nodes. Path results are provided from each start node to all other task-related working area nodes.
Figure 16: Evaluation curves during training intervals for EBQ-N combined with various low-level algorithms.
Table 8: Makespan and distance performance in the testing phase for EBQ-N combined with various low-level algorithms. Note that a ” † ” indicates the performance of our proposed algorithm. ”Hn” denotes the number of humans is set to n, while ”Rn” indicates n robots during testing.
Figure 17: Case study: Gantt chart and visualization results. Tasks’ details in Fig. 8 , and environment’s details in Fig. 7 .
Effective human-robot teaming is crucial for the practical deployment of robots in human workspaces. However, optimizing joint human-robot plans remains a challenge due to the difficulty of modeling individualized human capabilities and preferences. While prior research has leveraged the multi-cycle structure of domains like manufacturing to learn an individual's tendencies and adapt plans over repeated interactions, these techniques typically consider task-level and motion-level adaptation in isolation. Task-level methods optimize allocation and scheduling but often ignore spatial interference in close-proximity scenarios; conversely, motion-level methods focus on collision avoidance while ignoring the broader task context. This paper introduces RAPIDDS, a framework that unifies these approaches by modeling an individual's spatial behavior (motion paths) and temporal behavior (time required to complete tasks) over multiple cycles. RAPIDDS then jointly adapts task schedules and steers diffusion models of robot motions to maximize efficiency and minimize proximity accounting for these individualized models. We demonstrate the importance of this dual adaptation through an ablation study in simulation and a physical robot scenario using a 7-DOF robot arm. Finally, we present a user study (n=32) showing significant plan improvement compared to non-adaptive systems across both objective metrics, such as efficiency and proximity, and subjective measures, including fluency and user preference. See this paper's companion video at: https://youtu.be/55Q3lq1fINs.
Alex Cuellar, Michael Hagenow, Julie Shah
MIT CSAIL · UW Madison Department of Computer Science
Human-robot collaborative manufacturing, a core aspect of Industry 5.0, emphasizes ergonomics to enhance worker well-being. This paper addresses the dynamic human-robot task planning and allocation (HRTPA) problem, which involves determining when to perform tasks and who should execute them to maximize efficiency while ensuring workers' physical fatigue remains within safe limits. The inclusion of fatigue constraints, combined with production dynamics, significantly increases the complexity of the HRTPA problem. Traditional fatigue-recovery models in HRTPA often rely on static, predefined hyperparameters. However, in practice, human fatigue sensitivity varies daily due to factors such as changed work conditions and insufficient sleep. To better capture this uncertainty, we treat fatigue-related parameters as inaccurate and estimate them online based on observed fatigue progression during production. To address these challenges, we propose PF-CD3Q, a safe reinforcement learning (safe RL) approach that integrates the particle filter with constrained dueling double deep Q-learning for real-time fatigue-predictive HRTPA. Specifically, we first develop PF-based estimators to track human fatigue and update fatigue model parameters in real-time. These estimators are then integrated into CD3Q by making task-level fatigue predictions during decision-making and excluding tasks that exceed fatigue limits, thereby constraining the action space and formulating the problem as a constrained Markov decision process (CMDP).
Jintao Xue, Xiao Li, Nianmin Zhang
CI3 Lab, Department of Civil Engineering, The University of Hong Kong, Hong Kong SAR
We propose a human-factor-aware method of allocating robot supervision tasks to multiple human operators. In scenarios where multiple operators occasionally teleoperate multiple robots to help the robots overcome difficulties, the allocation of the supervisory control tasks to humans needs to consider the real-time cognitive states of individual operators. However, most existing methods assume fixed supervisory capacity per operator and overlook fluctuations in the human factors such as workload and fatigue. As a result, workload distribution can be unbalanced where some operators become overloaded while the others remain underused. Our method dynamically regulates supervisory capacity and allocates tasks in a way that maintains balanced mental workload, prevents overload, and improves overall team performance. The allocation method uses a greedy strategy that minimizes estimated operator workloads with task prioritization. Robots are assigned to operators by reflecting their current supervisory capacity where the required effort depends on the types of tasks. In the user study, the analysis across predefined time intervals shows that the proposed method consistently achieves higher performance and lower behavioral signs of fatigue compared to a baseline method that does not consider human factors. These results highlight adaptive capacity adjustment as an effective preventive mechanism for sustaining operator performance in long-duration, high-demand settings.
Seabin Lee, Sujeong Park, Nayoung Kim +3
Sogang University, Seoul, Korea. 1Dept. of Electronic Engineering. · Sogang University, Seoul, Korea. 2Dept. of Artificial Intelligence.