Safety-critical advanced robots: A survey
Open accessIntegrity signals
Registry
Cites
Statistics
Claims the paper makes
Claims other papers make about this one
Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?
Method for dependability assessment: service that can be trusted is critical for software-intensive SCS.
“Method for dependability assessment: service that can be trusted [67]; critical for software-intensive SCS.”
From A requirements model for AI algorithms in functional safety-critical systems with an explainable self-enforcing network from a developer perspective (2024) · cites this paper as [67]
Cited by
Sorted by citations
Robotics cyber security: vulnerabilities, attacks, countermeasures, and recommendations
Yaacoub, J.-P. A., Noura, H. N., Salman, O., & Chehab, A. (2022) · International Journal of Information Security · doi:10.1007/s10207-021-00545-8 · Cited by 320 · see citing works
Product liability for defective AI
Buiten, M. C. (2024) · European Journal of Law and Economics · doi:10.1007/s10657-024-09794-z · Cited by 41 · see citing works
Klüver, C., Greisbach, A., Kindermann, M., & Püttmann, B. (2024) · Security and Safety · doi:10.1051/sands/2024020 · Cited by 8 · see citing works
“• Method for dependability assessment: service that can be trusted [67]; critical for software-intensive SCS. • Method for reliability analysis: the probability that the application will satisfactorily fulfill its expected function without failure.”
- Authors
- Guiochet, J., Machin, M., & Waeselynck, H.
- Affiliations
- Centre National de la Recherche Scientifique (FR)
- Corresponding author
- Guiochet, Jérémie
- Venue
- Robotics and Autonomous Systems
- Publisher
- Elsevier BV
- Published
- 2017-08
- Volume
- 94
- Pages
- 43-52
- ISSN
- 0921-8890 (ISSN-L)
- OpenAlex
- W2606126819
- Cited by
- 231
- References
- 0
- Citations by year
- 2026: 20 · 2025: 22 · 2024: 21 · 2023: 31 · 2022: 27 · 2021: 32 · 2020: 32 · 2019: 26 · 2018: 15 · 2017: 5
- FWCI
- 31.16
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- green
- hal.science
- Licence
- Locations
- Robotics and Autonomous Systems (publishedVersion)
- HAL (submittedVersion, other-oa)
- Topics
- Physical Sciences › Engineering › Safety, Risk, Reliability and Quality › Safety Systems Engineering in Autonomy
- Physical Sciences › Engineering › Control and Systems Engineering › Robotics and Automated Systems
- Physical Sciences › Computer Science › Computer Networks and Communications › Distributed systems and fault tolerance
- Keywords
- robot safety, dependability, human-robot interaction
About these checks
Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.
Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.
Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.
What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›
Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review
