It is evident that service robotics has the potential to improve people's quality of life and it holds the key to a number of unmet applications related to health care and rehabilitation. According to the prediction of International Federation of Robotics, the global market for intelligent service robots is forecast to reach 24.3 billion USD worldwide by 2010. A multi-fingered robotic hand is the most complex and dexterous robotic system, whose development represents frontiers in service robotics research. Recent innovations in motor technology and robotics have achieved impressive results in the hardware of robotic hands such as Robonaut hand. However, the manipulation systems of robotic hands are hardcoded to handle specific objects in specific ways, which significantly limits their transfer to a range of different situations and applications. The control and optimisation problems involved in robot hand manipulation are very difficult to solve in mathematical terms, however humans solve their hand manipulation related tasks easily using skill and experience. Object manipulation algorithms are required to meet the market requirement that robot hand systems should have human-like manipulation capabilities and be independent of robot hand hardware. Hence, the main challenge that researchers now face is how to enable robot hands to use what can be learned from human hands, to manipulate objects, with the same degree of skill and delicacy as human hands. The proposed work aims to investigate artificial intelligence (AI) methodologies and practical solutions which will allow robotic hands to automatically adapt to human environments and thus to enable them to autonomously perform useful manipulation tasks involved in daily living, pontentially for health care and rehabilitation applications. The investigation will focus on the following areas. 1) To generate a series of responsive human-like finger gaits for a robotic hand given an object to manipulate. This will have the capability to iteratively build a knowledge base representing the features of human hand manipulation behaviour and to efficiently provide corresponding robot hand gaits and manipulation strategies for a given manipulation task in a human environment.2) To develop feasible friction models for the interaction of objects and a robot/human hand. This will enable the application of existing mathematical research findings in multifingered robot manipulation to realworld applications in human environments and will integrate related methods in engineering and AI domains. 3) To develop an AI-based control architecture to ensure robust object manipulation of multifingered robots in terms of manipulation feasibility and efficiency. This will allow robot hands to perform stable human-like object grasping and manipulation and will also provide an open architecture which has the potential to introduce human brain (EEG/MRI signals) and human muscles (EMG signals) information into robotic hand systems.4) To validate the proposed algorithms by implementing these into a set of defined scenarios with a set of simulated multifingered robot hands and three different types of physical robot hands.

Mobile and autonomous robots have an increasingly important role in industry and the wider society; from driverless vehicles to home assistance, potential applications are numerous. The UK government identified robotics as a key technology that will lead us to future economic growth (tinyurl.com/q8bhcy7). They have recognised, however, that autonomous robots are complex and typically operate in ever-changing environments (tinyurl.com/o2u2ts7). How can we be confident that they perform useful functions, as required, but are safe? It is standard practice to use testing to check correctness and safety. The software-development practice for robotics typically includes testing within simulations, before robots are built, and then testing of the actual robots. Simulations have several benefits: we can test early, and test execution is cheaper and faster. For example, simulation does not require a robot to move physically. Testing with the real robots is, however, still needed, since we cannot be sure that a simulation captures all the important aspects of the hardware and environment. In the current scenario, test generation is typically manual; this makes testing expensive and unreliable, and introduces delays. Manual test generation is error-prone and can lead to tests that produce the wrong verdict. If a test incorrectly states that the robot has a failure, then developers have to investigate, with extra cost and time. If a test incorrectly states that the robot behaves as expected, then a faulty system may be released. Without a systematic approach, tests may also identify infeasible environments; such tests cannot be used with the real robot. To make matters worse, manual test generation limits the number of tests produced. All this affects the cost and quality of robot software, and is in contrast with current practice in other safety-critical areas, like the transport industry, which is highly regulated. Translation of technology, however, is not trivial. For example, lack of a driver to correct mistakes or respond to unforeseen circumstances leads to a much larger set of working conditions for an autonomous vehicle. Another example is provided by probabilistic algorithms, which make the robot behaviour nondeterministic, and so, difficult to repeat in testing and more difficult to characterise as correct or not. We will address all these issues with novel automated test-generation techniques for mobile and autonomous robots. To use our techniques, a RoboTest tester constructs a model of the robot using a familiar notation already employed in the design of simulations and implementations. After that, instead of spending time designing simulation scenarios, the RoboTest tester, with the push of a button, generates tests. With RoboTest, testing is cheaper, since it takes less time, and is more effective, because the RoboTest tester can use many more tests, especially when using a simulation. To execute the tests, the RoboTest tester can choose from a few simulators employing a variety of approaches to programming. Execution of the tests also follows the push of a button. Yet another button translates simulation to deployment tests. So, the RoboTest tester can trace back the results from the deployment tests to the simulation and the original model. So, the RoboTest tester is in a strong position to understand the reality gap between the simulation and the real world. The RoboTest tester knows that the verdicts for the tests are correct, and understands what the testing achieves; for example, it can be guaranteed to find faults of an identified class. So, the RoboTest tester can answer the very difficult question: have we tested enough? In conclusion, RoboTest will move the testing of mobile and autonomous robots onto a sound footing. RoboTest will make testing more efficient and effective in terms of person effort, and so, achieve longer term reduced costs.

Mobile and autonomous robots have an increasingly important role in industry and the wider society; from driverless vehicles to home assistance, potential applications are numerous. The UK government identified robotics as a key technology that will lead us to future economic growth (tinyurl.com/q8bhcy7). They have recognised, however, that autonomous robots are complex and typically operate in ever-changing environments (tinyurl.com/o2u2ts7). How can we be confident that they perform useful functions, as required, but are safe? It is standard practice to use testing to check correctness and safety. The software-development practice for robotics typically includes testing within simulations, before robots are built, and then testing of the actual robots. Simulations have several benefits: we can test early, and test execution is cheaper and faster. For example, simulation does not require a robot to move physically. Testing with the real robots is, however, still needed, since we cannot be sure that a simulation captures all the important aspects of the hardware and environment. In the current scenario, test generation is typically manual; this makes testing expensive and unreliable, and introduces delays. Manual test generation is error-prone and can lead to tests that produce the wrong verdict. If a test incorrectly states that the robot has a failure, then developers have to investigate, with extra cost and time. If a test incorrectly states that the robot behaves as expected, then a faulty system may be released. Without a systematic approach, tests may also identify infeasible environments; such tests cannot be used with the real robot. To make matters worse, manual test generation limits the number of tests produced. All this affects the cost and quality of robot software, and is in contrast with current practice in other safety-critical areas, like the transport industry, which is highly regulated. Translation of technology, however, is not trivial. For example, lack of a driver to correct mistakes or respond to unforeseen circumstances leads to a much larger set of working conditions for an autonomous vehicle. Another example is provided by probabilistic algorithms, which make the robot behaviour nondeterministic, and so, difficult to repeat in testing and more difficult to characterise as correct or not. We will address all these issues with novel automated test-generation techniques for mobile and autonomous robots. To use our techniques, a RoboTest tester constructs a model of the robot using a familiar notation already employed in the design of simulations and implementations. After that, instead of spending time designing simulation scenarios, the RoboTest tester, with the push of a button, generates tests. With RoboTest, testing is cheaper, since it takes less time, and is more effective, because the RoboTest tester can use many more tests, especially when using a simulation. To execute the tests, the RoboTest tester can choose from a few simulators employing a variety of approaches to programming. Execution of the tests also follows the push of a button. Yet another button translates simulation to deployment tests. So, the RoboTest tester can trace back the results from the deployment tests to the simulation and the original model. So, the RoboTest tester is in a strong position to understand the reality gap between the simulation and the real world. The RoboTest tester knows that the verdicts for the tests are correct, and understands what the testing achieves; for example, it can be guaranteed to find faults of an identified class. So, the RoboTest tester can answer the very difficult question: have we tested enough? In conclusion, RoboTest will move the testing of mobile and autonomous robots onto a sound footing. RoboTest will make testing more efficient and effective in terms of person effort, and so, achieve longer term reduced costs.

Imagine a future where autonomous systems are widely available to improve our lives. In this future, autonomous robots unobtrusively maintain the infrastructure of our cities, and support people in living fulfilled independent lives. In this future, autonomous software reliably diagnoses disease at early stages, and dependably manages our road traffic to maximise flow and minimise environmental impact. Before this vision becomes reality, several major limitations of current autonomous systems need to be addressed. Key among these limitations is their reduced resilience: today's autonomous systems cannot avoid, withstand, recover from, adapt, and evolve to handle the uncertainty, change, faults, failure, adversity, and other disruptions present in such applications. Recent and forthcoming technological advances will provide autonomous systems with many of the sensors, actuators and other functional building blocks required to achieve the desired resilience levels, but this is not enough. To be resilient and trustworthy in these important applications, future autonomous systems will also need to use these building blocks effectively, so that they achieve complex technical requirements without violating our social, legal, ethical, empathy and cultural (SLEEC) rules and norms. Additionally, they will need to provide us with compelling evidence that the decisions and actions supporting their resilience satisfy both technical and SLEEC-compliance goals. To address these challenging needs, our project will develop a comprehensive toolbox of mathematically based notations and models, SLEEC-compliant resilience-enhancing methods, and systematic approaches for developing, deploying, optimising, and assuring highly resilient autonomous systems and systems of systems. To this end, we will capture the multidisciplinary nature of the social and technical aspects of the environment in which autonomous systems operate - and of the systems themselves - via mathematical models. For that, we have a team of Computer Scientists, Engineers, Psychologists, Philosophers, Lawyers, and Mathematicians, with an extensive track record of delivering research in all areas of the project. Working with such a mathematical model, autonomous systems will determine which resilience- enhancing actions are feasible, meet technical requirements, and are compliant with the relevant SLEEC rules and norms. Like humans, our autonomous systems will be able to reduce uncertainty, and to predict, detect and respond to change, faults, failures and adversity, proactively and efficiently. Like humans, if needed, our autonomous systems will share knowledge and services with humans and other autonomous agents. Like humans, if needed, our autonomous systems will cooperate with one another and with humans, and will proactively seek assistance from experts. Our work will deliver a step change in developing resilient autonomous systems and systems of systems. Developers will have notations and guidance to specify the socio-technical norms and rules applicable to the operational context of their autonomous systems, and techniques to design resilient autonomous systems that are trustworthy and compliant with these norms and rules. Additionally, developers will have guidance to build autonomous systems that can tolerate disruption, making the system usable in a larger set of circumstances. Finally, they will have techniques to develop resilient autonomous systems that can share information and services with peer systems and humans, and methods for providing evidence of the resilience of their systems. In such a context, autonomous systems and systems of systems will be highly resilient and trustworthy.