BZPEERReading, trust and collaboration for research
Menu

Discover

GraphFollow connections around a paper, topic or saved view.

Workspaces

HomePick up where your research flow left off.InboxHandle requests, replies and notifications from one place.CollectionsCurate reading lists, evidence sets and shareable dossiers.ResearchSee your private provenance graph, trail and imports.CollaborationMove from discovery into focused discussion rooms.PublishDraft, preview and publish full-text research articles.

Network

ExpertsFind specialists worth following or asking for help.CommunitiesJoin research circles organized around shared work.PartnersSee external organizations active around the same topics.

Opportunities

ListingsBrowse roles, calls and collaborations with clearer fit signals.

Account

Log inReturn to your reading and collaboration workspace.Create accountStart saving work, following people and joining teams.
Log inCreate account

Researcher profile

Holly Yanco

Holly Yanco contributes to research discovery and scholarly infrastructure.

ResearcherAffiliation not importedOpen to collaborate
Roboticseess.SYHuman-Computer InteractionSystems and ControlArtificial Intelligencecs.CY

Trust snapshot

Quick read

Trust 17 - UnverifiedVerification L1Unclaimed author
4works
0followers
6topics
4close collaborators

Actions

Decide how to stay connected

Follow researcher0

Identity and collaboration

How to connect with this researcher

Claiming links this public author record to a researcher profile and unlocks direct collaboration workflows.

Log in to claim

Direct collaboration

Open a focused conversation when the fit is right

Claim this author entity first to unlock direct invitations.

Research graph

See the researcher in context

Open full explorer

Inspect adjacent work, topics, institutions and collaborators without jumping out to a separate graph page.

Building this graph slice

BZPEER is loading the nearby papers, people, topics and institutions for this page.

Published work

4 published item(s)

preprint2026arXiv

The Imperative for Grand Challenges in Computing

Computing is an indispensable component of nearly all technologies and is ubiquitous for vast segments of society. It is also essential to discoveries and innovations in most disciplines. However, while past grand challenges in science have involved computing as one of the tools to address the challenge, these challenges have not been principally about computing. Why has the computing community not yet produced challenges at the scale of grandeur that we see in disciplines such as physics, astronomy, or engineering? How might we go about identifying similarly grand challenges? What are the grand challenges of computing that transcend our discipline's traditional boundaries and have the potential to dramatically improve our understanding of the world and positively shape the future of our society? There is a significant benefit in us, as a field, taking a more intentional approach to "grand challenges." We are seeking challenge problems that are sufficiently compelling as to both ignite the imagination of computer scientists and draw researchers from other disciplines to computational challenges. This paper emphasizes the importance, now more than ever, of defining and pursuing grand challenges in computing as a field, and being intentional about translation and realizing its impacts on science and society. Building on lessons from prior grand challenges, the paper explores the nature of a grand challenge today emphasizing both scale and impact, and how the community may tackle such a grand challenge, given a rapidly changing innovation ecosystem in computing. The paper concludes with a call to action for our community to come together to define grand challenges in computing for the next decade and beyond.

0 citations0 reviewsNo code linkedOpen access
preprint2023arXiv

DECISIVE Benchmarking Data Report: sUAS Performance Results from Phase I

This report reviews all results derived from performance benchmarking conducted during Phase I of the Development and Execution of Comprehensive and Integrated Subterranean Intelligent Vehicle Evaluations (DECISIVE) project by the University of Massachusetts Lowell, using the test methods specified in the DECISIVE Test Methods Handbook v1.1 for evaluating small unmanned aerial systems (sUAS) performance in subterranean and constrained indoor environments, spanning communications, field readiness, interface, obstacle avoidance, navigation, mapping, autonomy, trust, and situation awareness. Using those 20 test methods, over 230 tests were conducted across 8 sUAS platforms: Cleo Robotics Dronut X1P (P = prototype), FLIR Black Hornet PRS, Flyability Elios 2 GOV, Lumenier Nighthawk V3, Parrot ANAFI USA GOV, Skydio X2D, Teal Golden Eagle, and Vantage Robotics Vesper. Best in class criteria is specified for each applicable test method and the sUAS that match this criteria are named for each test method, including a high-level executive summary of their performance.

0 citations0 reviewsNo code linkedOpen access
preprint2023arXiv

DECISIVE Test Methods Handbook: Test Methods for Evaluating sUAS in Subterranean and Constrained Indoor Environments, Version 1.1

This handbook outlines all test methods developed under the Development and Execution of Comprehensive and Integrated Subterranean Intelligent Vehicle Evaluations (DECISIVE) project by the University of Massachusetts Lowell for evaluating small unmanned aerial systems (sUAS) performance in subterranean and constrained indoor environments, spanning communications, field readiness, interface, obstacle avoidance, navigation, mapping, autonomy, trust, and situation awareness. For sUAS deployment in subterranean and constrained indoor environments, this puts forth two assumptions about applicable sUAS to be evaluated using these test methods: (1) able to operate without access to GPS signal, and (2) width from prop top to prop tip does not exceed 91 cm (36 in) wide (i.e., can physically fit through a typical doorway, although successful navigation through is not guaranteed). All test methods are specified using a common format: Purpose, Summary of Test Method, Apparatus and Artifacts, Equipment, Metrics, Procedure, and Example Data. All test methods are designed to be run in real-world environments (e.g., MOUT sites) or using fabricated apparatuses (e.g., test bays built from wood, or contained inside of one or more shipping containers).

0 citations0 reviewsNo code linkedOpen access
preprint2022arXiv

AAAI SSS-22 Symposium on Closing the Assessment Loop: Communicating Proficiency and Intent in Human-Robot Teaming

The proposed symposium focuses understanding, modeling, and improving the efficacy of (a) communicating proficiency from human to robot and (b) communicating intent from a human to a robot. For example, how should a robot convey predicted ability on a new task? How should it report performance on a task that was just completed? How should a robot adapt its proficiency criteria based on human intentions and values? Communities in AI, robotics, HRI, and cognitive science have addressed related questions, but there are no agreed upon standards for evaluating proficiency and intent-based interactions. This is a pressing challenge for human-robot interaction for a variety of reasons. Prior work has shown that a robot that can assess its performance can alter human perception of the robot and decisions on control allocation. There is also significant evidence in robotics that accurately setting human expectations is critical, especially when proficiency is below human expectations. Moreover, proficiency assessment depends on context and intent, and a human teammate might increase or decrease performance standards, adapt tolerance for risk and uncertainty, demand predictive assessments that affect attention allocation, or otherwise reassess or adapt intent.

0 citations0 reviewsNo code linkedOpen access