Iterative Viterbi decoding is an algorithm that spots the subsequence S of an observation O = {o1, ..., on} having the highest average probability (i.e., probability scaled by the length of S) of being generated by a given hidden Markov model M with m states. The algorithm uses a modified Viterbi algorithm as an internal step. The scaled probability measure was first proposed by John S. Bridle. An early algorithm to solve this problem, sliding window, was proposed by Jay G. Wilpon et al., 1989, with constant cost T = mn2/2. A faster algorithm consists of an iteration of calls to the Viterbi algorithm, reestimating a filler score until convergence. == The algorithm == A basic (non-optimized) version, finding the sequence s with the smallest normalized distance from some subsequence of t is: // input is placed in observation s[1..n], template t[1..m], // and [[distance matrix]] d[1..n,1..m] // remaining elements in matrices are solely for internal computations (int, int, int) AverageSubmatchDistance(char s[0..(n+1)], char t[0..(m+1)], int d[1..n,0..(m+1)]) { // score, subsequence start, subsequence end declare int e, B, E t'[0] := t'[m+1] := s'[0] := s'[n+1] := 'e' e := random() do e' := e for i := 1 to n do d'[i,0] := d'[i,m+1] := e (e, B, E) := ViterbiDistance(s', t', d') e := e/(E-B+1) until (e == e') return (e, B, E) } The ViterbiDistance() procedure returns the tuple (e, B, E), i.e., the Viterbi score "e" for the match of t and the selected entry (B) and exit (E) points from it. "B" and "E" have to be recorded using a simple modification to Viterbi. A modification that can be applied to CYK tables, proposed by Antoine Rozenknop, consists in subtracting e from all elements of the initial matrix d.
Transparency in the software supply chain
Transparency in the software supply chain is a condition in which participants involved in the development, procurement, operation, auditing, or regulation of software can determine which components, dependencies, build stages, identifiers, and relationships within the supply chain make up the delivered product. The disclosure of information about software components, their interrelationships, origins, and development methods—for the purposes of risk management, vulnerability detection, and compliance—takes place throughout the software lifecycle. Transparency is one of the key security attributes of the software supply chain, as a deeper understanding of the chain enables participants to identify vulnerabilities and mitigate threats. Problems in the software supply chain can cause billions in losses and create operational challenges for government and commercial entities, as demonstrated by incidents involving SolarWinds, Bybit, 3CX, Jaguar Land Rover, GitHub, and NotPetya. Modern software is often assembled from third-party libraries and open-source components. According to research by the Linux Foundation and Synopsys, 96% of the commercial codebases analyzed contained open-source software, and 70–90% of a typical codebase may consist of open-source components. Without transparency, any software component can become a threat. As a result, companies may spend billions of dollars building robust external defenses, but this will not protect against vulnerabilities in legitimate software inside the perimeter. At the same time, supply chain attacks also erode trust between customers and their IT providers, as malicious code is often embedded in official updates with certificates and digital signatures. One of the primary ways to ensure transparency is through a software bill of materials, which documents the components used to create the software and the relationships within the supply chain. == Concept == The software supply chain is the collection of systems, devices, people, artifacts, and processes involved in the creation of the final software product. Attacks on the software supply chain differ from conventional attacks in that they follow a four-stage pattern: compromise, modification, distribution, and subsequent exploitation of the compromised or modified component. A defining feature of a supply chain attack is the introduction or manipulation of a change at an upstream stage, which is subsequently exploited at a downstream stage. Transparency refers to the availability of knowledge about the chain, while validity concerns the integrity of operations and artifacts and the authentication of participants, and separation involves reducing unnecessary trust relationships and the radius of impact through compartmentalization. In this framework, transparency primarily helps during the pre-compromise and detection phases, as a clearer understanding of participants, operations, and artifacts makes it easier to identify weak links before attackers exploit them. Current major attack vectors include dependencies and containers, build infrastructure, and human participants, such as maintainers or developers. == History == Software supply-chain transparency developed from earlier efforts to document software components, long before the term came into widespread use in the cybersecurity field. Early component-documentation formats included SPDX, first published in 2011, and CycloneDX, first published in 2017. Initially, these formats were created to support license compliance, package identification, and tool compatibility. Their development helped shape a broader concept of software supply chain transparency, encompassing component documentation, disclosure practices, risk management, security analysis, and regulatory compliance. In 2018, the U.S. National Telecommunications and Information Administration launched a multistakeholder process on promoting software component transparency. This process helped move work on SBOMs from a specialized technical practice into the realm of policy and procurement to identify components used in software products. The 2020 compromise of the SolarWinds Orion platform made software supply chain security a central issue in government cybersecurity policy. An analysis of the “Sunburst” campaign prepared by the Atlantic Council noted that the vulnerability of the software supply chain had become a realized risk for national-security agencies. In May 2021, U.S. President Joe Biden issued Executive Order 14028, which directed federal agencies to improve cybersecurity and increase transparency in the software supply chain, including requirements related to SBOMs. Reuters reported that the executive order required software developers selling their products to the federal government to provide greater visibility into their software and make security data available. In July 2021, the NTIA published the document “The Minimum Elements for a Software Bill of Materials (SBOM)”, defining the basic data fields and practices for creating SBOMs. Between 2021 and 2025, the U.S. Cybersecurity and Infrastructure Security Agency updated its guidance on “Framing Software Component Transparency”, expanding the set of SBOM attributes, metadata requirements, and operational recommendations for the creation, exchange, and use of SBOMs. Major incidents that occurred following the SolarWinds attack have underscored the importance of transparency in vulnerability management and supply chain security. The Log4Shell vulnerability in the Log4j library, disclosed in December 2021, demonstrated how difficult it can be for organizations to identify a vulnerable component deeply embedded within applications and services. In 2024, an attempt to plant a backdoor in XZ Utils showed how attackers could exploit trust in open-source maintenance processes to introduce malicious code into widely used infrastructure software. By the mid-2020s, software supply chain transparency had become part of international cybersecurity coordination and regulation. On September 3, 2025, Japan's Ministry of Economy, Trade and Industry and the National Cybersecurity Office, in collaboration with cybersecurity agencies from 15 countries, released the document “A Shared Vision of Software Bill of Materials (SBOM) for Cybersecurity.” In the European Union, the Cyber Resilience Act required manufacturers of products with digital elements to create, maintain, and retain SBOMs as part of the technical documentation for software placed on the EU market. == Transparency mechanisms == The primary mechanism for ensuring transparency is the software bill of materials (SBOM). An SBOM is a structured list of components, libraries, and tools used to build and distribute a software product, and it records dependencies in a way that helps organizations understand and assess their software supply chains. It can also be described as a formal record of components and their interdependencies, which gives users insight into their actual exposure to risks and threats. Five key areas of SBOM application in software supply chain security have been identified: vulnerability management, ensuring transparency, component evaluation, risk assessment, and ensuring supply chain integrity. In software supply chains, an SBOM documents all components, both open-source and proprietary. Under Executive Order 14028, U.S. federal agencies require software suppliers to provide SBOMs for government-procured software. The list of minimum required SBOM elements defined by NTIA includes three main categories: required data fields for describing each component (name, version, identifiers), automation support (machine-readable format, generation tools), and recommendations for creating SBOMs during development and purchasing. The post-2021 push for SBOMs was intended to provide visibility into the components used within software and to expose parts of an application that would otherwise remain hidden. This information can be used to prioritize patches, manage vulnerabilities, and support compliance work. Transparency also supports software traceability, which is becoming a standard feature of developer platforms. Traceability has become important because organizations are increasingly required to demonstrate how software was created, rather than simply listing its components. Higher levels of assurance require signed, tamper-proof traceability and more isolated, verifiable build environments. A related mechanism is build reproducibility. Reproducible builds are defined as build processes that make the compilation process deterministic, ensuring that the same source code always produces the same binary file. These builds are considered a foundational element for distributed verification, transparency-log maintenance, supply-chain workflow integration, and the creation of keyless signatures based on verifiable logs. Although reproducibility does not replace inventory or attestation, it gives external par
FMLLR
In signal processing, Feature space Maximum Likelihood Linear Regression (fMLLR) is a global feature transform that are typically applied in a speaker adaptive way, where fMLLR transforms acoustic features to speaker adapted features by a multiplication operation with a transformation matrix. In some literature, fMLLR is also known as the Constrained Maximum Likelihood Linear Regression (cMLLR). == Overview == fMLLR transformations are trained in a maximum likelihood sense on adaptation data. These transformations may be estimated in many ways, but only maximum likelihood (ML) estimation is considered in fMLLR. The fMLLR transformation is trained on a particular set of adaptation data, such that it maximizes the likelihood of that adaptation data given a current model-set. This technique is a widely used approach for speaker adaptation in HMM-based speech recognition. Later research also shows that fMLLR is an excellent acoustic feature for DNN/HMM hybrid speech recognition models. The advantage of fMLLR includes the following: the adaptation process can be performed within a pre-processing phase, and is independent of the ASR training and decoding process. this type of adapted feature can be applied to deep neural networks (DNN) to replace traditionally used mel-spectrogram in end-to-end speech recognition models. fMLLR's speaker adaptation process leads to a significant performance boost for ASR models, hence outperforming other transform or features like MFCCs (Mel-Frequency Cepstral Coefficients) and FBANKs (Filter bank) coefficients. fMLLR features can be efficiently realized with speech toolkits like Kaldi. Major problem and disadvantage of fMLLR: when the amount of adaptation data is limited, the transformation matrices tends to easily overfit the given data. == Computing fMLLR transform == Feature transform of fMLLR can be easily computed with the open source speech tool Kaldi, the Kaldi script uses the standard estimation scheme described in Appendix B of the original paper, in particular the section Appendix B.1 "Direct method over rows". In the Kaldi formulation, fMLLR is an affine feature transform of the form x {\displaystyle x} → A {\displaystyle A} x {\displaystyle x} + b {\displaystyle +b} , which can be written in the form x {\displaystyle x} →W x ^ {\displaystyle {\hat {x}}} , where x ^ {\displaystyle {\hat {x}}} = [ x 1 ] {\displaystyle {\begin{bmatrix}x\\1\end{bmatrix}}} is the acoustic feature x {\displaystyle x} with a 1 appended. Note that this differs from some of the literature where the 1 comes first as x ^ {\displaystyle {\hat {x}}} = [ 1 x ] {\displaystyle {\begin{bmatrix}1\\x\end{bmatrix}}} . The sufficient statistics stored are: K = ∑ t , j , m γ j , m ( t ) Σ j m − 1 μ j m x ( t ) + {\displaystyle K=\sum _{t,j,m}\gamma _{j,m}(t)\textstyle \Sigma _{jm}^{-1}\mu _{jm}x(t)^{+}\displaystyle } where Σ j m − 1 {\displaystyle \textstyle \Sigma _{jm}^{-1}\displaystyle } is the inverse co-variance matrix. And for 0 ≤ i ≤ D {\displaystyle 0\leq i\leq D} where D {\displaystyle D} is the feature dimension: G ( i ) = ∑ t , j , m γ j , m ( t ) ( 1 σ j , m 2 ( i ) ) x ( t ) + x ( t ) + T {\displaystyle G^{(i)}=\sum _{t,j,m}\gamma _{j,m}(t)\left({\frac {1}{\sigma _{j,m}^{2}(i)}}\right)x(t)^{+}x(t)^{+T}\displaystyle } For a thorough review that explains fMLLR and the commonly used estimation techniques, see the original paper "Maximum likelihood linear transformations for HMM-based speech recognition ". Note that the Kaldi script that performs the feature transforms of fMLLR differs with by using a column of the inverse in place of the cofactor row. In other words, the factor of the determinant is ignored, as it does not affect the transform result and can causes potential danger of numerical underflow or overflow. == Comparing with other features or transforms == Experiment result shows that by using the fMLLR feature in speech recognition, constant improvement is gained over other acoustic features on various commonly used benchmark datasets (TIMIT, LibriSpeech, etc). In particular, fMLLR features outperform MFCCs and FBANKs coefficients, which is mainly due to the speaker adaptation process that fMLLR performs. In, phoneme error rate (PER, %) is reported for the test set of TIMIT with various neural architectures: As expected, fMLLR features outperform MFCCs and FBANKs coefficients despite the use of different model architecture. Where MLP (multi-layer perceptron) serves as a simple baseline, on the other hand RNN, LSTM, and GRU are all well known recurrent models. The Li-GRU architecture is based on a single gate and thus saves 33% of the computations over a standard GRU model, Li-GRU thus effectively address the gradient vanishing problem of recurrent models. As a result, the best performance is obtained with the Li-GRU model on fMLLR features. == Extract fMLLR features with Kaldi == fMLLR can be extracted as reported in the s5 recipe of Kaldi. Kaldi scripts can certainly extract fMLLR features on different dataset, below are the basic example steps to extract fMLLR features from the open source speech corpora Librispeech. Note that the instructions below are for the subsets train-clean-100,train-clean-360,dev-clean, and test-clean, but they can be easily extended to support the other sets dev-other, test-other, and train-other-500. These instruction are based on the codes provided in this GitHub repository, which contains Kaldi recipes on the LibriSpeech corpora to execute the fMLLR feature extraction process, replace the files under $KALDI_ROOT/egs/librispeech/s5/ with the files in the repository. Install Kaldi. Install Kaldiio. If running on a single machine, change the following lines in $KALDI_ROOT/egs/librispeech/s5/cmd.sh to replace queue.pl to run.pl: Change the data path in run.sh to your LibriSpeech data path, the directory LibriSpeech/ should be under that path. For example: Install flac with: sudo apt-get install flac Run the Kaldi recipe run.sh for LibriSpeech at least until Stage 13 (included), for simplicity you can use the modified run.sh. Copy exp/tri4b/trans. files into exp/tri4b/decode_tgsmall_train_clean_/ with the following command: Compute the fMLLR features by running the following script, the script can also be downloaded here: Compute alignments using: Apply CMVN and dump the fMLLR features to new .ark files, the script can also be downloaded here: Use the Python script to convert Kaldi generated .ark features to .npy for your own dataloader, an example Python script is provided:
Echo Lake (software)
Echo Lake (AKA Family Album Creator) was the most notable multimedia software product produced by Delrina, which debuted in June 1995. It was touted internally as a "cross [of] Quark Xpress and Myst". It featured an immersive 3D environment where a user could go to a virtual desktop in a virtual office and assemble video and audio clips along with images, and then print them out as either a virtual book other users of the program could use, or for print. It was a highly innovative product for its time, and ultimately was hampered by the inability of many users able to input their own multimedia content easily into a computer from that period. Creative Wonders bought the rights to the Echo Lake multimedia product, which was re-shaped as an introductory program on multimedia and re-released as Family Album Creator in 1996.
Human–robot collaboration
Human-Robot Collaboration is the study of collaborative processes in human and robot agents work together to achieve shared goals. Many new applications for robots require them to work alongside people as capable members of human-robot teams. These include robots for homes, hospitals, and offices, space exploration and manufacturing. Human-Robot Collaboration (HRC) is an interdisciplinary research area comprising classical robotics, human-computer interaction, artificial intelligence, process design, layout planning, ergonomics, cognitive sciences, and psychology. Industrial applications of human-robot collaboration involve Collaborative Robots, or cobots, that physically interact with humans in a shared workspace to complete tasks such as collaborative manipulation or object handovers. == Collaborative Activity == Collaboration is defined as a special type of coordinated activity, one in which two or more agents work jointly with each other, together performing a task or carrying out the activities needed to satisfy a shared goal. The process typically involves shared plans, shared norms and mutually beneficial interactions. Although collaboration and cooperation are often used interchangeably, collaboration differs from cooperation as it involves a shared goal and joint action where the success of both parties depend on each other. For effective human-robot collaboration, it is imperative that the robot is capable of understanding and interpreting several communication mechanisms similar to the mechanisms involved in human-human interaction. The robot must also communicate its own set of intents and goals to establish and maintain a set of shared beliefs and to coordinate its actions to execute the shared plan. In addition, all team members demonstrate commitment to doing their own part, to the others doing theirs, and to the success of the overall task. == Theories Informing Human-Robot Collaboration == Human-human collaborative activities are studied in depth in order to identify the characteristics that enable humans to successfully work together. These activity models usually aim to understand how people work together in teams, how they form intentions and achieve a joint goal. Theories on collaboration inform human-robot collaboration research to develop efficient and fluent collaborative agents. === Belief Desire Intention Model === The belief-desire-intention (BDI) model is a model of human practical reasoning that was originally developed by Michael Bratman. The approach is used in intelligent agents research to describe and model intelligent agents. The BDI model is characterized by the implementation of an agent's beliefs (the knowledge of the world, state of the world), desires (the objective to accomplish, desired end state) and intentions (the course of actions currently under execution to achieve the desire of the agent) in order to deliberate their decision-making processes. BDI agents are able to deliberate about plans, select plans and execute plans. === Shared Cooperative Activity === Shared Cooperative Activity defines certain prerequisites for an activity to be considered shared and cooperative: mutual responsiveness, commitment to the joint activity and commitment to mutual support. An example case to illustrate these concepts would be a collaborative activity where agents are moving a table out the door, mutual responsiveness ensures that movements of the agents are synchronized; a commitment to the joint activity reassures each team member that the other will not at some point drop his side; and a commitment to mutual support deals with possible breakdowns due to one team member's inability to perform part of the plan. === Joint Intention Theory === Joint Intention Theory proposes that for joint action to emerge, team members must communicate to maintain a set of shared beliefs and to coordinate their actions towards the shared plan. In collaborative work, agents should be able to count on the commitment of other members, therefore each agent should inform the others when they reach the conclusion that a goal is achievable, impossible, or irrelevant. == Approaches to Human-Robot Collaboration == The approaches to human-robot collaboration include human emulation (HE) and human complementary (HC) approaches. Although these approaches have differences, there are research efforts to develop a unified approach stemming from potential convergences such as Collaborative Control. === Human Emulation === The human emulation approach aims to enable computers to act like humans or have human-like abilities in order to collaborate with humans. It focuses on developing formal models of human-human collaboration and applying these models to human-computer collaboration. In this approach, humans are viewed as rational agents who form and execute plans for achieving their goals and infer other people's plans. Agents are required to infer the goals and plans of other agents, and collaborative behavior consists of helping other agents to achieve their goals. === Human Complementary === The human complementary approach seeks to improve human-computer interaction by making the computer a more intelligent partner that complements and collaborates with humans. The premise is that the computer and humans have fundamentally asymmetric abilities. Therefore, researchers invent interaction paradigms that divide responsibility between human users and computer systems by assigning distinct roles that exploit the strengths and overcome the weaknesses of both partners. == Key Aspects == Specialization of Roles: Based on the level of autonomy and intervention, there are several human-robot relationships including master-slave, supervisor–subordinate, partner–partner, teacher–learner and fully autonomous robot. In addition to these roles, homotopy (a weighting function that allows a continuous change between leader and follower behaviors) was introduced as a flexible role distribution. Establishing shared goal(s): Through direct discussion about goals or inference from statements and actions, agents must determine the shared goals they are trying to achieve. Allocation of Responsibility and Coordination: Agents must decide how to achieve their goals, determine what actions will be done by each agent, and how to coordinate the actions of individual agents and integrate their results. Shared context: Agents must be able to track progress toward their goals. They must keep track of what has been achieved and what remains to be done. They must evaluate the effects of actions and determine whether an acceptable solution has been achieved. Communication: Any collaboration requires communication to define goals, negotiate over how to proceed and who will do what, and evaluate progress and results. Adaptation and learning: Collaboration over time require partners to adapt themselves to each other and learn from one's partner both directly or indirectly. Time and space: The time-space taxonomy divides human-robot interaction into four categories based on whether the humans and robots are using computing systems at the same time (synchronous) or different times (asynchronous) and while in the same place (collocated) or in different places (non-collocated). Ergonomics: Human factors and ergonomics are one of the key aspects for a sustainable human-robot collaboration. The robot control system can use biomechanical models and sensors to optimize various ergonomic metrics, such as muscle fatigue.
Word error rate
Word error rate (WER) is a common metric of the performance of a speech recognition or machine translation system. The WER metric typically ranges from 0 to 1, where 0 indicates that the compared pieces of text are exactly identical, and 1 (or larger) indicates that they are completely different with no similarity. This way, a WER of 0.8 means that there is an 80% error rate for compared sentences. The general difficulty of measuring performance lies in the fact that the recognized word sequence can have a different length from the reference word sequence (supposedly the correct one). The WER is derived from the Levenshtein distance, working at the word level instead of the phoneme level. The WER is a valuable tool for comparing different systems as well as for evaluating improvements within one system. This kind of measurement, however, provides no details on the nature of translation errors and further work is therefore required to identify the main source(s) of error and to focus any research effort. This problem is solved by first aligning the recognized word sequence with the reference (spoken) word sequence using dynamic string alignment. Examination of this issue is seen through a theory called the power law that states the correlation between perplexity and word error rate. Word error rate can then be computed as: W E R = S + D + I N = S + D + I S + D + C {\displaystyle {\mathit {WER}}={\frac {S+D+I}{N}}={\frac {S+D+I}{S+D+C}}} where S is the number of substitutions, D is the number of deletions, I is the number of insertions, C is the number of correct words, N is the number of words in the reference (N=S+D+C) The intuition behind 'deletion' and 'insertion' is how to get from the reference to the hypothesis. So if we have the reference "This is wikipedia" and hypothesis "This _ wikipedia", we call it a deletion. Note that since N is the number of words in the reference, the word error rate can be larger than 1.0, namely if the number of insertions I is larger than the number of correct words C. When reporting the performance of a speech recognition system, sometimes word accuracy (WAcc) is used instead: W A c c = 1 − W E R = N − S − D − I N = C − I N {\displaystyle {\mathit {WAcc}}=1-{\mathit {WER}}={\frac {N-S-D-I}{N}}={\frac {C-I}{N}}} Since the WER can be larger than 1.0, the word accuracy can be smaller than 0.0. == Experiments == It is commonly believed that a lower word error rate shows superior accuracy in recognition of speech, compared with a higher word error rate. However, at least one study has shown that this may not be true. In a Microsoft Research experiment, it was shown that, if people were trained under "that matches the optimization objective for understanding", (Wang, Acero and Chelba, 2003) they would show a higher accuracy in understanding of language than other people who demonstrated a lower word error rate, showing that true understanding of spoken language relies on more than just high word recognition accuracy. == Other metrics == One problem with using a generic formula such as the one above, however, is that no account is taken of the effect that different types of error may have on the likelihood of successful outcome, e.g. some errors may be more disruptive than others and some may be corrected more easily than others. These factors are likely to be specific to the syntax being tested. A further problem is that, even with the best alignment, the formula cannot distinguish a substitution error from a combined deletion plus insertion error. Hunt (1990) has proposed the use of a weighted measure of performance accuracy where errors of substitution are weighted at unity but errors of deletion and insertion are both weighted only at 0.5, thus: W E R = S + 0.5 D + 0.5 I N {\displaystyle {\mathit {WER}}={\frac {S+0.5D+0.5I}{N}}} There is some debate, however, as to whether Hunt's formula may properly be used to assess the performance of a single system, as it was developed as a means of comparing more fairly competing candidate systems. A further complication is added by whether a given syntax allows for error correction and, if it does, how easy that process is for the user. There is thus some merit to the argument that performance metrics should be developed to suit the particular system being measured. Whichever metric is used, however, one major theoretical problem in assessing the performance of a system is deciding whether a word has been “mis-pronounced,” i.e. does the fault lie with the user or with the recogniser. This may be particularly relevant in a system which is designed to cope with non-native speakers of a given language or with strong regional accents. The pace at which words should be spoken during the measurement process is also a source of variability between subjects, as is the need for subjects to rest or take a breath. All such factors may need to be controlled in some way. For text dictation it is generally agreed that performance accuracy at a rate below 95% is not acceptable, but this again may be syntax and/or domain specific, e.g. whether there is time pressure on users to complete the task, whether there are alternative methods of completion, and so on. The term "Single Word Error Rate" is sometimes referred to as the percentage of incorrect recognitions for each different word in the system vocabulary. == Edit distance == The word error rate may also be referred to as the length normalized edit distance. The normalized edit distance between X and Y, d( X, Y ) is defined as the minimum of W( P ) / L ( P ), where P is an editing path between X and Y, W ( P ) is the sum of the weights of the elementary edit operations of P, and L(P) is the number of these operations (length of P).
Georges Giralt PhD Award
The Georges Giralt PhD Award is a European scientific prize for extraordinary contributions to robotics. It is awarded yearly at the European Robotics Forum by euRobotics AISBL, a non-profit organisation based in Brussels with the objective of turning robotics beneficial for Europe’s economy and society. Georges Giralt received his PhD in 1958, from Paul Sabatier University, in the domain of electrical machines, and soon afterwards became a pioneer in robotics, in Europe and worldwide. He was especially instrumental in bringing in scientific foundations and methodology when the domain was still young, and a loose coupling of mechanical and electrical engineering, adopting the early results of automatic control. The high reputation of the Georges Giralt PhD Award is based on the prominent role of the awarding institution euRobotics. With more than 250 member organisations, euRobotics represents the academic and industrial robotics community in Europe. Moreover, it provides the European robotics community with a legal entity to engage in a public/private partnership with the European Commission. The award is covered by various media. Entitled for participation in the Georges Giralt PhD Award are all robotics-related dissertations which have been successfully defended at a European university. The US-American counterpart is the Dick Volz Award. == Award winners == 2026: Antonio González Morgado 2025: Erfan Shahriari 2024: Manuel Keppler 2023: Antonio Andriella, Ribin Balachandran 2022: Antonio Loquercio, Michael Lutter 2021: Giuseppe Averta, Bernd Henze 2020: Cosimo Della Santina 2019: Grazioso Stanislao, Teodor Tomic 2018: Frank Bonnet, Daniel Leidner 2017: Johannes Englsberger 2016: Alexander Dietrich, Mark Müller 2015: Jörg Stückler 2014: Manuel Catalano, Fabien Expert, Rainer Jaekel 2013: Jens Kober 2012: Sami Haddadin 2011: Mario Pratts 2010: Ludovic Righetti 2009: Alejandro-Dizan Vasquez-Govea 2008: Cyrill Stachniss, Eduardo Rocon 2007: Pierre Lamon 2006: Martijn Wisse 2005: Juan Andrade Cetto 2004: Gilles Duchemin 2003: Ralf Koeppe 2002: Gianluca Antonelli, Jens-Steffen Gutmann