Innovative Fabrication of Advanced Robots Using The Waspas Method A New Era In Robotics Engineering

Authors

• Nagababu Kandula Principal Full Stack Software Engineer and Solution Architect

Abstract

Introduction: The fabrication of advanced robots represents a pivotal intersection of cutting-edge materials science, artificial intelligence, and innovative manufacturing techniques. These robots are designed to perform complex tasks autonomously, from industrial automation and healthcare assistance to space exploration and disaster response. With breakthroughs in AI, 3D printing, and nanotechnology, modern robots are becoming more intelligent, agile, and capable than ever before. However, the rise of these machines also raises important questions about societal impacts, ethical considerations, and job displacement. The ongoing advancements in robot fabrication promise to reshape industries and redefine the role of automation in human life.

Research significance:  The significance of research in the fabrication of advanced robots lies in its transformative potential across numerous sectors. It drives innovation in automation, improving efficiency and precision in industries like manufacturing, healthcare, and logistics. Advanced robots can address complex societal challenges, such as providing personalized healthcare, performing dangerous tasks, and enhancing disaster recovery. Research also enables the integration of cutting-edge technologies like AI, nanotechnology, and materials science, pushing the boundaries of robotics capabilities. Furthermore, it tackles ethical, social, and economic implications, guiding responsible innovation to ensure positive societal impact while mitigating job displacement and other risks.

Methodology: The fabrication of advanced robots involves a multi-disciplinary methodology combining materials science, manufacturing techniques, and artificial intelligence (AI). The process starts with designing robot structures using lightweight, durable materials like composites and metals. Additive manufacturing (3D printing) and precision machining are employed to create complex components. Sensors, actuators, and processors are integrated to enable movement and functionality. AI and machine learning models are embedded for autonomous decision-making, adapting robot behaviors to dynamic environments. Testing and iterative prototyping ensure performance, reliability, and safety. Finally, robots undergo optimization for energy efficiency, user interaction, and task-specific capabilities in their intended applications.

Alternative:  R-Alpha, R-Beta, R-Gamma, R-Delta, R-Epsilon

Evaluation preference: Precision (B1), Speed (B2), Durability (B3), Energy Efficiency (B4)

Introduction

The evolution of robotics has ushered in a new era of technological advancements that significantly impact various sectors, including manufacturing, healthcare, agriculture, and even daily life. This introduction delves into the key aspects of robotic fabrication, highlighting its significance, the technologies involved, and the implications for the future.[1] As industries strive for greater efficiency and productivity, advanced robotics has become essential. Robots can operate in environments where humans may face challenges, such as extreme temperatures, hazardous materials, or confined spaces. Furthermore, they can perform repetitive tasks with consistency, reducing errors and increasing output. The integration of robots into production lines has transformed manufacturing processes, enabling companies to adopt just-in-time production methods and reduce costs. [2]Beyond manufacturing, advanced robots are increasingly prevalent in healthcare, where they assist in surgeries, automate drug delivery, and enhance patient care. In agriculture, they are utilized for precision farming, enabling farmers to optimize crop yields and minimize resource use.

In daily life, robots are becoming common in homes as personal assistants, cleaning devices, and security systems. The versatility and adaptability of advanced robots highlight their growing importance across diverse sectors. [3] Advanced robots rely on microelectronic components and sensors to perceive their environment. These include cameras, LIDAR, ultrasonic sensors, and touch sensors that provide real-time data for navigation and task execution. The integration of these sensors allows robots to Actuators are essential for robotic movement, converting electrical energy into mechanical motion. Advanced control systems, often based on AI algorithms, enable precise control of these actuators, allowing for smooth and accurate movements. Robotics can also incorporate advanced features like haptic feedback, which provides tactile sensations to users.[4] Despite the advancements in robotic fabrication, several challenges remain.

One significant hurdle is ensuring safety in human-robot interactions. As robots become more integrated into workplaces and homes, developing robust safety protocols and standards is crucial to prevent accidents and ensure user trust. Additionally, the complexity of programming and controlling advanced robots poses challenges.[5] While AI and machine learning have made significant strides, developing algorithms that enable robots to function effectively in dynamic and unstructured environments is still an ongoing area of research. Moreover, the need for extensive training data for machine learning models can limit their applicability in certain situations. Another challenge lies in the cost of advanced robotic systems. While prices have decreased over time, the initial investment in robotics can still be substantial, especially for small and medium-sized enterprises. Finding cost-effective solutions that provide a good return on investment is essential for broader adoption.[6] The future of advanced robotics holds immense potential.

As technologies continue to advance, we can expect to see robots that are even more capable, intelligent, and versatile. Collaborative robots, or cobots, designed to work alongside humans, will become more common in workplaces, enhancing productivity and safety. The integration of the Internet of Things (IoT) with robotics will enable seamless communication between devices, leading to smarter manufacturing systems and more efficient operations. This interconnectedness will allow for real-time data analysis and decision-making, further optimizing processes.[7] In the healthcare sector, advancements in robotic surgery and telepresence will enhance patient care and accessibility.

Robots may perform complex procedures with high precision, reducing recovery times and improving outcomes. Additionally, advancements in robotic exoskeletons and prosthetics will enhance mobility and independence for individuals with disabilities. As robotics continues to evolve, ethical considerations will also come to the forefront. The implications of automation on employment, privacy, and security will require careful examination and regulation to ensure that the benefits of advanced robotics are distributed equitably across society.[8] As we continue to explore new materials, technologies, and methodologies, the capabilities of robots will expand, leading to transformative changes across industries and everyday life.

By addressing the challenges and embracing the opportunities presented by advanced robotics, we can unlock new possibilities for efficiency, productivity, and human enhancement, ultimately shaping a future where robots play an integral role in our lives. The journey of robotic fabrication is ongoing, and its impact will undoubtedly resonate for generations to come.[9] The fabrication of advanced robots has significantly evolved over the past few decades, revolutionizing industries and daily life through automation, precision, and intelligence.

The journey of robotic fabrication began with simple mechanical automata, but the real transformation occurred in the mid-20th century with the advent of programmable machines. Today, the fabrication of advanced robots integrates multiple disciplines, including mechanical engineering, electronics, artificial intelligence (AI), and material sciences, to create highly sophisticated machines capable of performing complex tasks autonomously.[10] The growing demand for automation in industries such as manufacturing, healthcare, space exploration, defense, and service sectors has accelerated the research and development of intelligent robotic systems.The fabrication of modern robots requires a systematic approach that involves meticulous planning, designing, prototyping, and testing.

The process begins with conceptualization, where engineers define the robot's purpose, functionality, and environmental adaptability. Material selection plays a crucial role in fabrication, as lightweight and durable materials like carbon fiber, titanium alloys, and advanced polymers enhance robot efficiency and longevity. Furthermore, additive manufacturing techniques, such as 3D printing, have revolutionized the fabrication process by enabling rapid prototyping and complex structural designs that were previously unattainable through conventional manufacturing methods. [11] One of the key breakthroughs in robotic fabrication is the development of highly flexible and intelligent robotic arms, which have become indispensable in industrial automation. These robotic arms, equipped with advanced sensors and actuators, enable high-precision assembly, welding, and material handling in factories.

Additionally, the miniaturization of electronic components has paved the way for the creation of micro-robots used in medical applications, such as minimally invasive surgeries and targeted drug delivery.[12] The advancement of soft robotics, which incorporates flexible and bio-inspired materials, has further expanded the scope of robotic applications by enabling safer human-robot interactions and delicate object manipulation. These innovations have led to the development of humanoid robots, autonomous drones, and robotic exoskeletons that assist individuals with mobility impairments. The fabrication of advanced robots also involves sophisticated software and control systems that ensure efficient communication between hardware components.[13] Robotic operating systems (ROS), real-time control algorithms, and wireless communication protocols facilitate seamless coordination and task execution.

The integration of computer vision and advanced sensor technologies, such as LiDAR, infrared, and ultrasonic sensors, enables robots to perceive their surroundings and navigate complex environments autonomously. The incorporation of cloud computing and Internet of Things (IoT) further enhances robotic capabilities by allowing remote monitoring, predictive maintenance, and collaborative functionalities across multiple robotic systems.[14] Despite significant progress, challenges persist in robotic fabrication, including high production costs, energy efficiency concerns, and ethical considerations regarding job displacement and privacy. Researchers and engineers continuously strive to address these challenges by developing cost-effective fabrication techniques, energy-efficient power sources, and ethical guidelines for robotic deployment.

The future of robotic fabrication holds immense potential, with ongoing advancements in quantum computing, bio-hybrid robotics, and self-repairing materials expected to redefine the capabilities of autonomous systems.[15] As robots become more integrated into society, their fabrication will continue to evolve, unlocking new possibilities in industries and enhancing human quality of life. The fabrication of advanced robots represents a convergence of cutting-edge technologies that drive innovation across multiple domains. From industrial automation to healthcare and space exploration, advanced robots play a pivotal role in shaping the future of human civilization. As research continues to push the boundaries of robotics, the coming years will witness even more sophisticated and intelligent robotic systems, redefining the way humans interact with machines and the world around them.[16]

MATERIAL AND METHOD

Alternative:

R-Alpha: R-Alpha represents the excess return of an investment compared to a benchmark index, adjusting for risk. It indicates the manager's performance and effectiveness in generating returns beyond market expectations.

R-Beta:R-Beta is a statistical measure indicating the sensitivity of an asset's returns relative to market movements. It helps assess risk and volatility, guiding investment strategies and portfolio management decisions.

R-Gamma: R-Gamma is a statistical measure used in finance and risk management to assess the sensitivity of an asset’s price to changes in interest rates, enhancing portfolio optimization and risk assessment strategies.

R-Delta:R-Delta represents the change in resistance, often used in electrical and engineering contexts. It indicates variations in resistance under different conditions, crucial for assessing performance, reliability, and system behavior.

R-Epsilon: R-Epsilon is a parameter used in various scientific and engineering fields, representing a threshold or limit. It often denotes the precision or accuracy required for measurements and calculations in complex systems.

Evaluation preference:

Precision (B1): Precision (B1) refers to the accuracy and consistency of measurements or actions. High precision ensures reliable outcomes in scientific, engineering, and manufacturing contexts, minimizing errors and enhancing overall quality and performance.

Speed (B2): Speed (B2) measures the rate at which a process or action occurs. In various contexts, it influences efficiency, performance, and user experience, impacting decision-making and overall productivity in systems.

Durability (B3): Durability (B3) refers to a product's ability to withstand wear, pressure, or damage over time. It is crucial in assessing quality, longevity, and reliability in various applications and environments.

Energy Efficiency (B4): Energy efficiency (B4) refers to using less energy to provide the same service. It reduces energy consumption, lowers costs, and minimizes environmental impact, promoting sustainable practices and enhancing overall energy management.

WASPAS METHOD

In decision-making processes, particularly in complex environments such as project management, resource allocation, and strategic planning, decision-makers often face multiple criteria that must be considered simultaneously.[17] Traditional methods like WSM and WPM have their strengths but also limitations. WSM treats all criteria linearly and assumes independence among them, while WPM can sometimes be less intuitive for some decision-makers. The WASPAS method was developed to leverage the advantages of both approaches while mitigating their drawbacks. In MCDM problems, alternatives are assessed based on various criteria, each of which may have different units of measurement and varying levels of importance.[18] The WASPAS method facilitates this by assigning weights to each criterion, allowing for a more nuanced evaluation of alternatives.

WASPAS has been successfully applied in various domains, such as project selection, supplier evaluation, environmental impact assessment, and resource allocation. Its adaptability to different contexts makes it a valuable tool for decision-makers facing complex scenarios with multiple competing criteria. In summary, the WASPAS method offers a systematic approach to multi-criteria decision-making, blending the strengths of both additive and multiplicative methods.[19] By carefully weighing criteria and evaluating alternatives, it enables informed and effective decision-making across various fields. Its versatility makes it applicable across various fields, enabling decision-makers to make informed choices that consider both quantitative and qualitative factors. However, users should remain mindful of the method's limitations and strive for careful implementation to achieve optimal results.[20]

RESULT AND DISCUSSION

TABLE 1.Fabrication of Advanced Robots

The Robot Model assesses five alternatives (R-Alpha, R-Beta, etc.) based on four performance criteria: Precision (B1), Speed (B2), Durability (B3), and Energy Efficiency (B4). Each alternative is assigned a score from 0 to 100 for these criteria. For instance, R-Gamma excels in Precision (92) and Durability (85), suggesting it is highly accurate and robust. Conversely, R-Beta, while slightly behind in Precision (88) and Speed (85), still maintains competitive scores across all criteria. This performance matrix allows for a comprehensive comparison of the robots, aiding in the decision-making process to choose the best option based on specific needs.

FIGURE 1.Fabrication of Advanced Robots

The Robot Model assesses five alternatives (R-Alpha, R-Beta, etc.) based on four performance criteria: Precision (B1), Speed (B2), Durability (B3), and Energy Efficiency (B4). Each alternative is assigned a score from 0 to 100 for these criteria. For instance, R-Gamma excels in Precision (92) and Durability (85), suggesting it is highly accurate and robust. Conversely, R-Beta, while slightly behind in Precision (88) and Speed (85), still maintains competitive scores across all criteria. This performance matrix allows for a comprehensive comparison of the robots, aiding in the decision-making process to choose the best option based on specific needs.

TABLE 2.Performance value

The performance values for each alternative (R-Alpha, R-Beta, etc.) reflect their effectiveness across four criteria. These values, ranging from 0 to 1, indicate the relative performance of each alternative, with 1 being the best possible score. For example, R-Alpha scores very high (up to 1.0) in two criteria, showcasing its strong performance. In contrast, R-Epsilon, while generally performing well, has lower scores, particularly in the last criterion. By analyzing these performance values, decision-makers can assess how well each alternative meets the established criteria, facilitating comparisons and informed selections based on the highest performance metrics.

FIGURE 2.Performance value

The performance values for each alternative (R-Alpha, R-Beta, etc.) reflect their effectiveness across four criteria. These values, ranging from 0 to 1, indicate the relative performance of each alternative, with 1 being the best possible score. For example, R-Alpha scores very high (up to 1.0) in two criteria, showcasing its strong performance. In contrast, R-Epsilon, while generally performing well, has lower scores, particularly in the last criterion. By analyzing these performance values, decision-makers can assess how well each alternative meets the established criteria, facilitating comparisons and informed selections based on the highest performance metrics.

TABLE 3.Weight

The weights in the given matrix represent the importance assigned to each criterion for the alternatives (R-Alpha, R-Beta, etc.). Here, each criterion has an equal weight of 0.25 across all alternatives, indicating that all criteria are considered equally important in the decision-making process. This uniform weighting allows for a straightforward evaluation, where each alternative is judged based on the same level of significance for each criterion. By applying these equal weights, the decision-makers ensure a balanced assessment, preventing any single criterion from disproportionately influencing the overall evaluation of the alternatives.

TABLE 4.Weighted normalized decision matrix(WSM)

Table 4 presents the Weighted Normalized Decision Matrix, a crucial component of the WASPAS (Weighted Aggregated Sum Product Assessment) method. This matrix displays the performance of five alternatives R-Alpha, R-Beta, R-Gamma, R-Delta, and R-Epsilon evaluated across four criteria. The values in the matrix are normalized and weighted, ensuring that all criteria are comparable despite differences in units or scales, and reflect the relative importance of each criterion. In this matrix, each value represents the weighted normalized score of an alternative for a specific criterion. Higher values indicate better performance concerning that criterion. For instance, R-Gamma shows the highest score (0.25000) in the first criterion, suggesting strong performance in that area. Similarly, R-Alpha excels in the second and fourth criteria with scores of 0.25000, indicating consistent strength. On the other hand, R-Epsilon has lower values, particularly in the fourth criterion (0.22059), reflecting weaker performance. The matrix helps in calculating both the Weighted Sum Model (WSM) and the Weighted Product Model (WPM) scores, which are combined to determine the overall performance of each alternative. This balanced approach supports objective decision-making by considering both additive and multiplicative evaluations.

TABLE 5.Weighted normalized decision matrix(WPM)

The weighted normalized decision matrix for WPM shows the relative performance of five categories R-Alpha, R-Beta, R-Gamma, R-Delta, and R-Epsilon across four criteria. R-Alpha scores highly in most criteria, with values close to or equal to 1.000, indicating strong performance. R-Beta also performs well but has slightly lower scores, particularly in the last criterion (0.98399). R-Gamma excels in the first criterion (1.00000) but has a lower score in the third criterion (0.97874). R-Delta and R-Epsilon show more variability, with lower scores in certain criteria, particularly in the last criterion, where R-Epsilon scores 0.96919.

TABLE 6.WASPAS Coefficient

The table compares the preference scores (WSN and WPM) and the WASPAS coefficient for five categories: R-Alpha, R-Beta, R-Gamma, R-Delta, and R-Epsilon. R-Alpha has the highest scores, with a WSN of 0.97473, a WPM of 0.97422, and a WASPAS coefficient of 0.97448. R-Beta follows with slightly lower scores, with a WASPAS coefficient of 0.95947. R-Gamma ranks next with a coefficient of 0.96435. R-Delta and R-Epsilon have the lowest preference scores, both around 0.944, indicating lower performance compared to the others. The lambda value of 0.5 for R-Alpha reflects equal weight given to WSN and WPM.

TABLE 7.RANK

The rankings for the categories R-Alpha, R-Beta, R-Gamma, R-Delta, and R-Epsilon indicate their relative positions or importance. R-Alpha holds the lowest rank of 1, suggesting it is less prominent compared to the others. R-Beta follows with a rank of 3, showing moderate significance. R-Gamma ranks just below R-Beta with a score of 2. R-Delta, with the highest rank of 5, stands out as the most important or influential category. R-Epsilon, with a rank of 4, is positioned between R-Delta and R-Beta, reflecting higher importance than the lower-ranked categories but less than R-Delta.

FIGURE 3.Preference score (WSM &WPM)

Figure 3 presents the preference scores calculated using the Weighted Sum Model (WSM) and Weighted Product Model (WPM) under the WASPAS (Weighted Aggregated Sum Product Assessment) method. The graph compares the performance of five different alternatives, labeled as R-Alpha, R-Beta, R-Gamma, R-Delta, and R-Epsilon. The preference scores for WSM are represented in blue, while those for WPM are shown in red. The data suggests that R-Alpha has the highest preference score in both models, followed by R-Beta and R-Gamma, which exhibit similar trends. Meanwhile, R-Delta and R-Epsilon have lower scores, indicating their relatively lower preference. The use of cone-shaped bars emphasizes the differences in scores across the alternatives. The preference scores are closely clustered, ranging between approximately 0.925 and 0.975, highlighting minimal variation between WSM and WPM rankings. The similarity in score trends for both models suggests a degree of consistency in preference evaluation under the WASPAS method. However, slight variations in height indicate potential differences in sensitivity between WSM and WPM. Overall, Figure 3 effectively visualizes the preference ranking of alternatives, demonstrating the comparative assessment of decision-making methods used in multi-criteria decision analysis.

FIGURE 4.WASPAS Coefficient

Figure 4 illustrates the WASPAS coefficient distribution among five alternatives: R-Alpha, R-Beta, R-Gamma, R-Delta, and R-Epsilon. The pie chart visually represents the proportion of each alternative's contribution to the overall decision-making process under the WASPAS method. Each segment corresponds to a specific alternative, with distinct colors differentiating them. The sizes of the segments indicate the relative preference levels of the alternatives based on the WASPAS coefficient. A larger segment suggests a higher preference, while a smaller segment signifies a lower ranking. The even distribution of sections implies that the alternatives hold comparable importance in the evaluation, with slight variations among them. This visualization effectively summarizes the overall decision-making results by consolidating the weighted sum model (WSM) and weighted product model (WPM) into a single coefficient. The WASPAS method, which integrates both WSM and WPM, enhances decision reliability by balancing additive and multiplicative assessments. From the chart, it can be inferred that no single alternative overwhelmingly dominates the selection process, indicating a balanced evaluation. This graphical representation is useful for stakeholders and decision-makers in comparing alternatives and understanding the final rankings based on multi-criteria decision analysis.

FIGURE 5. Rank

Figure 5 presents the ranking of five alternatives R-Alpha, R-Beta, R-Gamma, R-Delta, and R-Epsilon based on the WASPAS method. The bar chart visually represents the rank assigned to each alternative, where a lower rank indicates a higher preference. R-Alpha holds the first rank, signifying it as the most preferred alternative, while R-Delta is ranked the lowest at position five, making it the least favorable option. R-Beta, R-Gamma, and R-Epsilon are positioned in between, ranked second, third, and fourth, respectively. The ranking reflects the overall performance of each alternative based on the combined evaluations of the Weighted Sum Model (WSM) and Weighted Product Model (WPM) within the WASPAS method. The significant difference in ranking between R-Alpha and R-Delta suggests that R-Alpha outperforms the other alternatives considerably, while R-Delta and R-Epsilon have relatively lower preference scores. The chart provides a clear and concise comparative analysis, helping decision-makers identify the most suitable alternative based on multi-criteria decision analysis. The WASPAS method effectively balances additive and multiplicative criteria, ensuring a robust ranking system that considers both weighted sums and product-based evaluations.

CONCLUSION

The fabrication of advanced robots represents one of the most transformative technological frontiers of the 21st century, offering profound implications across industries, societies, and even existential questions about human roles in an increasingly automated world. The complexity of creating such robots lies not only in technological advancements but also in ethical, social, and economic dimensions. This conclusion will summarize the key aspects of advanced robot fabrication, touching on the materials, techniques, and technologies involved, the roles these robots will play, and the implications for society and the future.The materials and techniques used in fabricating advanced robots have evolved significantly in recent years. Modern robots require sophisticated materials that balance durability, flexibility, and functionality. Lightweight metals like titanium and aluminum, combined with high-strength polymers and composite materials, form the structural backbone of many advanced robots. These materials provide the necessary strength-to-weight ratio for robots designed for tasks that require both agility and durability, such as robots used in military operations, search-and-rescue missions, or planetary exploration.In terms of manufacturing techniques, additive manufacturing (or 3D printing) has revolutionized how robots are built.

Traditional machining techniques often required expensive, time-consuming processes to create parts with precise geometries. With 3D printing, however, complex robot components can now be printed in a matter of hours, allowing for rapid prototyping and iterative design improvements. This technology enables the creation of components with intricate internal structures that were previously impossible to fabricate through conventional means. The miniaturization of robotic components has also been facilitated by advances in nanotechnology. Nano-scale materials and devices are being integrated into robots to improve performance in areas such as sensors, actuators, and energy storage. For instance, robots built for biomedical purposes, such as nanobots used in targeted drug delivery, leverage advances in nonmaterial’s for precise and efficient functionality. Moreover, the integration of artificial intelligence (AI) into robotics requires specialized computational materials like neuromorphic chips, which mimic the brain’s neural networks. These chips allow robots to process large volumes of data in real-time, making them capable of complex decision-making tasks such as navigating unpredictable environments or interacting with humans in social settings.AI and machine learning (ML) are the cornerstone technologies driving the next generation of advanced robots.

The capacity for a robot to learn, adapt, and respond to its environment autonomously transforms it from a mere tool into an intelligent system. While traditional robots operate based on pre-programmed routines, advanced robots equipped with AI can evolve their behavior based on new data inputs. Deep learning, a subset of AI, enables robots to recognize patterns and make predictions, which is particularly useful in fields like healthcare, where diagnostic robots can analyze medical data and recommend treatment options. In manufacturing, AI-driven robots can autonomously optimize production processes by analyzing machine performance and product quality, reducing waste and improving efficiency.

Autonomous vehicles and drones similarly rely on AI for navigation, object recognition, and collision avoidance, revolutionizing transportation and logistics. One particularly exciting area is the development of human-robot collaboration systems, where AI-driven robots work alongside human counterparts. These robots are designed to complement human capabilities by handling repetitive, dangerous, or highly precise tasks while leaving creative, strategic, or supervisory tasks to humans. The challenge of integrating robots into human workspaces has spurred research in robotic perception, motion planning, and human-robot interaction (HRI). Through sophisticated sensors and machine learning algorithms, robots can now interpret human gestures, language, and emotions, facilitating smoother cooperation.

The widespread deployment of advanced robots is expected to bring both opportunities and challenges. On one hand, robots will drive unprecedented levels of efficiency and productivity across numerous sectors. In manufacturing. In logistics, autonomous delivery robots and drones promise to streamline supply chains, reducing costs and delivery times. In healthcare, robots are already assisting in surgeries, rehabilitation, and elderly care, where they can provide constant monitoring and support to patients. The rise of service robots in homes and public spaces is another exciting development. Household robots capable of cleaning, cooking, and performing basic errands could become ubiquitous, transforming daily life and alleviating the burden of domestic chores. Social robots designed to interact with humans on an emotional level may serve as companions, particularly for the elderly or individuals with disabilities, providing both practical assistance and emotional support. There are also ethical concerns surrounding the autonomy of robots, particularly those deployed in sensitive areas like healthcare or the military. Autonomous robots making decisions without human oversight can pose risks if they malfunction or make erroneous judgments. Ensuring accountability, transparency, and fairness in the design and deployment of these robots is crucial to prevent harm. Looking forward, the future of advanced robot fabrication will likely involve further convergence of disciplines such as biology, materials science, AI, and robotics. Researchers are already exploring bio-hybrid robots, which integrate living tissues with mechanical components.

These robots could revolutionize medicine by developing systems that heal themselves or perform tasks inside the human body. Additionally, improvements in quantum computing may radically enhance the decision-making capabilities of robots, allowing them to solve complex problems that are currently beyond the reach of conventional AI systems. As robots become more autonomous and versatile, their roles will expand into areas like environmental monitoring, space exploration, and disaster recovery, addressing challenges that are currently too dangerous or resource-intensive for humans to tackle. Efforts are also being made to develop robots that are not only more functional but also more sustainable. With concerns about the environmental impact of advanced technologies, researchers are exploring ways to reduce the carbon footprint of robot manufacturing. This could include using recycled materials, improving energy efficiency.

The fabrication of advanced robots is an interdisciplinary endeavor that combines cutting-edge materials, manufacturing techniques, and AI-driven technologies. These robots hold immense potential to transform industries, improve quality of life, and tackle global challenges. However, their rise also brings with it complex ethical, social, and economic questions that must be addressed. The key to harnessing the benefits of advanced robots lies in responsible innovation ensuring that they are designed and deployed in ways that maximize societal good while minimizing risks. By navigating these challenges thoughtfully, we can create a future where humans and robots coexist and collaborate in ways that enhance human potential and well-being.

REFERENCES

1. Zhang, Shuo, XingxingKe, Qin Jiang, Zhiping Chai, Zhigang Wu, and Han Ding. "Fabrication and functionality integration technologies for small‐scale soft robots." Advanced Materials 34, no. 52 (2022): 2200671.
2. Helm, Volker, Jan Willmann, Fabio Gramazio, and Matthias Kohler. "In-situ robotic fabrication: advanced digital manufacturing beyond the laboratory." In Gearing up and accelerating cross‐fertilization between academic and industrial robotics research in Europe: Technology transfer experiments from the ECHORD project, pp. 63-83. Springer International Publishing, 2014.
3. Wehner, Michael, Ryan L. Truby, Daniel J. Fitzgerald, BobakMosadegh, George M. Whitesides, Jennifer A. Lewis, and Robert J. Wood. "An integrated design and fabrication strategy for entirely soft, autonomous robots." nature 536, no. 7617 (2016): 451-455.
4. Reinhardt, Dagmar, Rob Saunders, and Jane Burry, eds. Robotic fabrication in architecture, art and design 2016. Springer, 2016.
5. Chi, Yinding, Yao Zhao, Yaoye Hong, Yanbin Li, and Jie Yin. "A perspective on miniature soft robotics: Actuation, fabrication, control, and applications." Advanced Intelligent Systems 6, no. 2 (2024): 2300063.
6. Koo, Sangmo. "Advanced micro-actuator/robot fabrication using ultrafast laser direct writing and its remote control." Applied Sciences 10, no. 23 (2020): 8563.
7. Yogeswaran, Nivasan, Wenting Dang, William Taube Navaraj, DhayalanShakthivel, Saleem Khan, EmreOzanPolat, Shoubhik Gupta et al. "New materials and advances in making electronic skin for interactive robots." Advanced Robotics 29, no. 21 (2015): 1359-1373.
8. Mehta, Ankur, Nicola Bezzo, Peter Gebhard, Byoungkwon An, Vijay Kumar, Insup Lee, and Daniela Rus. "A design environment for the rapid specification and fabrication of printable robots." In Experimental Robotics: The 14th International Symposium on Experimental Robotics, pp. 435-449. Springer International Publishing, 2016.
9. Wilson, NialahJenae, Steven Ceron, Logan Horowitz, and Kirstin Petersen. "Scalable and robust fabrication, operation, and control of compliant modular robots." Frontiers in Robotics and AI 7 (2020): 44.
10. Kang, Dayoon, SeungTaek Hong, Seon-Jin Kim, Hwanyong Choi, Keehoon Kim, and Jinah Jang. "Robotics-assisted modular assembly of bioactive soft materials for enhanced organ fabrication." Virtual and Physical Prototyping 19, no. 1 (2024): e2390484.
11. Jenny, David, Hannes Mayer, Petrus Aejmelaeus-Lindström, Fabio Gramazio, and Matthias Kohler. "A pedagogy of digital materiality: integrated design and robotic fabrication projects of the master of advanced studies in architecture and digital fabrication." Architecture, Structures and Construction 2, no. 4 (2022): 649-660.
12. Buchanan, Edgar, Léni K. Le Goff, Wei Li, Emma Hart, Agoston E. Eiben, Matteo De Carlo, Alan F. Winfield et al. "Bootstrapping artificial evolution to design robots for autonomous fabrication." Robotics 9, no. 4 (2020): 106.
13. Cho, Kyu-Jin, Je-Sung Koh, Sangwoo Kim, Won-Shik Chu, Yongtaek Hong, and Sung-HoonAhn. "Review of manufacturing processes for soft biomimetic robots." International Journal of Precision Engineering and Manufacturing 10 (2009): 171-181.
14. Schmitt, François, Olivier Piccin, Laurent Barbé, and Bernard Bayle. "Soft robots manufacturing: A review." Frontiers in Robotics and AI 5 (2018): 84.
15. Kim, Jinseok, Jungyul Park, Sungwook Yang, JeongeunBaek, Byungkyu Kim, Sang Ho Lee, Eui-Sung Yoon, Kukjin Chun, and Sukho Park. "Establishment of a fabrication method for a long-term actuated hybrid cell robot." Lab on a Chip 7, no. 11 (2007): 1504-1508.
16. Nwafor, Chibundo J., CédricGirerd, Guillaume J. Laurent, Tania K. Morimoto, and KantyRabenorosoa. "Design and fabrication of concentric tube robots: a survey." IEEE Transactions on Robotics 39, no. 4 (2023): 2510-2528.
17. Chakraborty, Shankar, EdmundasKazimierasZavadskas, and Jurgita Antuchevičienė. "Applications of WASPAS method as a multi-criteria decision-making tool." (2015).
18. Mardani, Abbas, MehrbakhshNilashi, NorhayatiZakuan, Nantha kumar Loganathan, SomayehSoheilirad, Muhamad Zameri Mat Saman, and Othman Ibrahim. "A systematic review and meta-Analysis of SWARA and WASPAS methods: Theory and applications with recent fuzzy developments." Applied soft computing 57 (2017): 265-292.
19. Zavadskas, EdmundasKazimieras, Shankar Chakraborty, Orchi Bhattacharyya, and JurgitaAntucheviciene. "Application of WASPAS method as an optimization tool in non-traditional machining processes." Information Technology and Control 44, no. 1 (2015): 77-88.
20. Ghorabaee, Mehdi Keshavarz, EdmundasKazimierasZavadskas, MaghsoudAmiri, and Ahmad Esmaeili. "Multi-criteria evaluation of green suppliers using an extended WASPAS method with interval type-2 fuzzy sets." Journal of Cleaner Production 137 (2016): 213-229.
21. Radomska-Zalas, Aleksandra. "Application of the WASPAS method in a selected technological process." Procedia Computer Science 225 (2023): 177-187.
22. Stanujkić, Dragiša, and DarjanKarabašević. "An extension of the WASPAS method for decision-making problems with intuitionistic fuzzy numbers: a case of website evaluation." Operational Research in Engineering Sciences: Theory and Applications 1, no. 1 (2018): 29-3