MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W1986012074 · doi:10.1109/toh.2011.49

Stable and Intuitive Control of an Intelligent Assist Device

2012· article· en· W1986012074 on OpenAlex

Why this work is in the frame

A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.

affAt least one author lists a Canadian institution in the pinned OpenAlex snapshot.
fundA Canadian funder is recorded on the work.

Bibliographic record

VenueIEEE Transactions on Haptics · 2012
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEngineering
TopicRobot Manipulation and Learning
Canadian institutionsUniversité LavalÉcole de Technologie Supérieure
FundersNatural Sciences and Engineering Research Council of Canada
KeywordsRobotAdmittanceControl theory (sociology)Observer (physics)Stability (learning theory)Control engineeringHuman–robot interactionController (irrigation)EngineeringRobot end effectorComputer scienceRobot controlControl (management)SimulationArtificial intelligenceMobile robot

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Safety and dependability are of the utmost importance for physical human-robot interaction due to the potential risks that a relatively powerful robot poses to human beings. From the control standpoint, it is possible to improve safety by guaranteeing that the robot will never exhibit any unstable behavior. However, stability is not the only concern in the design of a controller for such a robot. During human-robot interaction, the resulting cooperative motion should be truly intuitive and should not restrict in any way the human performance. For this purpose, we have designed a new variable admittance control law that guarantees the stability of the robot during constrained motion and also provides a very intuitive human interaction. The former characteristic is provided by the design of a stability observer while the latter is based on a variable admittance control scheme that uses the time derivative of the contact force to assess human intentions. The stability observer is based on a previously published stability investigation of cooperative motion which implies the knowledge of the interaction stiffness. A method to accurately estimate this stiffness online using the data coming from the encoder and from a multiaxis force sensor at the end effector is also provided. The stability and intuitivity of the control law are verified in a user study involving a cooperative drawing task with a 3 degree-of-freedom (dof) parallel robot as well as in experiments performed with a prototype of an industrial Intelligent Assist Device.

Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.

Full frame distilled prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Simulation or modeling · Consensus signal: Simulation or modeling
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.930
Threshold uncertainty score0.338

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

Machine scores (provisional)

The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.

Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.

Opus teacher head0.030
GPT teacher head0.253
Teacher spread0.223 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it