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 OpenAlexafffund
Vincent Duchaine, Boris Mayer St.-Onge, Dalong Gao, Clément Gosselin

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.

How this classification was reachedexpand

Full frame machine prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.001
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Bench or experimental · Consensus signal: Bench or experimental
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.001
Threshold uncertainty score0.005

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.001
Scholarly communication0.0010.000
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.000

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

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designBench or experimental
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".

Quick stats

Citations61
Published2012
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueIEEE Transactions on HapticsSame topicRobot Manipulation and LearningFrench-language works237,207