Analysis of Control Architectures for Teleoperation Systems with Impedance/Admittance Master and Slave Manipulators
Bibliographic record
Abstract
A large number of bilateral teleoperation control architectures in the literature have been designed based on assumed impedance models of the master and slave manipulators. However, hydraulic or heavily geared and many other manipulators cannot be properly described by impedance models. In this paper, a common four-channel bilateral control architecture designed for the above impedance models is extended to teleoperation systems with master and slave manipulators of either the admittance or impedance type. Furthermore, control parameters that provide perfect transparency under ideal conditions are found for each type of teleoperation system. Because in practice such parameters may not lead to systems that are robust to time delays and model uncertainties, an analysis of the stability and performance robustness of this very general architecture and two-channel architectures is also presented. The analysis uses the passivity-based Llewellyn two-port network absolute stability criterion, as well as bounds on the minimum and range of values of the impedance transmitted to the operator. The results of these evaluations provide design guidelines on choosing a particular control architecture and its parameters given different master and slave manipulator structures.
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 imitationNot 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.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 0.000 |
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.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
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".