MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2104832047 · doi:10.1109/cca.2005.1507264

Application of neural networks in inverse dynamics based contact force estimation

2005· article· en· W2104832047 on OpenAlexafffund
Andrew Smith, Keyvan Hashtrudi-Zaad

Bibliographic record

Venuenot available
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEngineering
TopicRobot Manipulation and Learning
Canadian institutionsQueen's University
FundersNatural Sciences and Engineering Research Council of Canada
KeywordsInverse dynamicsContact forceControl theory (sociology)TorqueComputer scienceObserver (physics)AccelerationSystem dynamicsControl engineeringRobotDynamics (music)Vehicle dynamicsSimulationArtificial intelligenceEngineeringControl (management)PhysicsClassical mechanics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

In the majority of robotic applications, including manipulation and human-robot interaction, contact force needs to be monitored and controlled. Compliance controllers demand high precision force measurement that can be delivered by commercial force/torque sensors. However, these sensors are expensive, rather bulky and vulnerable to impact forces. A common solution to this dilemma is the use of force observers, which estimate external forces using full knowledge about system dynamics. However, some robotic systems have complicated dynamics that may or may not be known entirely and precisely. In these situations the implementation of dynamic observers would not result in accurate force estimation. This paper proposes the use of neural networks in an inverse dynamics based force observation without the need for complete determination of system dynamics. We also show that for slow operations on soft environments, the observer estimates external forces without acceleration input

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)0.002
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation 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 score0.003
Threshold uncertainty score0.007

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.002
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.001
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0010.000
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 head0.008
GPT teacher head0.220
Teacher spread0.212 · 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 designSimulation or modeling
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

Citations31
Published2005
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same topicRobot Manipulation and LearningFrench-language works237,207