Adaptive Control of Manipulators Using Uncalibrated Joint-Torque Sensing
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The application of joint-torque sensory feedback (JTF) in robot control has been proposed in the past as a substitute for the computed torque method. A controller based on JTF does not require computation of link dynamics. However, the traditional JTF assumes precise measurement of joint torque. This paper presents an adaptive JTF control algorithm that does not rely on this assumption. First, the robot dynamics with JTF is presented in a standard form, where the inertia matrix appears symmetric and positive definite. Subsequently, properties of the dynamics is inves tigated and a condition on the number of parallel joint axes for dynamic decoupling is derived. This can lead to further simplification of control structure for a class of robots. Secondly, an adaptive control law is developed incorporating uncalibrated joint torque signals, i.e., the gains and offsets of multiple sensors are unknown, into the control system. No dynamic model of a robot link is required, and all physical parameters of the joints including inertia of the rotors, link twist angles, and friction parameters are assumed unknown to the controller. Stability analysis together with a condition for bounded control input are presented. The control algorithm is experimentally applied to a robotic arm and experimental results illustrate high tracking performance, albeit neither was the torque sensor calibrated nor the parameters were known.
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 | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 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".