On the control of space free-flyers using multiple impedance control
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Multiple impedance control (MIC) is a new algorithm which enforces a designated impedance on both a manipulated object, and all cooperating manipulators. In this paper, the MIC is applied to a space robotic system in which robotic arms, mounted on a free-flying-base, manipulate an object. The general formulation of the MIC is extended to include the dynamic coupling between the arms and the base. It is shown that under the MIC law, all participating manipulators, the free-flyer base, and the manipulated object exhibit the same designated impedance behavior. This guarantees good tracking of system manipulators and the object, in performing a manipulation task. A system of two cooperating two-link manipulators is simulated, in which a remote centre compliance is attached to the second end-effector. The object is grabbed with a pivoted grasp condition, i.e. both the translational and rotational motions of the object have to be controlled by end-effector forces. As simulation results show, the response of the MIC algorithm is smooth, even in the occurrence of an impact due to collision with an obstacle.
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 | 0.001 |
| 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 | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| 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".