MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2151075848 · doi:10.5772/53742

End-Point Contact Force Control with Quantitative Feedback Theory for Mobile Robots

2012· article· en· W2151075848 on OpenAlexaff
Shuhuan Wen, Jinghai Zhu, Xiaoli Li, A.B. Rad, Xiao Dong Chen

Bibliographic record

VenueInternational Journal of Advanced Robotic Systems · 2012
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEngineering
TopicRobot Manipulation and Learning
Canadian institutionsSimon Fraser University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsComputer scienceController (irrigation)RobotRoboticsProcess (computing)Control theory (sociology)Control engineeringTask (project management)StiffnessQuantitative feedback theoryMobile robotKey (lock)Control (management)Control systemArtificial intelligenceRobust controlEngineering

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Robot force control is an important issue for intelligent mobile robotics. The end-point stiffness of a robot is a key and open problem in the research community. The control strategies are mostly dependent on both the specifications of the task and the environment of the robot. Due to the limited stiffness of the end-effector, we may adopt inherent torque to feedback the oscillations of the controlled force. This paper proposes an effective control strategy which contains a controller using quantitative feedback theory. The nested loop controllers take into account the physical limitation of the system's inner variables and harmful interference. The biggest advantage of the method is its simplicity in both the design process and the implementation of the control algorithm in engineering practice. Taking the one-link manipulator as an example, numerical experiments are carried out to verify the proposed control method. The results show the satisfactory performance.

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: Simulation or modeling · Consensus signal: Simulation or modeling
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.001
Threshold uncertainty score0.002

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.001
Scholarly communication0.0000.001
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 head0.014
GPT teacher head0.271
Teacher spread0.257 · 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

Citations32
Published2012
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueInternational Journal of Advanced Robotic SystemsSame topicRobot Manipulation and LearningFrench-language works237,207