Experimental evaluation of the importance of compliance for robotic impact control
Why this work is in the frame
A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
We present experimental results for impact control of a 2DOF DD manipulator against a stiff and compliant environment. The manipulator is commanded to approach the stiff environment at a specified velocity, and, once in contact with it, to exert a specified force on it. We present a simple understanding of the three stages of impact control, the pre-contact stage, the impact stage and the post contact stage; we adopt such a basic approach due to the ambiguous nature of results presented in the literature. Besides, in doing so, we take into cognizance the state-of-the art in robotic hardware, which have important implications in any implementation of impact control strategies. The emphasis of the paper is on experimental implementation; a clear cut distinction between what works and what does not. Our results indicate that for very stiff environments, stable impact control may be achieved at low velocities only, and that for a compliant system, there is a trade-off between approach velocity, compliance, sampling time and the bandwidth of the robotic system.< <ETX xmlns:mml="http://www.w3.org/1998/Math/MathML" xmlns:xlink="http://www.w3.org/1999/xlink">></ETX>
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.
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| 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 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 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 it