MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2158883463 · doi:10.1109/whc.2011.5945475

Performance evaluation of haptic data compression methods in teleoperation systems

2011· article· en· W2158883463 on OpenAlexaff
Jae-Young Lee, Shahram Payandeh

Bibliographic record

Venuenot available
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEngineering
TopicTeleoperation and Haptic Systems
Canadian institutionsSimon Fraser University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsHaptic technologyTeleoperationComputer scienceSampling (signal processing)Compression (physics)Compression ratioData compressionSimulationArtificial intelligenceComputer visionRobotEngineering

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

In this paper, we present the performance evaluation of haptic compression methods for networked teleoperation systems or haptic interfaces in virtual environments. Haptic data, which include position, velocity, and force data exchanged through the communication channel, are considered by various compression methods based on down-sampling. We introduce the operational rate-distortion performance measure that evaluates not only the compression ratio, but also the quality of reconstructed haptic data. The deadband method, also known as a perception-based haptic compression method, is categorized as an adaptive down-sampling method and compared with a fixed rate down-sampling method. In the case of force data compression, we propose the modified deadband method, which adopts a force predictor, a quantizer, and a contact force detector. Experiments are performed by using a haptic device incorporated with a virtual teleoperator. The performance evaluation and comparison of the fixed rate down-sampling, deadband, prediction-based deadband, and modified deadband methods are provided. The results show that the proposed method achieves improvement in the compression ratio and quality measurement compared to other methods.

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)0.002
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.012
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Bench or experimental · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.002
Threshold uncertainty score0.010

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0020.012
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0010.001
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 head0.237
GPT teacher head0.368
Teacher spread0.131 · 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 designBench or experimental
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

Citations7
Published2011
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same topicTeleoperation and Haptic SystemsFrench-language works237,207