Networked haptic cooperation among multiple users via virtual object coordination to averaged position of peer copies
Bibliographic record
Abstract
This paper proposes a distributed haptic control architecture whose coordination gain at each user site is independent of the number of cooperating peers. In the proposed architecture, users interact through manipulating a shared virtual object (SVO) together. The distributed copies of the SVO are controlled through virtual couplers. At each peer, the gain of the force feedback loop is maintained constant regardless of the number of interacting users by coordinating the local SVO copy to the averaged motion of the other SVO copies. The motion of the SVO representative is computed by averaging the motion of all other SVO copies. A preliminary investigation contrasts the proposed controller to traditional distributed virtual coupling control. The comparison is performed via MATLAB simulations of an exemplary cooperative manipulation performed by three users. The results illustrate that the proposed controller: (1) can render a lighter SVO with decreased position coherence among the distributed SVO copies for the same stiffness of coordination; (2) achieves similar position coherence among the distributed SVO copies for the same SVO mass.
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 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) | 0.000 | 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 teacher head, 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".