Comparison of power- and wave-based control of remote dynamic proxies for networked haptic cooperation
Bibliographic record
Abstract
This paper investigates through experiments the performance of two recent control architectures for networked haptic cooperation [10], [11]. The two architectures can render direct haptic interaction between networked users in addition to cooperative manipulation of virtual objects. This is because both architectures employ remote dynamic proxies to represent users at their networked peer sites. The remote dynamic proxies have second order dynamics and are controlled by the distant user whom they represent via virtual coupling (i.e., power-based) control or via wave-based control. The remote dynamic proxies render smooth motion of their respective user in the presence of update discontinuities caused by limited network transmission rates and by network delays. The experimental comparison investigates the performance of cooperative manipulation and of direct user-to-user contact for various constant network delays. The results illustrate that: (1) both power-based and wave-based control of remote dynamic proxies can maintain high position coherency between the distributed copies of the shared virtual object; (2) wave-based control of remote dynamic proxies renders the inertia of the shared virtual object and of the remote dynamic proxies more realistically than virtual coupling control; and (3) wave-based control of remote dynamic proxies maintains the networked haptic cooperation stable for longer constant network delays.
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".