EXPERIMENTAL EVALUATION OF BILATERAL CONTROL SCHEMES APPLIED TO HYDRAULIC ACTUATORS: A COMPARATIVE STUDY
Bibliographic record
Abstract
In this paper, we present experimental results of implementing five bilateral control schemes, widely used for electro-mechanical systems, to a hydraulic actuator. The goal is to investigate the applicability of each control scheme to a hydraulic actuator and compare their performances on a common system. The considered schemes are ‘force reflection’, ‘position error’, ‘shared compliant control’, ‘force reflection with passivity’ and ‘four channels architecture’ schemes. The evaluation is conducted in terms of position tracking, force tracking, and fidelity of perceived stiffness by the operator. It is shown that force reflection and four channels architecture control schemes perform best in terms of both position tracking and force tracking during interaction with an environment emulated by different springs. Position error scheme, on the other hand, exhibits good position tracking capability, but cannot track environmental force encountered at the master site. It, however, produces a feel to the operator, based on position error between the slave and the master arms, which is potentially desirable during unconstrained motion control of the actuator.
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 imitationNot 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.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.002 | 0.006 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.005 | 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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), 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".