MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2746004329 · doi:10.1115/1.4037733

A Control-Oriented Framework for Direct Impulse-Based Rendering of Haptic Contacts

2017· article· en· W2746004329 on OpenAlexaff
Arash Mohtat, Colin Gallacher, József Kövecses

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Dynamic Systems Measurement and Control · 2017
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEngineering
TopicTeleoperation and Haptic Systems
Canadian institutionsMcGill University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsRendering (computer graphics)Computer scienceImpulse (physics)Haptic technologyContact forceSimulationComputer vision

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

In many haptic applications, producing a sharp feeling of impact is crucial for high-fidelity force feedback rendering of virtual objects (VOs). Although suitable for rendering collision-rich haptic interactions, impulse-based methods are rarely used in a pure form. Instead, they are combined with penalty-based elements in different forms such as virtual couplings (VCs) and hybridization. In this paper, we first propose the direct impulse-based paradigm for rendering haptic contacts using a new sampled-data interpretation of the impact problem. Then, we cast this interpretation into a systematic framework entitled the generalized contact controller (GCC). This enables us to implement different contact rendering methods as controllers and to improve them by appropriating a wide array of analysis and design tools developed in the control field. We specifically show how to apply position and velocity corrections to the purely impulse-based contact controller for enhancing its energy and sustained contact characteristics, and how to add an anti-windup compensator (AWC) for meeting actuation limits. These propositions are validated via simulation and experiments, as well as via human perception studies. Results show the promising aspects of the proposed impulse-based methods for generating a sharper unfiltered feeling of rigid-body contacts even at low sampling rates.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.002
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.001
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Simulation or modeling · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.923
Threshold uncertainty score0.666

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0020.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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 head0.019
GPT teacher head0.238
Teacher spread0.219 · 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 teacher head, not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designSimulation or modeling
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

Citations0
Published2017
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of Dynamic Systems Measurement and ControlSame topicTeleoperation and Haptic SystemsFrench-language works237,207