Asymmetric Bimanual Control of Dual-Arm Exoskeletons for Human-Cooperative Manipulations
Why this work is in the frame
A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
In this paper, two upper limbs of an exoskeleton robot are operated within a constrained region of the operational space with unidentified intention of the human operator's motion as well as uncertain dynamics including physical limits. The new human-cooperative strategies are developed to detect the human subject's movement efforts in order to make the robot behavior flexible and adaptive. The motion intention extracted from the measurement of the subject's muscular effort in terms of the applied forces/torques can be represented to derive the reference trajectory of his/her limb using a viable impedance model. Then, adaptive online estimation for impedance parameters is employed to deal with the nonlinear and variable stiffness property of the limb model. In order for the robot to follow a specific impedance target, we integrate the motion intention estimation into a barrier Lyapunov function based adaptive impedance control. Experiments have been carried out to verify the effectiveness of the proposed dual-arm coordination control scheme, in terms of desired motion and force tracking.
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.
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 | 0.001 | 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 it