MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2909138294 · doi:10.1109/iros.2018.8593598

Evolutionary Motion Control Optimization in Physical Human-Robot Interaction

2018· article· en· W2909138294 on OpenAlexaff
Nicholas A. Nadeau, Ilian A. Bonev

Bibliographic record

Venuenot available
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEngineering
TopicRobot Manipulation and Learning
Canadian institutionsÉcole de Technologie Supérieure
Fundersnot available
KeywordsComputer scienceImpedance controlTrajectoryContext (archaeology)RobotImaging phantomMotion (physics)Human–robot interactionMotion controlControl theory (sociology)Motion planningSimulationRobot controlProcess (computing)Control engineeringControl (management)Artificial intelligenceMobile robotEngineeringPhysics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Given that the success of an interaction task depends on the capability of the robot system to handle physical contact with its environment, pure motion control is often insufficient. This is especially true in the context of medical freehand ultrasound where the human body is a deformable surface and an unstructured environment, representing both a safety concern and a challenge for trajectory planning and control. The systematic tuning of practical high degree-of-freedom physical human-robot interaction (pHRI) tasks is not trivial and there are many parameters to be tuned. While traditional tuning is generally performed ad hoc and requires knowledge of the robot and environment dynamics, we propose a simple and effective online tuning framework using differential evolution (DE) to optimize the motion parameters for parallel force/impedance control in a pHRI and medical ultrasound motion application. Through real-world experiments with a KUKA LBR iiwa 7 R800 collaborative robot, the DE framework tuned motion control for optimal and safe trajectories along a human leg phantom. The optimization process was able to successfully reduce the mean absolute error of the motion contact force to 0.537 N through the evolution of eight motion control parameters.

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)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
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: Simulation or modeling
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.930
Threshold uncertainty score0.393

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
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 head0.267
Teacher spread0.249 · 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

Citations3
Published2018
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same topicRobot Manipulation and LearningFrench-language works237,207