Evolutionary Motion Control Optimization in Physical Human-Robot Interaction
Bibliographic record
Abstract
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 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 | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 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".