MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2996147261 · doi:10.48550/arxiv.1912.07315

Bounded haptic teleoperation of a quadruped robot's foot posture for sensing and manipulation

2019· preprint· en· W2996147261 on OpenAlexaff
Guiyang Xin, Joshua Smith, David Rytz, Wouter Wolfslag, Hsiu-Chin Lin, Michael Mistry

Bibliographic record

VenuearXiv (Cornell University) · 2019
Typepreprint
Languageen
FieldEngineering
TopicRobotic Locomotion and Control
Canadian institutionsMcGill University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsControl theory (sociology)Haptic technologyRobotContact forceKinematicsCartesian coordinate systemController (irrigation)JoystickImpedance controlComputer scienceTeleoperationTrajectorySimulationArtificial intelligenceMathematicsPhysicsControl (management)

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

This paper presents a control framework to teleoperate a quadruped robot's foot for operator-guided haptic exploration of the environment. Since one leg of a quadruped robot typically only has 3 actuated degrees of freedom (DoFs), the torso is employed to assist foot posture control via a hierarchical whole-body controller. The foot and torso postures are controlled by two analytical Cartesian impedance controllers cascaded by a null space projector. The contact forces acting on supporting feet are optimized by quadratic programming (QP). The foot's Cartesian impedance controller may also estimate contact forces from trajectory tracking errors, and relay the force-feedback to the operator. A 7D haptic joystick, Sigma.7, transmits motion commands to the quadruped robot ANYmal, and renders the force feedback. Furthermore, the joystick's motion is bounded by mapping the foot's feasible force polytope constrained by the friction cones and torque limits in order to prevent the operator from driving the robot to slipping or falling over. Experimental results demonstrate the efficiency of the proposed framework.

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 score0.627
Threshold uncertainty score0.909

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 head0.045
GPT teacher head0.171
Teacher spread0.126 · 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

Citations1
Published2019
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venuearXiv (Cornell University)Same topicRobotic Locomotion and ControlFrench-language works237,207