Impedance Variation and Learning Strategies in Human–Robot Interaction
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 survey, various concepts and methodologies developed over the past two decades for varying and learning the impedance or admittance of robotic systems that physically interact with humans are explored. For this purpose, the assumptions and mathematical formulations for the online adjustment of impedance models and controllers for physical human-robot interaction (HRI) are categorized and compared. In this systematic review, studies on: 1) variation and 2) learning of appropriate impedance elements are taken into account. These strategies are classified and described in terms of their objectives, points of view (approaches), and signal requirements (including position, HRI force, and electromyography activity). Different methods involving linear/nonlinear analyses (e.g., optimal control design and nonlinear Lyapunov-based stability guarantee) and the Gaussian approximation algorithms (e.g., Gaussian mixture model-based and dynamic movement primitives-based strategies) are reviewed. Current challenges and research trends in physical HRI are finally discussed.
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) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| 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