MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W3198648977 · doi:10.1109/tcst.2021.3107483

Impedance Learning-Based Adaptive Control for Human–Robot Interaction

2021· article· en· W3198648977 on OpenAlexafffund
Mojtaba Sharifi, Vahid Azimi, Vivian K. Mushahwar, Mahdi Tavakoli

Bibliographic record

VenueIEEE Transactions on Control Systems Technology · 2021
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEngineering
TopicRobot Manipulation and Learning
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Alberta
FundersScience and Engineering Research CouncilCanadian Institutes of Health ResearchCanada Foundation for InnovationGovernment of Alberta
KeywordsImpedance controlComputer scienceControl (management)RobotElectrical impedanceHuman–robot interactionHuman–computer interactionAdaptive controlArtificial intelligenceEngineeringElectrical engineering

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

In this article, a new learning-based time-varying impedance controller is proposed and tested to facilitate an autonomous physical human–robot interaction (pHRI). Novel adaptation laws are formulated for online adjustment of robot impedance based on human behavior. Two other sets of update rules are defined for intelligent coping with the robot’s structured and unstructured uncertainties. These rules ensure stability via Lyapunov’s theorem and provide uniform ultimate boundedness (UUB) of the closed-loop system’s response, without a need for HRI force/torque measurement. Accordingly, the convergence of response signals, including errors in tracking, online impedance learning, robot parameter adaptation, and controller gain variation, is proven to operate in a bounded region (compact set) in the presence of robot and human uncertainties and bounded disturbances. The performance of the developed intelligent impedance-varying control strategy is investigated through comprehensive experimental studies in a repetitive following task with a moving target.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.001
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Bench or experimental · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.001
Threshold uncertainty score0.003

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.001
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 science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.000

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 head0.018
GPT teacher head0.250
Teacher spread0.232 · 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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designBench or experimental
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

Citations88
Published2021
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueIEEE Transactions on Control Systems TechnologySame topicRobot Manipulation and LearningFrench-language works237,207