MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4367185823 · doi:10.18280/mmep.100236

Non-Leaner Control on the Pneumatic Artificial Muscles: A Comparative Study Between Adaptive Backstepping and Conventional Backstepping Algorithms

2023· article· en· W4367185823 on OpenAlexvenueno aff
Amna Suri Ahmed, Saleem Khalefa Kadhim

Bibliographic record

VenueMathematical Modelling and Engineering Problems · 2023
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEngineering
TopicProsthetics and Rehabilitation Robotics
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsBacksteppingComputer sciencePneumatic artificial musclesControl theory (sociology)Artificial intelligenceAdaptive controlControl (management)Control engineeringAlgorithmArtificial muscleEngineeringActuator

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

This paper focuses on the control of Pneumatic Artificial Muscles (PAMs) used in arm manipulator modeling and the dynamic model of the Pneumatic Artificial Muscles.PAMs have become popular in robotics due to their fast work capabilities, direct action mechanisms, and safety implementation.However, these systems often suffer from uncertainty, nonlinearity, and time-varying features, which negatively impact tracking control performance and cause instability in motion outcomes.To address these issues, this study presents a comparison of two controllers: an adaptive backstepping controller and a backstepping convolution controller.Computer simulations were used to evaluate the performance of both controllers.The results demonstrate that the adaptive backstepping controller effectively eliminates chattering, reduces error, and maintains stability in the controlled system, leading to smoother signal curves and improved overall response in the arm model.In conclusion, the study provides evidence that the adaptive backstepping controller is a more effective control solution for PAM-led arm manipulator systems, offering improved control of uncertainties and better motiontracking performance.These findings have important implications for the development of advanced robotic systems using PAMs.

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)0.001
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 score0.554
Threshold uncertainty score0.792

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.000
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 head0.062
GPT teacher head0.246
Teacher spread0.184 · 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
Published2023
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueMathematical Modelling and Engineering ProblemsSame topicProsthetics and Rehabilitation RoboticsFrench-language works237,207