A brief survey of observers for disturbance estimation and compensation
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract An accurate dynamic model of a robot is fundamentally important for a control system, while uncertainties residing in the model are inevitable in a physical robot system. The uncertainties can be categorized as internal disturbances and external disturbances in general. The former may include dynamic model errors and joint frictions, while the latter may include external payloads or human-exerted force to the robot. Disturbance observer is an important technique to estimate and compensate for the uncertainties of the dynamic model. Different types of disturbance observers have been developed to estimate the lumped uncertainties so far. In this paper, we conducted a brief survey on five typical types of observers from a perspective of practical implementation in a robot control system, including generalized momentum observer (GMO), joint velocity observer (JVOB), nonlinear disturbance observer (NDOB), disturbance Kalman filter (DKF), and extended state observer (ESO). First, we introduced the basics of each observer including equations and derivations. Two common types of disturbances are considered as two scenarios, that is , constant external disturbance and time-varying external disturbance. Then, the observers are separately implemented in each of the two simulated scenarios, and the disturbance tracking performance of each observer is presented while their performance in the same scenario has also been compared in the same figure. Finally, the main features and possible behaviors of each type of observer are summarized and discussed. This survey is devoted to helping readers learn the basic expressions of five typical observers and implement them in a robot control system.
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 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
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".