MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4391462717 · doi:10.1109/lra.2024.3414180

Force Push: Robust Single-Point Pushing With Force Feedback

2024· preprint· en· W4391462717 on OpenAlexfundno aff
Adam Heins, Angela P. Schoellig

Bibliographic record

VenueIEEE Robotics and Automation Letters · 2024
Typepreprint
Languageen
FieldEngineering
TopicRobot Manipulation and Learning
Canadian institutionsnot available
FundersTechnische Universität MünchenNatural Sciences and Engineering Research Council of CanadaCanadian Institute for Advanced Research
KeywordsSingle pointPoint (geometry)Haptic technologyComputer sciencePhysicsMathematicsSimulationGeometry

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

We present a controller for quasistatic robotic planar pushing with single-point contact usingonlyforce feedback to sense the pushed object. We consider an omnidirectional mobile robot pushing an object (the “slider”) along a given path, where the robot is equipped with a force-torque sensor to measure the force at the contact point with the slider. The geometric, inertial, and frictional parameters of the slider are not known to the controller, nor are measurements of the slider's pose. We assume that the robot can be localized so that the global position of the contact point is always known and that the approximate initial position of the slider is provided. Simulations and real-world experiments show that our controller yields pushes that are robust to a wide range of slider parameters and state perturbations along both straight and curved paths. Furthermore, we use an admittance controller to adjust the pushing velocity based on the measured force when the slider contacts obstacles like walls.

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 score0.003
Threshold uncertainty score0.009

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.001
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0030.001

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.

Opus teacher head0.022
GPT teacher head0.209
Teacher spread0.188 · 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

Citations5
Published2024
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueIEEE Robotics and Automation LettersSame topicRobot Manipulation and LearningFrench-language works237,207