Distributed Cascade Force Control of Soft-Tactile-Based Multi-robot System for Object Transportation
Bibliographic record
Abstract
In this paper, we present a distributed cascade force control system (DCFC) for multiple robots with the aim of pushing a rigid object towards a desired moving target without their inter-robot communication. These mobile robots are equipped with 360-degree vision-based soft tactile sensors utilized to determine contact location and resultant impact force. By investigating the dynamics of moving rigid objects on the flat, we proposed a distributed cascade control. The inner loop control incorporates contact force and positioning, ensuring the robots' pushing contact and applying the desired force to the object. The outer loop control coordinates the robots to push the object in a desired direction without inter-robot communication, regardless of unknown object mass and friction uncertainty. The stability and convergence of the control system are verified using the Lyapunov stability theory. We also conducted simulation and real-world experiments to validate the performance of the proposed control method, and the experimental results showcase the successful coordination of multiple robots in pushing an object towards a moving desired direction.
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 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) | 0.000 | 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 | 0.000 |
| 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 itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, 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".