Pith. sign in

REVIEW 3 major objections 5 minor 44 references

Vib2Move: In-Hand Object Reconfiguration via Fingertip Micro-Vibrations

T0 review · 3 major / 5 minor · reviewed 2026-08-07 · deepseek-v4-flash

Challenge this review Re-run · record.json Download PDF Read on arXiv ↗ Review JSON

Pith's one-line read Vib2Move shows that fingertip micro-vibrations let a two-finger gripper slide planar objects in hand using gravity, reaching pose errors below 6 mm.

desk verdict New mechanism, real robot results, but the error claim is overstated and the motion-model scale factor k is not derived. read the letter →

arxiv 2506.10923 v1 pith:2QPGO2PR submitted 2025-06-12 cs.RO

Xili Yi , Nima Fazeli This is my paper · ORCID
classification cs.RO
keywords in-handmanipulationparallelgripperfingertipvibrationfrictionmodulationlimitsurfaceplanarslidingmotionplanningquasi-static
verification ladder T0 review T1 audit T2 compute T3 formal

The pith

A machine-rendered reading of the paper's core claim, the machinery that carries it, and where it could break.

The reading

Vib2Move is a method for in-hand reconfiguration that gives an ordinary parallel-jaw gripper the ability to reposition a planar object in free space. The fingertips vibrate at high frequency, breaking contact repeatedly to lower the effective friction, which effectively emulates fast changes in grip force. Gravity then slides the object relative to the fingers, and the paper derives a limit-surface model that predicts the direction of that motion. A three-stage planner uses these predictions to center the object, translate it, and rotate it to a goal pose. Real-world trials across six objects report final position errors below about 6 mm and orientation errors near 1 degree.

What carries the argument

The load-bearing object is the ellipsoidal limit surface of the finger contact patch, the boundary of all frictional wrenches the patch can exert. Its axes are fixed by contact geometry and friction, so enforcing gravity balance fixes the wrench scale without knowing grip force or friction coefficient. The motion direction comes from the maximal-dissipation rule $\dot{q} \propto A w_f$, and the paper's modification scales each planning step by $k = 1/(w_f^T A w_f)$, proportional to the limit-surface size, to reproduce slow near-rotational motion instead of an unrealistic constant-speed step. Vibration acts as the binary switch: on means sliding, off means sticking, which makes the planner's discrete subgoals executable.

What would settle it

Run a high-speed camera or miniature IMU on a grasped object through repeated vibration-on/off cycles: if the object continues moving after vibration stops, or if a heavier object fails to slide at the 5 N grasp force, the binary stick/slide quasi-static model is violated.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

The paper's central claim is that millisecond-scale fingertip vibrations can serve as a control input for in-hand manipulation: they lower the effective friction at the contact fast enough that a parallel gripper can slide a grasped planar object using gravity alone, without external fixtures or force sensing. Concretely, the paper derives a quasi-static sliding model in which the object is always in force-torque equilibrium, so the friction wrench is fixed by gravity and contact geometry. With the ellipsoidal limit surface $w^T A w = 1$ and the direction rule $\dot{q} \propto A w$, the update $q_{t+1} = q_t + \frac{A w_f}{\|A w_f\|} \delta t\, k$, $k = 1/(w_f^T A w_f)$, predicts the object's slip direction. The planner alternates between rotating the gripper without vibration and holding it fixed while vibrating, with pose feedback closing the loop. Across 60 real-world paths on six objects the final error is 5.91 mm in position and 1.21 degrees in orientation, and single vibration actions are predicted with 1.849 mm and 2.189 degrees RMSE.

Load-bearing premise

Everything rests on the quasi-static assumption that the object slides only while vibration is on and comes to rest the instant it is switched off, with inertial forces negligible; the paper does not directly measure that stopping behavior.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • An ordinary two-finger gripper, without external fixtures or force sensing, can perform free-space in-hand reconfiguration of planar objects.
  • The limit-surface model predicts single vibration actions well enough for closed-loop control: 1.849 mm and 2.189 degrees RMSE on 1,564 actions.
  • Across 60 real-world trials on six objects, the planner's final pose error is 5.91 mm in position and 1.21 degrees in orientation, roughly 3-5% of object size.
  • The two observed motion modes, near-rotational and translational, justify the three-stage centering, positioning, and orientation-adjustment strategy.
  • Objects with non-homogeneous friction, such as 3D-printed textured surfaces, still converge within the reported error, so the method tolerates friction anisotropy.

Reading between the lines

Editorial extensions of the paper, not claims the author makes directly.

  • Because the reported measurement noise is above 1 mm and the errors are 4-7 mm, a meaningful share of the residual error may be tracking noise; higher-resolution pose estimation is a natural test of the model's true accuracy.
  • The same friction-modulation idea could extend to multi-fingered hands or to variable-amplitude vibration for finer control; the paper leaves those as future directions.
  • A direct residual-velocity measurement after vibration stops would determine how much object mass or speed the quasi-static assumption can tolerate before a dynamic model is needed.
Share X Bluesky LinkedIn Reddit HN

Signed reviews

No signed human review yet.

Editorial analysis

A structured set of objections, weighed in public.

Desk editor's note, referee report, and a circularity audit.

Referee Report

3 major / 5 minor

Summary. Vib2Move proposes to perform in-hand planar reconfiguration with a parallel-jaw gripper by vibrating the fingertips to reduce effective friction and letting gravity slide the object. The paper derives a quasi-static sliding motion model from an ellipsoidal limit surface, introduces a scale factor k in the pose update, and uses a three-stage closed-loop planner (centering, translation, orientation) with pose feedback. Experiments on six planar objects report a model prediction RMSE of 1.849 mm / 2.189 deg over 1564 vibration actions and a final reconfiguration RMSE of 5.91 mm / 1.21 deg over 60 trials.

Significance. The idea is attractive: if validated, a simple two-finger gripper with vibration motors can reconfigure objects in free space without external fixtures or force sensing. The hardware is simple, the use of limit-surface theory for predicting motion direction is reasonable, and the planner is transparent and reproducible. However, the central quantitative claims are not currently supported as stated: the abstract's sub-6 mm claim is contradicted by Table II, and the magnitude part of the motion model rests on an underived scale factor. These issues are fixable but need to be addressed before publication.

major comments (3)
  1. [Abstract / Table II] The abstract states that Vib2Move consistently yields final positioning errors below 6 mm, but Table II reports per-object RMSE values of 6.59 mm (Object 1), 6.36 mm (Object 5), and 7.04 mm (Object 6); the aggregate average of 5.91 mm is below 6 mm, so the claim is only true on average, not for each object or trial. Please rephrase the claim to match the data or report the full per-trial distribution, including worst-case error and standard deviation.
  2. [Section III-A.2, Eq. (6) / Table I] The scale factor k = 1/(w_f^T A w_f) is introduced without derivation, yet it controls the magnitude of every pose update. Because A = Diag{(a_1 N)^-2, ...}, k depends on the unknown normal force N and friction coefficient mu; because w_f = [0, -mg, -mg x_c], it also depends on object mass. This contradicts the paper's claim that the model depends only on contact geometry. If the friction wrench lies on the limit surface during sliding, then w_f^T A w_f = 1 and k = 1, in which case the factor is redundant; if the wrench is inside the limit surface, no physical argument is given for using this ratio as a step-size multiplier. In addition, Eq. (6) adds a dimensionless normalized twist times delta_t and k to a pose vector whose translational components are in mm and angular component in radians, but no conversion between linear and angular scales is provided. The evaluation in Table I does not state how k was chosen, whether it was fit to the same 1564 actions, or whether any actions were held out; as reported, the 1.849 mm / 2.189 deg RMSE therefore does not establish predictive power. Please derive or fit k explicitly, report its values, and validate on held-out actions.
  3. [Section III-A, quasi-static assumption] The paper states that inertial forces are negligible and the object comes to rest as soon as vibrations are turned off, and it claims this assumption is evaluated in the results section. The planner's stepwise execution depends on this assumption: stage transitions assume a binary stick/slide behavior controlled by the vibration on/off signal. Section VI reports only final-path RMSE and a qualitative path comparison; I found no direct experiment that measures stopping/starting transients, checks that the object is stationary with vibration off, or compares predicted versus actual motion duration. Please add such a test, or revise the claim to state that the assumption is an unvalidated modeling choice.
minor comments (5)
  1. [Section III-A.1] The sentence 'for a fixed contact patch size, A proportional to N' is incorrect as written; from the definition A = Diag{(a_1 N)^-2, ...}, A scales as N^{-2}, not N. The intended statement is presumably that the size of the limit surface is proportional to N. Please correct this, as it appears in the argument leading to Eq. (6).
  2. [Table I] The caption states that results are shown as a function of the timestep chosen, but the table contains a single set of values and no timestep value. Please specify the timestep or remove the phrase.
  3. [Section V-B] The model evaluation reports 1564 collected vibration actions but gives no per-object breakdown, standard deviation, or number of actions per object. Reporting these would make the evaluation in Table I interpretable.
  4. [Table II] The relative error is defined as RMSE normalized by the object's max length, but this normalization is not stated in the table caption or the surrounding text; per-trial standard deviations should also be reported alongside the means.
  5. [Throughout] There are several typos, including 'the the object comes to rest' in Section III-A, 'foundation for to our planning' in Section III, and 'we can devide the motion' in the Fig. 9 caption. Please copyedit the manuscript.

Circularity Check

1 steps flagged · score 6.0 of 10

The motion model's scale factor k in Eq. 6 is an unspecified input; Table I reports RMSE with no independent calibration or train/test split, so the magnitude 'prediction' may reduce to a fit.

  1. fitted input called prediction [Section III-A, Eqs. (5)-(6); Section VI-A, Table I]
    "We treat the scale of this limit surface intuitively as a scale factor for the twist, leading to a modified motion update equation: qt+1 = qt + Awf/||Awf|| δtk, k = 1/(wT f Awf). ... Table. I shows the quantitative results of model evaluations as a function of the timestep chosen for our model."

    The predicted displacement after a vibration action is proportional to the product of k and the chosen timestep, and the paper gives no derivation or independent calibration for either quantity. A single vibration action has no modeled duration or intensity, so the mechanics alone do not determine how far the object moves; the scale is an input to the prediction. The model is then evaluated on the same 1564 vibration actions used to produce the predictions, with no train/test split and no stated procedure for choosing k/δt. If k/δt was selected to minimize error on those actions, the reported 1.849 mm / 2.189° RMSE is a fit residual rather than a predictive result. The directional part of the model is independent, but the magnitude enters every pose update in Eq.

full rationale

The directional content of the sliding model is a standard external result: the Howe-Cutkosky ellipsoidal limit-surface approximation gives the instantaneous twist direction as ∉ q ∥ A w, and the two-motion-type structure used by the planner follows from that geometry. That part is not circular and is checked against real paths. The self-citations [24,25] are related-work references and are not load-bearing; no uniqueness theorem from the authors is imported. The circularity is confined to the magnitude/scale of the predicted motion. Eq. 6 multiplies the unit twist by k = 1/(wf^T A wf), introduced 'intuitively,' and by a timestep whose choice is described only as 'chosen.' Because a vibration action has no modeled duration or intensity, the total predicted displacement is set by this scale, not derived from mechanics. Table I then reports the model error on the same actions used to produce the predictions, with no train/test split or independent calibration, so the reported RMSE cannot be distinguished from fitting the scale. This makes the motion-model magnitude 'prediction' partially circular. The planner itself runs closed-loop, and its final 5.91 mm positioning result does not depend on the scale being predictive; hence the circularity is partial, affecting one of the three stated innovations.

Assumptions & free parameters 2 free parameters · 5 assumptions · 0 invented entities

The central physics rests on the ellipsoidal limit-surface approximation and a set of quasi-static contact assumptions. The main free parameter is the motion-magnitude scale k (with the unit-distance step), which is not determined by the stated equations and appears to be tuned to match experiments. No new entities are invented.

free parameters (2)
  • Motion magnitude scale (k and unit-distance step δt) = Not disclosed; inferred from experimental data
    Eq 6 introduces k = 1/(w_f^T A w_f) as a scale factor for the twist update. Since A depends on the unknown normal force N and friction coefficient μ, k is not determined by the stated equations. The choice of δt (unit-distance step) is also arbitrary. Together they set the predicted path length per vibration action; no calibration procedure or train/test split is reported.
  • rerror (centering error ball radius) = 5 mm
    Chosen by hand in Section IV; affects planner behavior near singularity but not the central physics claim.
assumptions (5)
  • standard math The Howe-Cutkosky ellipsoidal limit surface approximation is valid for the fingertip contact patches.
    Invoked in Section III-A.1 as the basis for the friction wrench model, following [36, 37, 41].
  • domain assumption Quasi-static sliding: inertial forces are negligible and the object comes to rest as soon as vibration stops.
    Stated in Section III-A: 'we induce quasi-static motion ... the object always maintains force-torque equilibrium.' The paper claims to evaluate it but provides no dedicated test.
  • domain assumption Under vibration the object always slides; without vibration it always sticks.
    Assumed in Sections III-A and IV to define the two control primitives; no measurement of contact mode is presented.
  • domain assumption The two opposing fingertip contacts can be lumped into a single equivalent friction wrench and limit surface.
    Eqs 2 and 3 balance gravity against one friction wrench [f_x, f_y, τ_f]^T; the paper does not model the two contacts separately or their interaction under vibration.
  • domain assumption Maximum static friction equals kinetic friction; friction is isotropic and homogeneous.
    Stated in Section III-A.1 following standard limit-surface practice; the paper notes Object #5 violates homogeneity yet still works.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Vib2Move: In-Hand Object Reconfiguration via Fingertip Micro-Vibrations." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/2QPGO2PR

@misc{pith2026250610923,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Vib2Move: In-Hand Object Reconfiguration via Fingertip Micro-Vibrations},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/2QPGO2PR}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2506.10923}
}
read the original abstract

We introduce Vib2Move, a novel approach for in-hand object reconfiguration that uses fingertip micro-vibrations and gravity to precisely reposition planar objects. Our framework comprises three key innovations. First, we design a vibration-based actuator that dynamically modulates the effective finger-object friction coefficient, effectively emulating changes in gripping force. Second, we derive a sliding motion model for objects clamped in a parallel gripper with two symmetric, variable-friction contact patches. Third, we propose a motion planner that coordinates end-effector finger trajectories and fingertip vibrations to achieve the desired object pose. In real-world trials, Vib2Move consistently yields final positioning errors below 6 mm, demonstrating reliable, high-precision manipulation across a variety of planar objects. For more results and information, please visit https://vib2move.github.io.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2506.10923 by the authors.

Figure 1
Figure 1. (a) Robot pivots a notebook in free space, using gravity [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p001_1.png] view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. Problem statement: Given the robot finger pose [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p002_2.png] view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. Limit surface is defined as the boundary of the set of [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p003_3.png] view at source ↗
Figures from the paper (8 more)
Figure 4
Figure 4. Figure 4: Force-torque balance of the object in the vertical plane. [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p004_4.png]
Figure 5
Figure 5. Figure 5: Example of object motion prediction using our motion model. [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p005_5.png]
Figure 6
Figure 6. Figure 6: Two types of robot actions: (a) robot reorients the grip [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p006_6.png]
Figure 7
Figure 7. Figure 7: The step-by-step in-hand reconfiguration pipeline [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p007_7.png]
Figure 8
Figure 8. Figure 8: Experimental setup: (a) Overview of the experimental [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p007_8.png]
Figure 10
Figure 10. Figure 10: Final pose error distribution of each object, and the [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p008_10.png]
Figure 11
Figure 11. Figure 11: Finger motion in object frame, with goal pose [10, 5, 22.9]. Background color light blue, light green and light pink [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p009_11.png]
Figure 12
Figure 12. Figure 12: Visualization of robot and object motions to do in-hand reconfiguration. [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p009_12.png]

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

44 extracted references · 41 canonical work pages

  1. [1]

    Planar in-hand manipulation via motion cones

    Nikhil Chavan-Dafle, Rachel Holladay, and Alberto Ro- driguez. Planar in-hand manipulation via motion cones. The International Journal of Robotics Research, 39(2-3): 163–182, 2020

    work page 2020

  2. [2]

    Robotic manipulation of thin objects within off-the-shelf parallel grippers with a vibration finger

    Noam Nahum and Avishai Sintov. Robotic manipulation of thin objects within off-the-shelf parallel grippers with a vibration finger. Mechanism and Machine Theory, 177: 105032, 2022

    work page 2022

  3. [3]

    Vibration-based full state in-hand manipulation of thin objects

    Oron Binyamin, Guy Shapira, Noam Nahum, and Avishai Sintov. Vibration-based full state in-hand manipulation of thin objects. arXiv preprint arXiv:2412.14899, 2024

    arXiv 2024

  4. [4]

    Object-level impedance con- trol for dexterous in-hand manipulation

    Martin Pfanne, Maxime Chalon, Freek Stulp, Helge Rit- ter, and Alin Albu-Sch¨affer. Object-level impedance con- trol for dexterous in-hand manipulation. IEEE Robotics and Automation Letters, 5(2):2987–2994, 2020

    work page 2020

  5. [5]

    Contact-Implicit Model Predictive Control for Dexterous In-hand Manipulation: A Long-Horizon and Robust Approach

    Yongpeng Jiang, Mingrui Yu, Xinghao Zhu, Masayoshi Tomizuka, and Xiang Li. Contact-implicit model pre- dictive control for dexterous in-hand manipulation: A long-horizon and robust approach. arXiv preprint arXiv:2402.18897, 2024

    work page Pith review arXiv 2024

  6. [6]

    Progressive transfer learning for dexterous in-hand manipulation with multi-fingered anthropomorphic hand

    Yongkang Luo, Wanyi Li, Peng Wang, Haonan Duan, Wei Wei, and Jia Sun. Progressive transfer learning for dexterous in-hand manipulation with multi-fingered anthropomorphic hand. IEEE Transactions on Cognitive and Developmental Systems, 2024

    work page 2024

  7. [7]

    A system for general in-hand object re-orientation

    Tao Chen, Jie Xu, and Pulkit Agrawal. A system for general in-hand object re-orientation. In Conference on Robot Learning, pages 297–307. PMLR, 2022

    2022

  8. [8]

    Hybrid learning-and model-based planning and control of in-hand manipulation

    Rana Soltani Zarrin, Rianna Jitosho, and Katsu Yamane. Hybrid learning-and model-based planning and control of in-hand manipulation. In 2023 IEEE/RSJ International Conference on Intelligent Robots and Systems (IROS), pages 8720–8726. IEEE, 2023

    work page 2023

Show all 44 references
  1. [9]

    Hierarchical tactile-based control decomposition of dexterous in-hand manipulation tasks

    Filipe Veiga, Riad Akrour, and Jan Peters. Hierarchical tactile-based control decomposition of dexterous in-hand manipulation tasks. Frontiers in Robotics and AI, 7: 521448, 2020

    2020

  2. [10]

    Dexterous imitation made easy: A learning-based framework for efficient dexterous manip- ulation

    Sridhar Pandian Arunachalam, Sneha Silwal, Ben Evans, and Lerrel Pinto. Dexterous imitation made easy: A learning-based framework for efficient dexterous manip- ulation. In 2023 ieee international conference on robotics and automation (icra), pages 5954–5961. IEEE, 2023

    2023

  3. [11]

    Learning by demonstration and robust control of dexterous in-hand robotic manipulation skills

    Gokhan Solak and Lorenzo Jamone. Learning by demonstration and robust control of dexterous in-hand robotic manipulation skills. In 2019 ieee/rsj international conference on intelligent robots and systems (iros), pages 8246–8251. IEEE, 2019

    2019

  4. [12]

    Robotic in-hand manipulation with relaxed optimization

    Ali Hammoud, Valerio Belcamino, Quentin Huet, Alessandro Carfi, Mahdi Khoramshahi, Veronique Perdereau, and Fulvio Mastrogiovanni. Robotic in-hand manipulation with relaxed optimization. arXiv preprint arXiv:2406.04950, 2024

    2024 arXiv

  5. [13]

    Adaptive control for pivoting with visual and tactile feedback

    Yiannis Karayiannidis, Christian Smith, Danica Kragic, et al. Adaptive control for pivoting with visual and tactile feedback. In 2016 IEEE International Conference on Robotics and Automation (ICRA), pages 399–406. IEEE, 2016

    2016

  6. [14]

    Fast planning for 3d any-pose-reorienting using pivoting

    Yifan Hou, Zhenzhong Jia, and Matthew T Mason. Fast planning for 3d any-pose-reorienting using pivoting. In 2018 IEEE International Conference on Robotics and Automation (ICRA), pages 1631–1638. IEEE, 2018

    2018

  7. [15]

    In-hand ma- nipulation primitives for a minimal, underactuated grip- per with active surfaces

    Raymond R Ma and Aaron M Dollar. In-hand ma- nipulation primitives for a minimal, underactuated grip- per with active surfaces. In International Design Engineering Technical Conferences and Computers and Information in Engineering Conference, volume 50152, page V05AT07A072. Am...

    2016

  8. [16]

    Let’s push things forward: A survey on robot pushing

    Jochen St ¨uber, Claudio Zito, and Rustam Stolkin. Let’s push things forward: A survey on robot pushing. Frontiers in Robotics and AI, page 8, 2020

    2020

  9. [17]

    Stable push- ing: Mechanics, controllability, and planning

    Kevin M Lynch and Matthew T Mason. Stable push- ing: Mechanics, controllability, and planning. The international journal of robotics research, 15(6):533–556, 1996

    1996

  10. [18]

    Quasistatic manipu- lation with compliance and sliding

    Imin Kao and Mark R Cutkosky. Quasistatic manipu- lation with compliance and sliding. The International journal of robotics research, 11(1):20–40, 1992

    1992

  11. [19]

    Comparison of the- oretical and experimental force/motion trajectories for dextrous manipulation with sliding

    Imin Kao and Mark R Cutkosky. Comparison of the- oretical and experimental force/motion trajectories for dextrous manipulation with sliding. The International journal of robotics research, 12(6):529–534, 1993

    1993

  12. [20]

    Dexterous sliding manipulating using soft fingertips

    Ying Xue and Imin Kao. Dexterous sliding manipulating using soft fingertips. In Proceedings of the 1994 IEEE International Conference on Robotics and Automation, pages 3397–3402. IEEE, 1994

    1994

  13. [21]

    Quasi-static analysis of planar sliding using friction patches

    M Mahdi Ghazaei Ardakani, Joao Bimbo, and Domenico Prattichizzo. Quasi-static analysis of planar sliding using friction patches. The International Journal of Robotics Research, 39(14):1775–1795, 2020

    2020

  14. [22]

    Modeling and control of planar slippage in object manipulation using robotic soft fingers

    Amin Fakhari, Imin Kao, and Mehdi Keshmiri. Modeling and control of planar slippage in object manipulation using robotic soft fingers. ROBOMECH Journal, 6(1): 1–11, 2019

    2019

  15. [23]

    A model free robot control method for dragging an object on a planar surface by applying top contact forces

    Savvas Sampaziotis and Zoe Doulgeri. A model free robot control method for dragging an object on a planar surface by applying top contact forces. In 2022 International Conference on Robotics and Automation (ICRA), pages 8361–8367, 2022. doi: 10.1109/ICRA46639.2022.9811686

    2022

  16. [24]

    Precise Object Sliding with Top Contact via Asymmetric Dual Limit Surfaces

    Xili Yi and Nima Fazeli. Precise Object Sliding with Top Contact via Asymmetric Dual Limit Surfaces. Robotics: Science and Systems, 2023

    2023

  17. [25]

    Dual asymmetric limit surfaces and their applications to planar manipula- tion

    Xili Yi, An Dang, and Nima Fazeli. Dual asymmetric limit surfaces and their applications to planar manipula- tion. Autonomous Robots, 48(7):21, 2024

    2024

  18. [26]

    Analytical investigation of the friction reduction perfor- mance of longitudinal vibration based on the modified elastoplastic contact model

    Weili Liu, Hongjian Ni, Peng Wang, and Bo Zhao. Analytical investigation of the friction reduction perfor- mance of longitudinal vibration based on the modified elastoplastic contact model. Tribology International, 146: 106237, 2020

    2020

  19. [27]

    Experimental investigation of friction reduction: by superimposed vi- brations

    Helmut J Holl, Martin Meindlhumer, Viktoria Simader, Dominik Schn ¨urer, and Andreas Brandl. Experimental investigation of friction reduction: by superimposed vi- brations. Materials Today: Proceedings, 5(13):26615– 26621, 2018

    2018

  20. [28]

    Analysing the vibrating conveyor

    G Winkler. Analysing the vibrating conveyor. International Journal of Mechanical Sciences, 20(9):561– 570, 1978

    1978

  21. [29]

    The dynamic analysis of stick-slip motion

    Chao Gao, Doris Kuhlmann-Wilsdorf, and David D Makel. The dynamic analysis of stick-slip motion. Wear, 173(1-2):1–12, 1994

    1994

  22. [30]

    Kilobot: A low cost robot with scalable operations designed for collective behaviors

    Michael Rubenstein, Christian Ahler, Nick Hoff, Adrian Cabrera, and Radhika Nagpal. Kilobot: A low cost robot with scalable operations designed for collective behaviors. Robotics and Autonomous Systems, 62(7): 966–975, 2014

    2014

  23. [31]

    Programmable self-assembly in a thousand-robot swarm

    Michael Rubenstein, Alejandro Cornejo, and Radhika Nagpal. Programmable self-assembly in a thousand-robot swarm. Science, 345(6198):795–799, 2014

    2014

  24. [32]

    Dynamic underactuated manipulator using a flexible body with a structural anisotropy

    Akihiro Maruo, Akihide Shibata, and Mitsuru Hi- gashimori. Dynamic underactuated manipulator using a flexible body with a structural anisotropy. In 2022 International Conference on Robotics and Automation (ICRA), pages 7117–7123. IEEE, 2022

    2022

  25. [33]

    Vertical vibratory transport of grasped parts using impacts

    CL Yako, J ´erˆome Nowak, Shenli Yuan, and Kenneth Salisbury. Vertical vibratory transport of grasped parts using impacts. In 2024 IEEE International Conference on Robotics and Automation (ICRA), pages 1950–1956. IEEE, 2024

    2024

  26. [34]

    The sliding of robot fingers under combined torsion and shear loading

    Robert D Howe, Imin Kao, and Mark R Cutkosky. The sliding of robot fingers under combined torsion and shear loading. In Proceedings. 1988 IEEE International Conference on Robotics and Automation, pages 103–

    1988

  27. [35]

    Planar sliding of a rigid body with dry friction: limit surfaces and dynamics of motion

    Suresh Goyal. Planar sliding of a rigid body with dry friction: limit surfaces and dynamics of motion. PhD Thesis, Cornell University Ithaca, NY , 1989

    1989

  28. [36]

    Practical force-motion models for sliding manipulation

    Robert D Howe and Mark R Cutkosky. Practical force-motion models for sliding manipulation. The International Journal of Robotics Research, 15(6):557– 572, 1996

    1996

  29. [37]

    Modeling of contact mechanics and friction limit surfaces for soft fingers in robotics, with experimental results

    Nicholas Xydas and Imin Kao. Modeling of contact mechanics and friction limit surfaces for soft fingers in robotics, with experimental results. The International Journal of Robotics Research, 18(9):941–950, 1999

    1999

  30. [38]

    Feedback control of the pusher-slider system: A story of hybrid and underactuated contact dynamics

    Franc ¸ois Robert Hogan and Alberto Rodriguez. Feedback control of the pusher-slider system: A story of hybrid and underactuated contact dynamics. In Algorithmic Foundations of Robotics XII, pages 800–815. Springer, 2020

    2020

  31. [39]

    Reactive planar non-prehensile manipulation with hybrid model predictive control

    Franc ¸ois Robert Hogan and Alberto Rodriguez. Reactive planar non-prehensile manipulation with hybrid model predictive control. The International Journal of Robotics Research, 39(7):755–773, 2020

    2020

  32. [40]

    Com- bining learned and analytical models for predicting action effects from sensory data

    Alina Kloss, Stefan Schaal, and Jeannette Bohg. Com- bining learned and analytical models for predicting action effects from sensory data. The International Journal of Robotics Research, 41(8):778–797, 2022

    2022

  33. [41]

    Dynamic in-hand sliding manipulation

    Jian Shi, J Zachary Woodruff, Paul B Umbanhowar, and Kevin M Lynch. Dynamic in-hand sliding manipulation. IEEE Transactions on Robotics, 33(4):778–795, 2017

    2017

  34. [42]

    A convex polynomial force-motion model for planar sliding: Identification and application

    Jiaji Zhou, Robert Paolini, J Andrew Bagnell, and Matthew T Mason. A convex polynomial force-motion model for planar sliding: Identification and application. In 2016 IEEE International Conference on Robotics and Automation (ICRA), pages 372–377. IEEE, 2016

    2016

  35. [43]

    The effect of longitudinal tangential vibrations on friction and driving forces in sliding motion

    Paweł Gutowski and Mariusz Leus. The effect of longitudinal tangential vibrations on friction and driving forces in sliding motion. Tribology International, 55: 108–118, 2012

    2012

  36. [44]

    Effect of axial vibration on sliding frictional force between shale and 45 steel

    Wu Hao, Chen Ping, Liu Yang, and Ma Tianshou. Effect of axial vibration on sliding frictional force between shale and 45 steel. Shock and Vibration, 2018(1): 4179312, 2018

    2018

Pith tools

Reviewed August 7, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.