Pith. sign in

REVIEW 5 major objections 5 minor 36 references

URF: A Unified Robot Control-Policy Framework for Stable Contact Aware Manipulation

T0 review · 5 major / 5 minor · reviewed 2026-08-15 · deepseek-v4-flash

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

Pith's one-line read URF claims that contact-aware manipulation policies should also predict the low-level controller mode, and shows that force-labeled impedance-admittance switching raises task success and cuts contact-induced failures.

desk verdict A promising controller-mode prediction idea whose central 'predicting ahead' claim is undercut by a label-force confound and a missing reactive baseline. read the letter →

arxiv 2607.20912 v1 pith:FTZWKKYY submitted 2026-07-23 cs.RO

Jiyou Shin , Youngjin Seo , Jaeseog Won , Sungwon Seo , Hyunjun Kim , Seokmin Yoon , Tuan Luong , Hyungpil Moon This is my paper · ORCID
classification cs.RO
keywords unifiedimpedance-admittancecontrolcontact-awaremanipulationdiffusionpolicyswitchratioforce-supervisedlabelingvirtualtargetstiffnesslearningrigidcontact
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

URF claims that in rigid-contact manipulation, a policy should predict not only the compliant action, namely a virtual target and stiffness, but also the low-level controller mode used to execute it. To make this learnable, it derives an impedance-admittance switch-ratio label from the measured force magnitude, replacing the unavailable ground-truth environment stiffness with a conservative force-based rule. On box-flipping and line-pressing, the framework posts higher success rates than an admittance-only compliance policy while avoiding its characteristic failures: rapid force buildup, large force oscillations, tool breakage, and robot safety stops. The message is that action prediction and interaction control should be designed as one coupled system.

What carries the argument

The load-bearing object is the unified impedance-admittance controller [29], repurposed to accept time-varying inputs: the virtual target $x^v_t$, the stiffness matrix $K_t$, and the switch ratio $n_t$. Within each control period, $n_t$ sets the fraction of time spent in the admittance phase, with state mapping at the switch to keep commanded force and its derivative continuous. The other pillar is the force-based label in Eq. (6): $n_t$ is a piecewise-linear function of the measured force norm, staying near $1$ below $f_{\min}$ and dropping to $0$ above $f_{\max}$. A conditional diffusion policy with a U-Net denoiser generates 16-step action chunks of $(x^v_t, K_t, n_t)$ from image, pose, and force-history observations in a receding-horizon loop.

What would settle it

Run URF on the line-pressing task twice with the same predicted virtual-target and stiffness sequences, once with the learned switch ratios and once with each step's average switch ratio substituted. If the averaged version keeps 100% success and low force oscillation, the paper's claim that predicting the switch ratio carries the result is unsupported; if it fails or oscillates, adaptive switching is the load-bearing component.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

The paper's central claim is that contact-aware policies should output the controller behavior alongside the compliant action, and that this is practically trainable. Specifically, URF predicts the triple ($x^v_t$, $K_t$, $n_t$), a virtual target pose, a stiffness matrix, and a scalar impedance-admittance switch ratio, where $n_t=1$ is pure admittance for accurate tracking and $n_t=0$ is pure impedance for stable stiff contact. Because demonstrations lack environment-stiffness annotations, the authors label $n_t$ from the measured force norm via a piecewise-linear rule between user-set bounds $f_{\min}$ and $f_{\max}$. In box-flipping, URF reaches 90% success versus 25% for the admittance-only adaptive compliance policy; in line-pressing it sustains contact in every trial while the admittance baseline always ends in a safety stop. The paper therefore argues that stable contact alone is insufficient, because accurate approach and tangential tracking require the controller mode to adapt during execution.

Load-bearing premise

The controller stays stable when the stiffness matrix and switch ratio are time-varying commands generated by a policy running at 100 Hz while the control loop runs at 1 kHz, yet the cited switching-stability result is not extended to this setting.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • If URF is right, action spaces for contact-rich imitation should include the controller mode, because the same virtual target and stiffness produce different physical outcomes under different low-level controllers.
  • Force-magnitude labeling offers a route to controller-aware supervision without estimating environment stiffness, which is usually unobservable from demonstrations.
  • The fixed-switch ablations imply that neither pure impedance nor a fixed 50/50 blend is enough: tasks that need accurate placement before contact and stable force after contact require the switch ratio to adapt over time.
  • Because the switch ratio changes before large forces appear, predicted from images and force history, the policy is not merely a force threshold but anticipates approaching contact conditions.
  • The two demonstrated tasks suggest the approach transfers across short impulsive contact, box flipping, and sustained contact, line pressing.

Reading between the lines

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

  • An unstated extension is that the same force-based labeling could be applied to other variable-compliance controllers, such as variable admittance gains, turning controller-aware policy learning into a general recipe rather than a single-controller trick.
  • If the learned switch ratio tracks environment stiffness, then $n_t$ is an implicit stiffness estimator, which could be tested in simulation where ground-truth environment stiffness is known by comparing predicted $n_t$ with the optimal mode.
  • The authors note that the switch ratio is shared across all control axes; a natural per-axis extension would let one axis stay stiff while another stays compliant, which is exactly what insertion tasks require.
  • The manual force bounds $f_{\min}$ and $f_{\max}$ are a likely bottleneck, and the paper itself proposes letting richer scene understanding infer them, a testable next step that would remove the main user-defined parameter.
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

5 major / 5 minor

Summary. The paper proposes URF, a framework in which a diffusion policy predicts not only a virtual target and stiffness matrix but also a scalar impedance-admittance switch ratio n_t. The low-level controller switches between admittance and impedance behaviors according to n_t, with labels for n_t derived from measured force magnitude via Eq. (6). The method is evaluated on two rigid-contact tasks, box-flipping and line-pressing, with 20 trials per condition and compared against a standard diffusion policy, the Adaptive Compliance Policy (ACP), and two fixed-switch ablations. Reported results show URF achieving 90% success in box-flipping versus 25% for ACP, and 100% success in line-pressing versus 0% for ACP, with lower peak force growth rates and lower force oscillations. The central claim is that predicting the controller mode in addition to compliant actions improves stability and task success in rigid contact.

Significance. If the claims are supported, the paper makes a useful contribution: it couples learned action prediction with the low-level control mode, which is often treated as a fixed component, and it proposes a practical force-based labeling scheme that avoids explicit environment-stiffness estimation. The rigid-contact task design is appropriate for exposing controller-related failure modes, and the fixed-n ablations help show that adaptive switching matters. The authors are also transparent about two limitations in Section IV. However, the key novelty—that the policy predicts switch ratios before contact and thereby avoids force buildup—is currently under-supported because the supervision signal is a deterministic function of current force, no reactive force-threshold baseline is tested, and the relevant bounds and statistical uncertainty are not reported. The stability of time-varying switching is asserted by citation rather than analyzed or empirically demonstrated.

major comments (5)
  1. [II-B-3 and Fig. 3(c)] Equation (6) assigns n_t=1 when |F_ext| is below f_min, so approach-phase samples before physical contact should have labels near 1. Yet Section III-B-1 reports that 'before contact, the policy has already set n≈0' (Fig. 3c). The manuscript does not explain how pre-contact n≈0 labels arise. If the measured force used for labeling includes the human guidance force during direct teaching, then |F_ext| is large during the approach and the label is not a pure contact-loading signal; if the labels are temporally shifted, filtered, or otherwise processed, that processing is not described. Because the abstract's 'predicting ahead' claim depends on pre-contact reduction of n, this inconsistency needs to be resolved explicitly.
  2. [III-B and Tables I-II] No baseline uses the force-to-switch mapping of Eq. (6) as a reactive controller. Since the supervision signal is exactly a threshold on current force magnitude, a reactive policy that sets n_t from the current |F_ext| is a natural control condition and would test whether predicting switch ratios ahead of time adds value beyond the current force observation. Without such a baseline, the observed improvements in PFGR, CFR, and safety stops cannot be attributed to 'predicting' controller behavior before force buildup; a reactive force-threshold rule could reproduce the same qualitative behavior.
  3. [II-A] The stability claim 'has been shown to yield stable switching behavior' cites Ott et al. [29], but the cited analysis is not extended to the setting used here, where K_t and n_t are time-varying, policy-generated commands updated at low rate (policy inference) while the low-level controller runs at 1,000 Hz. No passivity or Lyapunov argument is provided for this time-varying switching, and the experiments use only 20 trials per condition. The manuscript should either extend the stability argument to the actual control architecture or provide empirical evidence, such as boundedness of force and velocity across trials and seeds, that time-varying switching is stable.
  4. [III-A and Eq. (6)] The values of f_min and f_max are never reported, and the controller gains M_d, D_d, K_p, and K_v are also not given. Since Eq. (6) is the core supervision signal for the switch ratio and the low-level unified controller is the main contribution, these missing values prevent reproducibility and make it impossible to interpret the force-threshold behavior that the paper claims to learn. Please report these parameters for both tasks.
  5. [Tables I-II] All success rates are computed over 20 trials with no confidence intervals, no information about random seeds, and no per-trial breakdown. With n=20, the difference between 90% and 60% success has a wide binomial confidence interval, and the reported PFGR and ORMS means and standard deviations do not account for seed variability. The claim that URF 'achieves higher task success rates' would be substantially strengthened by binomial confidence intervals, multiple seeds, and per-trial data for the safety-related metrics.
minor comments (5)
  1. [III-B-1] The sentence 'The three URF variants have similar PFGR values, which suggesting that impedance-like behavior near contact is sufficient' contains a grammatical error; 'which suggesting' should be 'which suggests' or 'suggesting'.
  2. [III-A] The manuscript states that force/torque measurements are low-pass filtered and downsampled to 100 Hz for data collection and policy input, but the cutoff frequency of the low-pass filter is not reported. Please specify it for reproducibility.
  3. [Fig. 3 and Fig. 4] The force-norm traces in Figs. 3b and 4b appear to come from single representative trials; the captions should state this explicitly and indicate how the shown trial was selected, since the tables already report aggregate statistics.
  4. [II-B-1] The observation encoding is described as using two RGB frames and three end-effector poses, but the time horizon and sampling rate of these observations are not stated; please clarify whether these are consecutive timesteps at 100 Hz or spread over a longer window.
  5. [References] The project page is mentioned in the abstract but not included in the reference list; a footnote or reference with the URL would help readers access supplementary videos and code.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 0.0 of 10

No significant circularity: the force-derived switch-ratio label is a supervision heuristic, and the central evaluation is independent of the label rule.

full rationale

The paper's derivation chain is self-contained. The switch-ratio label n_t is constructed from measured force magnitude in Eq. (6), but this is a training heuristic, not the quantity being evaluated. The policy is trained with a diffusion loss (Eq. 7) on action chunks and evaluated on task success, contact maintenance, peak force growth rate, and tracking error, none of which is identical to the label rule. The fixed-n ablations (n=0, n=0.5) demonstrate that the reduction in force growth and oscillation is attributable to impedance-dominant execution rather than to the learned n, and URF's additional success is attributed to adaptive tracking, a distinct behavioral claim. The stability of the switching controller is cited to Ott et al. [29], an external source, and the only self-citation [36] concerns force-torque sensor calibration, which is not load-bearing for the central contribution. No equation reduces to its own input, no fitted parameter is renamed as a prediction, and no load-bearing claim rests on a self-citation chain. The absence of a reactive force-threshold baseline and the unproven stability of time-varying K_t and n_t are experimental and correctness concerns, not circularity.

Assumptions & free parameters 3 free parameters · 3 assumptions · 0 invented entities

The central system rests on three assumptions: stability of the time-varying unified controller, validity of force-magnitude as a switch-ratio proxy, and correctness of the reused ACP compliance labels. No new physical entities are introduced. Free parameters f_min/f_max and controller gains are not reported, which limits reproducibility.

free parameters (3)
  • f_min and f_max force bounds = not reported
    Define the switch-ratio label in Eq. (6); no numeric values are given, making results difficult to reproduce and leaving open how sensitive success is to these thresholds.
  • Controller gains M_d, D_d, K_p, K_v = not reported
    Desired inertia/damping from Eqs. (1)-(3) and inner PD gains in Eq. (4) are selected by hand; values are not listed.
  • Compliance label bounds from ACP = not reported
    Virtual target and stiffness labels come from the adaptive compliance procedure in [25], whose internal bounds are not stated.
assumptions (3)
  • domain assumption The unified impedance-admittance switching remains stable for time-varying K_t and n_t predicted by a policy
    Section II-A says the switching 'has been shown to yield stable switching behavior' and cites [29], but [29] does not cover neural-network-generated, time-varying stiffness and switch ratios executed across a 1 kHz/10-30 Hz rate split.
  • domain assumption Force magnitude is a valid proxy for choosing the controller mode when environment stiffness is unknown
    Section II-B3 builds switch-ratio labels from |F_ext| with user bounds; the paper acknowledges this is conservative rather than grounded in estimated stiffness.
  • domain assumption The ACP labeling procedure from [25] produces correct virtual target and stiffness labels
    Both ACP and URF use the same compliance labels; if the labels are biased, the comparison between them is affected and the shared bias is not examined.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of URF: A Unified Robot Control-Policy Framework for Stable Contact Aware Manipulation." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/FTZWKKYY

@misc{pith2026260720912,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: URF: A Unified Robot Control-Policy Framework for Stable Contact Aware Manipulation},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/FTZWKKYY}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2607.20912}
}
read the original abstract

Learning-based manipulation policies usually predict robot actions from sensory observations and leave their execution to a separate low-level controller. In rigid contact, this separation can be problematic: the same motion to a virtual target or compliant motion command can lead to unstable contact, tracking error, excessive loading, or tool damage, depending on the low-level controller. In this paper, we propose a \textit{Unified Robot Control-Policy Framework} (URF), which connects compliant action prediction with unified impedance-admittance control. Given multimodal observations, URF predicts a virtual target, a stiffness matrix, and an impedance-admittance switch ratio. The switch ratio determines when the controller should behave more like admittance control for accurate motion tracking and when it should move toward impedance control for safer rigid contact. Because demonstration data do not provide ground-truth environment stiffness, we construct switch-ratio labels from measured contact forces and use them to supervise controller-mode prediction. Across box-flipping and line-pressing tasks, URF achieves higher task success rates while reducing failure modes observed with admittance-only execution, including rapid force buildup, large force oscillations, tool breakage, and robot safety stops. These results suggest that contact-aware policies benefit from predicting not only compliant actions but also the controller behavior used to execute them. Project page: https://jiyou384.github.io/urf_project_page/

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2607.20912 by the authors.

Figure 1
Figure 1. Overview of the proposed URF network architecture and control-policy framework [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p002_1.png] view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. Experimental setup for the contact-aware manipulation tasks. [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p004_2.png] view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. Representative comparison between ACP and URF in the box-flipping task. (a) The virtual target, actual end-effector trajectories in the [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p005_3.png] view at source ↗
Figures from the paper (2 more)
Figure 4
Figure 4. Figure 4: Representative results for the line-pressing task. (a) Snapshots of the [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p006_4.png]
Figure 5
Figure 5. Figure 5: Trajectory comparison in the line-pressing task. Each plot shows [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p007_5.png]

Review history (2 revisions) →

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

36 extracted references · 28 canonical work pages

  1. [29]

    Unified impedance and admittance control,

    C. Ott, R. Mukherjee, and Y . Nakamura, “Unified impedance and admittance control,” in2010 IEEE international conference on robotics and automation. IEEE, 2010, pp. 554–561

    work page 2010

  2. [1]

    Openvla: An open-source vision-language-action model,

    M. J. Kimet al., “Openvla: An open-source vision-language-action model,” inProceedings of The 8th Conference on Robot Learning, ser. Proceedings of Machine Learning Research, P. Agrawal, O. Kroemer, and W. Burgard, Eds., vol. 270. PMLR, 06–09 Nov 2025, pp. 2679– 2713

    work page 2025

  3. [2]

    Rt-2: Vision-language-action models transfer web knowledge to robotic control,

    B. Zitkovichet al., “Rt-2: Vision-language-action models transfer web knowledge to robotic control,” inProceedings of The 7th Conference on Robot Learning, ser. Proceedings of Machine Learning Research, J. Tan, M. Toussaint, and K. Darvish, Eds., vol. 229. PMLR, 06–09 Nov 2023, pp. 2165–2183

    work page 2023

  4. [3]

    End-to-end training of deep visuomotor policies,

    S. Levine, C. Finn, T. Darrell, and P. Abbeel, “End-to-end training of deep visuomotor policies,”Journal of Machine Learning Research, vol. 17, no. 39, pp. 1–40, 2016

    2016

  5. [4]

    Learning Fine-Grained Bimanual Manipulation with Low-Cost Hardware,

    T. Z. Zhao, V . Kumar, S. Levine, and C. Finn, “Learning Fine-Grained Bimanual Manipulation with Low-Cost Hardware,” inProceedings of Robotics: Science and Systems, Daegu, Republic of Korea, July 2023

    2023

  6. [5]

    Diffusion Policy: Visuomotor Policy Learning via Action Diffusion,

    C. Chiet al., “Diffusion Policy: Visuomotor Policy Learning via Action Diffusion,” inProceedings of Robotics: Science and Systems, Daegu, Republic of Korea, July 2023

    work page 2023

  7. [6]

    π 0.5: a vision-language-action model with open- world generalization,

    K. Blacket al., “π 0.5: a vision-language-action model with open- world generalization,” inProceedings of The 9th Conference on Robot Learning, ser. Proceedings of Machine Learning Research, J. Lim, S. Song, and H.-W. Park, Eds., vol. 305. PMLR, 27–30 Sep 2025, pp. 17–40

    work page 2025

  8. [7]

    Gr00t n1: An open foundation model for generalist humanoid robots,

    NVIDIAet al., “Gr00t n1: An open foundation model for generalist humanoid robots,” 2025. [Online]. Available: https://arxiv.org/abs/2503. 14734

    work page 2025

Show all 36 references
  1. [8]

    Gemini robotics: Bringing ai into the physical world,

    G. R. Teamet al., “Gemini robotics: Bringing ai into the physical world,” 2025. [Online]. Available: https://arxiv.org/abs/2503.20020

    2025 arXiv

  2. [9]

    Attention is all you need,

    A. Vaswaniet al., “Attention is all you need,” inAdvances in neural information processing systems, 2017, pp. 5998–6008

    2017

  3. [10]

    Auto-Encoding Variational Bayes,

    D. P. Kingma and M. Welling, “Auto-Encoding Variational Bayes,” in 2nd International Conference on Learning Representations, ICLR 2014, Banff, AB, Canada, April 14-16, 2014, Conference Track Proceedings, 2014

    2014

  4. [11]

    Denoising diffusion probabilistic models,

    J. Ho, A. Jain, and P. Abbeel, “Denoising diffusion probabilistic models,” inAdvances in Neural Information Processing Systems, H. Larochelle, M. Ranzato, R. Hadsell, M. Balcan, and H. Lin, Eds., vol. 33. Curran Associates, Inc., 2020, pp. 6840–6851

    2020

  5. [12]

    Flow matching for generative modeling,

    Y . Lipman, R. T. Chen, H. Ben-Hamu, M. Nickel, and M. Le, “Flow matching for generative modeling,” inThe Eleventh International Con- ference on Learning Representations

  6. [13]

    Open x-embodiment: Robotic learning datasets and rt-x models : Open x-embodiment collaboration0,

    A. O’Neillet al., “Open x-embodiment: Robotic learning datasets and rt-x models : Open x-embodiment collaboration0,” in2024 IEEE International Conference on Robotics and Automation (ICRA), 2024, pp. 6892–6903

    2024

  7. [14]

    DROID: A Large-Scale In-The-Wild Robot Ma- nipulation Dataset,

    A. Khazatskyet al., “DROID: A Large-Scale In-The-Wild Robot Ma- nipulation Dataset,” inProceedings of Robotics: Science and Systems, Delft, Netherlands, July 2024

    2024

  8. [15]

    FACTR: Force-Attending Curriculum Training for Contact-Rich Policy Learning,

    J. J. Liu, Y . Li, K. Shaw, T. Tao, R. Salakhutdinov, and D. Pathak, “FACTR: Force-Attending Curriculum Training for Contact-Rich Policy Learning,” inProceedings of Robotics: Science and Systems, LosAnge- les, CA, USA, June 2025

    2025

  9. [16]

    Foar: Force-aware reactive policy for contact-rich robotic manipulation,

    Z. He, H. Fang, J. Chen, H.-S. Fang, and C. Lu, “Foar: Force-aware reactive policy for contact-rich robotic manipulation,”IEEE Robotics and Automation Letters, vol. 10, no. 6, pp. 5625–5632, 2025

    2025

  10. [17]

    Forcemimic: Force- centric imitation learning with force-motion capture system for contact- rich manipulation,

    W. Liu, J. Wang, Y . Wang, W. Wang, and C. Lu, “Forcemimic: Force- centric imitation learning with force-motion capture system for contact- rich manipulation,” in2025 IEEE International Conference on Robotics and Automation (ICRA), 2025, pp. 1105–1112

    2025

  11. [18]

    Reactive Diffusion Policy: Slow-Fast Visual-Tactile Policy Learning for Contact-Rich Manipulation,

    H. Xueet al., “Reactive Diffusion Policy: Slow-Fast Visual-Tactile Policy Learning for Contact-Rich Manipulation,” inProceedings of Robotics: Science and Systems, LosAngeles, CA, USA, June 2025

    2025

  12. [19]

    Admittance visuo- motor policy learning for general-purpose contact-rich manipulations,

    B. Zhou, R. Jiao, Y . Li, X. Yuan, F. Fang, and S. Li, “Admittance visuo- motor policy learning for general-purpose contact-rich manipulations,” IEEE Transactions on Industrial Electronics, vol. 72, no. 11, pp. 11 520– 11 529, 2025

    2025

  13. [20]

    Tacdiffusion: Force-domain diffusion policy for pre- cise tactile manipulation,

    Y . Wuet al., “Tacdiffusion: Force-domain diffusion policy for pre- cise tactile manipulation,” in2025 IEEE International Conference on Robotics and Automation (ICRA), 2025, pp. 11 831–11 837

    2025

  14. [21]

    Stability and performance limits of interaction con- trollers,

    W. S. Newman, “Stability and performance limits of interaction con- trollers,” 1992

    1992

  15. [22]

    Force feedback control of manipulator fine motions,

    D. E. Whitney, “Force feedback control of manipulator fine motions,” 1977

    1977

  16. [23]

    Compliance and force control for computer controlled manipulators,

    M. T. Mason, “Compliance and force control for computer controlled manipulators,”IEEE Transactions on Systems, Man, and Cybernetics, vol. 11, no. 6, pp. 418–432, 1981

    1981

  17. [24]

    Impedance control: An approach to manipulation,

    N. Hogan, “Impedance control: An approach to manipulation,” in1984 American Control Conference, 1984, pp. 304–313

    1984

  18. [25]

    Adaptive compliance policy: Learning approximate compliance for diffusion guided control,

    Y . Houet al., “Adaptive compliance policy: Learning approximate compliance for diffusion guided control,” in2025 IEEE International Conference on Robotics and Automation (ICRA). IEEE, 2025, pp. 4829–4836

    2025

  19. [26]

    Learning variable compliance control from a few demonstrations for bimanual robot with haptic feedback teleoperation system,

    T. Kamijo, C. C. Beltran-Hernandez, and M. Hamaya, “Learning variable compliance control from a few demonstrations for bimanual robot with haptic feedback teleoperation system,” in2024 IEEE/RSJ International Conference on Intelligent Robots and Systems (IROS), 2024, pp. 12 663–12 670

    2024

  20. [27]

    Adaptive passivation of admittance controllers by bypassing power to null space on redundant manipulators,

    Y . Yun, D. Oh, E. J. Song, H. R. Choi, H. Moon, and J. C. Koo, “Adaptive passivation of admittance controllers by bypassing power to null space on redundant manipulators,” in2024 IEEE/RSJ International Conference on Intelligent Robots and Systems (IROS), 2024, pp. 9292– 9298

    2024

  21. [28]

    Variable admittance control of robot manipulators based on human intention,

    G. Kang, H. S. Oh, J. K. Seo, U. Kim, and H. R. Choi, “Variable admittance control of robot manipulators based on human intention,” IEEE/ASME Transactions on Mechatronics, vol. 24, no. 3, pp. 1023– 1032, 2019

    2019

  22. [30]

    Hybrid impedance and admittance control of robot manipulator with unknown environment,

    I. Rhee, G. Kang, S. J. Moon, Y . S. Choi, and H. R. Choi, “Hybrid impedance and admittance control of robot manipulator with unknown environment,”Intelligent Service Robotics, vol. 16, no. 1, pp. 49–60, 2023

    2023

  23. [31]

    Learning transferable visual models from natural language supervision,

    A. Radfordet al., “Learning transferable visual models from natural language supervision,”CoRR, vol. 139, pp. 8748–8763, 2021. [Online]. Available: https://arxiv.org/abs/2103.00020

    2021 arXiv

  24. [32]

    An image is worth 16x16 words: Transformers for image recognition at scale,

    A. Dosovitskiyet al., “An image is worth 16x16 words: Transformers for image recognition at scale,” inInternational Conference on Learning Representations, 2021

    2021

  25. [33]

    U-net: Convolutional networks for biomedical image segmentation,

    O. Ronneberger, P. Fischer, and T. Brox, “U-net: Convolutional networks for biomedical image segmentation,” inInternational Conference on Medical image computing and computer-assisted intervention. Springer, 2015, pp. 234–241

    2015

  26. [34]

    Film: Visual reasoning with a general conditioning layer,

    E. Perez, F. Strub, H. De Vries, V . Dumoulin, and A. Courville, “Film: Visual reasoning with a general conditioning layer,” inProceedings of the AAAI conference on artificial intelligence, vol. 32, no. 1, 2018

    2018

  27. [35]

    Denoising diffusion implicit models,

    J. Song, C. Meng, and S. Ermon, “Denoising diffusion implicit models,” inInternational Conference on Learning Representations, 2021

    2021

  28. [36]

    On- site implementation of external wrench measurement via non-linear optimization in six-axis force–torque sensor calibration and crosstalk compensation,

    J. Shin, J. Shin, H.-r. Jung, J. Won, E. Auh, and H. Moon, “On- site implementation of external wrench measurement via non-linear optimization in six-axis force–torque sensor calibration and crosstalk compensation,”Applied Sciences, vol. 15, no. 3, p. 1510, 2025

    2025

Pith tools

Reviewed August 15, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.