An Optimization-Augmented Control Framework for Single and Coordinated Multi-Arm Robotic Manipulation

Melih \"Ozcan; Ozgur S. Oguz

REVIEW 4 major objections 5 minor 26 references

An Optimization-Augmented Control Framework for Single and Coordinated Multi-Arm Robotic Manipulation

T0 review · 4 major / 5 minor · reviewed 2026-08-06 · deepseek-v4-flash

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

Pith's one-line read A mode-switching controller that combines optimization with force control is claimed to complete single-arm, bimanual, and four-arm manipulation tasks in simulation.

desk verdict A competent integration of KOMO with force control for multi-arm tasks, but the stability argument is an assumption plus one simulation case, not a proof; the paper deserves a serious referee but needs major revisions. read the letter →

arxiv 2506.16555 v1 pith:GBNZNOE4 submitted 2025-06-19 cs.RO cs.SYeess.SY

Melih Özcan , Ozgur S. Oguz This is my paper · ORCID

classification cs.ROcs.SYeess.SY

keywords roboticmanipulationforcecontroloptimization-basedmotionplanningbimanualmulti-armcoordinationhybridKOMOinversedynamics

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

The paper sets out to show that force control and optimization-based motion planning are complementary, and that a controller which switches between them can solve manipulation tasks neither handles alone. The proposed framework decomposes a task manually into subtasks, each assigned to pure optimization, pure force control, or a hybrid mode that sums torques from both. In simulation, the method is reported to complete single-arm box relocation, bimanual box transport, bimanual rotation with peg-in-hole, and four-arm reorientation. The central test is the hybrid mode, whose practical stability rests on the assumption that the motion direction and the contact-force direction are orthogonal, so their torque contributions interfere minimally and integral terms stabilize the residue.

What carries the argument

The central object is the hybrid controller defined by the torque superposition $\tau_{\mathrm{cmd}} = \tau_{\mathrm{optimization}} + \tau_{\mathrm{contact}} + \tau_{\mathrm{position}}$, applied after inverse-dynamics compensation. The optimization branch tracks a reference trajectory with a PID controller; the force branch maps force error through a PI controller and the Jacobian transpose $J^T F$; the position branch is a Cartesian impedance controller. The argument that lets these branches be summed without a formal stability proof is the orthogonality assumption: the direction of motion from the optimization is taken to be orthogonal to the contact-force direction, so each branch sees little of the other's effect, with finely tuned integral terms absorbing small coupling. This is why contact points are chosen antipodal through the object's geometric center and why force controllers are started only after all arms are in contact.

What would settle it

Run the hybrid controller on a task where motion is deliberately not orthogonal to contact force, for example pushing a block along a surface while maintaining a normal contact force, or inserting a peg at an angle, and measure whether the force and trajectory errors remain bounded at the same RMSE scale. If the errors diverge or contact spikes are not stabilized, the orthogonality assumption is the failing point.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

The discovery is the demonstration that a simple superposition of torques, namely an optimization-based trajectory-tracking PID plus a force-regulating PI controller plus a Cartesian impedance term, is enough, under an orthogonality assumption, to perform long-horizon contact-rich manipulation with multiple arms. In the bimanual transport experiment, waypoint switches cause contact-force spikes that the controller quickly stabilizes, with force RMSE of 2.80 N and 2.82 N for the two arms and trajectory RMSEs of 1.7 cm, 1.6 cm, and 2.1 cm for the left arm, right arm, and box. The paper claims all four tasks complete robustly, and argues that neither pure optimization nor pure force control alone could achieve this: force control is required for stable contact, and optimization is required for long-distance synchronization and joint-limit feasibility.

Load-bearing premise

The load-bearing assumption is that the direction the robot moves is perpendicular to the direction of the contact force, so the torques from motion planning and force control barely interfere; when that is false, the stability claim has no support.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

If the central claim is correct, a manually decomposed task can be executed in simulation by switching control modes, so long-horizon multi-arm manipulation does not require a learned policy or a full contact-force-aware optimization.
Contact-force regulation becomes a non-negotiable component of any grasp: the paper reports that none of the four tasks could be solved without it.
Long-distance coordinated transport with point contacts requires optimization-based planning, because any misalignment or misorientation causes undesired object motion that is hard to correct later.
The measured force RMSE of about 2.8 N and trajectory RMSE around 2 cm in the bimanual test give a quantitative target for what 'practical stability' means under the orthogonality assumption.
The limitations stated by the paper mean the immediate consequences are for simulation only; real-world hardware validation and automated task decomposition remain open.

Reading between the lines

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

A natural corollary is that the framework's reliability should degrade exactly when the orthogonality condition is violated, such as during angled insertion, sliding contacts, or non-antipodal grasps; testing those cases directly would map the boundary of the claimed stability.
The manual decomposition bottleneck suggests a promising next step: learning a mode-selection policy over this three-mode action space, which would preserve the controller's structure while adding adaptability.
Because the experiments use a spherical point-contact end effector in a physics simulator, the quoted RMSE values may not transfer to real grippers with friction and larger contact patches; hardware replication would be the decisive test.
A controlled ablation, running the same bimanual transport task with the optimization branch removed, would quantify how much of the trajectory accuracy is actually attributable to the hybrid design rather than to force control alone.

Share X Bluesky LinkedIn Reddit HN

Editorial analysis

A structured set of objections, weighed in public.

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

Desk Editor's Note

read the letter

Short version: this is a solid, honestly-scoped integration of existing tools, not a new principle. The explicit three-mode decomposition (pure optimization, pure force, hybrid) is useful as a recipe, and the four simulated tasks show the recipe can work. The bimanual transport numbers are plausible: contact-force RMSEs around 2.8 N and trajectory errors under 2.1 cm against free-space ground truth. Credit where due: the authors are upfront that task decomposition is manual, that the stability argument is a practical intuition, and that evaluation is simulation-only. That honesty makes the paper easy to read and judge.

The soft spots are real but not fatal. The load-bearing orthogonality assumption in Section III.B is stated, not tested. The one quantitative stability test actually shows contact-force spikes at every waypoint switch, which suggests the motion and force channels are not as decoupled as the assumption implies; the controller recovers, but that recovery is what needs analysis. The paper's stronger claims—"completes all of these four tasks robustly"—are unsupported by numbers for three of the four tasks. There are no ablations isolating the contribution of each mode, no parameter values, and no code, so the work is not reproducible as presented. There is also a minor internal inconsistency: Equation 12 defines the hybrid torque as optimization plus contact force only, while Algorithm 1 adds the Cartesian impedance term.

The stress-test note holds up. There is no single load-bearing flaw that sinks the paper; the central claim is scoped to simulations, and the orthogonality assumption is explicitly presented as a practical assumption. Still, the gap between the framework's claims and the evidence is substantial enough that a referee would reasonably ask for more before believing the robustness claims.

Who is this for? Robotics practitioners looking for a concrete starting point to combine KOMO-style planning with force control in bimanual setups. The paper gives a clear recipe and a working demonstration in simulation. A serious referee should engage with it, but the path to acceptance requires direct testing of the orthogonality assumption, quantitative results for all tasks, ablation of the modes, and at least parameter disclosure. My recommendation: send to peer review, and push for major revision rather than desk rejection.

Referee Report

4 major / 5 minor

Summary. The paper proposes a multi-modal control framework for robotic manipulation that switches among three modes: pure optimization-based trajectory tracking (KOMO with PID), pure force control (PI contact force regulation with Cartesian impedance control), and a hybrid mode that runs optimization tracking and contact force regulation simultaneously. A high-level task is decomposed manually into subtasks, each assigned to one of these modes. The method is evaluated in simulation on four tasks: single-arm box relocation, bimanual box transportation, bimanual rotation and peg-in-hole, and four-arm reorientation. Quantitative results are reported only for the bimanual box transportation task, giving contact-force RMSEs of 2.80 N and 2.82 N for the two arms, trajectory RMSEs of 1.7 cm, 1.6 cm, and 2.1 cm, and joint-angle RMSEs around 8 degrees. The paper argues for 'practical stability' of the hybrid mode based on an assumption that the optimization-driven motion direction is orthogonal to the contact-force direction, with the claim that residual coupling is absorbed by integral terms.

Significance. If the claims are substantiated, the paper would offer a practical and intuitive integration of trajectory optimization with force control for coordinated multi-arm manipulation, an area where pure position control and pure force control each have clear limitations. The framework itself is simple and the simulation results for the one reported task are plausible. The paper also explicitly acknowledges its limitations: manual task decomposition and simulation-only evaluation. However, the current evidence is too thin to establish the paper's central claim of robust completion of all four tasks. No quantitative results, success metrics, or ablations support the broader claims, and the stability argument rests on an untested orthogonality assumption. The absence of control gains, simulation parameters, and code further limits the value of the contribution as a reproducible systems paper.

major comments (4)

[Section III.B (Practical Stability)] The orthogonality assumption is load-bearing for the hybrid controller, but it is neither proven nor empirically verified. The stability analysis in Section IV reports only force and trajectory errors for the bimanual box transportation case; it never measures the angle between the motion direction and the contact-force direction, so the assumption is not tested. The authors should either provide a formal justification for the tasks considered or report the measured relative angles between motion and force directions across all waypoints to demonstrate that the assumption is not grossly violated.
[Section IV (Experiments and Evaluations)] The statement 'Our method completes all of these four tasks robustly' is not supported by the reported data. Quantitative results are given only for the bimanual box transportation task (Figs. 7 and 8); for the other three tasks, no success criteria, error metrics, completion times, or failure rates are provided. The bullet-point claims in Section IV, such as 'None of the tasks could be solved without the contact force regulation,' lack any ablation experiments. The paper should report task-success metrics for all four tasks and, if ablation claims are retained, include experiments with the force-control and optimization components disabled.
[Algorithm 1 and Section III.B, Eq. (12)] The torque command structure in the hybrid mode is ambiguous. Eq. (12) states τcmd = τoptimization + τcontact, while Algorithm 1 computes τcmd = τoptimization + τcontact + τposition, and the text does not clarify when the Cartesian impedance term is active in the hybrid mode. Since the hybrid mode is the central contribution, the authors must specify exactly which terms are active in each mode and how the switching among pure optimization, pure force control, and hybrid control is executed.
[Reproducibility (throughout)] The paper does not provide controller gains (PID and PI parameters, impedance gains), simulation parameters (object mass, friction coefficients, contact model, integration settings), or code, despite a project website being referenced. Without these, the reported RMSE values cannot be reproduced or compared with future work. The authors should include a parameter table and, ideally, release the simulation and control code.

minor comments (5)

[Algorithm 1] There is a typo in the comment on line 8: 'Cartesien' should be 'Cartesian'.
[Section IV (Task descriptions)] In the bimanual box transportation description, 'Two cubes whose edges are 30cm are carried 1 meter away' is unclear about the direction and distance; also, 'involed' is misspelled as 'involed' in the sentence about the experiments.
[Fig. 5 caption] The caption says 'peg the box into the whole' but should read 'into the hole.'
[Section III.B, Eq. (11)] Eq. (11) introduces a contact-force objective in the KOMO formulation and is then discarded in the same paragraph; this is confusing and could be removed or clarified as an illustrative alternative rather than part of the implemented method.
[Algorithm 1 and Section III.B] In the description of 'Direction of motion of the robot (obtained from optimization),' the optimization produces a trajectory, not a direction of motion; this should be phrased more precisely.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 0.0 of 10

No significant circularity: the framework is validated empirically against external free-space ground truth and target force setpoints; no prediction reduces to a fitted input or self-citation.

full rationale

The paper derives no mathematical claim that reduces to its own inputs. The controller combines a KOMO trajectory planner, a PID optimization-tracking law, a PI contact-force regulator, and Cartesian impedance control; the commanded torque in Eq. (12) is a sum of separately justified control terms, and no parameter is fitted to the reported RMSE values. The 'Practical Stability' argument rests on an explicitly stated orthogonality assumption, which the authors label as an assumption rather than a theorem, and they test it empirically by comparing executed trajectories against free-space ground truth via FastDTW and contact forces against the commanded target force. This is ordinary controller validation, not circular derivation. The paper contains no load-bearing self-citations of the authors' own prior work and imports no uniqueness result from the authors. The limitations it states (manual task decomposition, simulation-only validation, no real-time replanning) delimit the scope of the claims rather than revealing circularity. The stability experiment uses the same design choices that embody the assumption, but that is self-consistency, not equivalence of output to input. Therefore the circularity score is 0.

Assumptions & free parameters 4 free parameters · 5 assumptions · 0 invented entities

All results depend on unspecified hand-tuned gains, a manual task decomposition, and the unproven orthogonality assumption. No new physical entities are introduced; the framework postulates no new force, particle, or conserved quantity.

free parameters (4)

PID gains Kp, Kd, Ki for trajectory tracking = not reported
The controller relies on these hand-tuned gains to track KOMO waypoints; values are not given in the paper.
Contact force PI gains Kp^F, Ki^F = not reported
Force regulation stability depends on these gains; they are listed symbolically but not specified.
Impedance gains Kp^x, Kd^x = not reported
The position control component in the force control mode depends on these gains; values are not reported.
KOMO cost weights and waypoint timing = not reported
Trajectory quality and feasibility depend on unspecified KOMO costs and on the 9-waypoint discretization used in the stability test.

assumptions (5)

standard math The robot arm dynamics are exactly the standard rigid-body model M(q) qdd + C(q,qd) qd + G(q) = tau (Eq. 1).
Used for inverse dynamics compensation; assumes perfect model knowledge.
ad hoc to paper Direction of motion is orthogonal to contact force direction, so optimization and force torques minimally interfere.
Stated in Section III.B as the basis for practical stability; no proof or general validity is provided.
domain assumption Antipodal contact through the object geometric center prevents unwanted torques and gives a stable grasp.
Design choice in Section III.A; not validated across object shapes or contact configurations.
domain assumption PhysX/RAI simulation faithfully reproduces contact behavior.
All results are simulation-based; no hardware validation is presented.
ad hoc to paper Manual task decomposition into subtasks is correct for each task.
Section III.A states decomposition is performed manually; success depends on this choice.

how reviews work

0 comments

Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of An Optimization-Augmented Control Framework for Single and Coordinated Multi-Arm Robotic Manipulation." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/GBNZNOE4

@misc{pith2026250616555,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: An Optimization-Augmented Control Framework for Single and Coordinated Multi-Arm Robotic Manipulation},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/GBNZNOE4}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2506.16555}
}

read the original abstract

Robotic manipulation demands precise control over both contact forces and motion trajectories. While force control is essential for achieving compliant interaction and high-frequency adaptation, it is limited to operations in close proximity to the manipulated object and often fails to maintain stable orientation during extended motion sequences. Conversely, optimization-based motion planning excels in generating collision-free trajectories over the robot's configuration space but struggles with dynamic interactions where contact forces play a crucial role. To address these limitations, we propose a multi-modal control framework that combines force control and optimization-augmented motion planning to tackle complex robotic manipulation tasks in a sequential manner, enabling seamless switching between control modes based on task requirements. Our approach decomposes complex tasks into subtasks, each dynamically assigned to one of three control modes: Pure optimization for global motion planning, pure force control for precise interaction, or hybrid control for tasks requiring simultaneous trajectory tracking and force regulation. This framework is particularly advantageous for bimanual and multi-arm manipulation, where synchronous motion and coordination among arms are essential while considering both the manipulated object and environmental constraints. We demonstrate the versatility of our method through a range of long-horizon manipulation tasks, including single-arm, bimanual, and multi-arm applications, highlighting its ability to handle both free-space motion and contact-rich manipulation with robustness and precision.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2506.16555 by the authors.

**Figure 2.** For dexterous bimanual manipulation, it is essential to keep the end effector transformation constant. [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p003_2.png] view at source ↗

**Figure 3.** System diagram. (a) grasp the box on top (b) bring it 1m further (c) move to the second box (d) put it onto the first box [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p006_3.png] view at source ↗

Figures from the paper (4 more)

**Figure 4.** Figure 4: Robots transport two boxes for 1 meter, by grasping [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p006_4.png]

**Figure 6.** Figure 6: Robot arms pick the object and reorient it in two [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p007_6.png]

**Figure 7.** Figure 7: Trajectory of the system (Fig [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p007_7.png]

**Figure 8.** Figure 8: Contact forces over time (Fig [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p007_8.png]

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

26 extracted references · 17 canonical work pages

[1]

Hybrid motion/force control: a review,

J. K. V . Ortenzi, R. Stolkin and M. Mistry, “Hybrid motion/force control: a review,” Advanced Robotics , vol. 31, no. 19-20, pp. 1102– 1113, 2017. [Online]. Available: https://doi.org/10.1080/01691864. 2017.1364168

work page arXiv 2017
[2]

A unified approach for motion and force control of robot manipulators: The operational space formulation,

O. Khatib, “A unified approach for motion and force control of robot manipulators: The operational space formulation,” IEEE Journal on Robotics and Automation , vol. 3, no. 1, pp. 43–53, 1987

1987
[3]

An overview of robot force control,

G. Zeng and A. Hemami, “An overview of robot force control,” Robotica, vol. 15, no. 5, p. 473–482, 1997

work page 1997
[4]

Unified impedance and ad- mittance control,

C. Ott, R. Mukherjee, and Y . Nakamura, “Unified impedance and ad- mittance control,” in 2010 IEEE International Conference on Robotics and Automation , 2010, pp. 554–561

work page 2010
[5]

Hybrid force-impedance control for fast end-effector motions,

M. Iskandar, C. Ott, A. Albu-Sch ¨affer, B. Siciliano, and A. Dietrich, “Hybrid force-impedance control for fast end-effector motions,” IEEE Robotics and Automation Letters , vol. 8, no. 7, pp. 3931–3938, 2023

work page 2023
[6]

Contact mode guided motion planning for quasidynamic dexterous manipulation in 3d,

X. Cheng, E. Huang, Y . Hou, and M. T. Mason, “Contact mode guided motion planning for quasidynamic dexterous manipulation in 3d,” in 2022 International Conference on Robotics and Automation (ICRA) , 2022, pp. 2730–2736

work page 2022
[7]

Industrial robot trajectory optimization- a review,

M. Ratiu and M. Prichici, “Industrial robot trajectory optimization- a review,” MATEC Web of Conferences , vol. 126, p. 02005, 01 2017

work page 2017
[8]

Sequence-of-Constraints MPC: Reactive Timing-Optimal Control of Sequential Manipulation

M. Toussaint, J. Harris, J.-S. Ha, D. Driess, and W. H ¨onig, “Sequence- of-Constraints MPC: Reactive Timing-Optimal Control of Sequential Manipulation,” arXiv e-prints , p. arXiv:2203.05390, Mar. 2022

work page Pith review arXiv 2022

Show all 26 references

[9]

Impact-aware bimanual catching of large-momentum objects,

L. Yan, T. Stouraitis, J. Moura, W. Xu, M. Gienger, and S. Vijayaku- mar, “Impact-aware bimanual catching of large-momentum objects,” IEEE Transactions on Robotics , vol. 40, pp. 2543–2563, 2024

2024
[10]

Quadratic programming based inverse kinematics for precise bimanual manipulation,

T. Chaki and T. Kawakami, “Quadratic programming based inverse kinematics for precise bimanual manipulation,” in 2024 IEEE Inter- national Conference on Robotics and Automation (ICRA) , 2024, pp. 16 024–16 030

2024
[11]

Constrained bimanual planning with analytic inverse kinematics,

T. Cohn, S. Shaw, M. Simchowitz, and R. Tedrake, “Constrained bimanual planning with analytic inverse kinematics,” in 2024 IEEE International Conference on Robotics and Automation (ICRA) , 2024, pp. 6935–6942

2024
[12]

Imitation learning: A survey of learning methods,

A. Hussein, M. M. Gaber, E. Elyan, and C. Jayne, “Imitation learning: A survey of learning methods,” ACM Comput. Surv. , vol. 50, no. 2, Apr. 2017. [Online]. Available: https://doi.org/10.1145/3054912

2017 doi
[13]

Diffusion Models for Reinforcement Learning: A Survey,

Z. Zhu, H. Zhao, H. He, Y . Zhong, S. Zhang, H. Guo, T. Chen, and W. Zhang, “Diffusion Models for Reinforcement Learning: A Survey,” arXiv e-prints , p. arXiv:2311.01223, Nov. 2023

2023 arXiv
[14]

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,” in Proceedings of Robotics: Science and Systems , Daegu, Republic of Korea, July 2023

2023
[15]

Diffusion Policy: Visuomotor Policy Learning via Action Diffusion,

C. Chi, S. Feng, Y . Du, Z. Xu, E. Cousineau, B. C. Burchfiel, and S. Song, “Diffusion Policy: Visuomotor Policy Learning via Action Diffusion,” in Proceedings of Robotics: Science and Systems , Daegu, Republic of Korea, July 2023

2023
[16]

Model predictive control: Theory and practice—a survey,

C. E. Garc ´ıa, D. M. Prett, and M. Morari, “Model predictive control: Theory and practice—a survey,” Automatica, vol. 25, no. 3, pp. 335–348, 1989. [Online]. Available: https://www.sciencedirect.com/ science/article/pii/0005109889900022

1989
[17]

Adaptive Compliance Policy: Learning Approximate Compliance for Diffusion Guided Control,

Y . Hou, Z. Liu, C. Chi, E. Cousineau, N. Kuppuswamy, S. Feng, B. Burchfiel, and S. Song, “Adaptive Compliance Policy: Learning Approximate Compliance for Diffusion Guided Control,” arXiv e- prints, p. arXiv:2410.09309, Oct. 2024

arXiv
[18]

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,” in 2024 IEEE/RSJ International Conference on Intelligent Robots and Systems (IROS) , 2024, pp. 12 6...

2024
[19]

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

J. Jingzhou Liu, Y . Li, K. Shaw, T. Tao, R. Salakhutdinov, and D. Pathak, “FACTR: Force-Attending Curriculum Training for Contact-Rich Policy Learning,” arXiv e-prints , p. arXiv:2502.17432, Feb. 2025

2025 arXiv
[20]

DexForce: Extracting Force-informed Actions from Kinesthetic Demonstrations for Dexterous Manipulation,

C. Chen, Z. Yu, H. Choi, M. Cutkosky, and J. Bohg, “DexForce: Extracting Force-informed Actions from Kinesthetic Demonstrations for Dexterous Manipulation,” arXiv e-prints, p. arXiv:2501.10356, Jan. 2025

2025 arXiv
[21]

K. M. Lynch and F. C. Park, Modern Robotics: Mechanics, Planning, and Control, 1st ed. USA: Cambridge University Press, 2017

2017
[22]

Newton methods for k-order Markov Constrained Motion Problems,

M. Toussaint, “Newton methods for k-order Markov Constrained Motion Problems,” arXiv e-prints , p. arXiv:1407.0414, Jul. 2014

2014 arXiv
[23]

A survey of robot manipulation in contact,

M. Suomalainen, Y . Karayiannidis, and V . Kyrki, “A survey of robot manipulation in contact,” Robotics and Autonomous Systems, vol. 156, p. 104224, 2022. [Online]. Available: https: //www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0921889022001312

2022
[24]

Hybrid impedance control of robotic manipulators,

R. Anderson and M. Spong, “Hybrid impedance control of robotic manipulators,” in Proceedings. 1987 IEEE International Conference on Robotics and Automation , vol. 4, 1987, pp. 1073–1080

1987
[25]

Robotics and ai (rai) library,

M. Toussaint, “Robotics and ai (rai) library,” https://github.com/ MarcToussaint/rai, 2024, accessed: 2024-03-02

2024
[26]

Toward accurate dynamic time warping in linear time and space,

S. Salvador and P. Chan, “Toward accurate dynamic time warping in linear time and space,” Intell. Data Anal. , vol. 11, no. 5, p. 561–580, Oct. 2007

2007

Pith tools

Reviewed August 6, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.

[1] [1]

Hybrid motion/force control: a review,

J. K. V . Ortenzi, R. Stolkin and M. Mistry, “Hybrid motion/force control: a review,” Advanced Robotics , vol. 31, no. 19-20, pp. 1102– 1113, 2017. [Online]. Available: https://doi.org/10.1080/01691864. 2017.1364168

work page arXiv 2017

[2] [2]

A unified approach for motion and force control of robot manipulators: The operational space formulation,

O. Khatib, “A unified approach for motion and force control of robot manipulators: The operational space formulation,” IEEE Journal on Robotics and Automation , vol. 3, no. 1, pp. 43–53, 1987

1987

[3] [3]

An overview of robot force control,

G. Zeng and A. Hemami, “An overview of robot force control,” Robotica, vol. 15, no. 5, p. 473–482, 1997

work page 1997

[4] [4]

Unified impedance and ad- mittance control,

C. Ott, R. Mukherjee, and Y . Nakamura, “Unified impedance and ad- mittance control,” in 2010 IEEE International Conference on Robotics and Automation , 2010, pp. 554–561

work page 2010

[5] [5]

Hybrid force-impedance control for fast end-effector motions,

M. Iskandar, C. Ott, A. Albu-Sch ¨affer, B. Siciliano, and A. Dietrich, “Hybrid force-impedance control for fast end-effector motions,” IEEE Robotics and Automation Letters , vol. 8, no. 7, pp. 3931–3938, 2023

work page 2023

[6] [6]

Contact mode guided motion planning for quasidynamic dexterous manipulation in 3d,

X. Cheng, E. Huang, Y . Hou, and M. T. Mason, “Contact mode guided motion planning for quasidynamic dexterous manipulation in 3d,” in 2022 International Conference on Robotics and Automation (ICRA) , 2022, pp. 2730–2736

work page 2022

[7] [7]

Industrial robot trajectory optimization- a review,

M. Ratiu and M. Prichici, “Industrial robot trajectory optimization- a review,” MATEC Web of Conferences , vol. 126, p. 02005, 01 2017

work page 2017

[8] [8]

Sequence-of-Constraints MPC: Reactive Timing-Optimal Control of Sequential Manipulation

M. Toussaint, J. Harris, J.-S. Ha, D. Driess, and W. H ¨onig, “Sequence- of-Constraints MPC: Reactive Timing-Optimal Control of Sequential Manipulation,” arXiv e-prints , p. arXiv:2203.05390, Mar. 2022

work page Pith review arXiv 2022