Estimation of perturbations in robotic behavior using dynamic mode decomposition

Advanced Robotics

Volumn 29, Issue 5, 2015, Pages 331-343

  Berger, Erik ^a   Sastuba, Mark ^a   Vogt, David ^a   Jung, Bernhard ^a   Ben Amor, Heni ^b  

^a TU BERGAKADEMIE FREIBERG   (Germany)

^b GEORGIA INSTITUTE OF TECHNOLOGY   (United States)

Author keywords

dynamic mode decomposition; external perturbation; model learning; physical humanrobot interaction; usability in humanrobot interaction

Indexed keywords

AGRICULTURAL ROBOTS; DATA HANDLING; DYNAMICS; MACHINE DESIGN; MACHINE LEARNING; MAN MACHINE SYSTEMS; ROBOTICS;

DATA PROCESSING TECHNIQUES; DYNAMIC MODE DECOMPOSITIONS; EXTERNAL PERTURBATIONS; INTERPOLATION SCHEMES; MACHINE LEARNING APPROACHES; MODEL LEARNING; PHYSICAL HUMAN-ROBOT INTERACTIONS; REGULAR OSCILLATIONS;

HUMAN ROBOT INTERACTION;

EID: 84925615527     PISSN: 01691864     EISSN: 15685535     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1080/01691864.2014.981292     Document Type: Article

References (34)

1. Rozo L, Calinon S, Caldwell DG, Jimenez P, Torras C. Learning collaborative impedance-based robot behaviors. In: AAAI Conference on Artificial Intelligence; 2013; Bellevue, Washington, USA.
2. Fuchs S, Haddadin S, Keller M, Parusel S, Kolb A, Suppa M. Cooperative bin-picking with time-of-flight camera and impedance controlled DLR lightweight robot iii. In: 2010 IEEE/RSJ International Conference on Intelligent Robots and Systems (IROS); 2010 Oct; Taipei, Taiwan. p. 4862-4867.
3. Ott C, Nakamura Y. Base force, torque sensing for position based cartesian impedance control. In: IEEE/RSJ international conference on intelligent robots and systems; Vol. 2009; 2009 Oct 11-15; St. Louis, MO, USA; 2009: 3244-3250.
4. Nof SY. Handbook of industrial robotics. 2nd ed. New York (NY): Wiley; 1999.
5. Albu-Schäffer A, Eiberger O, Fuchs M, Grebenstein M, Haddadin S, Ott C, Stemmer A, Wimböck T, Wolf S, Borst C, Hirzinger G. Anthropomorphic soft robotics-from torque control to variable intrinsic compliance. In: Pradalier C, Siegwart R, Hirzinger G., editors. Robotics research. Vol. 70,. Springer Tracts in Advanced Robotics. Berlin: Springer; 2011. p. 185-207.
6. Haddadin S. Towards safe robots-approaching Asimovs 1st law. Berlin: Springer; 2014.
7. Special issue: Physical human-robot interaction through force interface. Adv. Robot. 2011; 25: 511-673.
8. Lee D, Ott C. Incremental kinesthetic teaching of motion primitives using the motion refinement tube. Autonom. Robots. 2011; 31: 115-131.
9. Wang H, Kosuge K. Control of a robot dancer for enhancing haptic human-robot interaction in waltz. IEEE Trans. Haptics. 2012; 5: 264-273.
10. Amor HB, Berger E, Vogt D, Jung B. Kinesthetic bootstrapping: teaching motor skills to humanoid robots through physical interaction. In: Proceedings of the 32nd annual german conference on advances in artificial intelligence. KI09. Paderborn, Germany; Berlin, Heidelberg: Springer-Verlag; 2009. p. 492-499.
11. Calinon S. Robot programming by demonstration: a probabilistic approach. EPFL/CRC Press; 2009. EPFL Press ISBN 978-2-940222-31-5, CRC Press ISBN 978-1-4398-0867-2.
12. Kober J, Peters J. Policy search for motor primitives in robotics. Machine Learn. 2011; 84: 171-203.
13. Ikemoto S, Ben Amor H, Minato T, Jung B, Ishiguro H. Physical human-robot interaction: mutual learning and adaptation. IEEE Robot. Autom. Mag. 2012; 19: 24-35.
14. Stückler J, Behnke S. Following human guidance to cooperatively carry a large object. In: Humanoids; 2011; Bled, Slovenia. p. 218-223.
15. Yokoyama K, Handa H, Isozumi T, Fukase Y, Kaneko K, Kanehiro F, Kawai Y, Tomita F, Hirukawa H. 2003. Cooperative works by a human and a humanoid robot. In: IEEE International Conference on Robotics and Automation, 2003. Proceedings. ICRA 03; Sept; Taipei, Taiwan. Vol. 3. p. 2985-2991.
16. Bussy A, Gergondet P, Kheddar A, Keith F, Crosnier A. Proactive behavior of a humanoid robot in a haptic transportation task with a human partner. In: 2012 IEEE RO-MAN; 2012; Paris, France. p. 962-967.
17. Lawitzky M, Mortl A, Hirche S. Load sharing in human-robot cooperative manipulation. In: 2010 IEEE RO-MAN; 2010; Viareggio, Italy. p. 185-191.
18. Sakoe H. Dynamic programming algorithm optimization for spoken word recognition. IEEE Trans. Acoust. Speech Signal Process. 1978; 26: 43-49.
19. Müller M. Information retrieval for music and motion. Secaucus (NJ): Springer-Verlag; 2007.
20. Rasmussen CE, Williams CKI. Gaussian processes for machine learning (adaptive computation and machine learning). Cambridge, Massachusetts: The MIT Press; 2005.
21. Snelson E, Ghahramani Z. Sparse gaussian processes using pseudo-inputs. In: Scholkopf B, Platt JC, Hoffman T., editors. Advances in neural information processing systems. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press; 2006. p. 1257-1264.
22. Lawrence ND, Platt JC, Jordan MI. 2005. Extensions of the informative vector machine. In: Proceedings of the first international conference on deterministic and statistical methods in machine learning, Sheffield, UK; Berlin, Heidelberg: Springer-Verlag. p. 56-87.
23. Berger E, Vogt D, Haji-Ghassemi N, Jung B. Ben Amor H. Inferring guidance information in cooperative human-robot tasks. In: Proceedings of the international conference on humanoid robots (humanoids); 2013; Atlanta, USA.
24. Schmid PJ. Dynamic mode decomposition of numerical and experimental data. J. Fluid Mech. 2010; 8: 5-28.
25. Rowley CW, Igor Mez I, Shervin Bagher I, Philipp Schlatte R, Henningson DS. Spectral analysis of nonlinear flows. J. Fluid Mech. 2009; 641: 115-127.
26. Bagheri S. Analysis and control of transitional shear flows using global modes [PhD thesis]. Stockholm, Sweden: KTH, Mechanics; 2010.
27. Chen K, Tu J, Rowley C. Variants of dynamic mode decomposition: boundary condition, koopman, and fourier analyses. J. Nonlinear Sci. 2012; 22: 887-915.
28. Tu JH, Rowley CW. An improved algorithm for balanced POD through an analytic treatment of impulse response tails. J. Comput. Phys. 2012; 231: 5317-5333.
29. Tu JH, Rowley CW, Luchtenburg DM, Brunton SL, Kutz JN. On dynamic mode decomposition: theory and applications; J. Comput. Dyn. 2014; 1: 391-421.
30. Cammilleri A, Gueniat F, Carlier J, Pastur L, Memin E, Lusseyran F, Artana G. Pod-spectral decomposition for fluid flow analysis and model reduction. Theor. Comput. Fluid Dyn. 2013; 27: 787-815.
31. Jovanović MR, Schmid PJ, Nichols JW. 2012. Low-rank and sparse dynamic mode decomposition. In: Center for turbulence research annual research briefs. Stanford, USA. p. 139-152.
32. Jovanović MR, Schmid PJ, Nichols JW. Sparsity-promoting dynamic mode decomposition. Phys. Fluids (1994-present). 2014; 26: 024103.
33. Brooke J. SUS: A quick and dirty usability scale. Usability evaluation in industry. London: Taylor and Francis; 1996.
34. Bangor A, Kortum PT, Miller JT. An empirical evaluation of the system usability scale. Int. J. Human-Comput. Interact. 2008; 24: 574-594.