pith. sign in

arxiv: 2607.01201 · v1 · pith:V4YFBVAEnew · submitted 2026-07-01 · 💻 cs.RO

Sensorless Four-Channel Control Architecture Using Inverse Dynamics Modeling for Human-Scale Bilateral Teleoperation

Amir Noohian , Dylan Miller , Justin Valentine , Alan Lynch , Martin Jagersand This is my paper

Pith reviewed 2026-07-02 10:51 UTC · model grok-4.3

classification 💻 cs.RO
keywords sensorless controlbilateral teleoperationfour-channel architectureinverse dynamics modelingforce estimationtransparencyhuman-scale manipulation
0
0 comments X

The pith

Inverse dynamics modeling replaces force sensors in the four-channel bilateral teleoperation architecture.

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

The paper replaces physical force and torque sensors in the classic four-channel teleoperation controller with an inverse dynamics model of the robot arm that estimates interaction torques from joint motion data. This sensorless version is implemented on a customized bilateral WAM setup and tested against conventional two-channel and four-channel controllers as well as transparency-enhancement methods. Experiments report better position and force tracking, lower operator effort, and the ability to transmit higher impedances. A door-opening task with sustained whole-body contact shows the approach works under realistic prolonged contact conditions. Removing the sensors addresses cost, noise, and mounting problems that have limited four-channel performance on human-scale manipulators.

Core claim

The authors establish that an inverse dynamics model of the manipulator can serve as a drop-in replacement for external force/torque sensors inside the four-channel teleoperation architecture. This substitution yields superior tracking performance, reduced operator effort, and higher maximum stable impedance in experiments on a customized bilateral WAM setup, including a sustained-contact door-opening case study.

What carries the argument

The inverse dynamics model of the WAM arm, which computes estimated joint torques from measured positions, velocities, and accelerations to substitute for direct force/torque sensor readings inside the four-channel controller.

If this is right

  • The four-channel architecture can be implemented without force/torque sensors while maintaining or improving transparency.
  • Maximum transmittable impedance increases because the model avoids sensor noise that triggers instability.
  • Operator effort decreases due to more accurate and less noisy force feedback.
  • The architecture remains effective during extended environmental contacts as shown in the door-opening experiment.

Where Pith is reading between the lines

These are editorial extensions of the paper, not claims the author makes directly.

  • Sensor costs and calibration issues could be eliminated in future bilateral systems if dynamic models prove reliable across more robots and tasks.
  • The method suggests that accurate dynamics identification may be more critical than hardware sensing for transparency in large manipulators.
  • Extensions to variable payload or friction-changing conditions would test whether the model needs online adaptation.

Load-bearing premise

The inverse dynamics model of the arm remains accurate enough to estimate interaction forces correctly even during contact with external objects.

What would settle it

If force estimates from the inverse dynamics model differ substantially from simultaneous readings of an installed force/torque sensor during the same contact tasks, the substitution would not hold.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2607.01201 by Alan Lynch, Amir Noohian, Dylan Miller, Justin Valentine, Martin Jagersand.

Figure 1
Figure 1. Figure 1: WAM bilateral teleoperation system setup: (a) 4-DOF leader arm [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p001_1.png] view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. Figure 2: Four-channel teleoperation system block diagram. [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p003_2.png] view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. Figure 3: Schematic of the four-channel control architecture on the WAM [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p004_3.png] view at source ↗
Figure 4
Figure 4. Figure 4: Evaluation experimental setup: (a) weights mounted on the leader [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p005_4.png] view at source ↗
Figure 6
Figure 6. Figure 6: Door-opening task: (a) follower arm manipulating the door handle; [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p006_6.png] view at source ↗
Figure 7
Figure 7. Figure 7: Comparison of teleoperation systems for the door-opening task using joint positions for position tracking and external joint torques for force [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p007_7.png] view at source ↗
read the original abstract

The four-channel teleoperation architecture is a well-established framework for achieving transparency in bilateral systems. However, its performance in human-scale teleoperation is limited by high inertia, modeling challenges, and reliance on noisy and costly force/torque sensors. This paper introduces a sensorless four-channel architecture based on inverse dynamics modeling. The controller is implemented and validated on a customized WAM bilateral teleoperation setup. Experiments demonstrate that the proposed approach outperforms conventional two- and four-channel schemes as well as transparency-enhancement methods, improving position and force tracking, reducing operator effort, and increasing maximum transmittable impedance without external sensors. A door-opening case study involving sustained whole-body contact along the manipulator further demonstrates the effectiveness of the method in realistic human-scale manipulation tasks.

Editorial analysis

A structured set of objections, weighed in public.

Desk editor's note, referee report, simulated authors' rebuttal, and a circularity audit. Tearing a paper down is the easy half of reading it; the pith above is the substance, this is the friction.

Referee Report

2 major / 1 minor

Summary. The manuscript proposes a sensorless four-channel bilateral teleoperation architecture that substitutes an inverse-dynamics model of the WAM arm for physical force/torque sensors. The controller is implemented on a customized bilateral WAM setup; experiments are claimed to demonstrate superior position and force tracking, reduced operator effort, and higher maximum transmittable impedance relative to conventional two- and four-channel schemes and transparency-enhancement methods. A door-opening case study with sustained whole-body contact is presented to illustrate performance in realistic human-scale tasks.

Significance. If the inverse-dynamics torque estimates remain accurate under contact, the approach could lower hardware cost and sensor noise while preserving transparency in human-scale bilateral systems. The door-opening demonstration addresses a practically relevant regime of prolonged interaction that many sensor-based schemes struggle with.

major comments (2)
  1. [door-opening case study / experimental results] The central claim that the sensorless architecture outperforms conventional schemes and transparency-enhancement methods rests on the accuracy of the inverse-dynamics model replacing force/torque measurements inside the four-channel loops. No quantitative validation (RMSE, bias, or variance between estimated and measured torques) is supplied for the sustained-contact phases of the door-opening task, leaving open the possibility that model errors directly degrade the force-reflection and impedance-transmission channels.
  2. [Abstract and §4 (Experiments)] The abstract and results sections assert experimental superiority in tracking, effort, and maximum transmittable impedance, yet supply no numerical values, error bars, statistical tests, or exclusion criteria for the reported improvements. Without these data it is impossible to judge whether the observed gains exceed the variability attributable to unmodeled friction, payload changes, or joint compliance.
minor comments (1)
  1. [Methods] A block-diagram reference to the modified four-channel architecture (with inverse-dynamics blocks inserted) would clarify how the estimated torques are routed into the force and impedance channels.

Simulated Author's Rebuttal

2 responses · 0 unresolved

We thank the referee for their insightful comments on our manuscript. We address each of the major comments below and indicate the revisions we will make to strengthen the paper.

read point-by-point responses

  1. Referee: [door-opening case study / experimental results] The central claim that the sensorless architecture outperforms conventional schemes and transparency-enhancement methods rests on the accuracy of the inverse-dynamics model replacing force/torque measurements inside the four-channel loops. No quantitative validation (RMSE, bias, or variance between estimated and measured torques) is supplied for the sustained-contact phases of the door-opening task, leaving open the possibility that model errors directly degrade the force-reflection and impedance-transmission channels.

    Authors: We agree that direct quantitative validation of the inverse-dynamics torque estimates against physical measurements during sustained contact would strengthen the claims. However, as the architecture is explicitly sensorless, no force/torque sensors are present on the slave manipulator during the door-opening experiments, precluding direct comparison. The model was validated offline in free motion, and the task performance (position/force tracking and impedance) serves as indirect validation. We will add a discussion of these limitations and any available offline validation results in the revised manuscript. revision: partial

  2. Referee: [Abstract and §4 (Experiments)] The abstract and results sections assert experimental superiority in tracking, effort, and maximum transmittable impedance, yet supply no numerical values, error bars, statistical tests, or exclusion criteria for the reported improvements. Without these data it is impossible to judge whether the observed gains exceed the variability attributable to unmodeled friction, payload changes, or joint compliance.

    Authors: The referee is correct that specific numerical results, error bars, and statistical tests are not included in the current version. We will revise the abstract and Section 4 to include quantitative metrics (e.g., mean RMSE for position and force tracking with standard deviations), error bars on plots, and results of statistical significance tests comparing the proposed method to baselines. Exclusion criteria for trials will also be specified. revision: yes

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged

No significant circularity detected

full rationale

The paper presents a sensorless four-channel teleoperation controller that substitutes an inverse-dynamics model for force/torque sensors. Its central claims rest on experimental comparisons (position/force tracking, operator effort, maximum transmittable impedance) performed on a physical WAM bilateral setup, including a door-opening contact task. These outcomes are measured quantities, not quantities redefined by the model parameters themselves. No self-definitional equations, fitted-input predictions, or load-bearing self-citations appear in the abstract or described derivation; the modeling step is treated as an independent engineering choice whose accuracy is an external assumption rather than a tautology. The reported performance gains therefore remain falsifiable against external benchmarks and do not reduce to the inputs by construction.

Axiom & Free-Parameter Ledger

0 free parameters · 1 axioms · 0 invented entities

The central claim rests on the domain assumption that an inverse dynamics model can replace force sensors with sufficient fidelity for the WAM platform; no free parameters or invented entities are explicitly introduced in the abstract.

axioms (1)
  • domain assumption Inverse dynamics model of the WAM arm accurately estimates interaction forces and torques without direct measurement
    This premise enables the sensorless substitution inside the four-channel controller.

pith-pipeline@v0.9.1-grok · 5663 in / 1183 out tokens · 49618 ms · 2026-07-02T10:51:21.395810+00:00 · methodology

discussion (0)

Sign in with ORCID, Apple, or X to comment. Anyone can read and Pith papers without signing in.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

32 extracted references · 1 canonical work pages · 1 internal anchor

  1. [1]

    Efficacy of the da Vinci surgical system in abdominal surgery compared with that of laparoscopy: A systematic review and meta-analysis,

    S. Maeso, M. Reza, J. A. Mayol, J. A. Blasco, M. Guerra, E. Andradas, and M. N. Plana, “Efficacy of the da Vinci surgical system in abdominal surgery compared with that of laparoscopy: A systematic review and meta-analysis,”Annals of Surgery, vol. 252, no. 2, pp. 254–262, 2010

    2010

  2. [2]

    Space telerobotics: unique challenges to human–robot collaboration in space,

    T. Fong, J. Rochlis Zumbado, N. Currie, A. Mishkin, and D. L. Akin, “Space telerobotics: unique challenges to human–robot collaboration in space,”Reviews of Human Factors and Ergonomics, vol. 9, no. 1, pp. 6–56, 2013

    2013

  3. [3]

    Human adaptation to latency in teleoperated multi- robot human-agent search and rescue teams,

    A. Khasawneh, H. Rogers, J. Bertrand, K. C. Madathil, and A. Gramopadhye, “Human adaptation to latency in teleoperated multi- robot human-agent search and rescue teams,”Automation in Construc- tion, vol. 99, pp. 265–277, 2019

    2019

  4. [4]

    Unifying bilateral teleoperation and tele-impedance for enhanced user experi- ence,

    M. Laghi, A. Ajoudani, M. G. Catalano, and A. Bicchi, “Unifying bilateral teleoperation and tele-impedance for enhanced user experi- ence,”The International Journal of Robotics Research, vol. 39, no. 4, pp. 514–539, 2020

    2020

  5. [5]

    The DLR bimanual haptic device with optimized workspace,

    T. Hulin, K. Hertkorn, P. Kremer, S. Sch ¨atzle, J. Artigas, M. Sagardia, F. Zacharias, and C. Preusche, “The DLR bimanual haptic device with optimized workspace,” in2011 IEEE International Conference on Robotics and Automation, 2011, pp. 3441–3442

    2011

  6. [6]

    An effective and intuitive control interface for remote robot teleoperation with complete haptic feedback,

    C. Glover, B. Russell, A. White, M. Miller, and A. Stoytchev, “An effective and intuitive control interface for remote robot teleoperation with complete haptic feedback,” inEmerging Technologies Confer- ence, 2009

    2009

  7. [7]

    Stability and transparency in bilateral teleoperation,

    D. A. Lawrence, “Stability and transparency in bilateral teleoperation,” IEEE Transactions on Robotics and Automation, vol. 9, no. 5, pp. 624– 637, 1993

    1993

  8. [8]

    Deep neural network approach in robot tool dynamics identification for bilateral teleoperation,

    H. Su, W. Qi, C. Yang, J. Sandoval, G. Ferrigno, and E. De Momi, “Deep neural network approach in robot tool dynamics identification for bilateral teleoperation,”IEEE Robotics and Automation Letters, vol. 5, no. 2, pp. 2943–2949, 2020

    2020

  9. [9]

    Direct calculation of minimum set of inertial parameters of serial robots,

    M. Gautier and W. Khalil, “Direct calculation of minimum set of inertial parameters of serial robots,”IEEE Transactions on Robotics and Automation, vol. 6, no. 3, pp. 368–373, 1990

    1990

  10. [10]

    Numerical calculation of the base inertial parameters of robots,

    M. Gautier, “Numerical calculation of the base inertial parameters of robots,”Journal of Robotic Systems, vol. 8, no. 4, pp. 485–506, 1991

    1991

  11. [11]

    Physically feasible dynamic parameter identification of the 7-DOF W AM robot,

    C. D. Sousa and R. Cortes ˜ao, “Physically feasible dynamic parameter identification of the 7-DOF W AM robot,” in2013 IEEE/RSJ Interna- tional Conference on Intelligent Robots and Systems, 2013, pp. 2868– 2873

    2013

  12. [12]

    Identification of a generalized base inertial parameter set of robotic manipulators considering mounting configurations,

    M. Tr ¨obinger, A. Naceri, X. Chen, H. Sadeghian, and S. Haddadin, “Identification of a generalized base inertial parameter set of robotic manipulators considering mounting configurations,” in2023 IEEE International Conference on Robotics and Automation, 2023, pp. 11 502–11 508

    2023

  13. [13]

    Computed torque control with nonparametric regression models,

    D. Nguyen-Tuong, M. Seeger, and J. Peters, “Computed torque control with nonparametric regression models,” in2008 American Control Conference, 2008, pp. 212–217

    2008

  14. [14]

    Model learning with local gaussian process regression,

    ——, “Model learning with local gaussian process regression,”Ad- vanced Robotics, vol. 23, no. 15, pp. 2015–2034, 2009

    2015

  15. [15]

    Learning state-dependent losses for inverse dynamics learning,

    K. Morse, N. Das, Y . Lin, A. S. Wang, A. Rai, and F. Meier, “Learning state-dependent losses for inverse dynamics learning,” in 2020 IEEE/RSJ International Conference on Intelligent Robots and Systems, 2020, pp. 5261–5268

    2020

  16. [16]

    Learning and adaptation of inverse dynamics models: A comparison,

    K. Hitzler, F. Meier, S. Schaal, and T. Asfour, “Learning and adaptation of inverse dynamics models: A comparison,” in2019 IEEE-RAS International Conference on Humanoid Robots, 2019, pp. 491–498

    2019

  17. [17]

    Using model knowledge for learn- ing inverse dynamics,

    D. Nguyen-Tuong and J. Peters, “Using model knowledge for learn- ing inverse dynamics,” in2010 IEEE International Conference on Robotics and Automation, 2010, pp. 2677–2682

    2010

  18. [18]

    Deep Lagrangian Networks: Using Physics as Model Prior for Deep Learning

    M. Lutter, C. Ritter, and J. Peters, “Deep Lagrangian networks: Using physics as model prior for deep learning,”arXiv preprint arXiv:1907.04490, 2019

    work page internal anchor Pith review Pith/arXiv arXiv 1907

  19. [19]

    Physics-informed neural network for model prediction and dynamics parameter identi- fication of collaborative robot joints,

    X. Yang, Y . Du, L. Li, Z. Zhou, and X. Zhang, “Physics-informed neural network for model prediction and dynamics parameter identi- fication of collaborative robot joints,”IEEE Robotics and Automation Letters, vol. 8, no. 12, pp. 8462–8469, 2023

    2023

  20. [20]

    Haptic teleoperation with impedance control based on learned inverse dynamics with application in homecare robotics,

    M. Tufail, “Haptic teleoperation with impedance control based on learned inverse dynamics with application in homecare robotics,” Ph.D. dissertation, University of British Columbia, 2015

    2015

  21. [21]

    Inverse dynamics-based adaptive control of nonlinear bilateral teleoperation systems,

    X. Liu and M. Tavakoli, “Inverse dynamics-based adaptive control of nonlinear bilateral teleoperation systems,” in2011 IEEE International Conference on Robotics and Automation, 2011, pp. 1323–1328

    2011

  22. [22]

    Nonlinear distur- bance observers: Design and applications to Euler-Lagrange systems,

    A. Mohammadi, H. J. Marquez, and M. Tavakoli, “Nonlinear distur- bance observers: Design and applications to Euler-Lagrange systems,” IEEE Control Systems Magazine, vol. 37, no. 4, pp. 50–72, 2017

    2017

  23. [23]

    Neural network based inverse dynamics identification and external force estimation on the da Vinci Research Kit,

    N. Yilmaz, J. Y . Wu, P. Kazanzides, and U. Tumerdem, “Neural network based inverse dynamics identification and external force estimation on the da Vinci Research Kit,” in2020 IEEE International Conference on Robotics and Automation, 2020, pp. 1387–1393

    2020

  24. [24]

    Sensorless transparency optimized haptic teleoperation on the da Vinci Research Kit,

    N. Yilmaz, B. Burkhart, A. Deguet, P. Kazanzides, and U. Tumerdem, “Sensorless transparency optimized haptic teleoperation on the da Vinci Research Kit,”IEEE Robotics and Automation Letters, 2023

    2023

  25. [25]

    Inertial properties in haptic devices: Non- linear inertia shaping vs. force feedforward,

    S. Fahmi and T. Hulin, “Inertial properties in haptic devices: Non- linear inertia shaping vs. force feedforward,”IF AC-PapersOnLine, vol. 51, no. 22, pp. 79–84, 2018

    2018

  26. [26]

    Closing the force loop to enhance transparency in time-delayed teleoperation,

    R. Balachandran, J.-H. Ryu, M. Jorda, C. Ott, and A. Albu-Schaeffer, “Closing the force loop to enhance transparency in time-delayed teleoperation,” in2020 IEEE International Conference on Robotics and Automation, 2020, pp. 10 198–10 204

    2020

  27. [27]

    A design framework for teleoperators with kinesthetic feedback,

    B. Hannaford, “A design framework for teleoperators with kinesthetic feedback,”IEEE Transactions on Robotics and Automation, vol. 5, no. 4, pp. 426–434, 1989

    1989

  28. [28]

    Experimental quantitative comparison of different control architectures for master-slave teleop- eration,

    I. Aliaga, A. Rubio, and E. Sanchez, “Experimental quantitative comparison of different control architectures for master-slave teleop- eration,”IEEE Transactions on Control Systems Technology, vol. 12, no. 1, pp. 2–11, 2004

    2004

  29. [29]

    Towards the development of a humanoid arm by minimizing interaction forces through minimum impedance control,

    J. P. Desai and R. D. Howe, “Towards the development of a humanoid arm by minimizing interaction forces through minimum impedance control,” in2001 IEEE International Conference on Robotics and Automation, vol. 4, 2001, pp. 4214–4219

    2001

  30. [30]

    A friction-model-based framework for reinforcement learning of robotic tasks in non-rigid environments,

    A. Colom ´e, A. Planells, and C. Torras, “A friction-model-based framework for reinforcement learning of robotic tasks in non-rigid environments,” in2015 IEEE International Conference on Robotics and Automation, 2015, pp. 5649–5654

    2015

  31. [31]

    Adaptive control based friction estimation for tracking control of robot manipulators,

    J. Huang, D. Tateo, P. Liu, and J. Peters, “Adaptive control based friction estimation for tracking control of robot manipulators,”IEEE Robotics and Automation Letters, vol. 10, no. 3, pp. 2454–2461, 2025

    2025

  32. [32]

    On the use of local force feedback for transparent teleoperation,

    K. Hastrudi-Zaad and S. E. Salcudean, “On the use of local force feedback for transparent teleoperation,” in1999 IEEE International Conference on Robotics and Automation, vol. 3, 1999, pp. 1863–1869

    1999