A neural network approach to real-time motion planning and control of robot manipulators
Why this work is in the frame
A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Real-time motion planning and control of multi-joint robot manipulators are studied using neural networks. The proposed neural network approach consists of two modules: one for real-time collision-free motion planning, the other for real-time fine control of the robot manipulators. The motion planning module is a biologically inspired, parallel connected, topologically organised neural network, where each neuron is characterised by a shunting equation, whose state space is the robot configuration joint space. This module is capable of planning a real-time optimal path for robot manipulators through the dynamic activity landscape of the neural network. The motion control module involves of a feedforward neural network together with a traditional PD feedback loop. It is capable of achieving real-time fine motion control of robot manipulators under significant uncertainties and without any prior knowledge of the robot dynamics. This module can quickly compensate sudden changes in the robot dynamics. The real-time fine control of robot manipulators is achieved through the online learning of the neural network. Both the motion planning and motion control modules are computationally efficient, and their global stabilities are proved using Lyapunov stability theory.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it