MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2054318456 · doi:10.1109/ais.2010.5547077

Learning inverse dynamics for redundant manipulator control

2010· article· en· W2054318456 on OpenAlexaff
Joseph Sun de la Cruz, Dana Kulić, William J. Owen

Bibliographic record

Venuenot available
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEngineering
TopicRobotic Mechanisms and Dynamics
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Waterloo
Fundersnot available
KeywordsRedundancy (engineering)Inverse dynamicsComputer scienceControl engineeringControl theory (sociology)Humanoid robotRobotSystem dynamicsArtificial intelligenceRobot manipulatorControl (management)EngineeringKinematics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

High performance control of robotic systems, including the new generation of humanoid, assistive and entertainment robots, requires adequate knowledge of the dynamics of the system. This can be problematic in the presence of modeling uncertainties as the performance of classical, modelbased controllers is highly dependant upon accurate knowledge of the system. In addition, future robotic systems such as humanoids are likely to be redundant, requiring a mechanism for redundancy resolution when performing lower degree-of-freedom tasks. In this paper, a learning approach to estimating the inverse dynamic equations is presented. Locally Weighted Projection Regression (LWPR) is used to learn the inverse dynamics of a manipulator in both joint and task space and the resulting controllers are used to drive a 3 and 4 DOF robot in simulation. The performance of the learning controllers is compared to a traditional model based control method and is also shown to be a viable control method for a redundant system.

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.

How this classification was reachedexpand

Full frame machine prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.001
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Simulation or modeling · Consensus signal: Simulation or modeling
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.002
Threshold uncertainty score0.005

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0020.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.005
GPT teacher head0.189
Teacher spread0.184 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designSimulation or modeling
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".

Quick stats

Citations14
Published2010
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same topicRobotic Mechanisms and DynamicsFrench-language works237,207