MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2068708887 · doi:10.1115/imece2014-38639

Redundancy Resolution for Singularity Avoidance of Wheeled Mobile Manipulators

2014· article· en· W2068708887 on OpenAlexaff
Adel Abbaspour, Hadi Zare Jafari, Mohammad Ali Askari Hemmat, Khalil Alipour

Bibliographic record

Venuenot available
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldComputer Science
TopicRobotic Path Planning Algorithms
Canadian institutionsConcordia University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsObstacle avoidanceRedundancy (engineering)Mobile manipulatorMobile robotComputer scienceSingularityControl theory (sociology)KinematicsWorkspaceCollision avoidanceMotion planningControl engineeringRobotArtificial intelligenceMathematicsEngineeringCollision

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Mobile robots consist of a mobile platform with manipulator can provide interesting functionalities in a number of applications, since, combination of platform and manipulator causes robot operates in extended work space. The analysis of these systems includes kinematics redundancy that makes more complicated problem. However, it gives more feasibility to robotic systems because of the existence of multiple solutions in a specified workspace. This paper presents a novel combination of evolutionary algorithms and artificial potential field theory for motion planning of mobile manipulator which guaranteed collision and singularity avoidance. In the proposed algorithm, the developed concepts of potential field method are applied to obstacle avoidance and interaction of mobile base with manipulator is used as a new idea for singularity avoidance ability of intermediate links for mobile operations. For this purpose, kinematic and dynamic modeling is derived to define redundant solutions. Afterward, methods from potential field theory combine with evolutionary algorithms to provide an optimum solution among possibly of redundancy resolution scheme. A controller based on dynamic feedback linearization is augmented to track the selective motion trajectory. Simulation results verify obstacle avoidance, singularity avoidance for the manipulators and asymptotic convergence of the robots errors.

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)0.000
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 score0.001
Threshold uncertainty score0.002

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

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

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 head0.014
GPT teacher head0.253
Teacher spread0.239 · 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

Citations4
Published2014
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same topicRobotic Path Planning AlgorithmsFrench-language works237,207