MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2068761489 · doi:10.1109/iros.2005.1545305

Path planning with general end-effector constraints: using task space to guide configuration space search

2005· article· en· W2068761489 on OpenAlex

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.

affAt least one author lists a Canadian institution in the pinned OpenAlex snapshot.

Bibliographic record

Venuenot available
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEngineering
TopicRobotic Mechanisms and Dynamics
Canadian institutionsSimon Fraser University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsTask (project management)Space (punctuation)Path (computing)Robot end effectorComputer scienceMotion planningRobotConfiguration spacePlannerTrajectoryAny-angle path planningArtificial intelligenceEngineering

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

In this paper, we address the path planning problem with general end-effector constraints (PPGEC) for robot manipulators. Two approaches are proposed. The first approach is adapted from an existing randomized gradient descent (RGD) method for closed-chain robots. The second approach is radically different. We call it ATACE alternate task-space and configuration-space exploration. Unlike the first approach which searches purely in C-space, ATACE works in both task space and C-space. It explores the task space for end-effector paths satisfying given constraints, and utilizes trajectory tracking technique(s) as a local planner(s) to track these paths in the configuration space. We have implemented both approaches and compare their relative performances in different scenarios. ATACE outperforms RGD in majority (but not all) of the scenarios. We outline intuitive explanations for the relative performances of these two approaches.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation 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: Methods · Consensus signal: Methods
Teacher disagreement score0.350
Threshold uncertainty score0.626

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

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)0.0000.000

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 head0.015
GPT teacher head0.254
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

Quick stats

Citations53
Published2005
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same topicRobotic Mechanisms and DynamicsFrench-language works237,207