MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2071932864 · doi:10.1109/iros.2005.1545381

Uncalibrated visual servoing using a biased Newton method for on-line singularity detection and avoidance

2005· article· en· W2071932864 on OpenAlexaff
Masoud Shahamiri, Martin Jägersand

Bibliographic record

Venuenot available
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldComputer Science
TopicAdvanced Vision and Imaging
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Alberta
Fundersnot available
KeywordsJacobian matrix and determinantVisual servoingArtificial intelligenceA priori and a posterioriComputer scienceSingularityGravitational singularityComputer visionTrajectoryRobotControl theory (sociology)Obstacle avoidanceMathematicsApplied mathematicsMobile robotMathematical analysis

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

While in calibrated settings trajectories can be planned so to avoid singular or poorly observable configurations, in uncalibrated visual servoing in general a priori information about singularities (visual or robotic) may be unavailable. Instead we propose a method where trajectories are corrected online to avoid singular and near singular regions. Mathematically this is achieved using a so called nullspace-biased Newton step in a visual servoing with a Broyden type Jacobian estimation. The bias is applied so to first hand use (any) robot redundancy and thus not compromise the visually specified aspects of the trajectory. The closeness to a singular region is measured online from the estimated visual motor Jacobian. We also illustrate how to apply the bias method for simple visual obstacle avoidance. To show the practical applicability of our method we have applied it to Barrett WAM and PUMA560 manipulators and tested both numerous real trajectories, as well as run exhaustive simulations around critical configurations using a simulation model to confirm empirically that both safe and efficient trajectories are chosen around singular regions.

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 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: none
GenreCandidate signal: Methods · Consensus signal: Methods
Teacher disagreement score0.795
Threshold uncertainty score0.461

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 communication0.0000.001
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 head0.051
GPT teacher head0.380
Teacher spread0.329 · 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 teacher head, not a consensus.

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

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

Citations21
Published2005
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same topicAdvanced Vision and ImagingFrench-language works237,207