MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2110926800 · doi:10.1109/robot.1996.506579

Iterative dynamic programming: an approach to minimum energy trajectory planning for robotic manipulators

2002· article· en· W2110926800 on OpenAlexaff
G. Field, Y. Stepanenko

Bibliographic record

Venuenot available
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEngineering
TopicRobotic Mechanisms and Dynamics
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Victoria
Fundersnot available
KeywordsDynamic programmingComputer scienceMaxima and minimaMathematical optimizationCurse of dimensionalityTrajectoryIterative and incremental developmentComputationIterative methodAlgorithmMathematicsArtificial intelligence

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

This paper proposes a technique of iterative dynamic programming to plan minimum energy consumption trajectories for robotic manipulators. The dynamic programming method is modified to perform a series of dynamic programming passes over a small reconfigurable grid covering only a portion of the solution space at any one pass. Although strictly no longer a global optimization process, this iterative approach retains the ability to avoid some poor local minima while avoiding the curse of dimensionality associated with a pure dynamic programming approach. The algorithm has an inherent parallel structure, allowing for reduced computation time on parallel architecture computers. No limiting assumptions are made about the performance index, or function to be optimized. As such, extremely complex functions and constraints are easily handled. Joint actuator and time constraints are considered in this work. The modified dynamic programming approach is verified experimentally by planning and executing a minimum energy consumption path for a Reis V15 industrial manipulator.

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)0.001
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 score0.007

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0010.001
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0010.001
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 head0.032
GPT teacher head0.236
Teacher spread0.205 · 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

Citations103
Published2002
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same topicRobotic Mechanisms and DynamicsFrench-language works237,207