Planning Velocities of Free Sliding Objects as a Free Boundary Value Problem
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.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
In this paper, a novel planning method is proposed to solve initial velocities of the free sliding object for given initial and final configurations. Finding the desired initial velocities for free sliding objects is a key step for implementing impulse manipulation and multi-agent dynamic cooperative manipulation. The motion of free sliding objects on a plane is governed by friction forces and the initial state of the object; this motion can be modeled by a set of six first-order differential equations. In this paper, the planning problem is formulated as a free boundary value problem (FBVP). In order to solve the problem, the FBVP is first reduced to a standard two-point boundary value problem, then quasi-Newton based optimization procedures are utilized to solve the planning problem. The proposed method does not require qualitative motion characteristics; thus, it can be used for objects with general shape and arbitrary pressure distribution. Numerical and experimental results on objects with different geometries and pressure distributions are used to demonstrate the performance of the proposed planner.
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 imitationNot 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.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.004 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.008 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
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.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it