Kinematic-Sensitivity Indices for Dimensionally Nonhomogeneous Jacobian Matrices
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
Numerous performance indices have been proposed to compare robot architectures based on their kinematic properties. However, none of these indices seems to draw a consensus among the robotics community. The most notorious indices, which are manipulability and dexterity, still entail some drawbacks, which are mainly due to the impossibility to define a single invariant metric for the special Euclidean group. The natural consequence is to use two distinct metrics, i.e., one for rotations and one for point displacements, as has already been proposed by other researchers. This is the approach used in this paper, where we define the maximum rotation sensitivity and the maximum point-displacement sensitivity. These two indices provide tight upper bounds to the end-effector rotation and point-displacement sensitivity under a unit-magnitude array of actuated-joint displacements. Therefore, their meaning is thought to be clear and definite to the designer of a robotic manipulator. Furthermore, methods for the computation of the proposed indices are devised, some of their properties are established and interpreted in the context of robotic manipulator design, and an example is provided.
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 | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| 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