MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2331130433 · doi:10.1109/tro.2016.2522442

Inversion Symmetry of the Euclidean Group: Theory and Application to Robot Kinematics

2016· article· en· W2331130433 on OpenAlexfundno aff
Yuanqing Wu, Harald Löwe, Marco Carricato, Zexiang Li

Bibliographic record

VenueIEEE Transactions on Robotics · 2016
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEngineering
TopicRobotic Mechanisms and Dynamics
Canadian institutionsnot available
FundersEuropean Regional Development FundHong Kong University of Science and TechnologyNational Natural Science Foundation of ChinaCanadian Institute for Advanced Research
KeywordsEuclidean groupKinematicsEuclidean spaceEuclidean geometryInverse kinematicsGroup (periodic table)MathematicsSymmetry (geometry)Inversion (geology)Lie groupGeometryPure mathematicsPhysicsClassical mechanicsAffine space

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Just as the 3-D Euclidean space can be inverted through any of its points, the special Euclidean group SE(3) admits an inversion symmetry through any of its elements and is known to be a symmetric space. In this paper, we show that the symmetric submanifolds of SE(3) can be systematically exploited to study the kinematics of a variety of kinesiological and mechanical systems and, therefore, have many potential applications in robot kinematics. Unlike Lie subgroups of SE(3), symmetric submanifolds inherit distinct geometric properties from inversion symmetry. They can be generated by kinematic chains with symmetric joint twists. The main contribution of this paper is: 1) to give a complete classification of symmetric submanifolds of SE(3); 2) to investigate their geometric properties for robotics applications; and 3) to develop a generic method for synthesizing their kinematic chains.

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)0.000
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: Theoretical or conceptual · Consensus signal: Theoretical or conceptual
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.003
Threshold uncertainty score0.010

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.001
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.002
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0030.001

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 head0.006
GPT teacher head0.196
Teacher spread0.190 · 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 designTheoretical or conceptual
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

Citations50
Published2016
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueIEEE Transactions on RoboticsSame topicRobotic Mechanisms and DynamicsFrench-language works237,207