MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2754539945 · doi:10.1109/lra.2018.2801471

An Inversion-Based Learning Approach for Improving Impromptu Trajectory Tracking of Robots With Non-Minimum Phase Dynamics

2018· article· en· W2754539945 on OpenAlexafffund
Siqi Zhou, Mohamed K. Helwa, Angela P. Schoellig

Bibliographic record

VenueIEEE Robotics and Automation Letters · 2018
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEngineering
TopicIterative Learning Control Systems
Canadian institutionsDynamic Systems Analysis (Canada)University of Toronto
FundersNatural Sciences and Engineering Research Council of Canada
KeywordsImpromptuComputer scienceMinimum phaseTrajectoryFeed forwardInstabilityInverse dynamicsInverseInversion (geology)Control theory (sociology)RobotStability (learning theory)Tracking (education)Artificial intelligencePhase (matter)MathematicsMachine learningControl engineeringEngineeringPhysicsControl (management)

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

This letter presents a learning-based approach for impromptu trajectory tracking for non-minimum phase systems, i.e., systems with unstable inverse dynamics. Inversion-based feedforward approaches are commonly used for improving tracking performance; however, these approaches are not directly applicable to non-minimum phase systems due to their inherent instability. In order to resolve the instability issue, existing methods have assumed that the system model is known and used preactuation or inverse approximation techniques. In this work, we propose an approach for learning a stable, approximate inverse of a non-minimum phase baseline system directly from its input-output data. Through theoretical discussions, simulations, and experiments on two different platforms, we show the stability of our proposed approach and its effectiveness for high-accuracy, impromptu tracking. Our approach also shows that including more information in the training, as is commonly assumed to be useful, does not lead to better performance but may trigger instability and impact the effectiveness of the overall approach.

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)0.002
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 score0.003
Threshold uncertainty score0.005

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.002
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.001
Scholarly communication0.0000.001
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 head0.008
GPT teacher head0.224
Teacher spread0.216 · 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

Citations23
Published2018
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueIEEE Robotics and Automation LettersSame topicIterative Learning Control SystemsFrench-language works237,207