MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2806958104 · doi:10.1109/amc.2019.8371070

On inverse kinematics with nonlinear criteria: Trajectory relaxation

2018· preprint· en· W2806958104 on OpenAlexaff
Kevin W. Dufour, Wael Suleiman

Bibliographic record

Venuenot available
Typepreprint
Languageen
FieldEngineering
TopicRobotic Mechanisms and Dynamics
Canadian institutionsUniversité de Sherbrooke
Fundersnot available
KeywordsTrajectoryInverse kinematicsControl theory (sociology)Nonlinear systemRobustness (evolution)KinematicsSolverComputer scienceTrajectory optimizationRelaxation (psychology)Constraint (computer-aided design)RobotInverseInverse dynamicsMathematical optimizationRobot kinematicsMathematicsMobile robotArtificial intelligenceOptimal controlControl (management)PhysicsGeometryClassical mechanics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The concept of trajectory relaxation of Inverse Kinematics (IK) problem is thoroughly investigated in this paper. Trajectory relaxation refers to relaxing the hard-constraint of following a desired trajectory, hence the robot is allowed to deviate from that trajectory. The main advantages of this concept is improving the robustness of the IK solver and efficiently allowing the optimization of additional nonlinear criteria, for instance maximizing the manipulability index of the robot. We propose different formulations of the trajectory relaxation as well as several functions to control the stiffness of the relaxed constraint. We conducted experiments in simulation to compare the proposed formulations and identify their strengths and weaknesses, we also validated the results on a Baxter research robot.

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)0.003
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.008
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: none
GenreCandidate signal: Methods · Consensus signal: Methods
Teacher disagreement score0.004
Threshold uncertainty score0.015

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0030.008
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0020.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.003
Scholarly communication0.0010.003
Open science0.0010.003
Research integrity0.0020.003
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0040.001

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 head0.015
GPT teacher head0.228
Teacher spread0.213 · 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
GenreMethods

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

Citations5
Published2018
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same topicRobotic Mechanisms and DynamicsFrench-language works237,207