Energy-optimal motion planning of a biped pole-climbing robot with kinodynamic constraints
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Purpose Applications of robotic systems in agriculture, forestry and high-altitude work will enter a new and huge stage in the near future. For these application fields, climbing robots have attracted much attention and have become one central topic in robotic research. The purpose of this paper is to propose an energy-optimal motion planning method for climbing robots that are applied in an outdoor environment. Design/methodology/approach First, a self-designed climbing robot named Climbot is briefly introduced. Then, an energy-optimal motion planning method is proposed for Climbot with simultaneous consideration of kinematic constraints and dynamic constraints. To decrease computing complexity, an acceleration continuous trajectory planner and a path planner based on spatial continuous curve are designed. Simulation and experimental results indicate that this method can search an energy-optimal path effectively. Findings Climbot can evidently reduce energy consumption when it moves along the energy-optimal path derived by the method used in this paper. Research limitations/implications Only one step climbing motion planning is considered in this method. Practical implications With the proposed motion planning method, climbing robots applied in an outdoor environment can commit more missions with limit power supply. In addition, it is also proved that this motion planning method is effective in a complicated obstacle environment with collision-free constraint. Originality/value The main contribution of this paper is that it establishes a two-planner system to solve the complex motion planning problem with kinodynamic constraints.
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 imitationNot 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.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| 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) | 0.001 | 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 itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
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".