MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2892196507 · doi:10.2514/1.g003541

Momentum Model-Based Minimal Parameter Identification of a Space Robot

2018· article· en· W2892196507 on OpenAlexaff

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Guidance Control and Dynamics · 2018
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEngineering
TopicSpace Satellite Systems and Control
Canadian institutionsMcGill University
FundersInternational Institute of Information Technology, HyderabadDepartment of Science and Technology, Ministry of Science and Technology, India
KeywordsInertial frame of referenceControl theory (sociology)Robotic spacecraftMomentum (technical analysis)TrajectorySpace (punctuation)Identification (biology)Motion planningRobot

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Accurate information of inertial parameters is critical to motion planning and control of space robots. Before the launch, only a rudimentary estimate of the inertial parameters is available from experiments and CAD models. After the launch, on-orbit operations substantially alter the value of inertial parameters. In this work, a new momentum model-based method is proposed for identifying the minimal parameters of a space robot while on orbit. Minimal parameters are combinations of the inertial parameters of the links and uniquely define the momentum and dynamic models. Consequently, they are sufficient for motion planning and control of both the satellite and robotic arms mounted on it. The key to the proposed framework is the unique formulation of the momentum model in the linear form of minimal parameters. Further, to estimate the minimal parameters, a novel joint trajectory planning and optimization technique based on direction combinations of joints’ velocity are proposed. The efficacy of the identification framework is demonstrated on a 12-degree-of-freedom, spatial, dual-arm space robot. The methodology is developed for tree-type space robots, requires just the pose and twist data, and is scalable with increasing number of joints.

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 distilled prediction

Teacher imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation 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 score0.702
Threshold uncertainty score0.411

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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 head0.005
GPT teacher head0.210
Teacher spread0.205 · 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 teacher head, 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

Citations14
Published2018
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of Guidance Control and DynamicsSame topicSpace Satellite Systems and ControlFrench-language works237,207