Self-Calibration of an Industrial Robot Using a Novel Affordable 3D Measuring Device
Bibliographic record
Abstract
This work shows the feasibility of calibrating an industrial robot arm through an automated procedure using a new, low-cost, wireless measuring device mounted on the robot's flange. The device consists of three digital indicators that are fixed orthogonally to each other on an aluminum support. Each indicator has a measuring accuracy of 3 µm. The measuring instrument uses a kinematic coupling platform which allows for the definition of an accurate and repeatable tool center point (TCP). The idea behind the calibration method is for the robot to bring automatically this TCP to three precisely-known positions (the centers of three precision balls fixed with respect to the robot's base) and with different orientations of the robot's end-effector. The self-calibration method was tested on a small six-axis industrial robot, the ABB IRB 120 (Vasteras, Sweden). The robot was modeled by including all its geometrical parameters and the compliance of its joints. The parameters of the model were identified using linear regression with the least-square method. Finally, the performance of the calibration was validated with a laser tracker. This validation showed that the mean and the maximum absolute position errors were reduced from 2.628 mm and 6.282 mm to 0.208 mm and 0.482 mm, respectively.
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 | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
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.
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".