MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2910641550 · doi:10.1109/icarm.2018.8610854

Sampling based Constrained Motion Planning For Floating Base Manipulators Using Constraints Driven Alternative Parameterization

2018· article· en· W2910641550 on OpenAlexaff
Mohammadreza Yavari, Kamal Gupta, Mehran Mehrandezh

Bibliographic record

Venuenot available
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldComputer Science
TopicRobotic Path Planning Algorithms
Canadian institutionsUniversity of ReginaSimon Fraser University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsRobot end effectorTrajectoryParametrization (atmospheric modeling)Motion planningControl theory (sociology)Computer scienceConfiguration spacePlannerMathematical optimizationBase (topology)RobotMathematicsArtificial intelligenceControl (management)

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Constrained end-effector manipulation is in big demand in many robotic applications. We present a novel end-effector-constrained motion planning technique for floating-base manipulators. The proposed planner is superior to that cited in literature in terms of accuracy and execution time. The analytic comparison with the former approaches are given as well as simulation results for an end-effector trajectory following task. The strength of the proposed algorithm roots from the use of an alternative parametrization of the configuration space, where end-effector pose is included in this alternative parameterization space explicitly. This makes it possible to successfully generate constrained configuration samples with a uniform distribution. The proposed algorithm is based on RRT. We present a variation of the sample generation and steering routines which are suitable for end-effector constrained planning using the proposed alternative parameterization. Also, we present an asymptotically optimal version of our planner based on RRT* via simulations for end-effector trajectory tracking in presence of physical obstacles.

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: Methods · Consensus signal: Methods
Teacher disagreement score0.405
Threshold uncertainty score0.927

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 communication0.0000.001
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 head0.126
GPT teacher head0.344
Teacher spread0.218 · 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
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

Citations0
Published2018
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same topicRobotic Path Planning AlgorithmsFrench-language works237,207