MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort

Nonlinear Model Predictive Control of Robot Manipulators Using Quasi-LPV Representation

2019· article· en· W3005646744 on OpenAlexaff
Mojtaba Esfandiari, Sonny Chan, Garnette Sutherland, David T. Westwick

Bibliographic record

Venuenot available
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEngineering
TopicAdvanced Control Systems Optimization
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Calgary
Fundersnot available
KeywordsControl theory (sociology)Model predictive controlNonlinear systemNonlinear modelRobot manipulatorRobotRepresentation (politics)Computer scienceControl engineeringRobot kinematicsControl (management)Artificial intelligenceEngineeringMobile robotPhysics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Nonlinear optimization techniques often suffer from time-consuming computational load, which impedes them to be implemented as controller of fast plans, or when a fast action like trajectory tracking is required. In this paper, a Nonlinear Model Predictive Control (NMPC) approach is used to perform the trajectory tracking problem in a robot manipulator in the presence of input saturation and un-modeled dynamics, using the Quasi-Linear Parameter Varying (Quasi-LPV) representation. In this method, instead of the nonlinear state difference equations of the system, a sequence of linearized state equations about a nominal state-control history, over the prediction horizon, is used. By so doing, standard Quadratic Programming (QP) optimization algorithms could be used for the online optimization problem, therefore, speed and efficiency of convergence to the optimal solution would be enhanced. Efficacy of this method is shown by simulation study of a 2-DOF robot manipulator.

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)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.001
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation 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 score0.006
Threshold uncertainty score0.012

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.001
Scholarly communication0.0010.000
Open science0.0010.000
Research integrity0.0000.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.000

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 head0.015
GPT teacher head0.245
Teacher spread0.230 · 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 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

Citations6
Published2019
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same topicAdvanced Control Systems OptimizationFrench-language works237,207