MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W3009336801 · doi:10.1139/tcsme-2019-0007

An improved robot trajectory planning method considering torque saturation and modeling errors

2020· article· en· W3009336801 on OpenAlexvenueno aff
Yadong Ding, Yaoyao Wang, Feng Ju, Bai Chen

Bibliographic record

VenueTransactions of the Canadian Society for Mechanical Engineering · 2020
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEngineering
TopicRobotic Mechanisms and Dynamics
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsControl theory (sociology)TorqueTrajectoryController (irrigation)Computer scienceMotion planningPath (computing)Feed forwardAngular velocityEngineeringRobotControl engineeringPhysicsControl (management)Artificial intelligence

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Time-optimal trajectory planning algorithms have been widely adopted to minimize the motion time by exploiting the dynamics and joint allowable torques of a robotic manipulator. However, the actual joint torques may exceed the joint allowable torques because of modelling errors or disturbances in the control system. When the torque limit is added for actuator safety, the controller will have no margin to deal with modeling errors or disturbances, which may lead to large path tracking errors. An on-line trajectory time scaling method called path velocity controller can improve path tracking performance by modifying the path velocity when torque saturation occurs. However, the path velocity controller is based on a feedforward or computed torque controller, so the dynamic modelling errors will worsen the path tracking performance. In addition, the motion time may also be increased because the dynamic modelling errors could result in longer duration time of torque saturation. To further improve the path tracking performance of a path velocity controller, a path velocity controller with an on-line parameter estimate mechanism is proposed. The simulation results show that the proposed method can achieve a better path tracking performance and shorter motion time.

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: none
Teacher disagreement score0.593
Threshold uncertainty score0.678

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 head0.025
GPT teacher head0.235
Teacher spread0.211 · 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

Citations4
Published2020
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueTransactions of the Canadian Society for Mechanical EngineeringSame topicRobotic Mechanisms and DynamicsFrench-language works237,207