MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W3094802265 · doi:10.1115/detc2020-22328

Complete, Minimal and Continuous Kinematic Error Models of Perfect Multi-DOF Joints for Parallel Manipulators

2020· article· en· W3094802265 on OpenAlexaff
Lingyu Kong, Genliang Chen, Zhuang Zhang, Anhuan Xie, Hao Wang, Dan Zhang

Bibliographic record

Venuenot available
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEngineering
TopicRobotic Mechanisms and Dynamics
Canadian institutionsYork University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsKinematicsSerial manipulatorCorrectnessComputer scienceCalibrationParallel manipulatorRevolute jointControl theory (sociology)IdentifiabilityRobotAlgorithmMathematicsArtificial intelligenceControl (management)

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Abstract Kinematic error model plays an important role in improving the positioning accuracy of robot manipulators by kinematic calibration. In order to get a better calibration result, the error model should satisfy complete, minimal and continuous criteria. In order to meet the complete requirement, the multi degree-of-freedom (DOF) joints, such as universal or spherical joint in parallel robots, have to be regarded as serial chains formed by multiple independent single DOF joints, such that the manufacturing errors of these joints can be considered. However, several previous work found that these manufacturing errors for some parallel manipulators have little effect on the accuracy improvement. Besides, considering these kind of errors will cause the kinematics to be much more complicated. Therefore, under the assumptions of perfectly manufactured universal, spherical and cylinder joints, a complete, minimal and continuous (CMC) error model is presented in this paper. The identifiability of the kinematic errors of these multi-DOF joints are analytically analyzed. In order to verify the correctness and effectiveness of the proposed method, a numerical simulation of kinematic calibration is conducted on a 6-UPS parallel manipulator. The calibration result is also compared to the one derived from the error model with 138 error parameters. Since the error model and calibration methods are described uniformly, it can be applied to most parallel manipulators.

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 score0.536
Threshold uncertainty score0.493

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 head0.067
GPT teacher head0.241
Teacher spread0.174 · 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 topicRobotic Mechanisms and DynamicsFrench-language works237,207