MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W3136410377 · doi:10.1109/lra.2021.3066978

Optimal Design of Continuum Robots With Reachability Constraints

2021· article· en· W3136410377 on OpenAlexaff
Hyunmin Cheong, Mehran Ebrahimi, Timothy R. Duggan

Bibliographic record

VenueIEEE Robotics and Automation Letters · 2021
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEngineering
TopicSoft Robotics and Applications
Canadian institutionsAutodesk (Canada)
FundersOffice of Naval ResearchAdvanced Research Projects Agency - EnergyNational Aeronautics and Space Administration
KeywordsReachabilityRobotWorkspaceKinematicsLeverage (statistics)ActuatorInverse kinematicsComputer scienceTorqueGenetic algorithmControl theory (sociology)ComputationMathematical optimizationRobot kinematicsMathematicsAlgorithmMobile robotArtificial intelligencePhysics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

While multi-joint continuum robots are highly dexterous and flexible, designing an optimal robot can be challenging due to its kinematics involving curvatures. Hence, the current work presents a computational method developed to find optimal designs of continuum robots, given reachability constraints. First, we leverage both forward and inverse kinematic computations to perform reachability analysis in an efficient yet accurate manner. While implementing inverse kinematics, we also integrate torque minimization at joints such that robot configurations with the minimum actuator torque required to reach a given workspace could be found. Lastly, we apply an estimation of distribution algorithm (EDA) to find optimal robot dimensions while considering reachability, where the objective function could be the total length of the robot or the actuator torque required to operate the robot. Through three application problems, we show that the EDA is superior to a genetic algorithm (GA) in finding better solutions within a given number of iterations, as the objective values of the best solutions found by the EDA are 4-15% lower than those found by the GA.

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)0.001
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: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.002
Threshold uncertainty score0.005

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.001
Scholarly communication0.0010.000
Open science0.0000.001
Research integrity0.0010.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0020.000

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 head0.012
GPT teacher head0.207
Teacher spread0.195 · 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
GenreEmpirical

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

Citations13
Published2021
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueIEEE Robotics and Automation LettersSame topicSoft Robotics and ApplicationsFrench-language works237,207