MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort

Analyzing Neural Jacobian Methods in Applications of Visual Servoing and Kinematic Control

2021· preprint· en· W3167309527 on OpenAlexaff
Michael Przystupa, Masood Dehghan, Martin Jägersand, A. Rupam Mahmood

Bibliographic record

Venuenot available
Typepreprint
Languageen
FieldComputer Science
TopicAdvanced Vision and Imaging
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Alberta
Fundersnot available
KeywordsJacobian matrix and determinantKinematicsVisual servoingCartesian coordinate systemInverse kinematicsControl theory (sociology)Computer scienceArtificial intelligenceArtificial neural networkRobot kinematicsRobot end effectorForward kinematicsRobotMathematicsControl (management)Applied mathematicsGeometryMobile robot

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Designing adaptable control laws that can transfer between different robots is a challenge because of kinematic and dynamic differences, as well as in scenarios where external sensors are used. In this work, we empirically investigate a neural networks ability to approximate the Jacobian matrix for an application in Cartesian control schemes. Specifically, we are interested in approximating the kinematic Jacobian, which arises from kinematic equations mapping a manipulator’s joint angles to the end-effector’s location. We propose two different approaches to learn the kinematic Jacobian. The first method arises from visual servoing where we learn the kinematic Jacobian as an approximate linear system of equations from the k-nearest neighbors for a desired joint configuration. The second, motivated by forward models in machine learning, learns the kinematic behavior directly and calculates the Jacobian by differentiating the learned neural kinematics model. Simulation experimental results show that both methods achieve better performance than alternative data-driven methods for control, provide closer approximations to the proper kinematics Jacobian matrix, and on average produce better-conditioned Jacobian matrices. Real-world experiments were conducted on a Kinova Gen-3 lightweight robotic manipulator, which includes an uncalibrated visual servoing experiment, a practical application of our methods, as well as a 7-DOF point-to-point task highlighting that our methods are applicable on real robotic 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 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)0.002
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.011
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 score0.008
Threshold uncertainty score0.016

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0020.011
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.001
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0010.001
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 head0.020
GPT teacher head0.392
Teacher spread0.372 · 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

Citations0
Published2021
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same topicAdvanced Vision and ImagingFrench-language works237,207