Inverted Pendulum Control with a Robotic Arm using Deep Reinforcement Learning
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Inverted pendulum control is a benchmark control problem that researchers have used to test the new control strategies over the past 50 years. Deep Reinforcement Learning Algorithm is used recently on the inverted pendulum on a straightforward form. The inverted pendulum had only one degree of freedom and was moving on a plane. This paper demonstrates a successful implementation of a deep reinforcement learning algorithm on an inverted pendulum that rotates freely on a spherical joint with an industrial 6 degrees freedom robot arm. This research used the Deep Reinforcement Learning algorithm in Robot Operating System (ROS) and Gazebo Simulation. Experimental results show that the proposed method achieved promising outputs and reaches the control objectives. We were able to control the inverted pendulum upward for 30 and 20 seconds in two case studies. Two other significant novelties in this research are using an inertial measurement unit (IMU) on the tip of the pendulum, that will facilitate implementation on the real robot for future work and different reward functions in comparing to past publications that enable continuous learning and mastering control in a vertical position
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 imitationNot 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.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
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.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
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".