MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4306986146 · doi:10.1177/02783649221128843

Continuum robot state estimation using Gaussian process regression on SE(3)

2022· article· en· W4306986146 on OpenAlexaff
Sven Lilge, Timothy D. Barfoot, Jessica Burgner-Kahrs

Bibliographic record

VenueThe International Journal of Robotics Research · 2022
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEngineering
TopicSoft Robotics and Applications
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Toronto
Fundersnot available
KeywordsRobotKrigingGaussian processGaussianComputer scienceArtificial intelligenceControl theory (sociology)Ground truthPoseAlgorithmMathematicsPhysicsMachine learning

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Continuum robots have the potential to enable new applications in medicine, inspection, and countless other areas due to their unique shape, compliance, and size. Excellent progress has been made in the mechanical design and dynamic modeling of continuum robots, to the point that there are some canonical designs, although new concepts continue to be explored. In this paper, we turn to the problem of state estimation for continuum robots that can been modeled with the common Cosserat rod model. Sensing for continuum robots might comprise external camera observations, embedded tracking coils, or strain gauges. We repurpose a Gaussian process (GP) regression approach to state estimation, initially developed for continuous-time trajectory estimation in SE(3). In our case, the continuous variable is not time but arclength and we show how to estimate the continuous shape (and strain) of the robot (along with associated uncertainties) given discrete, noisy measurements of both pose and strain along the length. We demonstrate our approach quantitatively through simulations as well as through experiments. Our evaluations show that accurate and continuous estimates of a continuum robot’s shape can be achieved, resulting in average end-effector errors between the estimated and ground truth shape as low as 3.5 mm and 0.016° in simulation or 3.3 mm and 0.035° for unloaded configurations and 6.2 mm and 0.041° for loaded ones during experiments, when using discrete pose measurements.

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)0.005
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 score0.011
Threshold uncertainty score0.022

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.005
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.001
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0010.002
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.001

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 head0.107
GPT teacher head0.421
Teacher spread0.314 · 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

Citations47
Published2022
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueThe International Journal of Robotics ResearchSame topicSoft Robotics and ApplicationsFrench-language works237,207