MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4309287908 · doi:10.3390/s22228909

A Neural Network Based Approach to Inverse Kinematics Problem for General Six-Axis Robots

2022· article· en· W4309287908 on OpenAlexafffund
Jiaoyang Lu, Ting Zou, Xianta Jiang

Bibliographic record

VenueSensors · 2022
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEngineering
TopicRobotic Mechanisms and Dynamics
Canadian institutionsMemorial University of Newfoundland
FundersNatural Sciences and Engineering Research Council of CanadaChina Scholarship Council
KeywordsComputer scienceInverse kinematicsArtificial neural networkKinematicsArtificial intelligenceRobotForward kinematicsRoboticsPiecewiseSet (abstract data type)Mathematics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Inverse kinematics problems (IKP) are ubiquitous in robotics for improved robot control in widespread applications. However, the high non-linearity, complexity, and equation coupling of a general six-axis robotic manipulator pose substantial challenges in solving the IKP precisely and efficiently. To address this issue, we propose a novel approach based on neural network (NN) with numerical error minimization in this paper. Within our framework, the complexity of IKP is first simplified by a strategy called joint space segmentation, with respective training data generated by forward kinematics. Afterwards, a set of multilayer perception networks (MLP) are established to learn from the foregoing data in order to fit the goal function piecewise. To reduce the computational cost of the inference process, a set of classification models is trained to determine the appropriate forgoing MLPs for predictions given a specific input. After the initial solution is sought, being improved with a prediction error minimized, the refined solution is finally achieved. The proposed methodology is validated via simulations on Xarm6-a general 6 degrees of freedom manipulator. Results further verify the feasibility of NN for IKP in general cases, even with a high-precision requirement. The proposed algorithm has showcased enhanced efficiency and accuracy compared to NN-based approaches reported in the literature.

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)0.000
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 score0.004
Threshold uncertainty score0.007

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.001
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0020.000

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 head0.017
GPT teacher head0.207
Teacher spread0.190 · 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

Citations51
Published2022
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueSensorsSame topicRobotic Mechanisms and DynamicsFrench-language works237,207