MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4311236613 · doi:10.3390/mi13122206

Evaluation of Objective Functions for the Optimal Design of an Assistive Robot

2022· article· en· W4311236613 on OpenAlexaff
Javier Sanjuan, Md Samiul Haque Sunny, Elias Muñoz, Jaime Hernandez, Armando Torres, Brahim Brahmi, Inga Wang, Jawhar Ghommam, Mohammad Habibur Rahman

Bibliographic record

VenueMicromachines · 2022
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEngineering
TopicProsthetics and Rehabilitation Robotics
Canadian institutionsCollege Ahuntsic
FundersNational Institute on Disability, Independent Living, and Rehabilitation Research
KeywordsWorkspaceTorqueRobotComputer scienceControl theory (sociology)EngineeringSimulationArtificial intelligenceControl (management)

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The number of individuals with upper or lower extremities dysfunction (ULED) has considerably increased in the past few decades, resulting in a high economic burden for their families and society. Individuals with ULEDs require assistive robots to fulfill all their activities of daily living (ADLs). However, a theory for the optimal design of assistive robots that reduces energy consumption while increasing the workspace is unavailable. Thus, this research presents an algorithm for the optimal link length selection of an assistive robot mounted on a wheelchair to minimize the torque demands of each joint while increasing the workspace coverage. For this purpose, this research developed a workspace to satisfy a list of 18 ADLs. Then, three torque indices from the literature were considered as performance measures to minimize; the three torque measures are the quadratic average torque (QAT), the weighted root square mean (WRMS), and the absolute sum of torques (AST). The proposed algorithm evaluates any of the three torque measures within the workspace, given the robot dimensions. This proposed algorithm acts as an objective function, which is optimized using a genetic algorithm for each torque measure. The results show that all tree torque measures are suitable criteria for assistance robot optimization. However, each torque measures yield different optimal results; in the case of the QAT optimization, it produces the least workspace with the minimum overall torques of all the joints. Contrarily, the WRMS and AST optimization yield similar results generating the maximum workspace coverage but with a greater overall torque of all joints. Thus, the selection between the three methods depends on the designer's criteria. Based on the results, the presented methodology is a reliable tool for the optimal dimensioning of assistive robots.

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 distilled prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation 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 score0.671
Threshold uncertainty score0.176

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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 head0.028
GPT teacher head0.272
Teacher spread0.243 · 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 teacher head, 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

Citations5
Published2022
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueMicromachinesSame topicProsthetics and Rehabilitation RoboticsFrench-language works237,207