A Dataset and Benchmark for Learning the Kinematics of Concentric Tube Continuum Robots
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Establishing a physics-based model capturing the kinetostatic behavior of concentric tube continuum robots is challenging as elastic interactions between the flexible tubes constituting the robot result in a highly non-linear problem. The Goldstandard physics-based model using the Cosserat theory of elastic rods achieves reasonable approximations with 1.5 - 3 % with respect to the robot's length, if well-calibrated. Learning-based models of concentric tube continuum robots have been shown to outperform the Goldstandard model with approximation errors below 1 %. Yet, the merits of learning-based models remain largely unexplored as no common dataset and benchmark exist. In this paper, we present a dataset captured from a three-tube concentric tube continuum robot for use in learning-based kinematics research. The dataset consists of 100 000 joint configurations and the corresponding four 6 dof sensors in SE(3) measured with an electromagnetic tracking system (github.com/ContinuumRoboticsLab/CRL-Dataset-CTCR-Pose). With our dataset, we empower the continuum robotics and machine learning community to advance the field. We share our insights and lessons learned on joint space representation, shape representation in task space, and sampling strategies. Furthermore, we provide benchmark results for learning the forward kinematics using a simple, shallow feedforward neural network. The benchmark results for the tip error are 0.74 mm w.r.t. position (0.4 % of total robot length) and 6.49° w.r.t. orientation.
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 | 0.004 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.004 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.004 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.004 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.007 | 0.008 |
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".