MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort

Differentiable Surrogate Models for Design and Trajectory Optimization of Auxetic Soft Robots

2023· article· en· W4376605670 on OpenAlexaff
Chonghui Zhang, Audrey Sedal, Yaoyao Fiona Zhao

Bibliographic record

Venuenot available
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEngineering
TopicCellular and Composite Structures
Canadian institutionsMcGill University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsDifferentiable functionComputer scienceRobotTrajectorySurrogate modelGradient descentTrajectory optimizationKinematicsMathematical optimizationArtificial neural networkOptimization problemConvolutional neural networkArtificial intelligenceControl theory (sociology)AlgorithmOptimal controlMathematicsMachine learning

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Soft robot designs based on auxetic (i.e., negative Poisson's ratio) lattices could offer superior dexterity, tunable local kinematics, and morphological intelligence. However, the design and control of these structures for robotic tasks, requiring multiple states and motions, remains a challenging problem. Finite element models (FEMs) offer a promising way of predicting robot behaviour that might be used for design and control optimization. Yet, these physics-based models often have high computational cost and can not provide explicit gradient information to guide the search for optimal designs. In this paper, we abstract the physical predictions of FEMs through differentiable surrogate models and demonstrate design and trajectory optimization using a gradient-based optimizer. We compare the performance of convolutional neural networks (CNNs) and graph neural networks (GNNs) as surrogate models. We then demonstrate the use of a gradient-based optimizer to find optimal designs for a specified deformation and optimal pairs of designs and actuation inputs for a trajectory specified by waypoints. In each case, the differentiable surrogate model enables the gradient-based optimizer to discover novel designs lying outside of the training data that achieve the required motions (with an relative error ≤10% for trajectories).

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)0.000
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 score0.913
Threshold uncertainty score0.236

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
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 head0.018
GPT teacher head0.199
Teacher spread0.181 · 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

Citations3
Published2023
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same topicCellular and Composite StructuresFrench-language works237,207