MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort

Micro-Bristle Robot Design Via Different Surrogate Model Optimization Methods

2023· article· en· W4379984012 on OpenAlex

Why this work is in the frame

A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.

affAt least one author lists a Canadian institution in the pinned OpenAlex snapshot.

Bibliographic record

Venuenot available
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEngineering
TopicModular Robots and Swarm Intelligence
Canadian institutionsQueen's University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsBristleRobotComputer scienceSurrogate modelArtificial intelligenceEngineeringMechanical engineeringMachine learningBrush

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

In this paper, we optimize the locomotion speed of a micro-bristle robot using three surrogate model optimization methods: Kriging method, Bayesian method, and Deep Neural Network. Moreover, the current most popular optimization algorithm in the micro-robot optimization field, the genetic algorithm, is used as the baseline method for comparison. The four methods’ performances are tested in MATLAB, during which a state-of-art dynamic model is used. Then we 3D print the robot designs obtained from these methods and test these robot designs’ real performances. This is the first time that surrogate model optimization methods are applied on micro-robot design field. The MATLAB optimization results and the robot experimental results show that applying proper surrogate model optimization methods, especially Bayesian method will be able to obtain a satisfying robot design 5-6 times faster than the time spent by genetic algorithm. The paper provides an efficient guidance on micro-robot optimization field.

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.

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: Methods · Consensus signal: Methods
Teacher disagreement score0.139
Threshold uncertainty score0.512

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 head0.068
GPT teacher head0.306
Teacher spread0.238 · 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

Quick stats

Citations3
Published2023
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same topicModular Robots and Swarm IntelligenceFrench-language works237,207