Singularity-Free Lagrange-Poincar e Equations on Lie Groups for Vehicle-Manipulator Systems
Bibliographic record
Abstract
<p>It has been long known that the Euler-Lagrange dynamical equations of fixed-base manipulators with single-degree-of-freedom joints can be formulated on Lie groups following exponential joint parameterizations. Whereas, dynamics of vehicles can be captured using the Euler-Poincar ́e equations on Lie groups, with no need to choose any local parameterization. We utilize a combined form of these two geometric approaches called the Lagrange-Poincare Equations to develop a singularity-free Lagrangian formalism for the dynamics of vehicle-manipulator systems. We consider vehicles whose configuration manifolds are Lie sub-groups of the Special Euclidean group, encompassing arbitrary base vehicle motions corresponding to, e.g., ball, planar, or free joints. We revisit the Lagrange-d’Alembert principle for systems on principal bundles to derive the Lagrange-Poincare equations for vehicle-manipulators with possibly symmetry-breaking external applied wrenches. These equations effectively separate the external (locked-arm system) and internal dynamics (arm’s motion) by introducing a block-diagonalized inertia matrix. We then incorporate the exponential parameterization of manipulators to explicitly formulate the reduced dynamics on Lie groups. The resulting equations are in matrix form and can be immediately implemented in simulations and model-based control strategies. The geometrical significance of the proposed formalism is further demonstrated via the step-by-step presentation of a case study.</p>
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 imitationNot 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.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
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.
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 teacher head, 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".