Robotic Adaptive Algorithm for Solving Fit-up Variations in Welding at Industrial Scale
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Open root pass welding in Gas Metal Arc Welding (GMAW) is always challenging due to the nonlinear random variations in pipe gaps and the presence of tacks.Manual welding requires a lot of skill from senior welders to react and control many variables promptly.In the transition to robotic welding, tracking solutions based on laser or vision systems have emerged to address the tracking issue.However, adapting the welding parameters (e.g.wire feed speed) and motion parameters (e.g.travel speed) is still essential in getting a consistent, high-quality weld.This work presents an adaptive control approach to pipe welding.The method combines a visionbased system that replicates the perception of welders with real-time control to live-adjust welding and motion parameters based on the instantaneous pipe gap, learning about the tack and fusing it on the root pass -a critical challenge for robotic welding applications.The controller monitors the state condition and communicates the proper process and motion update with the robot according to the real-time gap and tack state.The resulting closed-loop system enables higher quality and consistency of weld throughout the pipe welding.
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 | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 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 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".