ARSIP: Automated Robotic System for Industrial Painting
Bibliographic record
Abstract
This manuscript addresses the critical need for precise paint application to ensure product durability and aesthetics. While manual work carries risks, robotic systems promise accuracy, yet programming diverse product trajectories remains a challenge. This study aims to develop an autonomous system capable of generating paint trajectories based on object geometries for user-defined spraying processes. By emphasizing energy efficiency, process time, and coating thickness on complex surfaces, a hybrid optimization technique enhances overall efficiency. Extensive hardware and software development results in a robust robotic system leveraging the Robot Operating System (ROS). Integrating a low-cost 3D scanner, calibrator, and trajectory optimizer creates an autonomous painting system. Hardware components, including sensors, motors, and actuators, are seamlessly integrated with a Python and ROS-based software framework, enabling the desired automation. A web-based GUI, powered by JavaScript, allows user control over two robots, facilitating trajectory dispatch, 3D scanning, and optimization. Specific nodes manage calibration, validation, process settings, and real-time video feeds. The use of open-source software and an ROS ecosystem makes it a good choice for industrial-scale implementation. The results indicate that the proposed system can achieve the desired automation, contingent upon surface geometries, spraying processes, and robot dynamics.
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 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.019 | 0.007 |
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".