MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4392449380 · doi:10.1089/rorep.2023.0028

Finite Arc Method: Fast-Solution Extended Piecewise Constant Curvature Model of Soft Robots with Large Variable Curvature Deformations

2024· article· en· W4392449380 on OpenAlexaff
Amir Sayadi, Renzo Cecere, Amir Hooshiar

Bibliographic record

VenueRobotics Reports · 2024
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEngineering
TopicSoft Robotics and Applications
Canadian institutionsMcGill University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsPiecewiseCurvatureConstant curvatureConstant (computer programming)Arc (geometry)Variable (mathematics)Mathematical analysisMathematicsRobotGeometryComputer scienceArtificial intelligence

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Accurate deformation modeling of soft flexural robots is of high practical importance, especially for high-risk tasks such as surgery. In this study, a new mechanistic model, that is, finite arc method (FAM), for soft robots, for example, tendon-drive, was proposed and validated. First, the catheter was modeled as a finite number of arcs, each with a constant bending curvature, hence the name FAM. Afterward, using a validated Bezier shape approximation, the deformation was parameterized, and the governing equations of the robot were derived. Also, a fast and recursive algorithm was proposed and implemented for the mechanical solution of the robot's deformation. To validate the proposed method, two validation studies were performed. In Study I, the FAM's predicted deformations for eight load cases in each two-dimensional and three-dimensional space on a 40 mm long flexure were compared with the nonlinear finite element method (FEM). In Study II, a representative set of lateral forces on a cardiac catheter (obtained in our previous study) was used to find its FAM-based deformation and was compared with the experimental reference. The error between FAM and FEM deformations was 0.23 ± 0.89 mm with computation times of 3 mseconds (FAM) versus 1244 mseconds (FEM). Also, the error of FAM compared with ground-truth in Study II was 1.41 ± 1.47 mm with a computation time of 7 mseconds. The proposed method showed acceptable performance for the accurate prediction of highly complex large deformations in real time.

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 categoriesMeta-epidemiology (narrow)
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Simulation or modeling · Consensus signal: Simulation or modeling
GenreCandidate signal: Methods · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.551
Threshold uncertainty score1.000

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.001
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 head0.013
GPT teacher head0.247
Teacher spread0.234 · 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.

Study designSimulation or modeling
Domainnot available
GenreMethods

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

Citations4
Published2024
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueRobotics ReportsSame topicSoft Robotics and ApplicationsFrench-language works237,207