A Unification Between Deep-Learning Vision, Compartmental Dynamical Thermodynamics, and Robotic Manipulation for a Circular Economy
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The shift from a linear to a circular economy has the potential to simultaneously reduce uncertainties of material supplies and waste generation. However, to date, the development of robotic and, more generally, autonomous systems have been rarely integrated into circular economy implementation strategies despite their potential to reduce the operational costs and the contamination risks from handling waste. In addition, the science of circularity still lacks the physical foundations needed to improve the accuracy and the repeatability of the models. Hence, in this paper, we merge deep-learning vision, compartmental dynamical thermodynamics, and robotic manipulation into a theoretically-coherent physics-based research framework to lay the foundations of circular flow designs of materials. The proposed framework tackles circularity by generalizing the design approach of the Rankine cycle enhanced with dynamical systems theory. This differs from state-of-the-art approaches to circular economy, which are mainly based on data analysis, e.g., material flow analysis (MFA). We begin by reviewing the literature of the three abovementioned research areas, then we introduce the proposed unified framework and we report the initial application of the framework to plastics systems along with initial simulation results of reinforcement-learning control of robotic waste sorting. This shows the framework applicability, generality, scalability, and the similarity and difference between the optimization of artificial neural systems and the proposed compartmental networks. Finally, we discuss the still not fully exploited opportunities for robotics in circular economy and the future challenges in the theory and practice of the proposed circularity framework.
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 | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.002 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 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".