Fusion IK: Solving inverse kinematics using a hybridized deep learning and evolutionary approach
Why this work is in the frame
A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Inverse kinematics is a core aspect of robot manipulation. This paper presents an approach to solving Inverse Kinematics (IK) for robots, including articulated industrial ones, combining deep learning with an evolutionary algorithm. Fusion IK passes the manipulator’s target and current joint values into a neural network, the results of which are then used to seed an evolutionary algorithm, Bio IK, to complete the solution of the inverse kinematics problem. Fusion IK allows for solving the position and orientation of the robot while attempting to minimize joint movement times. Comparisons between Fusion IK and its underlying algorithm Bio IK are tested on a six-degree-of-freedom articulated industrial robot as well as a 20-degree-of-freedom robot to explore the move times that Fusion IK produces. The comparisons show that the variations of the Fusion IK algorithm show comparable results to its underlying evolutionary Bio IK algorithm on a six-degrees-of-freedom articulated robot and improvements on a 20-degree-of-freedom robot without any additional hyperparameter tuning. The results show that Fusion IK could be of real value regarding the movement time and the quality of the obtained solutions upon further research, especially with higher degree-of-freedom robots.
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.
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 | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| 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 it