MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort

In-process identification of feed drive dynamics considering machining forces

2025· article· en· W4410252322 on OpenAlexafffund
John C. McPherson, Mehdi Mehrabi, Keivan Ahmadi

Bibliographic record

VenuePrecision Engineering · 2025
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEngineering
TopicIterative Learning Control Systems
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Victoria
FundersNational Research Council CanadaTechnische Universität MünchenUniversity of British Columbia
KeywordsIdentification (biology)MachiningProcess (computing)Dynamics (music)Process dynamicsEngineeringMechanical engineeringManufacturing engineeringComputer sciencePhysicsBiology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

This paper presents a new closed-loop dynamics model for ballscrew feed drives in CNC machine tools, enabling non-intrusive, in-process model calibration and motion prediction even in the presence of unmeasured machining forces. The presented model employs a Partially Linear Auto-Regressive with Exogenous input (PL-ARX) structure, where the linear component captures the servo drive and rigid-body dynamics, and the nonlinear component represents unknown machining forces. Kernel-based regression is then used to simultaneously identify the linear dynamics and machining force disturbances from internal controller signals during milling. The model is validated on two different CNC machines under experimental milling conditions. Results confirm the approach accurately identifies unbiased linear dynamics despite unmeasured disturbances and achieves precise online motion prediction. These capabilities are critical for enabling real-time feedrate optimization and model-predictive control in advanced machining systems.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.001
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Bench or experimental · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.006
Threshold uncertainty score0.012

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.000

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 head0.004
GPT teacher head0.238
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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designBench or experimental
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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

Citations0
Published2025
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venuePrecision EngineeringSame topicIterative Learning Control SystemsFrench-language works237,207