MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4412956566 · doi:10.3390/machines13080672

An NMPC-ECBF Framework for Dynamic Motion Planning and Execution in Vision-Based Human–Robot Collaboration

2025· article· en· W4412956566 on OpenAlexfundno aff
Dianhao Zhang, Mien Van, Pantelis Sopasakis, Seán McLoone

Bibliographic record

VenueMachines · 2025
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEngineering
TopicProsthetics and Rehabilitation Robotics
Canadian institutionsnot available
FundersQueen's UniversityQueen's University Belfast
KeywordsComputer scienceComputer visionArtificial intelligenceMotion planningMotion (physics)Human motionRobotHuman–computer interaction

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

To enable safe and effective human–robot collaboration (HRC) in smart manufacturing, it is critical to seamlessly integrate sensing, cognition, and prediction into the robot controller for real-time awareness, response, and communication inside a heterogeneous environment (robots, humans, and equipment). The proposed approach takes advantage of the prediction capabilities of nonlinear model predictive control (NMPC) to execute safe path planning based on feedback from a vision system. To satisfy the requirements of real-time path planning, an embedded solver based on a penalty method is applied. However, due to tight sampling times, NMPC solutions are approximate; therefore, the safety of the system cannot be guaranteed. To address this, we formulate a novel safety-critical paradigm that uses an exponential control barrier function (ECBF) as a safety filter. Several common human–robot assembly subtasks have been integrated into a real-life HRC assembly task to validate the performance of the proposed controller and to investigate whether integrating human pose prediction can help with safe and efficient collaboration. The robot uses OptiTrack cameras for perception and dynamically generates collision-free trajectories to the predicted target interactive position. Results for a number of different configurations confirm the efficiency of the proposed motion planning and execution framework, with a 23.2% reduction in execution time achieved for the HRC task compared to an implementation without human motion prediction.

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)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.002
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Simulation or modeling · Consensus signal: Simulation or modeling
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.014
Threshold uncertainty score0.028

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.002
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.001
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0020.001
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0040.001

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 head0.005
GPT teacher head0.319
Teacher spread0.314 · 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 designSimulation or modeling
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

Citations2
Published2025
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueMachinesSame topicProsthetics and Rehabilitation RoboticsFrench-language works237,207