MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4415002994 · doi:10.1109/access.2025.3619845

Integrating Industrial Robots Through a Contact Method

2025· article· en· W4415002994 on OpenAlexfundno aff
Iván Sánchez-Calleja, Rubén Ferrero-Guillén, Alberto Martínez-Gutiérrez, Javier Díez-González

Bibliographic record

VenueIEEE Access · 2025
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEngineering
TopicRobot Manipulation and Learning
Canadian institutionsnot available
FundersOntario Ministry of Research and InnovationMinisterio de Ciencia, Innovación y Universidades
KeywordsRobotAutomationStepperCompensation (psychology)Industrial robotAdaptation (eye)Mobile robot

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The evolving industrial paradigm demands high quality procedures and automation to adapt to dynamic market conditions. As a consequence, novel robotic systems are integrated within the current digital industrial environments ensuring real-time adaptation to production changes and safe operation with humans and machines. Collaborative robots (cobots) and Autonomous Mobile Robots (AMRs) are designed to follow these principles enhancing the current digital industrial revolution. However, while AMRs are subjected to navigation errors, cobots incur in positioning errors due to the stepper motors operation, resulting in a combined interaction error that do not allow a direct accurate operation between these robots. The addressing of this challenge requires the definition of a robust integration framework between these robots that enables the compensation for the interaction errors occurring during their joint operation. To achieve this challenge, in this paper, we propose a novel Fictitious Points Compensation Methodology (FPCM) based on contacts on the AMR structure and an appropriate error characterization that compensates the interaction errors, proving that these errors are systematic. Practically, we make use of fictitious points that define the final position of the cobot end-effector to minimize the final interaction error. The validity of the proposal is verified through two practical cases showing angular errors up to 0.04°, and placement errors up to 0.13 mm, which validates both the proposal and the error characterization. Thus, our method efficiently addresses the challenge of integrating heterogeneous robotic systems within the current industrial paradigm.

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 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 score0.978
Threshold uncertainty score0.454

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
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 head0.088
GPT teacher head0.375
Teacher spread0.286 · 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.

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

Citations3
Published2025
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueIEEE AccessSame topicRobot Manipulation and LearningFrench-language works237,207