MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort

Model-Free Learning Compensation of Robotic Arm Manoeuvres for a Free-Flying Base*

2025· article· W7140078577 on OpenAlexafffund
Adam Vigneron, Steve Ulrich

Bibliographic record

Venuenot available
Typearticle
Language
FieldEngineering
TopicRobot Manipulation and Learning
Canadian institutionsCarleton University
FundersCanadian Space Agency
KeywordsRobotic armCompensation (psychology)Control theory (sociology)RobotRoboticsControl system

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

This study addresses the dynamic coupling between a servicer spacecraft and its robotic arm in which routine arm manoeuvres degrade the attitude performance of its base. The industrial robotic technique of iterative learning control is applied to base attitude control during repeated arm manoeuvres, compensating the corresponding disturbance torques without the need for complex dynamic models. Experiments carried out using Carleton University’s Spacecraft Proximity Operations Testbed demonstrate improved settling behaviour for the arm-base system as a whole, with base attitude control error reducing five-fold from 5.05° RMS in the first iteration to 0.81° RMS in the fourth iteration. Such improvements can reduce the keep-out volume needed by the servicer in spacecraft proximity operations, enabling transitions between standard arm configurations without endangering other spacecraft nearby.

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)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.001
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesMeta-epidemiology (narrow)
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Simulation or modeling · Consensus signal: Simulation or modeling
GenreCandidate signal: Methods · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.923
Threshold uncertainty score1.000

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0010.000
Research integrity0.0000.001
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 head0.044
GPT teacher head0.268
Teacher spread0.224 · 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.

Study designSimulation or modeling
Domainnot available
GenreMethods

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 topicRobot Manipulation and LearningFrench-language works237,207