Pith. sign in

REVIEW

Data-Driven MPC with Data Selection for Flexible Cable-Driven Robotic Arms

Not yet reviewed by Pith; the record is open.

This paper has not been read by Pith yet. Machine review is queued; the pith claim, tier, and objections will appear here once it completes.

SPECIMEN: schema-true, not a live event

T0 review · schema-true

One-sentence machine reading of the paper's core claim.

pith:XXXXXXXX · record.json · timestamp

arxiv 2507.15677 v1 pith:C5IICQXH submitted 2025-07-21 cs.RO

Data-Driven MPC with Data Selection for Flexible Cable-Driven Robotic Arms

classification cs.RO
keywords datatrackingmethodaccuracyaveragecontrolerrormodel
verification ladder T0 review T1 audit T2 compute T3 formal T4 reserved
0 comments
Share X Bluesky LinkedIn Reddit HN
read the original abstract

Flexible cable-driven robotic arms (FCRAs) offer dexterous and compliant motion. Still, the inherent properties of cables, such as resilience, hysteresis, and friction, often lead to particular difficulties in modeling and control. This paper proposes a model predictive control (MPC) method that relies exclusively on input-output data, without a physical model, to improve the control accuracy of FCRAs. First, we develop an implicit model based on input-output data and integrate it into an MPC optimization framework. Second, a data selection algorithm (DSA) is introduced to filter the data that best characterize the system, thereby reducing the solution time per step to approximately 4 ms, which is an improvement of nearly 80%. Lastly, the influence of hyperparameters on tracking error is investigated through simulation. The proposed method has been validated on a real FCRA platform, including five-point positioning accuracy tests, a five-point response tracking test, and trajectory tracking for letter drawing. The results demonstrate that the average positioning accuracy is approximately 2.070 mm. Moreover, compared to the PID method with an average tracking error of 1.418{\deg}, the proposed method achieves an average tracking error of 0.541{\deg}.

discussion (0)

Sign in with ORCID, Apple, or X to comment. Anyone can read and Pith papers without signing in.