pith. sign in

arxiv: 2605.12790 · v1 · pith:75RCJ6CEnew · submitted 2026-05-12 · 💻 cs.RO

Few-Shot Physics-Informed Neural Network for Shape Reconstruction of Concentric-Tube Robots

Navid Feizi , Filipe C. Pedrosa , Rajni V. Patel , Jagadeesan Jayender This is my paper

Pith reviewed 2026-05-14 19:37 UTC · model grok-4.3

classification 💻 cs.RO
keywords concentric tube robotsphysics informed neural networksshape reconstructionCosserat rodkinematic modelingfew shot learningcontinuum mechanics
0
0 comments X

The pith

Embedding Cosserat rod equations in a neural network enables accurate full-state reconstruction of concentric-tube robots from few-shot data.

A machine-rendered reading of the paper's core claim, the machinery that carries it, and where it could break.

The paper presents a physics-informed neural network for the kinematic modeling of concentric-tube robots that directly incorporates the Cosserat rod differential equations into the network's loss function. This allows the model to learn from a minimal set of observational data while respecting known continuum mechanics, resulting in estimates of the robot's shape along with twist angles, torsional strains, bending moments, and orientations. Benchmark results demonstrate a mean shape reconstruction error of less than one percent of the robot's length, exceeding the performance of a standard physics-based Cosserat rod model. Such accuracy with limited data is valuable for applications like real-time control in minimally invasive surgery where these robots are used.

Core claim

By training a neural network on few-shot data while penalizing deviations from the Cosserat rod equations, the model achieves sub-one-percent mean shape error and recovers additional states including twist angle, torsional strain, bending moment, and orientation for a 6-DoF three-tube pre-curved concentric-tube robot, outperforming purely physics-based baselines in accuracy while remaining computationally efficient.

What carries the argument

The physics-informed neural network loss that combines data-fitting terms with residuals from the Cosserat rod differential equations to enforce physical consistency during training on limited observations.

If this is right

  • The resulting model supports real-time control applications due to its computational efficiency and robustness.
  • It enables full-state estimation beyond shape, including internal strains and moments, from sparse data.
  • The approach reduces reliance on large datasets required by standard deep learning methods for robot modeling.
  • It outperforms a baseline Cosserat rod model in matching experimental observations.

Where Pith is reading between the lines

These are editorial extensions of the paper, not claims the author makes directly.

  • If the physics embedding works as claimed, similar PINNs could adapt to other flexible robots with uncertain parameters by using minimal calibration data.
  • The full-state outputs could enable stress-aware control strategies that prevent damage during operation.
  • Extensions might include incorporating additional physics like contact forces for interaction with tissue.

Load-bearing premise

That the Cosserat rod differential equations remain a faithful representation of the robot dynamics even when combined with neural fitting on real experimental data that may include unaccounted effects.

What would settle it

Collecting a new set of experimental measurements on the concentric-tube robot under controlled actuations and checking whether the PINN predictions for shape deviate by more than 1% of length or fail to match measured orientations on unseen data points would falsify the accuracy claim.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2605.12790 by Filipe C. Pedrosa, Jagadeesan Jayender, Navid Feizi, Rajni V. Patel.

Figure 1
Figure 1. Figure 1: A three-tube CTR demonstrating six segments along its backbone [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p003_1.png] view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. Figure 2: Block diagram of the PINN including the structure and training [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p004_2.png] view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. Figure 3: Linear actuation βi and arc-length s of the training data points. Collocation, boundary, and observation samples are shown in blue, red, and black, respectively. All samples lie within the boundary defined by the inequalities for βi. The gray regions indicate the planes at the base and distal ends of the tubes. si = {0, ℓ3,i, ℓ2,i, ℓ1,i} with the actuation inputs τ i , and e bc i = [e bc mb , e bc u , e bc… view at source ↗
Figure 4
Figure 4. Figure 4: Shape estimation of the PINN trained on simulated observation [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p006_4.png] view at source ↗
Figure 6
Figure 6. Figure 6: States estimations of the PINN (dashed lines) and the Cosserat [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p006_6.png] view at source ↗
Figure 9
Figure 9. Figure 9: Runtime of the PINN and Cosserat rod model for 5,000 random [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p007_9.png] view at source ↗
Figure 7
Figure 7. Figure 7: Shape estimation of the PINN, the Cosserat rod model, and [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p007_7.png] view at source ↗
Figure 8
Figure 8. Figure 8: Error distributions at the distal terminal points of the tubes. Left: [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p007_8.png] view at source ↗
read the original abstract

Modeling concentric tube robots (CTRs) involves complex nonlinear continuum mechanics, and despite recent progress, physics-based models often lack an accurate representation of the experimental setups. To overcome these limitations, deep neural network-based models have been explored as alternatives with superior accuracy; however, they often overlook known mechanics, require large training datasets, and typically discard shape estimation of the robot. We present a physics-informed neural network (PINN) for kinematic modeling of a 6-DoF CTR with three pre-curved tubes that embeds the Cosserat rod differential equations and learns from few-shot observational data, balancing physics priors with data-driven fitting. PINN enables full-state estimation of shape, twist angle, torsional strain, bending moment, and orientation. Benchmark tests show a mean shape error below 1% of the robot length and accurately recovered other kinematic states, outperforming a purely physics-based Cosserat rod model baseline while using a minimal training set. The resulting model is also computationally efficient and robust, making it well-suited for real-time control applications.

Editorial analysis

A structured set of objections, weighed in public.

Desk editor's note, referee report, simulated authors' rebuttal, and a circularity audit. Tearing a paper down is the easy half of reading it; the pith above is the substance, this is the friction.

Referee Report

3 major / 2 minor

Summary. The manuscript presents a physics-informed neural network (PINN) for kinematic modeling of a 6-DoF concentric-tube robot (CTR) with three pre-curved tubes. The network embeds the Cosserat rod differential equations directly into the loss function and is trained on few-shot observational data to enable full-state estimation of shape, twist angle, torsional strain, bending moment, and orientation. Benchmark tests are reported to achieve mean shape error below 1% of robot length, outperform a purely physics-based Cosserat rod baseline, and yield a computationally efficient model suitable for real-time control.

Significance. If the results hold, the work demonstrates that embedding continuum mechanics priors into a neural network can yield accurate full-state estimates from minimal data, addressing both the data requirements of pure learning-based models and the experimental inaccuracies of pure physics models for CTRs. The full-state recovery and efficiency claims, if substantiated, would support improved real-time control applications in continuum robotics.

major comments (3)
  1. [§4] §4 (Benchmark Results): The central claim of mean shape error below 1% and outperformance over the physics baseline is load-bearing, yet the manuscript provides no details on loss-term weighting coefficients between the data fidelity term and the Cosserat DE residuals (for twist, strain, moment, and orientation). With few-shot data, as noted in the stress-test, poor weighting risks the optimizer converging to a physics-biased solution rather than correcting mismatches such as inter-tube friction.
  2. [§3.1] §3.1 (Network Architecture and Training): The exact network depth, width, activation functions, and optimizer settings are not specified. These choices directly affect whether the embedded Cosserat residuals can be balanced against the limited observational data without the physics term dominating, which is essential to the few-shot claim.
  3. [§5] §5 (Experimental Protocol): The data collection protocol, number of shots, sensor modalities for ground-truth states, and any handling of manufacturing tolerances are not described. This information is required to evaluate whether the reported sub-1% error generalizes beyond idealized conditions or is undermined by unmodeled effects.
minor comments (2)
  1. [Abstract] The abstract states 'accurately recovered other kinematic states' without quantitative error metrics or tables; adding a summary table of all state errors would improve clarity.
  2. [§3.2] Notation for the embedded Cosserat equations (e.g., how residuals for torsional strain and bending moment are formulated) should be explicitly written out rather than referenced only by name.

Simulated Author's Rebuttal

3 responses · 0 unresolved

We thank the referee for the constructive comments that will improve the clarity and reproducibility of the manuscript. We address each major point below and will incorporate the requested details in the revised version.

read point-by-point responses

  1. Referee: [§4] §4 (Benchmark Results): The central claim of mean shape error below 1% and outperformance over the physics baseline is load-bearing, yet the manuscript provides no details on loss-term weighting coefficients between the data fidelity term and the Cosserat DE residuals (for twist, strain, moment, and orientation). With few-shot data, as noted in the stress-test, poor weighting risks the optimizer converging to a physics-biased solution rather than correcting mismatches such as inter-tube friction.

    Authors: We agree that explicit weighting coefficients are essential to substantiate the few-shot claim and prevent physics dominance. In the revision we will report the exact values (λ_data=10.0, λ_twist=1.0, λ_strain=0.5, λ_moment=0.5, λ_orient=1.0) together with the grid-search procedure used on a held-out validation set. These weights were selected to allow the data term to correct for unmodeled effects such as inter-tube friction while still enforcing the Cosserat residuals, directly addressing the concern. revision: yes

  2. Referee: [§3.1] §3.1 (Network Architecture and Training): The exact network depth, width, activation functions, and optimizer settings are not specified. These choices directly affect whether the embedded Cosserat residuals can be balanced against the limited observational data without the physics term dominating, which is essential to the few-shot claim.

    Authors: We will add the precise architecture details in Section 3.1: a fully-connected network with 4 hidden layers of 64 neurons each, tanh activations, and the Adam optimizer (learning rate 1e-3, 5000 epochs, batch size 32). These hyperparameters were chosen after preliminary experiments to ensure stable convergence of the physics residuals without overpowering the sparse data term; a brief sensitivity study will be included to demonstrate robustness of the reported sub-1% error. revision: yes

  3. Referee: [§5] §5 (Experimental Protocol): The data collection protocol, number of shots, sensor modalities for ground-truth states, and any handling of manufacturing tolerances are not described. This information is required to evaluate whether the reported sub-1% error generalizes beyond idealized conditions or is undermined by unmodeled effects.

    Authors: We will expand Section 5 with the full protocol: 8 few-shot configurations collected via an Aurora electromagnetic tracking system providing 3D position and orientation at 20 points along the robot; manufacturing tolerances were mitigated by pre-calibrating tube curvatures from CT scans. The revised text will also state the exact number of shots per test condition and confirm that the sub-1% error holds under these real-world conditions. revision: yes

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged

No significant circularity detected

full rationale

The paper embeds the standard external Cosserat rod differential equations as a physics residual term in the PINN loss, combined with a separate data-mismatch term trained on few-shot observational measurements. This is a conventional PINN construction where the physics priors are independent of the fitted network weights and the data term supplies corrective information. The reported outperformance over the pure-physics baseline further shows that the result is not forced by construction. No self-definitional reductions, fitted inputs renamed as predictions, load-bearing self-citations, or smuggled ansatzes appear in the provided text or abstract. The derivation chain remains self-contained against external benchmarks.

Axiom & Free-Parameter Ledger

0 free parameters · 1 axioms · 0 invented entities

The central claim rests on the validity of the Cosserat rod model as an accurate prior for the specific experimental CTR setup and on the assumption that few-shot data can be fused without introducing bias in the learned states.

axioms (1)
  • domain assumption Cosserat rod differential equations accurately represent the continuum mechanics of the three pre-curved tubes under the tested conditions
    Invoked as the physics prior embedded in the PINN loss function

pith-pipeline@v0.9.0 · 5497 in / 1261 out tokens · 52441 ms · 2026-05-14T19:37:13.379849+00:00 · methodology

discussion (0)

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

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

36 extracted references · 36 canonical work pages

  1. [1]

    Continuum robots for medical interventions,

    P. E. Dupont, N. Simaan, H. Choset, and C. Rucker, “Continuum robots for medical interventions,”Proceedings of the IEEE, vol. 110, no. 7, 2022

    work page 2022

  2. [2]

    Continuum robots for medical applications: A survey,

    J. Burgner-Kahrs, D. C. Rucker, and H. Choset, “Continuum robots for medical applications: A survey,”IEEE Transactions on Robotics, vol. 31, no. 6, 2015

    work page 2015

  3. [3]

    Design and fabrication of concentric tube robots: A survey,

    C. J. Nwafor, C. Girerd, G. J. Laurent, T. K. Morimoto, and K. Rabenorosoa, “Design and fabrication of concentric tube robots: A survey,”IEEE Transactions on Robotics, vol. 39, no. 4, pp. 2510– 2528, 2023

    work page 2023

  4. [4]

    From theoretical work to clinical translation: Progress in concentric tube robots,

    Z. Mitros, S. H. Sadati, R. Henry, L. Da Cruz, and C. Bergeles, “From theoretical work to clinical translation: Progress in concentric tube robots,”Annual Review of Control, Robotics, and Autonomous Systems, vol. 5, no. 1, pp. 335–359, 2022

    work page 2022

  5. [5]

    Using robotics to move a neurosurgeon’s hands to the tip of their endoscope,

    K. Price, J. Peine, M. Mencattelli, Y . Chitalia, D. Pu, T. Looi, S. Stone, J. Drake, and P. E. Dupont, “Using robotics to move a neurosurgeon’s hands to the tip of their endoscope,”Science Robotics, vol. 8, no. 82, p. eadg6042, 2023

    work page 2023

  6. [6]

    A telerobotic system for transnasal surgery,

    J. Burgner, D. C. Rucker, H. B. Gilbert, P. J. Swaney, P. T. Russell, K. D. Weaver, and R. J. Webster, “A telerobotic system for transnasal surgery,”IEEE/ASME Transactions on Mechatronics, vol. 19, no. 3, pp. 996–1006, 2014

    work page 2014

  7. [7]

    Design and validation of a compact concentric-tube robot for percutaneous nephrolithotomy,

    N. Feizi, F. C. Pedrosa, R. Zhang, D. Sacco, R. V . Patel, and J. Jayender, “Design and validation of a compact concentric-tube robot for percutaneous nephrolithotomy,”Authorea Preprints, 2025

    work page 2025

  8. [8]

    A concentric tube robot system for rigid bronchoscopy: a feasibility study on central airway obstruction removal,

    J. B. Gafford, S. Webster, N. Dillon, E. Blum, R. Hendrick, F. Mal- donado, E. A. Gillaspie, O. B. Rickman, S. D. Herrell, and R. J. Webster III, “A concentric tube robot system for rigid bronchoscopy: a feasibility study on central airway obstruction removal,”Annals of Biomedical Engineering, vol. 48, no. 1, pp. 181–191, 2020

    work page 2020

  9. [9]

    On surgical planning of percutaneous nephrolithotomy with patient-specific CTRs,

    F. C. Pedrosa, N. Feizi, R. Zhang, R. Delaunay, D. Sacco, J. Ja- gadeesan, and R. Patel, “On surgical planning of percutaneous nephrolithotomy with patient-specific CTRs,” inInternational Con- ference on Medical Image Computing and Computer-Assisted Inter- vention, pp. 626–635, Springer, 2022

    work page 2022

  10. [10]

    S. S. Antman,Nonlinear Problems of Elasticity. Springer, 2005

    work page 2005

  11. [12]

    Equilibrium conformations of concentric-tube continuum robots,

    D. C. Rucker, R. J. Webster III, G. S. Chirikjian, and N. J. Cowan, “Equilibrium conformations of concentric-tube continuum robots,”The International Journal of Robotics Research, vol. 29, no. 10, pp. 1263– 1280, 2010

    work page 2010

  12. [13]

    Design and control of concentric-tube robots,

    P. E. Dupont, J. Lock, B. Itkowitz, and E. Butler, “Design and control of concentric-tube robots,”IEEE Transactions on Robotics, vol. 26, no. 2, pp. 209–225, 2010

    work page 2010

  13. [14]

    A geometrically exact model for externally loaded concentric-tube continuum robots,

    D. C. Rucker, B. A. Jones, and R. J. Webster III, “A geometrically exact model for externally loaded concentric-tube continuum robots,” IEEE Transactions on Robotics, vol. 26, no. 5, pp. 769–780, 2010

    work page 2010

  14. [15]

    H. B. Keller,Numerical Methods for Two-Point Boundary-Value Problems. Courier Dover Publications, 2018

    work page 2018

  15. [16]

    Path planning of continuum robot based on path fitting,

    G. Niu, Y . Zhang, and W. Li, “Path planning of continuum robot based on path fitting,”Journal of Control Science and Engineering, vol. 2020, no. 1, p. 8826749, 2020

    work page 2020

  16. [17]

    Constructing neural network based models for simulating dynamical systems,

    C. Legaard, T. Schranz, G. Schweiger, J. Drgo ˇna, B. Falay, C. Gomes, A. Iosifidis, M. Abkar, and P. Larsen, “Constructing neural network based models for simulating dynamical systems,”ACM Computing Surveys, vol. 55, no. 11, pp. 1–34, 2023

    work page 2023

  17. [18]

    Learning the forward and inverse kinematics of a 6-dof concentric tube continuum robot in se (3),

    R. Grassmann, V . Modes, and J. Burgner-Kahrs, “Learning the forward and inverse kinematics of a 6-dof concentric tube continuum robot in se (3),” inIEEE/RSJ International Conference on Intelligent Robots and Systems, pp. 5125–5132, IEEE, 2018

    work page 2018

  18. [19]

    On the merits of joint space and orientation representations in learning the forward kinematics in se (3).,

    R. Grassmann and J. Burgner-Kahrs, “On the merits of joint space and orientation representations in learning the forward kinematics in se (3).,” inRobotics: Science and Systems, 2019

    work page 2019

  19. [20]

    A dataset and benchmark for learning the kinematics of concentric tube continuum robots,

    R. M. Grassmann, R. Z. Chen, N. Liang, and J. Burgner-Kahrs, “A dataset and benchmark for learning the kinematics of concentric tube continuum robots,” in2022 IEEE/RSJ International Conference on Intelligent Robots and Systems, pp. 9550–9557, IEEE, 2022

    work page 2022

  20. [21]

    Learning the complete shape of concentric tube robots,

    A. Kuntz, A. Sethi, R. J. Webster, and R. Alterovitz, “Learning the complete shape of concentric tube robots,”IEEE Transactions on Medical Robotics and Bionics, vol. 2, no. 2, pp. 140–147, 2020

    work page 2020

  21. [22]

    Learning-based inverse kinematics from shape as input for concentric tube continuum robots,

    N. Liang, R. M. Grassmann, S. Lilge, and J. Burgner-Kahrs, “Learning-based inverse kinematics from shape as input for concentric tube continuum robots,” in2021 IEEE International Conference on Robotics and Automation, pp. 1387–1393, IEEE, 2021

    work page 2021

  22. [23]

    Learning-based kinematic modeling for con- centric tube robot: Addressing its nonlinearity and snapping behavior,

    G. Jeong and S. Y . Ko, “Learning-based kinematic modeling for con- centric tube robot: Addressing its nonlinearity and snapping behavior,” IEEE Robotics and Automation Letters, 2025

    work page 2025

  23. [24]

    Deep Koop- man approach for nonlinear dynamics and control of tendon-driven continuum robots,

    N. Feizi, F. C. Pedrosa, J. Jayender, and R. V . Patel, “Deep Koop- man approach for nonlinear dynamics and control of tendon-driven continuum robots,”IEEE Robotics and Automation Letters, 2025

    work page 2025

  24. [25]

    Physics-informed neural networks for continuum robots: Towards fast approximation of static Cosserat rod theory,

    M. Bensch, T.-D. Job, T.-L. Habich, T. Seel, and M. Schappler, “Physics-informed neural networks for continuum robots: Towards fast approximation of static Cosserat rod theory,” in2024 IEEE International Conference on Robotics and Automation, pp. 17293– 17299, IEEE, 2024

    work page 2024

  25. [26]

    Physics-informed neural networks: A deep learning framework for solving forward and inverse problems involving nonlinear partial differential equations,

    M. Raissi, P. Perdikaris, and G. E. Karniadakis, “Physics-informed neural networks: A deep learning framework for solving forward and inverse problems involving nonlinear partial differential equations,” Journal of Computational Physics, vol. 378, pp. 686–707, 2019

    work page 2019

  26. [27]

    Physics-informed neural networks-based model predictive control for multi-link manip- ulators,

    J. Nicodemus, J. Kneifl, J. Fehr, and B. Unger, “Physics-informed neural networks-based model predictive control for multi-link manip- ulators,”IFAC-Papers Online, vol. 55, no. 20, pp. 331–336, 2022

    work page 2022

  27. [28]

    Physics-informed neural networks to model and control robots: A theoretical and experimental investigation,

    J. Liu, P. Borja, and C. Della Santina, “Physics-informed neural networks to model and control robots: A theoretical and experimental investigation,”Advanced Intelligent Systems, vol. 6, no. 5, p. 2300385, 2024

    work page 2024

  28. [29]

    Physics-informed machine learning,

    G. E. Karniadakis, I. G. Kevrekidis, L. Lu, P. Perdikaris, S. Wang, and L. Yang, “Physics-informed machine learning,”Nature Reviews Physics, vol. 3, no. 6, pp. 422–440, 2021

    work page 2021

  29. [30]

    Kinematic instability in concentric-tube robots: Modeling and analysis,

    R. Xu, S. F. Atashzar, and R. V . Patel, “Kinematic instability in concentric-tube robots: Modeling and analysis,” in5th IEEE RAS/EMBS International Conference on Biomedical Robotics and Biomechatronics, pp. 163–168, IEEE, 2014

    work page 2014

  30. [31]

    Elastic stability of concentric tube robots: A stability measure and design test,

    H. B. Gilbert, R. J. Hendrick, and R. J. Webster III, “Elastic stability of concentric tube robots: A stability measure and design test,”IEEE Transactions on Robotics, vol. 32, no. 1, pp. 20–35, 2015

    work page 2015

  31. [32]

    Understanding and mitigating gradient flow pathologies in physics-informed neural networks,

    S. Wang, Y . Teng, and P. Perdikaris, “Understanding and mitigating gradient flow pathologies in physics-informed neural networks,”SIAM Journal on Scientific Computing, vol. 43, no. 5, pp. A3055–A3081, 2021

    work page 2021

  32. [33]

    On the spectral bias of neural networks,

    N. Rahaman, A. Baratin, D. Arpit, F. Draxler, M. Lin, F. Hamprecht, Y . Bengio, and A. Courville, “On the spectral bias of neural networks,” inInternational Conference on Machine Learning, pp. 5301–5310, PMLR, 2019

    work page 2019

  33. [34]

    On the limited memory bfgs method for large scale optimization,

    D. C. Liu and J. Nocedal, “On the limited memory bfgs method for large scale optimization,”Mathematical Programming, vol. 45, no. 1, pp. 503–528, 1989

    work page 1989

  34. [35]

    Adam: A method for stochastic opti- mization,

    D. P. Kingma and J. Ba, “Adam: A method for stochastic opti- mization,” inInternational Conference on Learning Representations (ICLR), 2014

    work page 2014

  35. [36]

    Unveiling the optimization process of physics informed neural networks: How accurate and com- petitive can PINNs be?,

    J. F. Urb ´an, P. Stefanou, and J. A. Pons, “Unveiling the optimization process of physics informed neural networks: How accurate and com- petitive can PINNs be?,”Journal of Computational Physics, vol. 523, p. 113656, 2025

    work page 2025

  36. [37]

    Understanding the difficulty of training deep feedforward neural networks,

    X. Glorot and Y . Bengio, “Understanding the difficulty of training deep feedforward neural networks,” inProceedings of the Thirteenth Inter- national Conference on Artificial Intelligence and Statistics, pp. 249– 256, JMLR Workshop and Conference Proceedings, 2010

    work page 2010