pith. sign in

arxiv: 2606.20958 · v1 · pith:GLEF7ZNVnew · submitted 2026-06-18 · 💻 cs.RO

Learning-Based Modeling of Soft Robots via Cosserat Rod Theory

Mohammad Ali , Nithin Senthur Kumar , Eric J. Barth , Thomas Beckers This is my paper

Pith reviewed 2026-06-26 16:50 UTC · model grok-4.3

classification 💻 cs.RO
keywords soft robotsCosserat rod theoryGaussian process regressionport-Hamiltonian systemsdynamics modelingenergy consistencycontinuum mechanicsplanar robots
0
0 comments X

The pith

A port-Hamiltonian Gaussian process framework learns Cosserat rod dynamics for planar soft robots while preserving energy structure.

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

The paper aims to create models of soft robot dynamics that combine the physical structure from Cosserat rod theory with data-driven learning inside a port-Hamiltonian framework. This approach seeks to overcome the time demands and limited expressiveness of pure first-principles models as well as the lack of interpretability and physical consistency in standard data-driven models. A sympathetic reader would care because soft robots exhibit complex nonlinear continuum behavior, and maintaining energy consistency during learning could enable more reliable simulations and control. The authors demonstrate through numerical simulations that the resulting representations remain accurate and respect the system's energy properties for rod-like soft robots.

Core claim

The proposed port-Hamiltonian Gaussian Process Regression framework integrates Cosserat rod theory and Hamiltonian physics with data-driven inference to preserve the system's energy structure while accurately learning the rod dynamics of planar, rod-like soft robots, yielding accurate and energy-consistent representations in numerical simulations.

What carries the argument

The port-Hamiltonian Gaussian Process Regression framework, which imposes port-Hamiltonian structure on Gaussian process outputs to enforce energy consistency when learning from Cosserat rod theory.

If this is right

  • Numerical simulations produce accurate and energy-consistent representations of rod-like soft robot dynamics.
  • The framework supplies a robust and interpretable pathway for modeling complex continuum mechanics in soft robots.
  • The learned models maintain the system's energy structure throughout inference and simulation steps.
  • Data-driven inference can be combined with first-principles Cosserat rod theory without sacrificing physical consistency.

Where Pith is reading between the lines

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

  • If the port-Hamiltonian constraint generalizes cleanly, the same structure might support learning for non-planar or three-dimensional rod motions.
  • Embedding the method in a real-time control loop on physical hardware would test whether the learned models transfer beyond simulation.
  • The approach could reduce the need for manual parameter tuning in soft robot design by letting data fill gaps while physics enforces conservation laws.

Load-bearing premise

A port-Hamiltonian structure can be imposed on Gaussian Process Regression outputs for Cosserat rod dynamics such that energy consistency holds for arbitrary planar motions without new fitting artifacts or violations of rod theory assumptions.

What would settle it

Numerical simulations of planar rod motions that produce measurable energy drift or prediction errors outside the training distribution would show the energy consistency claim does not hold.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2606.20958 by Eric J. Barth, Mohammad Ali, Nithin Senthur Kumar, Thomas Beckers.

Figure 1
Figure 1. Figure 1: Schematic of a planar Cosserat rod. (x, y, θ) with planar position (x, y) and angle θ as well as its conjugate momenta p = (px, py, pθ) z = [ x, y, θ, px, py, pθ ] ⊤, (3) where px = ρAx, p ˙ y = ρAy, p ˙ θ = ρI ˙θ with the material density ρ, the cross-sectional area A, and the area moment of inertia I. Following [4], the total energy of the robot (Hamiltonian functional) is the sum of kinetic and stored p… view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. Figure 2: Workflow for learning the variational derivatives of the Cosserat rod dPHS via GPR. [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p004_2.png] view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. Figure 3: Ground truth vs. CR-GPR simulation overlays at base, [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p005_3.png] view at source ↗
Figure 4
Figure 4. Figure 4: Left: Ground truth rod motion used for training ( [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p006_4.png] view at source ↗
Figure 5
Figure 5. Figure 5: The non-negative energy dissipation confirms the [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p006_5.png] view at source ↗
Figure 6
Figure 6. Figure 6: Baseline comparison across six unseen test angles [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p007_6.png] view at source ↗
read the original abstract

Modeling soft robot dynamics is challenging due to their continuum structure and typically nonlinear dynamics. Creating models based on first-order principles is typically time-demanding, and their expressiveness is limited, whereas data-driven models lack interpretability and physical consistency. This work aims to overcome these challenges by introducing a port-Hamiltonian Gaussian Process Regression framework for learning and simulating the dynamics of planar, rod-like soft robots. In detail, the proposed model integrates Cosserat rod theory and Hamiltonian physics with data-driven inference to preserve the system's energy structure while accurately learning the rod dynamics. Numerical simulations show that we can achieve accurate and energy-consistent representations of a rod-like soft robot, showing the potential for a robust and interpretable pathway for modeling complex continuum mechanics.

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

1 major / 0 minor

Summary. The manuscript proposes a port-Hamiltonian Gaussian Process Regression framework that integrates Cosserat rod theory with Hamiltonian physics and data-driven inference for modeling and simulating the dynamics of planar rod-like soft robots. The central claim is that this structure-preserving approach yields accurate representations while maintaining the system's energy consistency, as demonstrated through numerical simulations.

Significance. If the port-Hamiltonian structure can be imposed on the GP outputs such that energy consistency holds for arbitrary planar motions without new fitting artifacts or violations of Cosserat assumptions, the work would offer a valuable bridge between first-principles continuum mechanics and machine learning for soft robotics, improving both interpretability and physical fidelity over existing methods.

major comments (1)
  1. [Abstract] Abstract: the claim that numerical simulations demonstrate accuracy and energy consistency is stated without any equations, data details, error metrics, or verification steps; the central claim therefore rests on an unexamined assertion of successful integration.

Simulated Author's Rebuttal

1 responses · 0 unresolved

We thank the referee for the detailed review and constructive comment on the abstract. We agree that the abstract would benefit from additional specificity regarding the numerical results to strengthen the central claims.

read point-by-point responses

  1. Referee: [Abstract] Abstract: the claim that numerical simulations demonstrate accuracy and energy consistency is stated without any equations, data details, error metrics, or verification steps; the central claim therefore rests on an unexamined assertion of successful integration.

    Authors: We acknowledge the validity of this observation. While the full manuscript (Sections 4 and 5) provides the simulation setup, data generation from Cosserat rod models, quantitative error metrics (position and velocity RMSE), and energy conservation verification via time-evolution plots, the abstract summarizes these findings at a high level. To address the concern directly, we will revise the abstract to incorporate brief references to the key quantitative outcomes and verification approach, ensuring the claims are better supported without exceeding length constraints. revision: yes

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged

No significant circularity; derivation self-contained against external benchmarks

full rationale

The abstract and available description present a hybrid framework combining Cosserat rod theory, port-Hamiltonian structure, and Gaussian Process Regression for learning soft robot dynamics. No equations, fitted parameters, or derivation steps are exhibited that reduce by construction to their own inputs (e.g., no self-definitional scaling, no prediction of a fitted quantity, no load-bearing self-citation chain). The energy-consistency claim is framed as an integration of established physics with data-driven inference rather than a renaming or ansatz smuggled via prior work. This is the most common honest finding for papers whose central construction remains externally falsifiable and independent of the present fitted values.

Axiom & Free-Parameter Ledger

0 free parameters · 0 axioms · 0 invented entities

Abstract provides no explicit free parameters, axioms, or invented entities; the framework implicitly assumes that Cosserat rod theory and port-Hamiltonian structure can be combined with Gaussian processes without contradiction and that numerical simulations suffice to validate energy consistency.

pith-pipeline@v0.9.1-grok · 5656 in / 1180 out tokens · 17192 ms · 2026-06-26T16:50:41.884062+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

26 extracted references · 16 canonical work pages

  1. [1]

    Fundamentals of soft robot locomotion,

    M. Calisti, G. Picardi, and C. Laschi, “Fundamentals of soft robot locomotion,”Journal of the Royal Society Interface, vol. 14, no. 130, May 2017, doi:10.1098/rsif.2017.0101

    work page doi:10.1098/rsif.2017.0101 2017

  2. [2]

    Biomedical applications of soft robotics,

    M. Cianchetti, C. Laschi, A. Menciassi, and P. Dario, “Biomedical applications of soft robotics,”Nature Reviews Materials, vol. 3, no. 6, pp. 143–153, Jun. 2018, doi:10.1038/s41578-018-0022-y

    work page doi:10.1038/s41578-018-0022-y 2018

  3. [3]

    A survey on skeletoniza- tion algorithms and their applications,

    P. K. Saha, G. Borgefors, and G. S. di Baja, “A survey on skeletoniza- tion algorithms and their applications,”Pattern Recognition Letters, vol. 76, pp. 3–12, 2016

    2016

  4. [4]

    Belgacem, J.-L

    H.-S. Chang, U. Halder, C.-H. Shih, A. Tekinalp, T. Parthasarathy, E. Gribkova, G. Chowdhary, R. Gillette, M. Gazzola, and P. G. Mehta, “Energy shaping control of a CyberOctopus soft arm,” inProc. IEEE Conf. on Decision and Control (CDC), pp. 3913–3920, Dec. 2020, doi:10.1109/CDC42340.2020.9304408

    work page doi:10.1109/cdc42340.2020.9304408 2020

  5. [5]

    Optimal control of a soft CyberOctopus arm,

    T. Wang, U. Halder, H.-S. Chang, M. Gazzola, and P. G. Mehta, “Optimal control of a soft CyberOctopus arm,” inProc. American Control Conference (ACC), pp. 4757–4764, May 2021, doi:10.23919/ACC50511.2021.9483284

    work page doi:10.23919/acc50511.2021.9483284 2021

  6. [6]

    Bereza, O

    T. Beckers, J. Seidman, P. Perdikaris, and G. J. Pappas, “Gaussian process port-Hamiltonian systems: Bayesian learning with physics prior,” inProc. IEEE Conf. on Decision and Control (CDC), pp. 1447– 1453, 2022, doi:10.1109/CDC51059.2022.9992733

    work page doi:10.1109/cdc51059.2022.9992733 2022

  7. [7]

    Soft robotics: Biological inspiration, state of the art, and future research,

    D. Trivedi, C. D. Rahn, W. M. Kier, and I. D. Walker, “Soft robotics: Biological inspiration, state of the art, and future research,” Applied Bionics and Biomechanics, vol. 5, no. 3, pp. 99–117, 2008, doi:10.1155/2008/520417

    work page doi:10.1155/2008/520417 2008

  8. [8]

    Discrete Cosserat approach for soft robot dynamics: A tutorial and review,

    F. Renda, F. Boyer, J. Dias, and L. Seneviratne, “Discrete Cosserat approach for soft robot dynamics: A tutorial and review,”IEEE Transactions on Robotics, vol. 35, no. 5, pp. 1008–1025, Oct. 2019, doi:10.1109/TRO.2019.2916870

    work page doi:10.1109/tro.2019.2916870 2019

  9. [9]

    Efficiently sampling functions from Gaussian process posteri- ors,

    J. Wilson, V . Borovitskiy, A. Terenin, P. Mostowsky, and M. Deisen- roth, “Efficiently sampling functions from Gaussian process posteri- ors,” inProc. Int. Conf. on Machine Learning (ICML), pp. 10292– 10302, 2020

    2020

  10. [10]

    Model-based control of soft robots: A survey of the state of the art and open challenges,

    C. Della Santina, C. Duriez, and D. Rus, “Model-based control of soft robots: A survey of the state of the art and open challenges,” IEEE Control Systems Magazine, vol. 43, no. 3, pp. 30–65, Jun. 2023, doi:10.1109/MCS.2023.3253419

    work page doi:10.1109/mcs.2023.3253419 2023

  11. [11]

    Gaussian processes for regression,

    C. Williams and C. Rasmussen, “Gaussian processes for regression,” inAdvances in Neural Information Processing Systems, vol. 8, 1995

    1995

  12. [12]

    Twenty years of distributed port-Hamiltonian systems: A literature re- view,

    R. Rashad, F. Califano, A. J. van der Schaft, and S. Stramigioli, “Twenty years of distributed port-Hamiltonian systems: A literature re- view,”IMA Journal of Mathematical Control and Information, vol. 37, no. 4, pp. 1400–1422, Dec. 2020, doi:10.1093/imamci/dnaa018

    work page doi:10.1093/imamci/dnaa018 2020

  13. [13]

    Soft robots modeling: A structured overview,

    C. Armanini, F. Boyer, A. T. Mathew, C. Duriez, and F. Renda, “Soft robots modeling: A structured overview,”IEEE Transactions on Robotics, vol. 39, no. 3, pp. 1728–1748, 2023, doi:10.1109/TRO.2022.3231360

    work page doi:10.1109/tro.2022.3231360 2023

  14. [14]

    Cosserat rod- based dynamic modeling of tendon-driven continuum robots: A tutorial,

    F. Janabi-Sharifi, A. Jalali, and I. D. Walker, “Cosserat rod- based dynamic modeling of tendon-driven continuum robots: A tutorial,”IEEE Access, vol. 9, pp. 68703–68719, May 2021, doi:10.1109/ACCESS.2021.3077186

    work page doi:10.1109/access.2021.3077186 2021

  15. [15]

    Port– Hamiltonian formulation of infinite-dimensional systems I: Modeling,

    A. Macchelli, A. J. van der Schaft, and C. Melchiorri, “Port– Hamiltonian formulation of infinite-dimensional systems I: Modeling,” inProc. 43rd IEEE Conf. on Decision and Control (CDC), pp. 3762– 3767, 2004, doi:10.1109/CDC.2004.1429316

    work page doi:10.1109/cdc.2004.1429316 2004

  16. [16]

    Physics-constrained learning of PDE systems with uncertainty quantified port–Hamiltonian models,

    K. Tan, P. Li, and T. Beckers, “Physics-constrained learning of PDE systems with uncertainty quantified port–Hamiltonian models,” in Proc. 6th Conf. on Learning for Dynamics and Control (L4DC), pp. 1753–1764, 2024

    2024

  17. [17]

    Modeling and control of soft robots using the Koopman operator and model predictive control,

    D. Bruder, B. W. Gillespie, C. D. Remy, and R. Vasudevan, “Modeling and control of soft robots using the Koopman operator and model predictive control,” arXiv:1902.02827, 2019

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 1902

  18. [18]

    Learn- ing soft robot dynamics using differentiable Kalman filters and spatio-temporal embeddings,

    X. Liu, S. Ikemoto, Y . Yoshimitsu, and H. B. Amor, “Learn- ing soft robot dynamics using differentiable Kalman filters and spatio-temporal embeddings,” inProc. IEEE/RSJ Int. Conf. on Intelligent Robots and Systems (IROS), pp. 2550–2557, 2023, doi:10.1109/IROS55552.2023.10341856

    work page doi:10.1109/iros55552.2023.10341856 2023

  19. [19]

    Modeling and simulation of dynamics in soft robotics: A review of numeri- cal approaches,

    L. Qin, H. Peng, X. Huang, M. Liu, and W. Huang, “Modeling and simulation of dynamics in soft robotics: A review of numeri- cal approaches,”Current Robotics Reports, vol. 5, pp. 1–13, 2024, doi:10.1007/s43154-023-00105-z

    work page doi:10.1007/s43154-023-00105-z 2024

  20. [20]

    PINN-Ray: A physics-informed neural network to model soft robotic Fin Ray fingers,

    X. Wang, J. J. Dabrowski, J. Pinskier, L. Liow, V . Viswanathan, R. Scalzo, and D. Howard, “PINN-Ray: A physics-informed neural network to model soft robotic Fin Ray fingers,” arXiv:2407.08222, 2024

    arXiv 2024

  21. [21]

    Physics-informed recurrent neural networks for soft pneumatic actuators,

    W. Sun, N. Akashi, Y . Kuniyoshi, and K. Nakajima, “Physics-informed recurrent neural networks for soft pneumatic actuators,”IEEE Robotics and Automation Letters, vol. 7, no. 3, pp. 6862–6869, Jul. 2022

    2022

  22. [22]

    Physics-informed machine learning model for inverse dynamics in robotic manipulators,

    W. Deng, F. Ardiani, K. T. P. Nguyen, M. Benoussaad, and K. Medjaher, “Physics-informed machine learning model for inverse dynamics in robotic manipulators,”Applied Soft Computing, vol. 163, p. 111877, 2024

    2024

  23. [23]

    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,” arXiv:2305.05375, 2023

    arXiv 2023

  24. [24]

    Towards more energy efficient pneumatic soft ac- tuators using a port–Hamiltonian approach,

    H.-T. D. Chun, J. O. Roberts, M. E. Sayed, S. Aracri, and A. A. Stokes, “Towards more energy efficient pneumatic soft ac- tuators using a port–Hamiltonian approach,” inProc. 2nd IEEE Int. Conf. on Soft Robotics (RoboSoft), pp. 277–282, Apr. 2019, doi:10.1109/ROBOSOFT.2019.8722767

    work page doi:10.1109/robosoft.2019.8722767 2019

  25. [25]

    Energy-based control for soft manipulators using Cosserat-beam models,

    B. Caasenbrood, A. Pogromsky, and H. Nijmeijer, “Energy-based control for soft manipulators using Cosserat-beam models,” inProc. 18th Int. Conf. on Informatics in Control, Automation and Robotics (ICINCO), pp. 311–319, Jul. 2021, doi:10.5220/0010581503110319

    work page doi:10.5220/0010581503110319 2021

  26. [26]

    Port–Hamiltonian modeling for soft-finger manipulation,

    F. Ficuciello, R. Carloni, L. C. Visser, and S. Stramigioli, “Port–Hamiltonian modeling for soft-finger manipulation,” inProc. IEEE/RSJ Int. Conf. on Intelligent Robots and Systems (IROS), pp. 4281–4286, Oct. 2010

    2010