Pith. sign in

REVIEW 4 major objections 4 minor 26 references

Trajectory Planning and Control for Robotic Magnetic Manipulation

T0 review · 4 major / 4 minor · reviewed 2026-08-12 · deepseek-v4-flash

Challenge this review Re-run · record.json Download PDF Read on arXiv ↗ Review JSON

Pith's one-line read Jointly optimizing both magnet trajectories with a constrained iLQR lets a magnetic capsule dodge obstacles and land within 0.18 cm mean error in repeated real-world trials.

desk verdict A credible joint-space iLQR for single-EPM capsule manipulation with real 13-trial validation, but the force equations are garbled and the precision claim is only proven in the favorable quiescent-tank regime. read the letter →

arxiv 2411.14950 v1 pith:4UYC6H74 submitted 2024-11-22 cs.RO cs.SYeess.SY

Ogulcan Isitman , Gokhan Alcan , Ville Kyrki This is my paper · ORCID
classification cs.ROcs.SYeess.SY
keywords magneticmanipulationcapsuleendoscopytrajectoryoptimizationiterativelinearquadraticregulatoraugmentedLagrangianpermanentmagnetactuationobstacleavoidanceclosed-loopcontrol
verification ladder T0 review T1 audit T2 compute T3 formal

The pith

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

The reading

The paper tries to establish that robotic magnetic capsule endoscopy can be made precise and safe by optimizing the trajectories of the external permanent magnet (EPM) and the internal permanent magnet (IPM) together, rather than following predefined capsule paths. It formulates the task as a constrained optimal control problem solved by an iterative linear quadratic regulator with an augmented Lagrangian treatment of constraints. The planner respects joint limits, capsule velocity limits, EPM workspace bounds, and obstacle avoidance while maximizing arm manipulability, and it returns time-varying feedback gains used for closed-loop control. In repeated real-world experiments in a water tank, the capsule reaches the goal with a maximum mean final positioning error of 0.18 cm and a standard deviation of 0.21 cm. The sympathetic reader should care because this is a step toward operator-specified, autonomous navigation of capsule endoscopes instead of hand-tuned predefined trajectories.

What carries the argument

The central object is a constrained iterative linear quadratic regulator (iLQR) over a combined state $x=[p_I, v_I, q]\in\mathbb{R}^{13}$, where $p_I$ and $v_I$ are the IPM position and velocity and $q$ are the seven joint angles, with control $u$ as the seven joint velocities. Constraints are folded into the stage cost through an augmented Lagrangian, and the backward pass produces time-varying affine feedback gains $K(k)$; those gains, together with the optimal trajectories, drive closed-loop joint-velocity control. The magnetic model is the point-dipole approximation, with the simplifying assumption that the IPM magnetization aligns instantly with the applied field, which reduces the force law to a closed-form function of the EPM position and orientation. The same machinery handles obstacle avoidance, velocity and joint limits, and manipulability maximization through a condition-number penalty on the arm Jacobian.

What would settle it

Run the same planner in a water tank with controlled cross-flow or with a physical obstacle that the capsule grazes, and record the IPM orientation with an onboard magnetometer during the maneuver; if the orientation visibly lags the applied field and the final position error exceeds the claimed 0.18 cm mean, the instant-alignment assumption is the cause.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

The central claim is that a single EPM on a robot arm can be steered by solving one constrained trajectory optimization that includes the IPM dynamics, and that the resulting optimal state-input trajectories plus locally optimal feedback gains are enough for precise closed-loop control. The method works in the robot's joint space, so no inverse kinematics step is needed, and it directly enforces constraints the operator cares about—capsule velocity, obstacle clearance, joint limits, and EPM position—while penalizing a high condition number of the arm Jacobian to keep the magnet configuration dexterous. The paper validates the claim with 100 stochastic simulations under Gaussian measurement noise and with 13 repeated real-world runs in a quiescent water tank with a virtual obstacle, reporting a maximum mean final IPM position error of 0.18 cm and a standard deviation of 0.21 cm. Under the instant-alignment approximation, the IPM orientation is held constant along the trajectory and the force model is simplified accordingly; the paper's results stand on that approximation.

Load-bearing premise

The load-bearing premise is that the internal magnet's magnetization aligns with the external field instantly, so its orientation can be omitted from the state and the force computed from the simplified field-gradient formula; this holds only for small accelerations and no contact, yet the real-world validation runs in still water with a virtual obstacle.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • Closed-loop execution with the planned feedback gains rejects Gaussian measurement noise that open-loop execution cannot, keeping the capsule near the optimal path in stochastic simulations.
  • The planner can hold the IPM orientation constant while navigating around a spherical obstacle, which is the behavior needed for a camera to keep a region of interest in view.
  • Because the optimization runs in joint space, the resulting trajectories are feasible for the arm by construction and require no separate inverse-kinematics solver.
  • Across 13 real-world repetitions, the final IPM position stays within 0.18 cm mean error and 0.21 cm standard deviation, with final velocities near zero.
  • Velocity and position constraints on both magnets are enforced during execution, not just in planning, as shown by the experimental time series.

Reading between the lines

Editorial extensions of the paper, not claims the author makes directly.

  • If the same formulation were paired with a richer IPM orientation state and torque model, it could plausibly extend to contact-rich maneuvers such as tissue interaction, where the instant-alignment assumption would break down.
  • The planner's constraint set is written in terms of the field model, so the approach could transfer to coil-based or multi-EPM actuators without changing the core iLQR machinery.
  • A natural next step is to feed the capsule's onboard camera into the state estimator and let the operator specify regions of interest, which would move the system toward the level-3 autonomy described in the paper's related work.
  • The reported mean error of 0.18 cm is measured in a quiescent water tank with a virtual obstacle; translation to peristaltic or flowing environments is an open empirical question because fluid drag would enter both the model and the disturbance rejection.
Share X Bluesky LinkedIn Reddit HN

Editorial analysis

A structured set of objections, weighed in public.

Desk editor's note, referee report, and a circularity audit.

Referee Report

4 major / 4 minor

Summary. The paper proposes a constrained iterative linear quadratic regulator (iLQR) framework for robotic magnetic manipulation, in which a single external permanent magnet (EPM) mounted on a robot arm is used to navigate an internal permanent magnet (IPM). The method jointly optimizes IPM and EPM trajectories subject to IPM dynamics, joint and velocity limits, EPM position limits, an orientation constraint, and obstacle avoidance, and then executes the optimized trajectories in closed loop with time-varying LQR gains. Validation consists of simulations with Gaussian measurement noise and 13 real-world repeated trials in a water tank with a virtual obstacle; the reported final positioning accuracy is a maximum mean error of 0.18 cm with standard deviations near 0.21 cm.

Significance. If the method performs as described, it is a useful step toward automated capsule endoscopy navigation with obstacle avoidance, because it directly incorporates IPM dynamics and constraints into a trajectory optimization framework and demonstrates repeatable real-world positioning. The experimental validation is a genuine strength: the final positioning errors are measured with an independent camera-based tracker rather than fitted to the model, and the reported statistics are consistent with the claimed precision. The paper also provides a simulation environment and experimental videos. However, the core magnetic force model is written with serious typographical and dimensional errors, and the objective function is never explicitly defined, so the central formulation is not currently reproducible or fully verifiable.

major comments (4)
  1. [Section III-B, Eqs. (6)-(8)] The magnetic field gradient and the simplified force expression are garbled. In Eq. (6), the term mE p̂^T is a 3x3 matrix, p̂^T m_E^T is a scalar, and the final term mixes the dimensionless identity with mE m_E^T carrying units of (A·m²)²; these objects cannot be added. Equation (8) has unbalanced parentheses and an undefined norm. Since these equations define the IPM acceleration (9) and hence the dynamics f(·) used throughout the planning, the central derivation is not verifiable as written. Please provide the correct point-dipole gradient, for example componentwise as ∂b_i/∂x_j, and derive Eq. (8) from Eq. (7) with consistent notation and units.
  2. [Section III-C, Eq. (1)] The cost functions ℓN(xN) and ℓk(xk, uk, Δt) in problem (1) are never explicitly defined. The only cost-related statement is that the condition number κ is penalized (Section V-A, Fig. 3g), but no equation or weights are given. Without the objective, the optimization problem is incomplete, and the claimed 'maximizing manipulability' cannot be reproduced or independently assessed. Please add the explicit running and terminal cost expressions, including how the κ penalty enters the cost.
  3. [Section III-C, Eq. (11)] The equality constraint is written as b(p, mE) = r. Since b is a magnetic field vector with units of tesla and r is described as an orientation vector, the equality as written fixes both direction and magnitude. If the intent is only to constrain the direction of the field, the constraint should be expressed as b̂ = r̂/∥r∥ or an equivalent cross-product condition, with scale handled separately. Please clarify and correct this formulation, as it directly affects the trajectory optimization constraints.
  4. [Section V-B and Section III-B] The real-world validation is conducted in a quiescent water tank with a virtual obstacle, which is exactly the regime in which the instant-alignment assumption of Section III-B is stated to hold. The paper does not report the minimum distance between the IPM and the virtual obstacle during the trials, nor any measurement of IPM orientation misalignment. The evidence therefore supports precision in the assumed regime but does not yet support the broader robustness claims in the abstract ('resilience to external disturbances and precise control under varying conditions'). Please either narrow these claims or provide experiments with physical disturbances and/or orientation measurements.
minor comments (4)
  1. [Section III-C, Eq. (12)] In Eq. (12), the notation g(·) is used for both inequality and equality constraints, whereas in problem (1) g denotes inequality constraints and h denotes equality constraints. Please clarify the notation so that the augmented Lagrangian update is unambiguous.
  2. [Section IV-A] The identification procedure for the drag coefficient Cd, the effective weight force fw, and the IPM mass m_IPM is not described. Since these parameters enter the dynamics (9), please report how they were obtained and, if possible, their uncertainty.
  3. [Section V] The simulation velocity constraint is reported as 20 cm/s in Section V-A, while the real-world velocity constraint is 2 cm/s in Section V-B. The text should state that these are different task settings to avoid confusion when comparing the two sets of results.
  4. [Section III-B, Eq. (9)] The notation δvI/δt is unusual for a derivative; please use standard derivative notation or explicitly define the discretization used in the implementation.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 0.0 of 10

No circular derivation: the precision claim rests on externally measured final positions, while the solver self-citations are non-load-bearing and the instant-alignment assumption is a stated modeling limitation, not a circular input.

full rationale

The paper's central claim—accurate and repeatable IPM positioning with maximum mean final error 0.18 cm—is supported by camera-triangulation measurements (Sec. V-B, Table I) that are independent of the planning model; the error is an observed outcome, not a value fitted by the optimizer. The model parameters Cd and fw were identified from the same hardware, but they are not adjusted to reproduce the reported final errors, so this is standard model-based control validation rather than a fitted-input-called-prediction. The iLQR solver relies on co-authored references [20] and [21] for backward/forward passes and augmented-Lagrangian multiplier updates, but these are used as a computational tool and no uniqueness or external-support claim is imported from them; the magnetic-manipulation formulation, constraints, and experiments stand independently. The instant-alignment assumption underlying Eq. (7) is explicitly restricted by the authors to small accelerations and no contact (Sec. III-B), and the real-world validation occurs in a quiescent water tank with a virtual obstacle; this is a generalization/correctness risk for contact or disturbed scenarios, not a circular step. Simulation plots of IPM orientation and velocity are constraint-satisfaction checks of the imposed equality/inequality constraints (Eqs. 10-11), not first-principles predictions, so they do not constitute circularity. No load-bearing step in the derivation reduces to its own inputs.

Assumptions & free parameters 4 free parameters · 5 assumptions · 0 invented entities

The planning model relies on standard but simplified assumptions in magnetic manipulation: point-dipole fields, instant alignment of the internal magnet, quadratic drag, and ideal low-level velocity control. These are not independently verified in the paper; the real-world experiments provide the main evidence that the overall approach works despite these simplifications.

free parameters (4)
  • Drag coefficient C_d = 0.77
    Experimentally estimated in Section IV-A; used in the IPM dynamics equation (9).
  • Effective weight force f_w = 0.69 mN
    Experimentally estimated in Section IV-A; appears in equation (9).
  • IPM mass m_IPM = 8.1 g
    Reported in Section IV-A; used in equation (9).
  • Cost function and penalty parameters = not reported
    The running cost weights (including manipulability penalty) and augmented Lagrangian parameters (lambda, mu) are not specified, yet they determine the computed trajectories.
assumptions (5)
  • domain assumption The point dipole approximation accurately describes the field and force between EPM and IPM at operating distances.
    Used in Eq. (4)-(8) to compute magnetic force; validity depends on distance being large relative to magnet sizes.
  • domain assumption The IPM magnetization vector quickly aligns with the local magnetic field (b_hat ~ mI_hat).
    Section III-B; simplifies force and eliminates orientation from the state. Only valid for small accelerations and no contact.
  • domain assumption A low-level arm controller tracks joint velocity commands perfectly within specified limits.
    Section III-B: robot arm dynamics are neglected because a low-level controller is assumed to enforce velocity/acceleration limits.
  • domain assumption All state variables are observable.
    Section III-A; in practice, IPM orientation is not measured and is assumed to follow the field.
  • domain assumption The drag force on the capsule is quadratic in velocity with a constant coefficient.
    Equation (9): f_d = C_d v_I^2; a simplified hydrodynamic model for the water tank environment.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Trajectory Planning and Control for Robotic Magnetic Manipulation." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/4UYC6H74

@misc{pith2026241114950,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Trajectory Planning and Control for Robotic Magnetic Manipulation},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/4UYC6H74}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2411.14950}
}
read the original abstract

Robotic magnetic manipulation offers a minimally invasive approach to gastrointestinal examinations through capsule endoscopy. However, controlling such systems using external permanent magnets (EPM) is challenging due to nonlinear magnetic interactions, especially when there are complex navigation requirements such as avoidance of sensitive tissues. In this work, we present a novel trajectory planning and control method incorporating dynamics and navigation requirements, using a single EPM fixed to a robotic arm to manipulate an internal permanent magnet (IPM). Our approach employs a constrained iterative linear quadratic regulator that considers the dynamics of the IPM to generate optimal trajectories for both the EPM and IPM. Extensive simulations and real-world experiments, motivated by capsule endoscopy operations, demonstrate the robustness of the method, showcasing resilience to external disturbances and precise control under varying conditions. The experimental results show that the IPM reaches the goal position with a maximum mean error of 0.18 cm and a standard deviation of 0.21 cm. This work introduces a unified framework for constrained trajectory optimization in magnetic manipulation, directly incorporating both the IPM's dynamics and the EPM's manipulability.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2411.14950 by the authors.

Figure 1
Figure 1. Conceptual design of the external permanent magnet-based robotic [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p001_1.png] view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. Block diagram of the planning and control phases for robotic magnetic manipulation. The planning phase (left) utilizes iLQR to generate optimal [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p003_2.png] view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. (a) Simulation case visualization. (b) Time series data of the optimal IPM trajectory. (c) IPM velocities along the trajectory. (d) Time series data [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p006_3.png] view at source ↗
Figures from the paper (3 more)
Figure 4
Figure 4. Figure 4: Comparison of open-loop and closed-loop IPM position tracking [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p006_4.png]
Figure 5
Figure 5. Figure 5: Experimental results showing the time evolution of IPM position, IPM velocity, and EPM position along the X, Y, and Z axes under closed-loop [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p007_5.png]
Figure 6
Figure 6. Figure 6: Real-world experimental results showing repetitive IPM trajectories [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p007_6.png]

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

26 extracted references · 22 canonical work pages

  1. [1]

    Endoscopic capsule robot-based diagnosis, navigation and localization in the gastrointestinal tract,

    M. Hanscom and D. R. Cave, “Endoscopic capsule robot-based diagnosis, navigation and localization in the gastrointestinal tract,” Frontiers in Robotics and AI , vol. 9, p. 896028, 2022

    work page 2022

  2. [2]

    Magnetically actuated capsule robots: A review,

    W. Chen, J. Sui, and C. Wang, “Magnetically actuated capsule robots: A review,” IEEE Access , vol. 10, pp. 88 398–88 420, 2022

    work page 2022

  3. [3]

    Non-contact cooperative manipulation of magnetic microparticles using two robotic electromag- netic needles,

    O. Is ¸ıtman, H. Bettahar, and Q. Zhou, “Non-contact cooperative manipulation of magnetic microparticles using two robotic electromag- netic needles,” IEEE Robotics and Automation Letters , vol. 7, no. 2, pp. 1605–1611, 2021

    work page 2021

  4. [4]

    Simul- taneous and independent micromanipulation of two identical particles with robotic electromagnetic needles,

    O. Isitman, H. Kandemir, G. Alcan, Z. Cenev, and Q. Zhou, “Simul- taneous and independent micromanipulation of two identical particles with robotic electromagnetic needles,” in 2022 International Con- ference on Manipulation, Automation and Robotics at Small Scales (MARSS). IEEE, 2022, pp. 1–6

    work page 2022

  5. [5]

    Design of an elec- tromagnetic setup for independent three-dimensional control of pairs of identical and nonidentical microrobots,

    F. Ongaro, S. Pane, S. Scheggi, and S. Misra, “Design of an elec- tromagnetic setup for independent three-dimensional control of pairs of identical and nonidentical microrobots,” IEEE transactions on robotics, vol. 35, no. 1, pp. 174–183, 2018

    work page 2018

  6. [6]

    Motion control of capsule robot based on adaptive magnetic levitation using electromagnetic coil,

    L. Song, Y . Dai, L. Wang, W. Zhang, Y . Ji, Y . Cao, J. Wei, F. Wang, J. Zhong, J. Yang et al. , “Motion control of capsule robot based on adaptive magnetic levitation using electromagnetic coil,” IEEE Transactions on Automation Science and Engineering , vol. 20, no. 4, pp. 2720–2731, 2022

    work page 2022

  7. [7]

    Non- holonomic closed-loop velocity control of a soft-tethered magnetic capsule endoscope,

    A. Z. Taddese, P. R. Slawinski, K. L. Obstein, and P. Valdastri, “Non- holonomic closed-loop velocity control of a soft-tethered magnetic capsule endoscope,” in 2016 IEEE/RSJ International Conference on Intelligent Robots and Systems (IROS) . IEEE, 2016, pp. 1139–1144

    work page 2016

  8. [8]

    Magnetic levitation for soft-tethered capsule colonoscopy actuated with a single permanent magnet: A dynamic control approach,

    G. Pittiglio, L. Barducci, J. W. Martin, J. C. Norton, C. A. Avizzano, K. L. Obstein, and P. Valdastri, “Magnetic levitation for soft-tethered capsule colonoscopy actuated with a single permanent magnet: A dynamic control approach,” IEEE robotics and automation letters , vol. 4, no. 2, pp. 1224–1231, 2019

    work page 2019

Show all 26 references
  1. [9]

    Evaluation of differ- ent control strategies for trajectory following of a robotic capsule endoscope under rotating magnetic actuation,

    Y . Xu, K. Li, Z. Zhao, and M. Q.-H. Meng, “Evaluation of differ- ent control strategies for trajectory following of a robotic capsule endoscope under rotating magnetic actuation,” IEEE Transactions on Automation Science and Engineering , vol. 20, no. 3, pp. 2170–2181, 2022

    2022

  2. [10]

    Five-degree-of-freedom manip- ulation of an untethered magnetic device in fluid using a single permanent magnet with application in stomach capsule endoscopy,

    A. W. Mahoney and J. J. Abbott, “Five-degree-of-freedom manip- ulation of an untethered magnetic device in fluid using a single permanent magnet with application in stomach capsule endoscopy,” The International Journal of Robotics Research , vol. 35, no. 1-3, pp. 129–147, 2016

    2016

  3. [11]

    Closed loop control of a tethered magnetic capsule endoscope,

    A. Z. Taddese, P. R. Slawinski, K. L. Obstein, and P. Valdastri, “Closed loop control of a tethered magnetic capsule endoscope,” Robotics science and systems: online proceedings , vol. 2016, 2016

    2016

  4. [12]

    Enabling the future of colonoscopy with intelligent and autonomous magnetic manipulation,

    J. W. Martin, B. Scaglioni, J. C. Norton, V . Subramanian, A. Arezzo, K. L. Obstein, and P. Valdastri, “Enabling the future of colonoscopy with intelligent and autonomous magnetic manipulation,” Nature ma- chine intelligence, vol. 2, no. 10, pp. 595–606, 2020

    2020

  5. [13]

    Motion primitives for low contact force magnetically-driven navigation of endoscopic capsules,

    J. O. Alcaide, A. Damone, P. Dario, and G. Ciuti, “Motion primitives for low contact force magnetically-driven navigation of endoscopic capsules,” IEEE Transactions on Medical Robotics and Bionics , 2023

    2023

  6. [14]

    Reciprocally rotating magnetic actuation and automatic trajectory following for wireless capsule endoscopy,

    Y . Xu, K. Li, Z. Zhao, F. Meng, L. Liu, and M. Q.-H. Meng, “Reciprocally rotating magnetic actuation and automatic trajectory following for wireless capsule endoscopy,” in 2021 IEEE International Conference on Robotics and Automation (ICRA) . IEEE, 2021, pp. 6768–6774

    2021

  7. [15]

    Hybrid trajectory planning of two permanent magnets for medical robotic applications,

    M. Brockdorff, T. da Veiga, J. Davy, P. Lloyd, J. H. Chandler, G. Pit- tiglio, R. K. Mathew, and P. Valdastri, “Hybrid trajectory planning of two permanent magnets for medical robotic applications,” The International Journal of Robotics Research , p. 02783649241264844, 2024

    2024

  8. [16]

    Optimal motion control of a capsule endoscope in the stomach utilizing a magnetic navigation system with dual permanent magnets,

    S. Bae, J. Kwon, J. Kim, and G. Jang, “Optimal motion control of a capsule endoscope in the stomach utilizing a magnetic navigation system with dual permanent magnets,” Micromachines, vol. 15, no. 8, p. 1032, 2024

    2024

  9. [17]

    J. J. Craig, Introduction to robotics . Pearson Educacion, 2006

    2006

  10. [18]

    Magnetic methods in robotics,

    J. J. Abbott, E. Diller, and A. J. Petruska, “Magnetic methods in robotics,” Annual Review of Control, Robotics, and Autonomous Systems, vol. 3, pp. 57–90, 2020

    2020

  11. [19]

    Altro: A fast solver for constrained trajectory optimization,

    T. A. Howell, B. E. Jackson, and Z. Manchester, “Altro: A fast solver for constrained trajectory optimization,” in 2019 IEEE/RSJ International Conference on Intelligent Robots and Systems (IROS) . IEEE, 2019, pp. 7674–7679

    2019

  12. [20]

    Differential dynamic programming with non- linear safety constraints under system uncertainties,

    G. Alcan and V . Kyrki, “Differential dynamic programming with non- linear safety constraints under system uncertainties,” IEEE Robotics and Automation Letters , vol. 7, no. 2, pp. 1760–1767, 2022

    2022

  13. [21]

    Constrained trajectory optimization on matrix lie groups via lie-algebraic differential dynamic programming,

    G. Alcan, F. J. Abu-Dakka, and V . Kyrki, “Constrained trajectory optimization on matrix lie groups via lie-algebraic differential dynamic programming,” arXiv preprint arXiv:2301.02018 , 2023

    2023 arXiv

  14. [22]

    Hartley and A

    R. Hartley and A. Zisserman, Multiple view geometry in computer vision. Cambridge university press, 2003

    2003

  15. [23]

    Kalman filters for non-linear systems: a comparison of performance,

    T. Lefebvre*, H. Bruyninckx, and J. De Schutter, “Kalman filters for non-linear systems: a comparison of performance,” International journal of Control , vol. 77, no. 7, pp. 639–653, 2004

    2004

  16. [24]

    Ultralytics YOLO,

    G. Jocher, A. Chaurasia, and J. Qiu, “Ultralytics YOLO,” Jan. 2023. [Online]. Available: https://github.com/ultralytics/ultralytics

    2023

  17. [25]

    JAX: composable transformations of Python+NumPy programs,

    J. Bradbury, R. Frostig, P. Hawkins, M. J. Johnson, C. Leary, D. Maclaurin, G. Necula, A. Paszke, J. VanderPlas, S. Wanderman- Milne, and Q. Zhang, “JAX: composable transformations of Python+NumPy programs,” 2018. [Online]. Available: http://github. com/google/jax

    2018

  18. [26]

    Articulated hands: Force control and kinematic issues,

    J. K. Salisbury and J. J. Craig, “Articulated hands: Force control and kinematic issues,” IJRR, vol. 1, no. 1, pp. 4–17, 1982

    1982

Pith tools

Reviewed August 12, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.