Pith. sign in

REVIEW 3 major objections 6 minor 1 cited by

Path Planning and Optimization for Cuspidal 6R Manipulators

T0 review · 3 major / 6 minor · reviewed 2026-08-09 · deepseek-v4-flash

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

Pith's one-line read The paper claims that the ABB GoFa and some robots with three parallel joint axes are cuspidal, and that planning over all IK solutions as a graph search gives optimal feasible paths.

desk verdict Two new cuspidality results—GoFa and three-parallel-axis—are the real payload; the three-parallel-axis one is fully reproducible, the GoFa one needs the missing kinematic parameters before it can be checked. read the letter →

arxiv 2501.18505 v2 pith:ZUXIHXPV submitted 2025-01-30 cs.RO

Alexander J. Elias , John T. Wen This is my paper · ORCID
classification cs.RO
keywords cuspidalrobotsinversekinematicspathplanninggraphsearchkinematicsingularities6RmanipulatorsABBGoFathreeparallelaxes
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

A cuspidal robot can move from one inverse-kinematics solution to another without hitting a singularity, which silently breaks planners that track a single IK branch. The paper claims that two commercially relevant classes are cuspidal, the ABB GoFa and some robots with three parallel joint axes, and that cuspidality is easy to detect with a complete IK solver. It then proposes planning by enumerating every IK solution at each point of a task-space path, connecting those solutions into a weighted graph, and taking the shortest path as the optimal feasible motion. The same graph is used inside an optimizer that shifts the toolpath relative to the robot base to minimize joint movement. If the claims hold, cuspidal robots are not a reason to avoid a design; they are a reason to plan over all IK solutions.

What carries the argument

The load-bearing object is the weighted directed graph built from IK solutions. For a task-space path discretized into samples $k=0,\dots,K$, each IK solution $q_m[k]$ is a vertex $V_{k,m}$; an edge from $V_{k,m}$ to $V_{k+1,l}$ exists when the wrapped joint displacement $c(q_l[k+1],q_m[k])=\|\operatorname{wrapToPi}(q_l[k+1]-q_m[k])\|^2/\Delta\lambda$ is below a threshold, with the edge weight set by that cost. The shortest path from an artificial start to an artificial finish is the optimal feasible joint-space path. This construction makes a cuspidal change of IK solution an ordinary path in the graph rather than a discontinuity, and it allows hard constraints such as nonsingularity or repeatability to be imposed simply by deleting edges.

What would settle it

Using the official ABB-specified GoFa kinematic model, attempt to connect the paper's joint vectors $q_A$ and $q_B$ by any continuous joint-space path; if every such path crosses a singularity ($\det(J)=0$), the claim that the GoFa is cuspidal is false.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

The central discovery is that cuspidal robots can be identified by a fast random test and that the ABB GoFa, together with certain robots whose axes include three parallel joints, are cuspidal, the first time these families are shown to be cuspidal. For planning, the paper reduces the search for a feasible, optimal joint-space path along a given task-space path to a shortest-path problem on a weighted directed graph whose vertices are all IK solutions at each discretized point. This graph method finds non-singular paths, paths that pass through singularities, and paths that switch IK solutions without crossing a singularity, and it is fast enough to be run inside a loop that optimizes the placement of the toolpath relative to the robot base. On test cases, the optimizer lowers the RMS joint velocity per path length for both a 3R arm and the FANUC CRX-10iA/L.

Load-bearing premise

The results depend on the kinematic parameter values used for the ABB GoFa matching the physical robot, and the paper never lists those values, so the product-level cuspidality claim cannot be re-checked from the text alone.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • For a prescribed task-space path, the method returns the minimum-cost joint-space path over all IK branches, not just the branch chosen by an arbitrary IK seed.
  • The GoFa's controller software, which returns only eight of the arm's up to sixteen IK solutions, can miss feasible or cheaper paths; the paper reports this incompleteness for the GoFa for the first time.
  • Robots with three parallel joint axes cannot be assumed noncuspidal; each design must be checked, and the paper gives a fast random test for doing so.
  • Fixed workspace toolpaths can be re-placed relative to the robot base to make them feasible and to reduce joint motion, as demonstrated on helical paths for a 3R arm and the CRX.
  • The same graph can enforce path repeatability, so a closed path like a welding cycle will not silently switch IK solutions on the second pass.

Reading between the lines

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

  • The paper leaves implicit that the graph construction transfers to redundant 7-DOF arms and to parallel robots by substituting their solution sets; the authors only note preliminary evidence for 7-DOF arms.
  • One testable extension is a 'degree of cuspidality' score: the fraction of random MoveJ and MoveL paths that switch IK branches or are infeasible, which could serve as a robot-selection metric.
  • The graph planner's cost layer is metric-agnostic, so swapping the joint-velocity objective for cycle time, energy, or manipulability would not change the search method.
  • A practical consequence not developed in the paper is that robot vendors' IK displays should show all solutions and their connectivity, since the GoFa example shows eight-solution labels can be misleading.
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

3 major / 6 minor

Summary. The paper addresses path planning for cuspidal 6R serial manipulators. It proposes a Monte-Carlo identification method: sample end-effector poses, compute all IK solutions with the authors' IK-Geo solver, and test linear joint-space paths between solutions that share the same sign of det(J); a sign-constant path certifies cuspidality. Using this method, the paper claims to show for the first time that the ABB GoFa CRB 15000 and certain robots with three parallel joint axes are cuspidal. For path planning, the paper discretizes a task-space path, computes all IK solutions at each sample, and builds a weighted directed acyclic graph whose vertices are IK solutions and whose edges connect successive samples when the joint-space distance is below a threshold; the shortest path is presented as the optimal feasible path. This graph planner is then embedded in a derivative-free optimization loop over the workpiece-frame pose, with a quaternion parameterization and a squared joint-velocity cost, and is demonstrated on helical toolpaths for a cuspidal 3R manipulator and the FANUC CRX-10iA/L.

Significance. If the two novel cuspidality claims are substantiated, the paper is significant for industrial robot programming: it would alert practitioners that the ABB GoFa requires cuspidal-aware planning, and it would overturn the informal expectation that three parallel joint axes imply noncuspidality. The graph planner is a clean reduction of the discrete IK-branch path-selection problem to a shortest-path problem, and optimality within the constructed graph is exact. The public code repository is a strength, and the RobotStudio/ROBOGUIDE checks, if fully documented, would provide valuable independent evidence. The main obstacles are evidential rather than conceptual: the GoFa kinematic parameters and a within-limits witness are not supplied, and the three-parallel-axis parameter set contains an apparent typo.

major comments (3)
  1. [Section 3.3, Eq. (6)] The GoFa cuspidality result is not established by the evidence shown. The q_A and q_B vectors in Eq. (6) are explicitly admitted to exceed the robot joint limits, and by the paper's own Definition 2.1 joint limits can convert a cuspidal robot into a noncuspidal robot. The sentence 'we can also find other examples within the joint limits and verify the motion in RobotStudio' is an assertion without the accompanying joint vectors, the kinematic model used in IK-Geo, or any RobotStudio output. Please provide the exact DH or POE parameters for the GoFa variants, a within-limits q_A/q_B pair with FK(q_A)=FK(q_B), and a demonstration (for example, a plot of det(J) along the segment, plus a RobotStudio log or screenshot) that the path is nonsingular. This is load-bearing because the abstract and Section 3.3 present the GoFa result as a headline contribution.
  2. [Section 3.4, Eq. (7)] The three-parallel-axis counterexample is not reproducible as written. In Eq. (7), the line p56 = 0.3e_z + 0.9e_z simplifies to 1.2e_z and appears to contain a typo; one of the coefficients is likely meant to be along a different axis. Because the claim that robots with three parallel axes may be cuspidal rests entirely on this parameter set and the q_A/q_B pair in Eq. (8), please correct Eq. (7), state the intended parameters explicitly, and verify or provide code verifying that the linear path between the Eq. (8) vectors keeps a constant sign of det(J).
  3. [Section 4.2 and Section 5.3] The optimality claim should be scoped to the discretized graph, and the algorithm's free parameters should be reported. Section 4.2 defines the graph using the sample count K and the threshold epsilon0, but Section 4.3 and Section 5.3 do not state the K and epsilon0 values used for Figs. 3, 4, and 8 or for the helix optimization results, including the reported RMS joint-velocity reductions (for example, 13.9328 to 10.0447 rad/m for the CRX). Furthermore, the abstract's statement 'The optimal feasible path is the shortest path in the graph' is exact by construction only within that graph; without additional argument it does not imply global optimality over all continuous paths. Please report K and epsilon0 for every experiment and add a sentence in Section 4.2 clarifying that 'optimal' means optimal among the paths represented by the chosen discretization.
minor comments (6)
  1. [Section 1] In the paragraph listing the paper structure, 'We identify cuspidal robots in in Section 3' contains a duplicated 'in'.
  2. [Section 2] In the discussion of kinematic singularities, 'some spacial velocity direction' should read 'some spatial velocity direction.'
  3. [Section 4.2] The sentence 'Due to the triangle inequality, paths with fewer edges...' is imprecise for the squared-norm cost in Eq. (10); the stated comparison follows from convexity or the parallelogram law, not the triangle inequality in its usual form. Rephrasing would avoid confusion.
  4. [Section 4.2] The robustness paragraph says 'Vertex S is connected to each V0,m, and vertex F is connected to each VK,m with edges of weight 0 directed from S and to F.' This is grammatically ambiguous; for example, it could read '...with edges of weight 0 from S to each V0,m and from each VK,m to F.'
  5. [Section 5.2] The statement 'assume without loss of generality that h1 = e_z and p01 is only in the z direction' is valid because the base-frame origin can be placed on the first joint axis, but this justification is not given. Adding it would help the reader follow the null-space elimination.
  6. [References] Reference [39] is cited for fminsearch(), but the reference points to the MATLAB Optimization Toolbox; fminsearch is part of base MATLAB. The citation should be to the appropriate MATLAB documentation.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 0.0 of 10

No significant circularity: cuspidality is witnessed by explicit joint-space paths, and the graph planner's optimality is a direct cost encoding rather than a fitted prediction.

full rationale

The paper's central derivations do not reduce to their own inputs. For cuspidality, the method is constructive: Section 3.2 finds all IK solutions for one pose, pairs those with the same sign of det(J), linearly interpolates in joint space, and declares the robot cuspidal only if det(J) never vanishes. For the three-parallel-axis robot, Section 3.4 supplies the kinematic parameters (Eq. 7) and both endpoint joint vectors (Eq. 8), so the nonsingular-change claim is independently checkable by forward kinematics and Jacobian evaluation. The GoFa example in Section 3.3 is weaker evidence: the displayed q_A and q_B path is admitted to exceed joint limits, and the within-limits RobotStudio verification is asserted without kinematic parameters or logs. This is an evidentiary gap, not a circular one: the claim is not defined in terms of the solver output, and no parameter was fitted to a subset of data and then reported as a prediction. The graph planner in Section 4.2 likewise encodes the user-defined cost metric (Eqs. 9-10) as edge weights; calling the shortest graph path optimal is true by construction, but that is the intended reduction to a shortest-path problem, not a hidden reuse of fitted quantities. The only self-citation, IK-Geo [12], is invoked as a general IK tool rather than as a conclusion, and the three-parallel-axis witness can be checked without relying on it. No quoted step exhibits the reduction pattern that would constitute circularity.

Assumptions & free parameters 2 free parameters · 3 assumptions · 0 invented entities

The central results rest on the correctness of the authors' IK-Geo solver for the specific robots, on the unlisted GoFa kinematic parameters, and on the numerical assumption that sampled linear joint paths and user-tuned thresholds faithfully represent continuous feasibility. No new physical entities are introduced.

free parameters (2)
  • epsilon0 edge threshold
    User-specified threshold epsilon = delta_lambda * epsilon0 controls which IK-solution vertices are connected; if too large the graph admits discontinuous jumps, if too small feasible paths are missed (Section 4.2).
  • path sampling density K = 10 to 500 samples in the shown examples
    The graph only sees discretized poses; the authors acknowledge that sampling must be dense enough to approximate piecewise-linear joint paths (Sections 4.2 and 4.3).
assumptions (3)
  • domain assumption The ABB GoFa kinematic model used with IK-Geo matches the physical robot and RobotStudio's model.
    Section 3.3 reports cuspidality for the GoFa but does not list the kinematic parameters; the claim holds for the real product only if the coded model is accurate.
  • domain assumption IK-Geo returns the complete set of IK solutions at every sampled pose along the path.
    The graph construction relies on enumerating all IK solutions per pose; the authors state IK-Geo can miss solutions for 1D-search robots, so completeness is assumed for feasibility and optimality.
  • domain assumption Linear interpolation between joint configurations, with det(J) evaluated along the segment, is a valid certificate that a path avoids singularities.
    The cuspidality detection procedure (Section 3.2) uses linear MoveJ interpolation and det(J) checks; this certifies cuspidality for the tested interpolated path, assuming the determinant checks are reliable.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Path Planning and Optimization for Cuspidal 6R Manipulators." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/ZUXIHXPV

@misc{pith2026250118505,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Path Planning and Optimization for Cuspidal 6R Manipulators},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/ZUXIHXPV}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2501.18505}
}
read the original abstract

A cuspidal robot can move from one inverse kinematics (IK) solution to another without crossing a singularity. Multiple industrial robots are cuspidal. They tend to have a beautiful mechanical design, but they pose path planning challenges. A task-space path may have a valid IK solution for each point along the path, but a continuous joint-space path may depend on the choice of the IK solution or even be infeasible. This paper presents new analysis, path planning, and optimization methods to enhance the utility of cuspidal robots. We first demonstrate an efficient method to identify cuspidal robots and show, for the first time, that the ABB GoFa and certain robots with three parallel joint axes are cuspidal. We then propose a new path planning method for cuspidal robots by finding all IK solutions for each point along a task-space path and constructing a graph to connect each vertex corresponding to an IK solution. Graph edges have a weight based on the optimization metric, such as minimizing joint velocity. The optimal feasible path is the shortest path in the graph. This method can find non-singular paths as well as smooth paths which pass through singularities. Finally, we incorporate this path planning method into a path optimization algorithm. Given a fixed workspace toolpath, we optimize the offset of the toolpath in the robot base frame while ensuring continuous joint motion. Code examples are available in a publicly accessible repository.

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Forward citations

Cited by 1 Pith paper

Reviewed papers in the Pith corpus that reference this work. Sorted by Pith novelty score. Full citation record

  1. Redundancy Parameterization of the ABB YuMi Robot Arm

    cs.RO 2025-05 conditional novelty 6.0 of 10

    The ABB YuMi's redundancy parameter, the SEW angle, is the conventional SEW angle plus a 90-degree offset about the shoulder-wrist axis, with the shoulder at joint 1.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

38 extracted references · 35 canonical work pages · cited by 1 Pith paper

  1. [7]

    A Review of Cuspidal Serial and Parallel Manipulators,

    Wenger, P. and Chablat, D., 2023, “A Review of Cuspidal Serial and Parallel Manipulators,” ASME J. Mech. Rob.,15(4), 040801

    work page 2023

  2. [1]

    ABB, 2020, Product Specification - IRB 6640 , https://library.abb.com/d/ 3HAC028284-001

    work page 2020

  3. [2]

    Yaskawa, 2018, Motoman-MA2010 Instructions, https://www.motoman.com/ en-us/service-training/product-documentation

    work page 2018

  4. [3]

    universal-robots.com/download/manuals-cb-series/user/ur5/315/ user-manual-ur5-cb-series-sw315-english-international-en/

    Universal Robots, 2021, User Manual UR5/CB3 , https://www. universal-robots.com/download/manuals-cb-series/user/ur5/315/ user-manual-ur5-cb-series-sw315-english-international-en/

    work page 2021

  5. [4]

    Techman Robot, 2018, TM5 Guide Book , https://www.tm-robot.com/en/ download-center/

    work page 2018

  6. [5]

    FANUC, 2020, FANUC Robot CRX-10iA, CRX-10iA/L Mechanical Unit Oper- ator’s Manual

    work page 2020

  7. [6]

    Kinova, 2024, Link 6 User Guide, https://www.kinovarobotics.com/product/ link-6-cobot

    work page 2024

  8. [8]

    A Study of Multiple Manipulator Inverse Kinematic Solutions with Applications to Trajectory Planning and Workspace Determination,

    Borrel, P. and Liégeois, A., 1986, “A Study of Multiple Manipulator Inverse Kinematic Solutions with Applications to Trajectory Planning and Workspace Determination,”Proc. Int. Conf. Robot. Autom. (ICRA), Vol. 3, IEEE, San Fran- cisco, CA, April 7–10, pp. 1180–1185, doi: 10.1109/ROBOT.1986.1087554

    work page arXiv 1986

Show all 38 references
  1. [9]

    A New General Formalism for the Kinematic Analysis of All Nonredundant Manipulators,

    Wenger, P., 1992, “A New General Formalism for the Kinematic Analysis of All Nonredundant Manipulators,”Proc. Int. Conf. Robot. Autom. (ICRA), IEEE, Nice, France, May 12–14, pp. 442–447, doi: 10.1109/ROBOT.1992.220300

    1992

  2. [10]

    Kinematic Issues in 6R Cuspidal Robots, Guidelines for Path Planning and Deciding Cuspidality,

    Salunkhe, D. H., Marauli, T., Müller, A., Chablat, D., and Wenger, P., 2024, “Kinematic Issues in 6R Cuspidal Robots, Guidelines for Path Planning and Deciding Cuspidality,” Int. J. Robot. Res., 02783649241293481

    2024

  3. [11]

    Cuspidal Robots: Theoretical Study, Classification, and Application to Commercial Robots,

    Salunkhe, D. H., 2023, “Cuspidal Robots: Theoretical Study, Classification, and Application to Commercial Robots,” Ph.D. thesis, École centrale de Nantes, https://theses.hal.science/tel-04520763v1

    2023

  4. [12]

    IK-Geo: Unified robot inverse kinematics using subproblem decomposition,

    Elias, A. J. and Wen, J. T., 2025, “IK-Geo: Unified robot inverse kinematics using subproblem decomposition,” Mechanism and Machine Theory,209, p. 105971

    2025

  5. [13]

    A New and Efficient Algorithm for the Inverse Kinematics of a General Serial 6R Manipulator,

    Husty, M. L., Pfurner, M., and Schröcker, H.-P., 2007, “A New and Efficient Algorithm for the Inverse Kinematics of a General Serial 6R Manipulator,” Mech. Mach. Theory,42(1), pp. 66–81

    2007

  6. [14]

    Planning Nonsingular Transitions Between Solutions of the Direct Kinematic Problem From the Joint Space,

    Macho, E., Petuya, V., Altuzarra, O., and Hernandez, A., 2012, “Planning Nonsingular Transitions Between Solutions of the Direct Kinematic Problem From the Joint Space,” ASME J. Mech. Rob.,4(4), 041005

    2012

  7. [15]

    A Simple Proof That Generic 3-RPR Manipulators Have Two Aspects,

    Coste, M., 2012, “A Simple Proof That Generic 3-RPR Manipulators Have Two Aspects,” ASME J. Mech. Rob.,4(1), 011008

    2012

  8. [16]

    Assembly Mode Changing in Parallel Mechanisms,

    Bamberger, H., Wolf, A., and Shoham, M., 2008, “Assembly Mode Changing in Parallel Mechanisms,” IEEE Trans. Robot,24(4), pp. 765–772

    2008

  9. [17]

    Cusp Points in the Parameter Space of Degenerate 3-RPR Planar Parallel Ma- nipulators,

    Manubens, M., Moroz, G., Chablat, D., Wenger, P., and Rouillier, F., 2012, “Cusp Points in the Parameter Space of Degenerate 3-RPR Planar Parallel Ma- nipulators,” ASME J. Mech. Rob.,4(4), 041003

    2012

  10. [18]

    Cuspidal and Noncuspidal Robot Manipulators,

    Wenger, P., 2007, “Cuspidal and Noncuspidal Robot Manipulators,” Robotica, 25(6), pp. 677–689

    2007

  11. [20]

    ABB, 2024, Technical Reference Manual - RAPID Instructions, Functions, and Datatypes RW 7, https://library.abb.com/d/3HAC065038-001

    2024

  12. [21]

    Structural Parameters Which Reduce the Number of Manipulator Configurations,

    Mavroidis, C. and Roth, B., 1994, “Structural Parameters Which Reduce the Number of Manipulator Configurations,” ASME J. Mech. Des.,116(1), pp. 3–10

    1994

  13. [22]

    A distance geometry approach to the singularity analysis of 3R robots,

    Thomas, F., 2016, “A distance geometry approach to the singularity analysis of 3R robots,” ASME J. Mech. Rob.,8(1), 011001

    2016

  14. [23]

    Necessary and Sufficient Condition for a Generic 3R Serial Manipulator to Be Cuspidal,

    Salunkhe, D. H., Spartalis, C., Capco, J., Chablat, D., and Wenger, P., 2022, “Necessary and Sufficient Condition for a Generic 3R Serial Manipulator to Be Cuspidal,” Mech. Mach. Theory,171, 104729

    2022

  15. [24]

    Kinetostatic Analysis and Actuation Strategy of a Planar Tensegrity 2-X Manipulator,

    Furet, M. and Wenger, P., 2019, “Kinetostatic Analysis and Actuation Strategy of a Planar Tensegrity 2-X Manipulator,” ASME J. Mech. Rob.,11(6), 060904

    2019

  16. [25]

    Singularity Analysis of Kinova’s Link 6 Robot Arm via Grassmann Line Geometry,

    Asgari, M., Bonev, I. A., and Gosselin, C., 2024, “Singularity Analysis of Kinova’s Link 6 Robot Arm via Grassmann Line Geometry,”Proc. Int. Conf. Robot. Autom. (ICRA), IEEE, Yokohama, Japan, May 13–18, pp. 8814–8820, doi: 10.1109/ICRA57147.2024.10610252

    2024

  17. [26]

    Deciding Cuspidality of Manipulators Through Computer Alge- bra and Algorithms in Real Algebraic Geometry,

    Chablat, D., Prébet, R., Safey El Din, M., Salunkhe, D. H., and Wenger, P., 2022, “Deciding Cuspidality of Manipulators Through Computer Alge- bra and Algorithms in Real Algebraic Geometry,” Proc. Int. Symp. Sym- bolic Algebraic Comput. (ISSAC), Lille, France, July 4–7, pp. 43...

    2022

  18. [27]

    Time-OptimalPoint-To-PointMotionPlanningandAssembly Mode Change of Cuspidal Manipulators: Application to 3R and 6R Robots,

    Marauli, T., Salunkhe, D. H., Gattringer, H., Müller, A., Chablat, D., and Wenger,P.,2023,“Time-OptimalPoint-To-PointMotionPlanningandAssembly Mode Change of Cuspidal Manipulators: Application to 3R and 6R Robots,” Proc. Int. Conf. Intell. Robots Syst. (IROS), IEEE, Detroit, M...

    2023

  19. [28]

    Cartesian Path Plan- ning for Arc Welding Robots: Evaluation of the Descartes Algorithm,

    De Maeyer, J., Moyaers, B., and Demeester, E., 2017, “Cartesian Path Plan- ning for Arc Welding Robots: Evaluation of the Descartes Algorithm,”Proc. Int. Conf. Emerg. Technol. Factory Autom. (ETFA), IEEE, Limassol, Cyprus, September 12–15, pp. 1–8, doi: 10.1109/ETFA.2017.8247616

    2017

  20. [29]

    Optimal TCP and Robot Base Placement for a Set of Complex Continuous Paths,

    Weingartshofer, T., Hartl-Nesic, C., and Kugi, A., 2021, “Optimal TCP and Robot Base Placement for a Set of Complex Continuous Paths,”Proc. Int. Conf. Robot. Autom. (ICRA), IEEE, Xi’an, China, May 30 – June 05, pp. 9659–9665, doi: 10.1109/ICRA48506.2021.9561900

    2021

  21. [30]

    Task-Dependent Workpiece Placement Optimization for Minimizing Contour Errors Induced by the Low Posture-Dependent Stiffness of Robotic Milling,

    Ye, C., Yang, J., Zhao, H., and Ding, H., 2021, “Task-Dependent Workpiece Placement Optimization for Minimizing Contour Errors Induced by the Low Posture-Dependent Stiffness of Robotic Milling,” Int. J. Mech. Sci.,205, p. 106601. 10

    2021

  22. [31]

    Workpiece Placement Optimization of Six-Revolute Industrial Serial Robots for Machining Opera- tions,

    Dumas, C., Caro, S., Garnier, S., and Furet, B., 2012, “Workpiece Placement Optimization of Six-Revolute Industrial Serial Robots for Machining Opera- tions,” ASME Proc. Eng. Syst. Des. Anal., Vol. 44854, ASME, Nantes, France, July 2–4, pp. 419–428, doi: 10.1115/ESDA2012-82559

    2012 doi

  23. [32]

    Optimization of Robot Posture and Workpiece Setup in Robotic Milling with Stiffness Threshold,

    Liao, Z.-Y., Wang, Q.-H., Xie, H.-L., Li, J.-R., Zhou, X.-F., and Pan, T.-H., 2021, “Optimization of Robot Posture and Workpiece Setup in Robotic Milling with Stiffness Threshold,” IEEE/ASME Trans. Mechatron.,27(1), pp. 582–593

    2021

  24. [33]

    Fast and Accurate Relative Motion Tracking for Dual Industrial Robots,

    He, H., Lu, C.-l., Saunders, G., Wason, J., Yang, P., Schoonover, J., Ajdelsztajn, L., Paternain, S., Julius, A., and Wen, J. T., 2024, “Fast and Accurate Relative Motion Tracking for Dual Industrial Robots,” IEEE Robot. Autom. Lett.,9, pp. 10153–10160

    2024

  25. [34]

    Optimal Workpiece Placement Based on Robot Reach, Manipulability and Joint Torques,

    Balci, B., Donovan, J., Roberts, J., and Corke, P., 2023, “Optimal Workpiece Placement Based on Robot Reach, Manipulability and Joint Torques,”Proc. Int. Conf. Robot. Autom. (ICRA), IEEE, London, United Kingdom, May 29 – June 2, pp. 12302–12308, doi: 10.1109/ICRA48891.2023.10161031

    2023

  26. [35]

    Workpiece Placement Optimization for Robot Machining Based on the Evaluation of Feasible Kinematic Directional Capabilities,

    Stradovnik, S. and Hace, A., 2024, “Workpiece Placement Optimization for Robot Machining Based on the Evaluation of Feasible Kinematic Directional Capabilities,” Appl. Sci.,14(4), p. 1531

    2024

  27. [36]

    OptimizationoftheWorkpieceLocation in a Machining Robotic Cell,

    Lopes, A.M.andPires, E.J.S., 2011, “OptimizationoftheWorkpieceLocation in a Machining Robotic Cell,” Int. J. Adv. Robot. Syst.,8(6), p. 73

    2011

  28. [37]

    ABB, 2024, Product Specification - CRB 15000, https://library.abb.com/d/ 3HAC077390-001

    2024

  29. [38]

    Manipulability of Robotic Mechanisms,

    Yoshikawa, T., 1985, “Manipulability of Robotic Mechanisms,” Int. J. Robot. Res., 4(2), pp. 3–9

    1985

  30. [39]

    Optimization Toolbox Version: 24.2 (R2024b),

    The MathWorks Inc., 2024, “Optimization Toolbox Version: 24.2 (R2024b),” https://www.mathworks.com/help/optim/index.html 11

    2024

Pith tools

Reviewed August 9, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.