Systematic Analysis of Coupling Effects on Closed-Loop and Open-Loop Performance in Aerial Continuum Manipulators
Abstract
Domain fit: AI-adjacent · Paper appears method- or tooling-adjacent to AI workflows with partial ecosystem coverage.
This paper investigates two distinct approaches to the dynamic modeling of aerial continuum manipulators (ACMs): the decoupled and the coupled formulations. Both open-loop and closed-loop behaviors of a representative ACM are analyzed. The primary objective is to determine the conditions under which the decoupled model attains accuracy comparable to the coupled model while offering reduced computational cost under identical numerical conditions. The system dynamics are first derived using the Euler--Lagrange method under the piecewise constant curvature (PCC) assumption, with explicit treatment of the near-zero curvature singularity. A decoupled model is then obtained by neglecting the coupling terms in the ACM dynamics, enabling systematic evaluation of open-loop responses under diverse actuation profiles and external wrenches. To extend the analysis to closed-loop performance, a novel dynamics-based proportional-derivative sliding mode image-based visual servoing (DPD-SM-IBVS) controller is developed for regulating image feature errors in the presence of a moving target. The controller is implemented with both coupled and decoupled models, allowing a direct comparison of their effectiveness. The open-loop simulations reveal pronounced discrepancies between the two modeling approaches, particularly under varying torque inputs and continuum arm parameters. Conversely, the closed-loop experiments demonstrate that the decoupled model achieves tracking accuracy on par with the coupled model (within subpixel error) while incurring lower computational cost.
Results and benchmarks
This paper investigates two distinct approaches to the dynamic modeling of aerial continuum manipulators (ACMs): the decoupled and the coupled formulations.
Benchmark evidence is limited
Evidence graph: 2 refs, 1 links.
Utility signals: depth 60/100, grounding 58/100, status medium.
Implementation
No direct implementation yet
Maintained implementation evidence is not confirmed for this paper yet.
Use the implementation status and reproduction sections for the current action plan.
No verified maintained repo yet
There is no verified maintained implementation yet. Use this baseline plan to decide whether to prototype now or defer.
- No direct maintained implementation was found. Use the paper PDF and citation graph to design a baseline reproduction.
- Track assumptions and missing details in an experiment log before coding.
Time to first repro: a few days
Recommendation evidence is currently too limited for a maintained-repo choice. Use Implementation Status and Reproduction Path for a practical baseline plan.
- Estimate is based on paper-only reproduction flow
Reproduction readiness
No repo
No verified implementation available
- No maintained repository has been identified for this paper. Check adjacent implementations or HF artifacts below.
Hardware requirements
- Expect multi-day setup/compute for meaningful reproduction based on current guidance.
Validation caveat
Hugging Face artifacts
No trustworthy direct or curated related Hugging Face artifacts were found yet. Use targeted searches to quickly locate candidate models, datasets, and demos.
Models
Datasets
Spaces
Tip: start with models, then check datasets and spaces if you need evaluation data or demos.
Research context
Tasks
Scientific computing
Methods
None detected
Domains
Computer vision
Open this paper in HFEPX to review benchmark signals, evaluation modes, and human-feedback protocol context.
Open in HFEPXJump to Paper2Code search queries derived from this paper's research context.