Does a joint-speed limit erase the time-optimal carry's advantage over min-jerk?

What it found

A follow-up to robofab-jawcap (stylised, preliminary): a peak joint-speed limit is added to the torque and jaw-force limits of a planar two-link arm carrying printed parts. Over three arm sizes, three jaw caps and speed limits of 6 to 1 rad/s, the time-optimal profile is 28 to 46% shorter than min-jerk meeting the same limits (18 to 34% without a speed limit), and the saving tends to 1 − 1/1.875 = 47%, a property of the min-jerk profile shape, so a trapezoidal baseline would show less. All parameters are assumed; the speed limits are round numbers, not an actuator rating.

A figure from its own output

Paper, code and results

• README and method
• White paper
• Experiments and results
• Code
• Tests

More in Robot manufacturing loops

• Is the time-optimal carry's speed-limited advantage just the min-jerk profile's shape?Is the time-optimal carry's speed-limited advantage just the min-jerk shape? Against a tuned trapezoidal-velocity move it is only 0.4 to 2.9% at speed limits of 2 and 1 rad/s (46% over min-jerk), and 8.7 to 22.5% with no speed limit (stylised, assumed parameters).
• How much of the time-optimal carry's edge survives a jerk-limited (S-curve) profile?Does rounding the trapezoid's corners (a jerk-limited S-curve) change the time-optimal carry's edge? An S-curve is never faster than the trapezoid and costs 0.0 to 2.0% (half-jerk) or 0.0 to 7.0% (full-jerk) at speed limits of 2 and 1 rad/s, but 1.4 to 33.7% with no speed limit (stylised, assumed parameters).
• At tight joint-speed limits, is the time-optimal carry's edge over a trapezoid real or an artefact of the ramp grid?Checks robofab-scurve on a finer ramp grid: sampling a 0.2% ramp is needed or the trapezoid wrongly beats the time-optimal solver; with it the time-optimal edge at 2 and 1 rad/s is −0.3 to +0.9%, below the solver's own ~0.5% node-count error (stylised, negative on the old figure).
• Once the solver is converged, is the time-optimal carry's edge over a tuned trapezoid still positive in all twelve speed-limited rows?Re-solves the time-optimal carry at 400, 1600 and 6400 nodes in all 12 speed-limited rows of robofab-scurvefine: once converged the edge over a tuned trapezoid is positive everywhere, +0.1 to +0.9% (stylised).
• Does tuning the trapezoid's ramp fraction beyond a grid shrink the time-optimal carry's edge, and is it still positive?Golden-section tuning of the trapezoid's ramp fraction shrinks the time-optimal carry's edge to +0.05 to +0.28% (still positive in all 12 rows; stylised).
• Is the motor-line edge of the time-optimal carry converged in solver nodes?Repeats the robofab-motorcurve motor-line rows with the time-optimal solver at 400, 1600 and 6400 nodes: the edge over the tuned trapezoid moves by at most 0.28 points from 1600 to 6400 (the 0.08 m, k = 2, w0 = 4 row rises from 4.98 to 5.26%), and the missing cover profile was a node-count limit. Stylised.

All 53 Robot manufacturing loops projects →

Other research topics

Proper scoring & elicitation28Effort & peer prediction9Verification games & slashing19Detection & tolerances14Markets as routers13Prediction-market design9Paying contributors8Decentralised training systems23Digital twins & sim-to-real164LLM chip design loops40Robot manufacturing loops53Ambient AI assistant46Self-replicating manufacturing34Simulation-first design64Engineered clothing45Task-specific AI accelerators40Algorithmic chip-design loops42Open-source purpose-built robots44The software-engineering loop43Adversarial human imitation41Open-source residential construction41Autonomous multi-angle capture34Sensing, imaging and 3D31Energy supply and dense energy storage39Robot societies among people31Agentic co-design of low-cost robots27Laundry-hanging robots25Machine learning on qualitative data23Robots on the building site27Civilizations & group psychology1History & human sciences1

Produced with AI assistance (Claude). Results are from the code in this repository and are simulated or stylised unless the abstract says otherwise; nothing here implies affiliation with or endorsement by any lab, researcher or company cited. MIT licensed.