A 7DOF redundant robotic arm inverse kinematic

solution algorithm based on Bald Eagle swarm

intelligent optimization algorithm
Guojun Zhao (  zhaoguojun@wust.edu.cn )
Wuhan University of Science and Technology https://orcid.org/0000-0003-4336-1431
Ying Sun
Wuhan University of Science and Technology
Du Jiang
Wuhan University of Science and Technology
Xin Liu
Wuhan University of Science and Technology
Bo Tao
Wuhan University of Science and Technology
Guozhang Jiang
Wuhan University of Science and Technology
Jianyi Kong
Wuhan University of Science and Technology
Juntong Yun
Wuhan University of Science and Technology
Ying Liu
Wuhan University of Science and Technology
Gongfa Li
Wuhan University of Science and Technology

Research Article

Keywords: Bald eagle swarm intelligent optimization algorithm, Multi-stage optimization strategy, Inverse
Kinematics, Redundant robotic arm

Posted Date: December 15th, 2022

DOI: https://doi.org/10.21203/rs.3.rs-2333928/v1

License:   This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License.
Read Full License
 A 7DOF redundant robotic arm inverse kinematic solution algorithm
based on Bald Eagle swarm intelligent optimization algorithm
Guojun Zhaoa,d, Ying Suna,d*, Du Jianga,c*, Xin Liua,d*, Bo Taoa,d,
Guozhang Jiangc, Jianyi Konga,b,c, Juntong Yunb,d, Ying Liub,d, Gongfa Lia,b,c
a
Key Laboratory of Metallurgical Equipment and Control Technology of Ministry of Education, Wuhan University
of Science and Technology, Wuhan 430081, China
b
Research Center for Biomimetic Robot and Intelligent Measurement and Control, Wuhan University of science
and Technology, Wuhan 430081, China
c
Hubei Key Laboratory of Mechanical Transmission and Manufacturing Engineering, Wuhan University of science
and Technology, Wuhan 430081, China
d
Precision Manufacturing Research Institute, Wuhan University of Science and Technology, Wuhan 430081,
China.
*Correspondence: Sunying@wust.edu.cn; Jiangdu@wust.edu.cn; Liuxin@wust.edu.cn

Abstract: Solving the robot inverse kinematic solution is the key to the subsequent path planning and trajectory
tracking control of the robot, which is of great research significance. The inverse kinematic solution of the redundant
robotic arm is a great challenge because the parsing solution cannot be obtained by the conventional inverse kinematic
solution method. The swarm intelligent optimization algorithm is widely used in the inverse kinematic solution
problem of redundant robotic arms by converting the inverse kinematic solution problem of the robotic arm into the
minimum value optimization problem of the fitness function, avoiding the tedious process of the traditional inverse
kinematic solution. This paper innovatively applies the bald eagle swarm intelligent optimization algorithm (BES
algorithm) to the inverse motion solution problem of a 7DOF redundant robotic arm for the first time. The BES
algorithm simulates the process of prey hunting by bald eagles in nature and consists of three main phases: selection
phase, search phase, and dive phase. In these three phases, the algorithm updates the joint angles to be sought by
using different optimization strategies, and obtains high accuracy position values by bringing the obtained joint angles
into the positive kinematic expression of the robot arm. The article takes the YuMi 14000 ABB 7DOF industrial
robotic arm and the S-R-S humanoid 7DOF robotic arm as the research objects, and the BES algorithm is
experimentally compared with the traditional swarm intelligence optimization algorithms DE algorithm, FA
algorithm, FOA algorithm, GA algorithm and PSO algorithm in terms of position solving accuracy. The experimental
results show that the BES algorithm has higher position solution accuracy and solution stability compared with other
algorithms.

Keywords: Bald eagle swarm intelligent optimization algorithm, Multi-stage optimization strategy, Inverse
Kinematics, Redundant robotic arm
1. Introduction of the robot arm by observing the geometric relationship of
the robot arm. This method is more intuitive compared to
the analytical method, but the application scenario of the
The inverse kinematic solution problem of the robotic
geometric method is narrower than that of the analytical
arm is of great research significance as the basis of robotic
method. Unlike the parsing method, the numerical solution
arm trajectory planning as well as control (Deng et al. 2021,
method transforms the inverse kinematic solution problem
Xiao et al. 2021). The robotic arm can be classified into
of the robotic arm into a minimum value optimization
redundant robotic arm and non-redundant robotic arm
problem of the objective function by constructing an
according to the number of degrees of freedom of the
adaptation function containing the solved joint angles and
robotic arm. Generally, robotic arms with six degrees of
optimizing it to finally obtain a set of approximate
freedom and less than six degrees of freedom are called
solutions that satisfy the requirements. The current
non-redundant robotic arms, and robotic arms with more
mainstream numerical methods contain intelligent
than six degrees of freedom are called redundant robotic
algorithms, neural networks, and numerical iterative
arms. Compared with non-redundant robotic arms,
methods based on Jacobi matrices (Sherbiny et al. 2017).
redundant robotic arms have more degrees of freedom and
The traditional parsing methods cannot be applied to the
can be applied to more flexible scenarios. The introduction
redundant robotic arm because the parsing solution is not
of redundant degrees of freedom, on the one hand, makes
available for the redundant robotic arm. The current
the robotic arm more flexible and provides a broader
inverse kinematic solution methods for redundant robotic
scenario for robotic arm applications, but on the other hand,
arms mainly use numerical methods based on intelligent
it also makes the inverse kinematics solution of the robotic
algorithms.
arm difficult. Through the efforts of researchers, the non-
Some related scholars have studied the method of
redundant robotic arm satisfying the "piper" criterion can
solving the inverse kinematic solution of redundant robotic
now decouple the joints of the intersecting axes and finally
arms based on intelligent algorithms. Wang et al. (2008)
obtain the parsing solution of the non-redundant robotic
applied the DE algorithm to the inverse kinematic solution
arm (Tong et al. 2021, Li et al. 2022, Baker and Wampler
problem of a parallel robot arm by transforming the inverse
(1988)). That is, for the non-redundant robotic arm with
kinematic solution problem of the parallel robot arm into
three axes intersecting at one point, the form of the joint
the minimax optimization problem of the objective
angle obtained contains only known parameters. In
function to finally achieve the inverse kinematic solution.
contrast to the non-redundant robotic arm, the inverse
The article solves the minimax optimization problem of the
kinematic parsing solution cannot be solved for the
objective function mainly by using the idea of selecting the
redundant robotic arm, so the inverse kinematic solution
optimal vector in the DE algorithm. According to two
problem becomes quite challenging for the redundant
different random vectors in the population, the third vector
robotic arm (Ananthanarayanan and Ordóñez (2015),
is obtained by mutation and hybridization, and the vector
Shimizu et al. 2008, Tarokh and Kim (2007), Dereli and
is selected by comparing the objective value of the new
Koker (2020)).
vector with that of the old vector, and the minimum value
The current methods for solving the inverse
of the objective function is finally obtained to achieve the
kinematics of robotic arms are mainly divided into two
inverse kinematic solution. Jesus et al. (2021) proposed an
types: parsing and numerical methods (Roth et al. 1973,
improved multimodal FA algorithm for the inverse
Paul et al. 1981, Ananthanarayanan and Ordonez (2013),
kinematic solution problem of redundant robotic arms. The
Singh and Claassens (2010)). Among them, the parsing
traditional firefly algorithm is improved by setting multiple
method is divided into analytical and geometric methods.
joint configurations to improve the inverse kinematic
The analytical method is mainly used to obtain the
solution performance. Parker et al. (1989) proposed a GA
equation with the same number of variables by shifting the
algorithm to solve the inverse kinematic solution of a
terms of the positive kinematic expression of the robot arm,
redundant robotic arm. The end-effector position of the
and finally the inverse kinematic solution is obtained by
robotic arm is positioned by the GA algorithm, while
solving the equation. The analytical method is fast and
ensuring that the joint displacement from the initial
accurate, but it has limited applications because it is
position is minimized. Nearchou (1998) proposed an
generally used for robotic arms that satisfy the "piper"
improved GA algorithm (mGA) for the inverse kinematic
criterion (Roth (1975), Tsai and Morgan A (1984), Lee and
solution problem of a redundant robotic arm in an obstacle
Ziegler (1984), Nakamura and Hanafusa (1986)). The
environment by transforming the inverse kinematic
geometric method obtains the inverse kinematic solution
solution problem of the redundant robotic arm into an
optimization problem under constraints to achieve the
inverse kinematic solution. The article achieves the inverse
kinematic solution by determining the representation
mechanism of the inverse kinematic solution problem
encoded as an artificial chromosome, setting the initial
population for generating chromosomes, selecting the
fitness function for evaluating chromosomes, setting the
genetic operators for reproduction, crossover, and mutation,
and setting the control parameters, and finally optimizing
the objective function. Dereli et al. (2018) implemented an
improvement to the traditional PSO algorithm by
modifying the fixed weights of the PSO algorithm to
random weights, and used the improved algorithm to solve
the inverse kinematic solution problem of the redundant
robotic arm, ultimately improving the accuracy of the
solution of the end-effector position pose. Dereli et al.
(2022) improved the PSO algorithm inspired by golfing
and applied it to the 7DOF inverse kinematics solution,
which significantly improved the accuracy of the inverse
kinematics solution. Zhao et al. (2022) proposed an
improved PSO algorithm for the inverse kinematic solution
problem of a 7DOF redundant robotic arm. The accuracy
of the inverse kinematic solution of the redundant robotic
arm is finally improved by setting a new velocity initial
approach, adjusting the learning factor, and using adaptive
weights. Mao et al. (2017) proposed a hybrid strategy
combining the PSO algorithm with the DE algorithm for
solving the inverse kinematic solution of redundant robotic
arms. The algorithm was found to have better convergence
with guaranteed accuracy by comparison. Aydilek (2018)
combined the FA algorithm with the PSO algorithm for
solving the inverse kinematic solution of the robotic arm,
which eventually significantly improved the solution
accuracy.
The current intelligent algorithms for solving the
inverse kinematic solution of the redundant robotic arm
mainly contain DE algorithm, FA algorithm, FOA
algorithm, GA algorithm, PSO algorithm and the improved
algorithms of the above mentioned algorithms.
Considering that the inverse kinematic solution of the
redundant robotic arm by intelligent algorithms requires
the optimization of seven or more parameters at the same
time, the fitness function has a high complexity, which
leads to the actual solution accuracy of the above
algorithms is not high. In order to further improve the
solution accuracy of the redundant robotic arm, a new
intelligent algorithm needs to be investigated. The current
mainstream swarm intelligence optimization algorithms
include GWO algorithm (Mirjalili et al. 2014), LSA
algorithm (Shareef et al. 2015), WOA algorithm (Mirjalili
et al. 2016), GOA algorithm (Saremi et al. 2017), SSA
algorithm (Mirjalili et al. 2017), SOA algorithm (Dhiman
et al. 2018), STOA algorithm (Dhiman et al. 2019), MOA
algorithm (Zervoudakis et al. 2020), WHO algorithm
(Naruei et al. 2021), and SO algorithm (Hashim et al. 2022),
among others.
In this paper, the bald eagle swarm intelligent
optimization algorithm (BES) is innovatively used to solve
the inverse kinematic solution problem of 7D0F redundant
robotic arm. By comparing the BES algorithm with the DE
algorithm, FA algorithm, FOA algorithm, GA algorithm
and PSO algorithm experimentally on two different 7DOF
redundant robotic arms, it is found that the inverse
kinematic solution obtained by the BES algorithm has
higher positional accuracy.
The remainder of this paper is as follows. Section II
examines the YuMi 14000 ABB 7DOF industrial robot arm
and the S-R-S humanoid 7DOF robotic arm for kinematic
modeling as well as positive kinematic analysis. Section III
introduces the BES algorithm. Section IV describes the
problem of solving the inverse kinematic solution of the
redundant robotic arm using the BES algorithm, along with
the fitness function and the algorithm flow. In Section V,
the BES algorithm is experimentally compared with the
commonly used intelligent algorithms DE algorithm, FA
algorithm, FOA algorithm, GA algorithm, and PSO
algorithm for redundant robotic arm inverse kinematics
solution, using YuMi 14000 ABB 7DOF industrial robotic
arm and S-R-S humanoid 7DOF robotic arm as
experimental objects. This is followed by the discussion
and conclusion section of the paper.
2. Positive kinematic analysis
2.1. 7DOF robot arm kinematic model
In this section, the YuMi 14000 ABB 7DOF industrial
robotic arm and the S-R-S humanoid 7DOF robotic arm
(Shimizu et al. 2008) are used to model the kinematics.
Among them, axis 1 and axis 3 of the YuMi 14000 ABB
7DOF industrial robotic arm control the overall rotational
motion of the robotic arm, axis 2 and axis 4 control the
overall bending motion of the robotic arm, axis 5 and axis
6 control the rotational and bending motion of the wrist of
the robotic arm, respectively, and axis 7 uses the flange for
rotational motion. The S-R-S humanoid 7DOF robotic arm
has a similar structure to a human hand, and the seven
rotating joints of this robotic arm are arranged into the
shoulder, elbow and wrist. Among them, the shoulder and
wrist joints consist of three joints forming a ball joint, and
the joint axes intersect at a point. The structural sketches Axisi
Axisi −1 ConnectingRod i −1
of the two types of robotic arms are shown in Fig. 1 and
Fig. 2, respectively.

Zˆ i
Zˆ i −1 Yˆi −1
ConnectingRod i
Yˆi ai
5 7
ai −1 di Xˆ i

Xˆ i −1 i
3 4 6
 i −1
Fig. 3 Sketch of the structure of the adjacent linkage of the
1 robot arm
2 In Fig. 3, ai indicates the length of the connecting
rod, being the distance along axis Xˆ i , moving from Zˆ i
to Zˆ i +1 .  i indicates the angle of twist of the connecting
rod, which is the angle of rotation around the Xˆ i axis,
Fig. 1 Sketch of YuMi 14000 ABB 7DOF industrial robot arm
from Zˆ i to Zˆ i +1 . d i denotes the linkage offset, being
structure
the distance along axis Zˆ i , moving from Xˆ i −1 to Xˆ i .
 i indicates the angle of rotation around axis Zˆ i , from
4 Xˆ i −1 to Xˆ i . By determining the parameters in Figure 3,
the standard DH parameter table was finally obtained, as
3 5
shown in Table 1.
7
2 Table 1 Table of standard DH parameters
i ai (m)  i () di (m)  ( )
1 6
1 a1 1 d1 1
2 a2 2 d2 2
3 a3 3 d3 3
4 a4 4 d4 4
Fig. 2 Sketch of S-R-S humanoid 7DOF robotic arm structure
5 a5 5 d5 5
After determining the structure of the robot arm, the
6 a6 6 d6 6
next step is to model the kinematics of the robot arm
7 a7 7 d7 7
according to its structure. Denavit and Hartenberg (1955)
first proposed a DH modeling method, which constructs a
DH parameter table based on the linkage length, linkage 2.2. Kinematic analysis
torsion angle, and linkage deflection of the robotic arm.
Based on the DH parameter table, the position posture The positional attitude of the robotic arm end-effector
transformation matrix between the linkages of the robot in space can be described by the positional attitude
arm is established, and finally the position posture matrix transformation matrix of the coordinate system fixed to the
of the end-effector of the robot arm is obtained based on robotic arm end-effector with respect to the base
the position posture transformation matrix between the coordinate system. In this case, the positional attitude
linkages and the initial position posture matrix of the end- transformation matrix between the adjacent links of the
effector of the robot arm, and the kinematic model of the robot arm can be described by Eq. (1).
robot arm is completed. The sketch of the structure of the r t 
i −1T =  (1)
i

adjacent linkage of the robot arm is shown in Fig. 3. 0 1
In Eq. (1), i −1iT denotes the position pose
transformation matrix of linkage i-1 with respect to linkage
i. r denotes a 3 × 3 matrix to describe the pose. t denotes a
3 × 1 vector to describe the position. When the structure of 1 0 -90 0.317 −90  1  90
the robotic arm is determined, according to the standard 2 0 90 0 −45  2  45
DH modeling approach (Colson and Perreira (1983), Ruoff 3 0 -90 0.415 −120  3  120
(1981)), the position-pose transformation matrix between 4 0 90 0 0  4  135
adjacent links of the robotic arm can be described by Eq. 5 0 -90 0.48 −90  5  90
(2). 6 0 90 0 −90  6  90
cos i − sin i cos  i sin i sin  i ai cos i  7 0 0 0.007 −120  7  120
 sin  cos i cos  i − cos i sin  i ai sin i 
 (2)
i-1T =
i i

 0 sin  i cos  i di  1 0 0 a3 + d5 + d 7 
  0 
 0 0 0 1  1 0 0
T0 =   (4)
In Eq. (2), the 3 × 3 matrix in the upper left corner 0 0 0 d1 + d3 + a4 
 
represents the pose description matrix, and the first three 0 0 1 1 
rows of the fourth column represent the position
description vector. ai denotes the length of the 1 0 0 d1 + d3 + d5 + d 7 
connecting rod i,  i denotes the torsion angle of the 0 
1 0 0
connecting rod i, d i denotes the offset of the connecting T0 =   (5)
0 0 0 0 
rod i, and  i is the joint angle i to be found. When the  
initial position pose matrix of the end-effector of the robot 0 0 1 1 
arm is known, the positive kinematic expression of the
robot arm is determined by the product of the position pose 3. BES algorithm
transformation matrix of each linkage and the initial
position pose matrix, as shown in Eq. (3). In this paper, the BES algorithm is chosen for the first
time to solve the inverse kinematic solution of the seven-
T = 01T 21T 32T 43T 54T 65T 76TT0 (3) degree-of-freedom robotic arm. the BES algorithm
simulates the prey hunting process of the bald eagle in
In Eq. (3), i −1iT (i = 2 ~ 7) represents the position
nature, which consists of three main phases, namely, the
pose transformation matrix of linkage i-1 with respect to
selection phase, the search phase, and the dive phase, as
linkage i. T0 represents the initial position pose matrix of
shown in (a), (b), and (c) in Fig. 4, respectively.
the end-effector of the robot arm. According to the standard
DH modeling approach, the standard DH parameter tables
for the YuMi 14000 ABB 7DOF industrial robotic arm and
the S-R-S humanoid 7DOF robotic arm are shown in Table
2 and Table 3, respectively. The initial position pose (a) Selection phase (b) Search phase (c) Swoop phase
matrices corresponding to the end-effectors of the two Fig. 4 Bald eagle prey hunting process
robotic arms are shown in Eq. (4) and Eq. (5), respectively.
3.1. Selection phase
Table 2 YuMi 14000 ABB 7 DOF industrial robot arm standard
During the selection phase, the bald eagle selects the
DH parameter table
search space for its prey. Eq. (1) represents this behavior
i ai (m)  i () di (m)  ( ) mathematically.
1 -0.03 -90 0.166 −168.5  1  168.5
2 0.03 90 0 −143.5  2  43.5 Pi , new = Pbest +   r ( Pmean − Pi ) (1)
3 0.0405 -90 0.2515 −123.5  3  80
In Eq. (1), Pi , new denotes the position of the ith bald
4 0.0405 -90 0 −290  4  290
eagle after the selection of the search space. Pbest denotes
5 0.027 -90 0.265 −88  5  138
the best position of the bald eagle in the current search
6 -0.027 90 0 −229  6  229
space.  denotes the parameter that controls the change
7 0 0 0.036 −168.5  7  168.5
of the position and takes values in the range of [1.5, 2]. r
denotes a random number with values in the range [0, 1].
Table 3 S-R-S humanoid 7 DOF robotic arm standard DH
Pmean denotes the average of the positions of the bald eagle.
parameter table
Pi denotes the position of the ith bald eagle.
i ai (m)  i () di (m)  ( )
3.2. Search phase
During the search phase, the bald eagle searches for
prey in a selected search space in a spiral motion. Eq. (2)
represents this behavior mathematically.
Pi , new = Pi + y(i)  ( Pi − Pi +1 ) + x(i)  ( Pi − Pmean )
xr (i) yr (i)
x(i) = , y(i) =
max(| xr |) max(| yr |)
xr (i ) = r (i)  sin( (i)), yr (i) = r (i)  cos( (i))
 (i) = a    rand , r (i) =  (i) + R  rand
In Eq. (2), Pi , new denotes the position of the ith bald
eagle after the selection of the search space. Pi denotes
the position of the ith bald eagle. a denotes the angle
between the bald eagle and the search prey during the spiral
movement, and takes values in the range [5, 10]. R is
used to determine the number of search cycles, and takes
values in the range [0.5, 2]. Pi +1 denotes the position of
the ith + 1 bald eagle. Pmean denotes the the average value
of the location of the bald eagle.
3.3. Swoop phase
During the swoop phase, the Bald Eagle moves from
the optimal search space to the target prey at a very fast
speed. Eq. (3) represents this behavior mathematically.
Pi , new = rand  Pbest + x1 (i)  ( Pi − c1  Pmean ) + y1 (i)  ( Pi − c2  Pbest ) (3)
xr (i) yr (i)
x1 (i) = , y1 (i) =
max(| xr |) max(| yr |)
xr (i ) = r (i )  sinh[ (i)], yr (i) = r (i)  cosh[ (i)]
 (i) = a    rand , r (i ) =  (i )
In Eq. (3), Pi , new denotes the position of the ith bald
eagle after moving toward the target prey. Pbest denotes
the best position of the bald eagle in the current search
space. a denotes the angle between the bald eagle and
the searched prey during the spiral movement, taking
values in the range [5, 10]. Pi denotes the position of the
ith bald eagle. c1 , c2 is a parameter taking values in the
range [1,2]. Pmean denotes the average value of the bald
eagle's position.
4. Inverse kinematic solution for robotic arm using BES
algorithm
4.1. Problem description
(2)
Unlike the conventional inverse kinematic solution,
the inverse kinematic solution of the 7DOF robotic arm is
solved by a swarm intelligent optimization algorithm,
which converts the inverse kinematic solution problem into
a multi-objective optimization problem for multiple joint
angles. By performing the positive kinematic analysis of
the robotic arm, the position pose matrix of the end-
effector of the robotic arm is obtained. Based on the
obtained positional attitude matrix, an adaptation function
with seven joint angles as variables is established, and the
group intelligent optimization algorithm obtains a set of
inverse kinematic solutions satisfying the conditions by
finding the minimum value of the adaptation function. The
problem is described mathematically as shown in Eq. (4).
minf (1 ,...,7 ),i  [i min ,i max ](i = 1 ~ 7) (4)
In Eq. (4), f denotes the fitness function and  i
denotes the i-th joint angle to be solved.
4.2. Fitness function
After clarifying the problem to be solved, the form of
the fitness function is further given in this paper, as shown
in Eq. (5).
f = ( px − p 'x )2 + ( py − p ' y )2 + ( pz − p 'z )2 (5)
In Eq. (5), f denotes the fitness function,
px，p y，pz represents the position value in the x, y, and z
direction obtained by the swarm intelligence optimization
algorithm, and p 'x ，p ' y ，p 'z denotes the position value
in the x, y, and z direction expected to be reached by the
end-effector of the robot arm, respectively.
4.3. Algorithm flowchart and pseudo-code
To further illustrate the BES algorithm, the flowchart
and pseudo-code for solving the 7DOF inverse kinematic
solution by the Bald Eagle swarm intelligent optimization
algorithm are given in this paper, as shown in Fig. 5 and
Table 4, respectively.

Start
Initializing Joint angle
Yes
Iteration>Max
No
Calculate the fitness of Joint angle
Execute the selection phase
according to Eq. (1)
Calculate the fitness of Joint angle
Execute the search phase
according to Eq. (2)
Calculate the fitness of Joint angle
Execute the Swoop phase
according to Eq. (3)
Obtain the global optimal solution
for the joint angle
End
Fig. 5 BESAlgorithm flow chart
Table 4 BES algorithm pseudo-code
Algorithm: Solving 7DOF robotic arm inverse
kinematic solutions based on BES algorithm
1. Initialization of the joint angle  according to the
range of values of the joint angle,
2. Calculate the fitness values of initial joint angle:
f ( ) ,
3. For (Iterate within a set number of iterations)
Selection phase
4. For (Each set of joint angles of n sets of joint angles)
5. Calculate the fitness values of joint angle: f ( )
6. Update the fitness values according to Eq. (1)
7. End for
Search phase
8. For (Each set of joint angles of n sets of joint angles)
9. Calculate the fitness values of joint angle: f ( )
10. Update the fitness values according to Eq. (2)
11. End for
Swoop phase
12. For (Each set of joint angles of n sets of joint angles)
13. Calculate the fitness values of joint angle: f ( )
14. Update the fitness values according to Eq. (3)
15. End for
16. End for
5. Experiment
In this section, the BES algorithm is compared with
the conventional swarm intelligence optimization
algorithms DE algorithm, FA algorithm, FOA algorithm,
GA algorithm, and PSO algorithm to solve the inverse
kinematics of YuMi 14000 ABB 7DOF industrial robot
arm and S-R-S humanoid 7DOF robotic arm in terms of
position accuracy experimentally. The experiments firstly
obtained the working space of the two robotic arms based
on the range of values of the joint angles of the two robotic
arms. They are shown in Fig. 6 to Fig. 9 and Fig. 21 to Fig.
24, respectively. Then, a continuous trajectory containing
100 points was selected based on the working space of the
two robotic arms. They are shown in Fig. 10 and Fig. 25,
respectively. The robotic arm end-effector position pose
matrices corresponding to 100 points on the two
continuous trajectories were brought into the swarm
intelligence optimization algorithm to obtain the new
continuous trajectories as shown in Fig. 11 to Fig. 16 and
Fig. 26 to Fig. 31, respectively. The position solution
accuracy of the algorithm is initially compared by
comparing the degree of agreement between the trajectory
obtained by the algorithm and the original trajectory. In
order to further compare the solution accuracy of the
algorithms, experiments are presented for the
transformation of the fitness function values and the
position errors in X, Y, and Z directions during the
iterations of the two robotic arms, as shown in Fig. 17 to industrial robot arm workspace workspace in the XY plane
Fig. 20 and Fig. 32 to Fig. 35, respectively. Also
experiments were conducted to compare the mean, median,
minimum and maximum values of position error values in
X, Y and Z directions for both robotic arms, the
comparison results are shown in Table 6 to Table 11 and
Table 12 to Table 17, respectively. The experiments on
both robotic arms were conducted on a computer
configured with "Intel(R) Core(TM) i9 CPU, 3.19 GHz". Fig. 8 Projection of the Fig. 9 Projection of the
The specific parameter settings for each of the algorithms workspace in the XZ plane workspace in the YZ plane
are shown in Table 5.
After the workspace of the robot arm was determined,
Table 5 Specific parameter settings for various algorithms a continuous trajectory was selected based on the
Algorithm BES DE FA FOA GA PSO workspace, and the position accuracy of the inverse
Population 150 150 150 150 150 150 kinematic solutions obtained by the algorithms was
iteration 500 500 500 500 500 500 initially compared by comparing the degree of agreement
c1 / c2 1.5/1.5 - - - - 1.4/1.4 between the trajectories obtained by various algorithms
R/a 1.3/8 - - - - - and the original trajectories. The original trajectory is
 1.8 - 0.2 - - - shown in Fig. 10, and the comparison plots of the
0 /  - - 2/1 - - - trajectories obtained by BES, DE, FA, FOA, GA and PSO
v / - - - - - 0.5x/0.9 algorithms with the original trajectory are shown in Fig. 11
F0 - 0.4 - - - - to Fig. 16, respectively.
CR - 0.1 - - - -
pc - - - - 0.6 -
pm - - - - 10-4 -

5.1 Experiments based on YuMi 14000 ABB 7DOF

industrial robot arm

In the experimental study of the YuMi 14000 ABB

7DOF industrial robot arm, the working space of the robot
arm was first analyzed, and the working range of the robot
arm in X, Y and Z directions was obtained based on the
working space of the robot arm. The workspace of the
robot arm in three dimensions is shown in Fig. 6, and the
Fig. 10 The original continuous trajectory in the workspace
projections of the workspace in XY plane, XZ plane and
YZ plane are shown in Fig. 7 to Fig. 9, respectively.
According to Fig. 6 to Fig. 9, it can be found that the
working range of the YuMi 14000 ABB 7DOF industrial
robot arm is [-1.5m, 1.5m] in the X direction, [-1.5m, 1.5m]
in the Y direction, and [-1m, 1.5m] in the Z direction.

Fig. 11 Comparison of the trajectory obtained by BES algorithm

Fig. 6 YuMi 14000 ABB 7DOF Fig. 7 Projection of the with the original trajectory
Fig. 12 Comparison of the trajectory obtained by DE algorithm Fig. 15 Comparison of the trajectory obtained by GA algorithm
with the original trajectory with the original trajectory

Fig. 13 Comparison of the trajectory obtained by FA algorithm Fig. 16 Comparison of the trajectory obtained by PSO algorithm
with the original trajectory with the original trajectory

According to the comparison results shown in Fig. 11

to Fig. 16, it can be found that the trajectories obtained by
the BES algorithm and the PSO algorithm match the
original trajectories to a greater extent than the other four
algorithms, so it can be tentatively stated that the inverse
kinematic solutions obtained by the BES algorithm and the
PSO algorithm have higher positional accuracy compared
to the other algorithms. In order to further compare the
algorithms, the average, median, minimum and maximum
values of the position errors in X, Y and Z directions of the
BES, DE, FA, FOA, GA and PSO algorithms in solving the
inverse kinematic solutions of the trajectory points are
given experimentally, as shown in Table 6 to Table 11,
respectively.
Fig. 14 Comparison of the trajectory obtained by FOA
algorithm with the original trajectory
Table 6 Position errors of BES algorithm in x, y, z directions
Algorithm: BES (Path Points=100)
Prameter Average Median Min Max
X(m) -4.8507e-16 0 -9.5388e-15 1.2482e-16
Y(m) -4.9544e-17 0 -8.8106e-16 1.1629e-16
Z(m) 6.1136e-17 0 0 4.5868e-16

Table 7 Position errors of DE algorithm in x, y, z directions

Algorithm: DE (Path Points=100)
Prameter Average Median Min Max
X(m) 9.7802e-03 8.5518e-03 -2.2947e-01 9.8468e-02
Y(m) -1.1405e-02 -4.8112e-03 -9.8231e-02 3.4865e-02
Z(m) -8.3361e-03 9.5475e-04 -1.5397e-01 7.0410e-02

Table 8 Position errors of FA algorithm in x, y, z directions

Algorithm: FA (Path Points=100)
Prameter Average Median Min Max
X(m) 2.6800e-03 7.0012e-04 -1.4125e-01 1.4112e-01
Y(m) -1.1843e-02 -4.7448e-03 -1.0840e-01 9.2441e-02
Z(m) -9.8186e-03 -2.4380e-03 -1.2705e-01 1.3215e-01

Table 9 Position errors of FOA algorithm in x, y, z directions

Algorithm: FOA (Path Points=100)
Prameter Average Median Min Max
X(m) -1.0738e-02 -3.1120e-03 -4.1806e-01 3.6492e-01
Y(m) 2.1258e-02 -5.9504e-04 -2.4127e-01 4.5136e-01
Z(m) 2.8414e-02 5.3715e-04 -3.2252e-01 9.0902e-01

Table 10 Position errors of GA algorithm in x, y, z directions

Algorithm: GA (Path Points=100)
Prameter Average Median Min Max
X(m) -6.8400e-02 -1.2953e-02 -5.0234e-01 1.3083e-01
Y(m) -9.8118e-03 4.0645e-03 -2.9936e-01 1.6270e-01
Z(m) -1.1902e-02 3.9630e-04 -2.0655e-01 1.2798e-01

Table 11 Position errors of PSO algorithm in x, y, z directions

Algorithm: PSO (Path Points=100)
Prameter Average Median Min Max
X(m) -1.3647e-06 4.2117e-08 -1.5562e-05 1.2124e-06
Y(m) -8.6845e-07 -1.0458e-07 -1.3449e-05 9.8906e-07
Z(m) -5.4448e-07 -1.4867e-08 -1.4129e-05 2.5411e-06
According to the results shown in Table 6 to Table 11, it can be Fig. 18 Variation of position error in x-direction during iteration
found that for the average value of position errors in the x, y, and for each type of algorithm
z directions, the error range of the BES algorithm is 10-17 to 10-16,
which has the highest position solution accuracy. the error range
of the PSO algorithm is 10-7 to 10-6, which has the next highest
position accuracy. The error range of the other four algorithms is
10-3 to 10-2. For the median of position errors in x, y, and z
directions, the BES algorithm has the highest position solving
accuracy with an error of 0. The PSO algorithm has the next
highest position accuracy with an error range of 10-8 to 10-7. The
error range of the other four algorithms is 10-4 to 10-2. For the
minimum value of position error in x, y, and z directions, the BES
algorithm has the highest position solving accuracy with an error
range of 0 to 10-15. The PSO algorithm has the next highest
position accuracy with an error of 10-5. The error range of the
other four algorithms is 10-2 to 10-1. For the maximum value of
position errors in x, y, and z directions, the BES algorithm has the Fig. 19 Variation of position error in y-direction during iteration
highest position solving accuracy with an error of 10-16. The PSO for each type of algorithm
algorithm has the next highest position accuracy with an error
range of 10-7 to 10-6. The error range of the other four algorithms
is 10-2 to 10-1. The experiments also compare the changes of the
fitness function, X-direction position error, Y-direction position
error and Z-direction position error during the iterative process of
solving the inverse kinematic solution of the first point of the
continuous trajectory for the BES, DE, FA, FOA, GA and PSO
algorithms, as shown in Fig. 17 to Fig. 20, respectively.

Fig. 20 Variation of position error in z-direction during iteration

for each type of algorithm

According to the results shown in Fig. 17, it can be

Fig. 17 Changes in the value of the fitness function during the
iterative process for each type of algorithm
found that the values of the fitness functions obtained
according to the different algorithms converge in the end
with the increase of the number of iterations. Among them,
the BES and PSO algorithms converge more accurately
than the other four algorithms. The BES algorithm
converges in a smaller number of iterations than the PSO
algorithm. According to the results shown in Fig. 18 to Fig.
20, it can be found that the position errors in the X, Y, and
Z directions obtained according to the different algorithms
converge to a constant value in the end. The BES and PSO
algorithms converge to a constant value closer to zero than
the other four algorithms, and the change in the process of
convergence to zero is relatively smooth and without
sudden changes. Compared with the PSO algorithm, the
BES algorithm can converge to zero with a smaller number
of iterations.
5.2 Experiments based on S-R-S humanoid 7DOF robotic
arm

In the experiments where the object of study was the

S-R-S humanoid 7DOF robotic arm, the workspace of the
robotic arm was also analyzed. The workspace of the
robotic arm in three dimensions is shown in Fig. 21, and
the projections of the workspace in the XY plane, XZ plane,
and YZ plane are shown in Fig. 22 to Fig. 24, respectively.
According to Fig. 21 to Fig. 24, it can be found that the
working range of the S-R-S human-like 7DOF robotic arm
is [-2m, 2m] in the X direction, [-2m, 2.5m] in the Y
direction, and [-1.5m, 3m] in the Z direction.

Fig. 25 The original continuous trajectory in the workspace

Fig. 21 S-R-S humanoid 7DOF Fig. 22 Projection of the

robotic arm workspace workspace in the XY plane

Fig. 23 Projection of the Fig. 24 Projection of the

workspace in the XZ plane workspace in the YZ plane Fig. 26 Comparison of the trajectory obtained by BES algorithm
with the original trajectory
After the workspace of the robotic arm was
determined, the experiments likewise compared the
trajectories obtained by various algorithms with the
original trajectories. Among them, the original trajectory is
shown in Fig. 25, and the comparison plots of the
trajectories obtained by BES algorithm, DE algorithm, FA
algorithm, FOA algorithm, GA algorithm and PSO
algorithm with the original trajectory are shown in Fig. 26
to Fig. 31, respectively.

Fig. 27 Comparison of the trajectory obtained by DE algorithm

with the original trajectory
 Fig. 28 Comparison of the trajectory obtained
by FA algorithm with the original trajectory
Fig. 30 Comparison of the trajectory obtained
by GA algorithm with the original trajectory
According to the comparison results shown in Fig. 26
to Fig. 31, it can be found that the trajectories obtained by
the BES algorithm, DE algorithm and PSO algorithm
match the original trajectories to a greater extent than the
other three algorithms, so it can be preliminarily stated that
the inverse kinematic solutions obtained by the BES
algorithm, DE algorithm and PSO algorithm have higher
Table 12 Position errors of BES algorithm in x, y, z directions
Algorithm: BES (Path Points=100)
Prameter Average
X(m) 2.0492e -16
Y(m) -4.9618e-18
Z(m) 1.2310e-17
Fig. 29 Comparison of the trajectory obtained
by FOA algorithm with the original trajectory
Fig. 31 Comparison of the trajectory obtained
by PSO algorithm with the original trajectory
positional accuracy compared to the other algorithms. The
mean, median, minimum and maximum values of the
position errors in the x, y and z directions in the process of
solving the inverse kinematic solutions of the trajectory
points for the BES, DE, FA, FOA, GA and PSO algorithms
are also given in the experiments, as shown in Table 12 to
Table 17, respectively.
Median Min Max
0 0 3.5342e-15
0 -2.3884e-16 1.3960e-16
0 -1.6527e-16 4.1147e-16
Table 13 Position errors of DE algorithm in x, y, z directions
Algorithm: DE (Path Points=100)
Prameter Average Median Min Max
X(m) 1.0609e -02
8.1188e -04
-4.6543e -02
2.8143e-01
Y(m) 7.7743e-03 4.0099e-03 -1.0700e-02 6.7271e-02
Z(m) 6.0793e-03 3.1111e-03 -6.5739e-02 1.6229e-01

Table 14 Position errors of FA algorithm in x, y, z directions

Algorithm: FA (Path Points=100)
Prameter Average Median Min Max
X(m) 2.5945e -02
5.8375e -03
-3.9358e -01
4.2669e-01
Y(m) 7.9406e-03 6.1446e-04 -2.9555e-02 6.5985e-02
Z(m) -2.5029e-02 5.6068e-04 -4.4926e-01 2.2210e-01

Table 15 Position errors of FOA algorithm in x, y, z directions

Algorithm: FOA (Path Points=100)
Prameter Average Median Min Max
X(m) -2.8539e -02
-5.0155e -03
-3.7524e -01
2.2138e-01
Y(m) 7.8853e-03 1.9193e-04 -1.2956e-01 4.0031e-01
Z(m) -1.7949e-02 -4.5455e-03 -3.3890e-01 3.0540e-01

Table 16 Position errors of GA algorithm in x, y, z directions

Algorithm: GA (Path Points=100)
Prameter Average Median Min Max
X(m) -3.7021e-02 1.3668e-02 -3.9647e-01 2.4314e-01
Y(m) -9.2715e-03 -2.3085e-03 -6.3124e-01 4.0978e-01
Z(m) -1.8340e-02 -5.4687e-03 -4.8435e-01 3.4295e-01

Table 17 Position errors of PSO algorithm in x, y, z directions

Algorithm: PSO (Path Points=100)
Prameter Average Median Min Max
X(m) -3.3144e-07 -9.7403e-08 -3.4377e-06 8.3926e-07
Y(m) 6.5873e -07
-1.4891e -08
-1.0191e -06
1.5275e-05
Z(m) -3.2425e-07 -2.6133e-08 -2.7939e-06 5.6737e-07

According to the results shown in Table 12 to Table
17, it can be found that for the average value of position
errors in the x, y, and z directions, the BES algorithm has
the highest position solution accuracy with an error range
of 10-18 to 10-16. The PSO algorithm has the next highest
position accuracy with an error of 10 -7. The error range of
the other four algorithms is 10 -3~10-2. For the median of
the position errors in x, y, and z directions, the BES
algorithm has the highest position solving accuracy with
an error of 0. The PSO algorithm has the next highest
position accuracy with an error of 10 -8. The error range of
the other four algorithms is 10-4 to 10-2. For the minimum
value of position error in x, y, and z directions, the BES
algorithm has the highest position solving accuracy with
an error range of 0 to 10-16. The PSO algorithm has the next
highest position accuracy with an error of 10 -6. The error
range of the other four algorithms is 10 -2 to 10-1. For the
maximum values of position errors in x, y, and z directions,
the BES algorithm has the highest position solution
accuracy with an error range of 10 -16 to 10-15. The PSO
algorithm has the next highest position accuracy with an
error range of 10-7 to 10-5. The error range of the other four
algorithms is 10-2 to 10-1. The experiments also compare
the changes of the fitness function, X-direction position
error, Y-direction position error, and Z-direction position
error during the iterative process of solving the inverse
kinematic solution of the first point of the continuous
trajectory for the BES, DE, FA, FOA, GA, and PSO
algorithms, as shown in Fig. 32 to Fig. 35, respectively.

Fig. 34 Variation of position error in y-direction during iteration

for each type of algorithm

Fig. 32 Changes in the value of the fitness function during the

iterative process for each type of algorithm

Fig. 35 Variation of position error in z-direction during iteration

for each type of algorithm

According to the results shown in Fig. 32, it can be

Fig. 33 Variation of position error in x-direction during iteration
for each type of algorithm
found that the values of the fitness functions obtained
according to the different algorithms converge in the end
with the increase of the number of iterations. Among them,
the BES and PSO algorithms converge with higher
accuracy compared to the other four algorithms. According
to the results shown in Fig. 33 to Fig.35, it can be found
that the position errors in the X, Y and Z directions
obtained by the different algorithms converge to a constant
value in the end. The BES and PSO algorithms converge
to a constant value closer to zero than the other four
algorithms, and the change in the process of convergence
to zero is relatively smooth, without sudden changes.

5.3 Discussion

Since the 7DOF redundant robotic arm generally

cannot be solved parsimoniously without setting other
constraints, the swarm intelligent optimization algorithm 6. Conclusion
not only avoids the tedious derivation of the inverse
kinematic equations but also provides a new solution idea
In this paper, the BES algorithm is innovatively
for the inverse kinematic solution problems that cannot be
applied to the inverse kinematic solution problem of 7DOF
solved by traditional inverse kinematic solutions by
redundant robotic arm for the first time, and the BES
transforming the traditional inverse kinematic solution
algorithm has higher positional solution accuracy in
problem into the minimum value optimization problem of
comparison with the traditional swarm intelligence
the fitness function. The current swarm intelligent
optimization algorithm. The article firstly performs
optimization algorithm has the problem of low actual
positive kinematic modeling of the YuMi 14000 ABB
solution accuracy in solving the inverse kinematic solution
7DOF industrial robotic arm and the S-R-S human-like
of 7DOF redundant robotic arm. The main reason is that in
7DOF robotic arm based on the standard DH modeling
the process of transforming the inverse motion solution
method. Subsequently, by converting the inverse kinematic
problem into fitness function minimization optimization
solution problem of the 7DOF robotic arm into an
problem, the form of the obtained fitness function is too
optimization problem of minimizing the fitness function,
complicated. The form of the firness function is generally
the fitness function to be optimized is clarified. Then this
set according to the positive kinematic expression of the
paper takes YuMi 14000 ABB 7DOF industrial robotic arm
robot arm, which can be a position error expression or an
and S-R-S humanoid 7DOF robotic arm as the research
error expression that considers both position and attitude.
objects, and the BES algorithm applied in this paper is
The expression not only contains the seven joint angles to
experimentally compared with the traditional swarm
be solved, but also the error expression obtained at the end
intelligence optimization algorithms DE algorithm, FA
is actually a multidimensional nonlinear expression. In
algorithm, FOA algorithm, GA algorithm and PSO
order to improve the accuracy of the actual solution of
algorithm. The reachable range of the robotic arm in space
inverse kinematics, this paper first sets the adaptation
was obtained by analyzing the workspace of the two
function as the position error expression, as shown in
robotic arms. Subsequently, continuous trajectories at both
Equation (5). The position error expression is more concise
ends were selected based on the workspace, and the
in form compared with the error expression that considers
position solving accuracy of the algorithms was initially
position and attitude at the same time, and at the same time,
illustrated by comparing the degree of agreement between
it is more important to consider whether the robot arm can
the trajectories obtained by the algorithms and the original
reach the specified position in practice. Secondly, the BES
trajectories. In order to further compare the position
algorithm is chosen as the group intelligence optimization
solution accuracy, the average, median, minimum and
algorithm to solve the inverse kinematic solution problem
maximum values of the position errors in x, y and z
in this paper. Compared with the traditional swarm
directions of each algorithm are listed in this paper.
intelligence optimization algorithm, the BES algorithm has
Meanwhile, the fitness function, x-direction error, y-
higher accuracy in position solving, mainly because the
direction error and z-direction error transformations with
BES algorithm contains three solving phases: selection
the number of iterations of each algorithm are compared in
phase, search phase, and dive phase. Since in each phase
this paper. The comparison results show that the BES
BES updates the joint angle in the form of Eq. (1), Eq. (2),
algorithm has higher position solution accuracy and
and Eq. (3), which is equivalent to updating the joint angle
solution stability compared with other algorithms. Future
three times, while PSO algorithm only updates the joint
work will focus on the optimization of the algorithm's
angle once, so theoretically BES algorithm has three times
operation time.
the performance of PSO algorithm. The experiments in
Section 5 prove this point. In the experiments for two Compliance with Ethical Standards
different types of 7DOF robotic arms, the position solution
accuracy of PSO algorithm is 10-8~10-5, while the position
Funding
solution accuracy of BES algorithm is 0~10-15. Although
BES algorithm has higher position solution accuracy than This study was funded by the National Natural
other algorithms, but at the same time, the solution time of Science Foundation of China (Grant Nos.52075530,
BES algorithm is longer than other algorithms. This is the 51575407, 51505349, 61733011, 41906177), the Grants of
cost of BES algorithm to improve its performance. Hubei Provincial Department of Education (D20191105),
the Grants of National Defense PreResearch Foundation of
Wuhan University of Science and Technology (GF201705)
and Open Fund of the Key Laboratory for Metallurgical
Equipment and Control of Ministry of Education in Wuhan
University of Science and Technology
(2018B07,2019B13).
Conflict of Interest
Author Guojun Zhao declares that he has no conflict
of interest. Author Ying Sun declares that she has no
conflict of interest. Author Du Jiang declares that he has no
conflict of interest. Author Xin Liu declares that he has no
conflict of interest. Author Bo Tao declares that he has no
conflict of interest. Author Guozhang Jiang declares that
he has no conflict of interest. Author Jianyi Kong declares
that he has no conflict of interest. Author Juntong Yun
declares that he has no conflict of interest. Author Ying Liu
declares that he has no conflict of interest. Author Gongfa
Li declares that he has no conflict of interest.
Ethical approval
This article does not contain any studies with human
participants performed by any of the authors.
Ethical approval
This article does not contain any studies with human
participants or animals performed by any of the authors.
Informed consent
Informed consent was obtained from all individual
participants included in the study.
References
Shimizu M, Kakuya H, Kitagaki K and Kosuge K (2008)
Analytical inverse kinematic calculation for 7-DOF
redundant manipulators with joints limits and its
application to redundancy resolution. IEEE
Transactions on Robotics 24(5):1131-1142
Denavit J, Hartenberg R-S (1955) A Kinematic Notation
for Lower-Pair Mechanisms Based on Matrices.
Journal of Applied Mechanics 1955:215-221
Colson J, Perreira N-D (1983) Kinematic Arrangements
Used in Industral Robots. Industrial Robots
Conference Proceedings
Ruoff C (1981) Fast Trigonometric Functions for Robot
Control. Robotics Age
Deng X, Xie C (2021) An improved particle swarm
optimization algorithm for inverse kinematics
solution of multi-DOF serial robotic manipulators.
Soft Computing 25:13695–13708
Tong Y-C, Liu J-G, Liu Y-W, Yuan Y (2021) Analytical
inverse kinematic computation for 7-DOF redundant
sliding manipulators. Mech. Mach. Theory 2021:
104006
Sherbiny A, Elhosseini M, Haikal A (2017) A comparative
study of soft computing methods to solve inverse
kinematics problem. Ain Shams Engineering Journal
9(4):2535-2548
Ananthanarayanan H, Ordóñez R (2015) Real-time Inverse
Kinematics of (2n + 1) DOF hyper-redundant
manipulator arm via a combined numerical and
analytical approach. Mech. Mach. Theory 91:09-226
Shimizu M, Kakuya H, Kitagaki K, Kosuge K (2008)
Analytical inverse kinematic calculation for 7-DOF
redundant manipulators with joints limits and its
application to redundancy resolution. IEEE
Transactions on Robotics.24 (5):1131-1142
Ananthanarayanan H, Ordonez R (2013) Real-time inverse
kinematics of redundant manipulator using a hybrid
(analytical and numerical) method. International
Conference on Advanced Robotics
Singh G, Claassens J (2010) An analytical solution for the
inverse kinematics of a redundant 7DoF manipulator
with link offsets. in: IEEE/RSJ International
Conference on Intelligent Robots and Systems
2010:2976-2982
Tarokh M, Kim M (2007) Inverse Kinematics of 7-DOF
Robots and Limbs by Decomposition and
Approximation. IEEE Transactions on Robotics.
23(3):595-600
Dereli S, Koker R (2020) Calculation of the inverse
kinematics solution of the 7-DOF redundant robot
manipulator by the firefly algorithm and statistical
analysis of the results in terms of speed and accuracy.
Inverse Problems in Science and Engineering.
28(5):601-603
Roth B, Rastegar J, Scheinman V (1973) On the Design of
Computer Controlled Manipulators. On Theory and
Practice of Robots and Manipulators 1:93-113
Roth B (1975) Performance Evaluation of Manipulators
form a Kinematic Viewpoint. NBS Special
Publication 1975:39-61
Paul R-P, Shimano B, Mayer G (1981) Kinematic control
equations for simple manipulators. IEEE transactions
on Systems, Man and Cybernetics
Tsai L, Morgan A (1984) Solving the kinematics of the
most general six-and five-degree-of-freedom
manipulators by continuation methods. ASME
Mechanisms Conference
Lee C, Ziegler M (1984) Geometric Approach in solving
Inverse Kinematics of PUMA Robots. IEEE
Transactions on Aerospace and Electronic Systems
Nakamura Y, Hanafusa H (1986) Inverse Kinematic
Solutions with Singularity Robustness for Robot
Manipulator Control. ASME Journal of Dynamic
Systems, Measurement, and Control
Baker D, Wampler C (1988) On the Inverse Kinematics of
Redundant Manipulators. International Journal of
Robotics Research
Wang X-S, Hao M-L, Cheng Y-H (2008) On the use of
differential evolution for forward kinematics of
parallel manipulators. Applied Mathematics and
Computation 205:760-769
Jesus H-B, Carlos L-F, Nancy A-D, Alanis A, Adriana L-
F (2021) A modified firefly algorithm for the inverse
kinematics solutions of robotic manipulators.
Integrated Computer-Aided Engineering 28(3):257-
275
Parker J, Khoogar A, Goldberg D (1989) Inverse
kinematics of redundant robots using genetic
algorithms. IEEE International Conference on
Robotics and Automation 1989:271-276
Nearchou AC (1998) Solving the inverse kinematics
problem of redundant robots operating in complex
environments via a modified genetic algorithm.
Mech. Mach. Theory 33(3):273-292
Dereli S (2018) IW-PSO approach to the inverse
kinematics problem solution of a 7-Dof serial robot
manipulator. International Journal of Natural and
Engineering Sciences 36(1):75-85
Dereli S, Köker R (2022) Strengthening the PSO
algorithm with a new technique inspired by the golf
game and solving the complex engineering problem.
Complex & Intelligent Systems 7:1515-1526
Zhao G-J, Jiang D, Liu X, Tong X-L, Sun Y, Tao B, Kong
J-Y, Yun J-T, Liu Y, Fang Z-F (2022) A tandem
robotic arm inverse kinematic solution based on an
improved particle swarm algorithm. Frontiers in
Bioengineering and Biotechnology 2022:832829
Mao B-Y, Xie Z-J, Wang Y-B, Handroos H, Wu H-P, Shi
S-H (2017) A hybrid differential evolution and
particle swarm optimization algorithm for numerical
kinematics solution of remote maintenance
manipulators. Fusion Engineering and Design
124:587-590
Aydilek I (2018) A hybrid firefly and particle swarm
optimization algorithm for computationally
expensive numerical problems. Applied Soft
Computing
Mirjalili S, Mirjalili S, Lewis A (2014) Grey Wolf
Optimizer. Advances in Engineering Software 69:46-
61
Shareef H, Ibrahim A-A, Mutlag A-H (2015) Lightning
search algorithm. Applied Soft Computing 36:315-
333
Mirjalili S, Lewis A (2016) The Whale Optimization
Algorithm. Advances in Engineering Software
95:51-67
Saremi S, Mirjalili S, Lewis A (2017) Grasshopper
Optimisation Algorithm: Theory and application.
Advances in Engineering Software 105:30-47
Mirjalili S, Gandom A, Mirjalili S-Z, Saremi S, Faris H,
Mirjalili S-M (2017) Salp Swarm Algorithm: A bio-
inspired optimizer for engineering design problems.
Advances in Engineering Software 114:163-191
Dhiman G, Kumar V (2018) Seagull optimization
algorithm: Theory and its applications for large-scale
industrial engineering problems. Knowledge-Based
Systems 165:169-196
Dhiman G, Kaur A (2019) STOA: A bio-inspired based
optimization algorithm for industrial engineering
problems. Engineering Applications of Artificial
Intelligence 82: 148-174
Zervoudakis K, Tsafarakis S (2020) A mayfly
optimization algorithm. Computers & Industrial
Engineering 2020:106559
Naruei I, Keynia F (2021) Wild horse optimizer: a new
meta-heuristic algorithm for solving engineering
optimization problems. Engineering with Computers
38:3025-3056
Hashim F, Hussien A (2022) Snake Optimizer: A novel
meta-heuristic optimization algorithm. Knowledge-
Based Systems 2022:108320
Xiao F, Li G-F, Jiang D, Xie Y-M, Yun J-T, Liu Y, Huang
L, Fang Z-F (2021) An effective and unified method
to derive the inverse kinematics formulas of general
six-DOF manipulator with simple geometry. Mech.
Mach. Theory 2021: 104265
Li G-F, Xiao F, Zhang X-F, Tao B, Jiang G-Z (2022) An
inverse kinematics method for robots after geometric
parameters compensation. Mech. Mach. Theory
2022: 104903