Efficient parallel proximity queries and an application to highly complex motion planning problems with many narrow passages

In vielen Bereichen der industriellen Fertigung, wie zum Beispiel in der Automobilindustrie, wer- den digitale Versuchsmodelle (sog. digital mock-ups) eingesetzt, um die Entwicklung komplexer Maschinen m ̈oglichst gut durch Computersysteme unterstu ̈tzen zu k ̈onnen. Hierbei spielen Be- wegungsplanungsalgorithmen eine wichtige Rolle, um zu gew ̈ahrleisten, dass diese digitalen Pro- totypen auch kollisionsfrei zusammengesetzt werden k ̈onnen. In den letzten Jahrzehnten haben sich hier sampling-basierte Verfahren besonders bew ̈ahrt. Diese erzeugen eine große Anzahl von zuf ̈alligen Lagen fu ̈r das ein-/auszubauende Objekt und verwenden einen Kollisionserken- nungsmechanismus, um die einzelnen Lagen auf Gu ̈ltigkeit zu u ̈berpru ̈fen. Daher spielt die Kollisionserkennung eine wesentliche Rolle beim Design effizienter Bewegungsplanungsalgorith- men. Eine Schwierigkeit fu ̈r diese Klasse von Planern stellen sogenannte “narrow passages” dar, schmale Passagen also, die immer dort auftreten, wo die Bewegungsfreiheit der zu planenden Objekte stark eingeschr ̈ankt ist. An solchen Stellen kann es schwierig sein, eine ausreichende Anzahl von kollisionsfreien Samples zu finden. Es ist dann m ̈oglicherweise n ̈otig, ausgeklu ̈geltere Techniken einzusetzen, um eine gute Performance der Algorithmen zu erreichen.rnDie vorliegende Arbeit gliedert sich in zwei Teile: Im ersten Teil untersuchen wir parallele Kollisionserkennungsalgorithmen. Da wir auf eine Anwendung bei sampling-basierten Bewe- gungsplanern abzielen, w ̈ahlen wir hier eine Problemstellung, bei der wir stets die selben zwei Objekte, aber in einer großen Anzahl von unterschiedlichen Lagen auf Kollision testen. Wir im- plementieren und vergleichen verschiedene Verfahren, die auf Hu ̈llk ̈operhierarchien (BVHs) und hierarchische Grids als Beschleunigungsstrukturen zuru ̈ckgreifen. Alle beschriebenen Verfahren wurden auf mehreren CPU-Kernen parallelisiert. Daru ̈ber hinaus vergleichen wir verschiedene CUDA Kernels zur Durchfu ̈hrung BVH-basierter Kollisionstests auf der GPU. Neben einer un- terschiedlichen Verteilung der Arbeit auf die parallelen GPU Threads untersuchen wir hier die Auswirkung verschiedener Speicherzugriffsmuster auf die Performance der resultierenden Algo- rithmen. Weiter stellen wir eine Reihe von approximativen Kollisionstests vor, die auf den beschriebenen Verfahren basieren. Wenn eine geringere Genauigkeit der Tests tolerierbar ist, kann so eine weitere Verbesserung der Performance erzielt werden.rnIm zweiten Teil der Arbeit beschreiben wir einen von uns entworfenen parallelen, sampling- basierten Bewegungsplaner zur Behandlung hochkomplexer Probleme mit mehreren “narrow passages”. Das Verfahren arbeitet in zwei Phasen. Die grundlegende Idee ist hierbei, in der er- sten Planungsphase konzeptionell kleinere Fehler zuzulassen, um die Planungseffizienz zu erh ̈ohen und den resultierenden Pfad dann in einer zweiten Phase zu reparieren. Der hierzu in Phase I eingesetzte Planer basiert auf sogenannten Expansive Space Trees. Zus ̈atzlich haben wir den Planer mit einer Freidru ̈ckoperation ausgestattet, die es erlaubt, kleinere Kollisionen aufzul ̈osen und so die Effizienz in Bereichen mit eingeschr ̈ankter Bewegungsfreiheit zu erh ̈ohen. Optional erlaubt unsere Implementierung den Einsatz von approximativen Kollisionstests. Dies setzt die Genauigkeit der ersten Planungsphase weiter herab, fu ̈hrt aber auch zu einer weiteren Perfor- mancesteigerung. Die aus Phase I resultierenden Bewegungspfade sind dann unter Umst ̈anden nicht komplett kollisionsfrei. Um diese Pfade zu reparieren, haben wir einen neuartigen Pla- nungsalgorithmus entworfen, der lokal beschr ̈ankt auf eine kleine Umgebung um den bestehenden Pfad einen neuen, kollisionsfreien Bewegungspfad plant.rnWir haben den beschriebenen Algorithmus mit einer Klasse von neuen, schwierigen Metall- Puzzlen getestet, die zum Teil mehrere “narrow passages” aufweisen. Unseres Wissens nach ist eine Sammlung vergleichbar komplexer Benchmarks nicht ̈offentlich zug ̈anglich und wir fan- den auch keine Beschreibung von vergleichbar komplexen Benchmarks in der Motion-Planning Literatur.

Kinematics and statics of cable-driven parallel robots by interval-analysis-based methods

In the past two decades the work of a growing portion of researchers in robotics focused on a particular group of machines, belonging to the family of parallel manipulators: the cable robots. Although these robots share several theoretical elements with the better known parallel robots, they still present completely (or partly) unsolved issues. In particular, the study of their kinematic, already a difficult subject for conventional parallel manipulators, is further complicated by the non-linear nature of cables, which can exert only efforts of pure traction. The work presented in this thesis therefore focuses on the study of the kinematics of these robots and on the development of numerical techniques able to address some of the problems related to it. Most of the work is focused on the development of an interval-analysis based procedure for the solution of the direct geometric problem of a generic cable manipulator. This technique, as well as allowing for a rapid solution of the problem, also guarantees the results obtained against rounding and elimination errors and can take into account any uncertainties in the model of the problem. The developed code has been tested with the help of a small manipulator whose realization is described in this dissertation together with the auxiliary work done during its design and simulation phases.

[CONSORT 2010 Explanation and Elaboration: updated guidelines for reporting parallel group randomised trials (Chinese version)]

Overwhelming evidence shows the quality of reporting of randomised controlled trials (RCTs) is not optimal. Without transparent reporting, readers cannot judge the reliability and validity of trial findings nor extract information for systematic reviews. Recent methodological analyses indicate that inadequate reporting and design are associated with biased estimates of treatment effects. Such systematic error is seriously damaging to RCTs, which are considered the gold standard for evaluating interventions because of their ability to minimise or avoid bias. A group of scientists and editors developed the CONSORT (Consolidated Standards of Reporting Trials) statement to improve the quality of reporting of RCTs. It was first published in 1996 and updated in 2001. The statement consists of a checklist and flow diagram that authors can use for reporting an RCT. Many leading medical journals and major international editorial groups have endorsed the CONSORT statement. The statement facilitates critical appraisal and interpretation of RCTs. During the 2001 CONSORT revision, it became clear that explanation and elaboration of the principles underlying the CONSORT statement would help investigators and others to write or appraise trial reports. A CONSORT explanation and elaboration article was published in 2001 alongside the 2001 version of the CONSORT statement. After an expert meeting in January 2007, the CONSORT statement has been further revised and is published as the CONSORT 2010 Statement. This update improves the wording and clarity of the previous checklist and incorporates recommendations related to topics that have only recently received recognition, such as selective outcome reporting bias. This explanatory and elaboration document-intended to enhance the use, understanding, and dissemination of the CONSORT statement-has also been extensively revised. It presents the meaning and rationale for each new and updated checklist item providing examples of good reporting and, where possible, references to relevant empirical studies. Several examples of flow diagrams are included. The CONSORT 2010 Statement, this revised explanatory and elaboration document, and the associated website (www.consort-statement.org) should be helpful resources to improve reporting of randomised trials.

CONSORT 2010 Explanation and Elaboration: Updated guidelines for reporting parallel group randomised trials

Overwhelming evidence shows the quality of reporting of randomised controlled trials (RCTs) is not optimal. Without transparent reporting, readers cannot judge the reliability and validity of trial findings nor extract information for systematic reviews. Recent methodological analyses indicate that inadequate reporting and design are associated with biased estimates of treatment effects. Such systematic error is seriously damaging to RCTs, which are considered the gold standard for evaluating interventions because of their ability to minimise or avoid bias. A group of scientists and editors developed the CONSORT (Consolidated Standards of Reporting Trials) statement to improve the quality of reporting of RCTs. It was first published in 1996 and updated in 2001. The statement consists of a checklist and flow diagram that authors can use for reporting an RCT. Many leading medical journals and major international editorial groups have endorsed the CONSORT statement. The statement facilitates critical appraisal and interpretation of RCTs. During the 2001 CONSORT revision, it became clear that explanation and elaboration of the principles underlying the CONSORT statement would help investigators and others to write or appraise trial reports. A CONSORT explanation and elaboration article was published in 2001 alongside the 2001 version of the CONSORT statement. After an expert meeting in January 2007, the CONSORT statement has been further revised and is published as the CONSORT 2010 Statement. This update improves the wording and clarity of the previous checklist and incorporates recommendations related to topics that have only recently received recognition, such as selective outcome reporting bias. This explanatory and elaboration document-intended to enhance the use, understanding, and dissemination of the CONSORT statement-has also been extensively revised. It presents the meaning and rationale for each new and updated checklist item providing examples of good reporting and, where possible, references to relevant empirical studies. Several examples of flow diagrams are included. The CONSORT 2010 Statement, this revised explanatory and elaboration document, and the associated website (www.consort-statement.org) should be helpful resources to improve reporting of randomised trials.

Terutroban versus aspirin in patients with cerebral ischaemic events (PERFORM): a randomised, double-blind, parallel-group trial

Patients with ischaemic stroke or transient ischaemic attack (TIA) are at high risk of recurrent stroke or other cardiovascular events. We compared the selective thromboxane-prostaglandin receptor antagonist terutroban with aspirin in the prevention of cerebral and cardiovascular ischaemic events in patients with a recent non-cardioembolic cerebral ischaemic event.

Parallel determination of NeuroD1, chromogranin-A, KI67 and androgen receptor expression in surgically treated prostate cancers

Neuroendocrine differentiation is a hallmark of prostate cancer. The aim of our study was the detection of the parallel expression of neuroendocrine related markers using a prostate tissue microarray (TMA).