Off-topic for aiqbench
This story was gathered from a source we follow but falls outside AI and quantum coverage, so there is no aiqbench take for it.
Tolerance-Dependent Inspection Disagreement Between a Fixed CMM and a Portable Articulated-Arm CMM
arXiv:2608.21404v1 Announce Type: new Abstract: Fixed coordinate measuring machines (CMMs) and portable articulated-arm CMMs are often assigned to the same inspection task, but their nominal accuracy specifications do not show whether a change of instrument will preserve the disposition of a part. The question is not simply how far the two results differ, but whether that difference crosses the tolerance boundary. We examined this issue with recorded measurements of cylindrical, cubic, and spherical features under nominal 20 {\deg}C and 30 {\deg}C conditions. Repeated records and two roughness profiles without sufficient acquisition information were removed, leaving six dimensional and four form profiles. For each dimensional feature, the distances of the two system means from nominal define the exact tolerance interval in which the systems receive opposite direct labels. The fixed-CMM stream was approximately 11.2 {\mu}m higher than the articulated-arm stream at both conditions. All four form profiles fell on opposite sides of the recorded 10 {\mu}m upper limit. The dimensional disagreement intervals also overlapped strongly; their mean widths were 6.573 {\mu}m at 20 {\deg}C and 4.995 {\mu}m at 30 {\deg}C. The results clarify why an average difference between instruments is not, by itself, a measure of substitution risk. The proposed tolerance map identifies the feature-tolerance combinations for which instrument choice can change the recorded inspection label and, therefore, where a controlled equivalence study and a task-specific uncertainty budget are needed before substitution.
Abstract:Fixed coordinate measuring machines (CMMs) and portable articulated-arm CMMs are often assigned to the same inspection task, but their nominal accuracy specifications do not show whether a change of instrument will preserve the disposition of a part. The question is not simply how far the two results differ, but whether that difference crosses the tolerance boundary. We examined this issue with recorded measurements of cylindrical, cubic, and spherical features under nominal 20 °C and 30 °C conditions. Repeated records and two roughness profiles without sufficient acquisition information were removed, leaving six dimensional and four form profiles. For each dimensional feature, the distances of the two system means from nominal define the exact tolerance interval in which the systems receive opposite direct labels. The fixed-CMM stream was approximately 11.2 {\mu}m higher than the articulated-arm stream at both conditions. All four form profiles fell on opposite sides of the recorded 10 {\mu}m upper limit. The dimensional disagreement intervals also overlapped strongly; their mean widths were 6.573 {\mu}m at 20 °C and 4.995 {\mu}m at 30 °C. The results clarify why an average difference between instruments is not, by itself, a measure of substitution risk. The proposed tolerance map identifies the feature-tolerance combinations for which instrument choice can change the recorded inspection label and, therefore, where a controlled equivalence study and a task-specific uncertainty budget are needed before substitution.
Robotics (cs.RO); Signal Processing (eess.SP)
arXiv:2608.21404 [cs.RO]
(or arXiv:2608.21404v1 [cs.RO] for this version)
https://doi.org/10.48550/arXiv.2608.21404 Focus to learn more arXiv-issued DOI via DataCite
arXivLabs is a framework that allows collaborators to develop and share new arXiv features directly on our website.
Both individuals and organizations that work with arXivLabs have embraced and accepted our values of openness, community, excellence, and user data privacy. arXiv is committed to these values and only works with partners that adhere to them.
Have an idea for a project that will add value for arXiv's community? Learn more about arXivLabs.
Full text under the publisher's open licence · 320 words
Related coverage
Debugging Logprob Mismatches in LLM Reinforcement Learning
AMD · Sep 23, 2026
Latent reasoning architectures would likely undermine CoT, our strongest oversight tool
AI Alignment Forum · Sep 23, 2026

Lattice-Based Cryptography Explained
Quantum Zeitgeist · Aug 15, 2026

Automated Reasoning policy refinement in Amazon Bedrock
AWS · Aug 3, 2026