Automatic gait optimization with Gaussian process regression
Why this work is in the frame
A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Gait optimization is a basic yet challenging problem for both quadrupedal and bipedal robots. Although techniques for automating the process exist, most involve local function optimization procedures that suffer from three key drawbacks. Local optimization techniques are naturally plagued by local optima, make no use of the expensive gait evaluations once a local step is taken, and do not explicitly model noise in gait evaluation. These drawbacks increase the need for a large number of gait evaluations, making optimization slow, data inefficient, and manually intensive. We present a Bayesian approach based on Gaussian process regression that addresses all three drawbacks. It uses a global search strategy based on a posterior model inferred from all of the individual noisy evaluations. We demonstrate the technique on a quadruped robot, using it to optimize two different criteria: speed and smoothness. We show in both cases our technique requires dramatically fewer gait evaluations than state-of-the-art local gradient approaches. 1
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it