MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W1520380240 · doi:10.1109/icra.2015.7139917

Autonomous gait selection for energy efficient walking

2015· article· en· W1520380240 on OpenAlexaff
Sandeep Manjanna, Gregory Dudek

Bibliographic record

Venuenot available
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEngineering
TopicRobotic Locomotion and Control
Canadian institutionsMcGill University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsTerrainGaitRobotComputer scienceAdaptation (eye)Artificial intelligenceEnergy (signal processing)Computer visionSimulationPhysical medicine and rehabilitationMathematicsGeography

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

In this paper, we investigate the question of how a legged robot can walk efficiently by taking advantage of its ability to alter its gait as a function of statistical (large-scale) terrain properties. One of the contributions of this paper is the algorithm to achieve real-time terrain identification and autonomous gait adaptation on a legged robot. We approach this problem by first classifying the terrains based on their proprioceptive responses and identifying the terrain in real-time. Then we choose an optimal gait to best suit the identified terrain type. We exploit our recent findings regarding gaits, estimated from terrain-contact signatures, in order to obtain an optimized mapping between terrain signatures and terrain-specific gaits. We evaluate our algorithm on synthetic data, and real robot data collected on different terrains and naturally occurring terrain transitions. Another key contribution of this work is the statistical verification that precise gait selection can lead to energy savings in practice in legged robots. This assessment of energy efficiency, achieved by gait adaptation, is among the firsts of its kind in gait adaptation literature. We also present an analysis of the effect of terrain transition frequency on our gait adaptation algorithm. Our results are supported by validation using both synthetic data and field testing.

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.

How this classification was reachedexpand

Full frame machine prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.001
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Simulation or modeling · Consensus signal: Simulation or modeling
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.001
Threshold uncertainty score0.004

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.012
GPT teacher head0.203
Teacher spread0.191 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designSimulation or modeling
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".

Quick stats

Citations9
Published2015
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same topicRobotic Locomotion and ControlFrench-language works237,207