Continuation methods for adapting simulated skills
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
Modeling the large space of possible human motions requires scalable techniques. Generalizing from example motions or example controllers is one way to provide the required scalability. We present techniques for generalizing a controller for physics-based walking to significantly different tasks, such as climbing a large step up, or pushing a heavy object. Continuation methods solve such problems using a progressive sequence of problems that trace a path from an existing solved problem to the final desired-but-unsolved problem. Each step in the continuation sequence makes progress towards the target problem while further adapting the solution. We describe and evaluate a number of choices in applying continuation methods to adapting walking gaits for tasks involving interaction with the environment. The methods have been successfully applied to automatically adapt a regular cyclic walk to climbing a 65 cm step, stepping over a 55 cm sill, pushing heavy furniture, walking up steep inclines, and walking on ice. The continuation path further provides parameterized solutions to these problems.
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 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 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