Stabilization of a Dynamic Walking Gait Simulation
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Forward dynamic simulations of human walking gait have typically simulated and analyzed a single step of the walking cycle, assuming symmetric and periodic gait. To enable simulations over many steps, a stabilizer is required to maintain the balance of the walking model, ideally mimicking the human balance control mechanism. This paper presents a feedback control system that stabilizes the torso orientation during a human walking gait dynamic simulation, enabling arbitrarily long simulations. The model is a two-dimensional mechanical simulation, in which the desired joint trajectories are defined as functions of time; the only external forces on the model are gravitational and ground reaction forces. Orientation or postural control is achieved by modulation of the rate at which lower limb joints move through angular trajectories. The controller design is based on a sequence of simple linear feedback controllers, each based on an intuitive control law. Controller parameters were determined iteratively using an optimization algorithm and repeated executions of the forward dynamics simulation to minimize control term errors. Results show the use of feedback control and joint speed modulation to be effective in maintaining balance for walking simulations of arbitrary length, allowing for analysis of steady-state walking.
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 imitationNot 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.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| 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 | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 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 itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
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".