Multi-level control of zero-moment point-based humanoid biped robots: a review
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
SUMMARY Researchers dream of developing autonomous humanoid robots which behave/walk like a human being. Biped robots, although complex, have the greatest potential for use in human-centred environments such as the home or office. Studying biped robots is also important for understanding human locomotion and improving control strategies for prosthetic and orthotic limbs. Control systems of humans walking in cluttered environments are complex, however, and may involve multiple local controllers and commands from the cerebellum. Although biped robots have been of interest over the last four decades, no unified stability/balance criterion adopted for stabilization of miscellaneous walking/running modes of biped robots has so far been available. The literature is scattered and it is difficult to construct a unified background for the balance strategies of biped motion. The zero-moment point (ZMP) criterion, however, is a conservative indicator of stabilized motion for a class of biped robots. Therefore, we offer a systematic presentation of multi-level balance controllers for stabilization and balance recovery of ZMP-based humanoid robots.
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 | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.004 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
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