On Constrained and Energy Efficient Balance Control of a Standing Biped: Experimentation and Stability Analysis
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
Balancing control is important for biped standing. In spite of large efforts, it is very difficult to design balancing control strategies satisfying three requirements simultaneously: maintaining postural stability, improving energy efficiency, and satisfying the constraints between the biped feet and the ground. To implement such a control, inclusion of the actuators' dynamics is necessary, which complicates the overall system, obstructs the control design, and makes stability analysis more difficult. In this paper, a constrained balancing control meeting all three requirements is designed for a standing bipedal robot. The dynamics of the selected actuators has been considered for developing the motion equations of the overall control system, which has usually been neglected in simulations. In addition, stability analysis of such a complex biped control system has been provided using the concept of Lyapunov exponents (LEs), which shows the significance of actuators' dynamics on the stability region. The paper contributes to balancing standing biped in both the theoretical and the practical sense.
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 | 0.002 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 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