MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2131702095 · doi:10.1109/acc.2006.1656600

On stabilization of bipedal robots during disturbed standing using the concept of Lyapunov exponents

2006· article· en· W2131702095 on OpenAlexaff
Congling Yang, Q. Wu

Bibliographic record

Venuenot available
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEngineering
TopicRobotic Locomotion and Control
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Manitoba
Fundersnot available
KeywordsLyapunov exponentControl theory (sociology)Work (physics)Stability (learning theory)Balance (ability)Lyapunov functionPosition (finance)MathematicsRobotComputer scienceControl (management)Nonlinear systemPhysicsArtificial intelligenceChaotic

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

In this work, we investigate the balance control of disturbed bipedal standing. A simple PD-based switching state feedback control is proposed, which can stabilize the biped at the upright position while satisfying the constraints between the feet and the ground. The stability of such a control system is analyzed using the concept of Lyapunov exponents, and a stability region (domain of attraction) is determined. Since Lyapunov exponents are calculated numerically, several methods are employed to improve the numerical accuracy and the computing efficiency. Furthermore, the stability region is compared and agrees well with the one from the previous work that predicts the feasible movement during which balance of human standing can be maintained. This agreement shows the potential of the concept of Lyapunov exponents to be used as a measure of balance control of human standing. The work contributes to bipedal balance control, which is important in the development of bipedal walking machines

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 score0.002

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 studies0.0000.001
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 head0.009
GPT teacher head0.206
Teacher spread0.197 · 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

Citations7
Published2006
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same topicRobotic Locomotion and ControlFrench-language works237,207