HUMANOID FALL AVOIDANCE USING A MIXTURE OF STRATEGIES
Bibliographic record
Abstract
If we are to one day rely on robots as assistive devices they should be capable of mitigating the impact of random disturbances and avoid falling. Humans are surprisingly apt at remaining on their feet when pushed; they rely on reflexes such as bending the ankles and/or the hips, or by taking a step if the magnitude of the disturbance is relatively large. This paper presents a fall avoidance scheme that is capable of applying both ankle and hip strategies on a humanoid robot. While both strategies serve the same purpose, the hip strategy can absorb larger disturbances but has a higher energy overhead and should be avoided when it is not necessary. Our system is capable of detecting at the onset of a disturbance if an ankle or hip strategy is more appropriate. The decision is taken based on a 'decision surface' that is delimited by threshold values of the robot's state variables. The control is based on the Virtual Model Control (VMC) approach. The system is tested on a simulated robot developed under Gazebo as well as on a real small-scale humanoid robot. Results show successful fall avoidance with an ability to choose the optimum fall avoidance strategy.
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) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 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".