MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2331758694 · doi:10.1155/2016/9853070

Gait Planning and Stability Control of a Quadruped Robot

2016· article· en· W2331758694 on OpenAlexaff
Junmin Li, Jinge Wang, Simon X. Yang, Kedong Zhou, Huijuan Tang

Bibliographic record

VenueComputational Intelligence and Neuroscience · 2016
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEngineering
TopicRobotic Locomotion and Control
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Guelph
FundersXihua UniversityMinistry of Education of the People's Republic of ChinaNational Natural Science Foundation of China
KeywordsGaitPhysical medicine and rehabilitationControl (management)Stability (learning theory)RobotComputer sciencePsychologyArtificial intelligenceMedicineMachine learning

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

In order to realize smooth gait planning and stability control of a quadruped robot, a new controller algorithm based on CPG-ZMP (central pattern generator-zero moment point) is put forward in this paper. To generate smooth gait and shorten the adjusting time of the model oscillation system, a new CPG model controller and its gait switching strategy based on Wilson-Cowan model are presented in the paper. The control signals of knee-hip joints are obtained by the improved multi-DOF reduced order control theory. To realize stability control, the adaptive speed adjustment and gait switch are completed by the real-time computing of ZMP. Experiment results show that the quadruped robot's gaits are efficiently generated and the gait switch is smooth in the CPG control algorithm. Meanwhile, the stability of robot's movement is improved greatly with the CPG-ZMP algorithm. The algorithm in this paper has good practicability, which lays a foundation for the production of the robot prototype.

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)0.000
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 score0.003
Threshold uncertainty score0.005

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
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 head0.042
GPT teacher head0.265
Teacher spread0.222 · 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

Citations43
Published2016
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueComputational Intelligence and NeuroscienceSame topicRobotic Locomotion and ControlFrench-language works237,207