MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort

Human motion segmentation using cost weights recovered from inverse optimal control

2016· article· en· W2569048919 on OpenAlexaff
Jonathan Feng-Shun Lin, Vincent Bonnet, Adina M. Panchea, Nacim Ramdani, Gentiane Venture, Dana Kulić

Bibliographic record

Venuenot available
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldNeuroscience
TopicMotor Control and Adaptation
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Waterloo
Fundersnot available
KeywordsBasis (linear algebra)SegmentationResidualComputer scienceSeries (stratigraphy)Basis functionTask (project management)Function (biology)Control theory (sociology)Artificial intelligenceMathematicsAlgorithmControl (management)Engineering

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

A common hypothesis in human motor control is that human movement is generated by optimizing with respect to a certain criterion and is task dependent. In this paper, a method to segment human movement by detecting changes to the optimization criterion being used via inverse optimal control is proposed. The control strategy employed by the motor system is hypothesized to be a weighted sum of basis cost functions, with the basis weights changing with changes to the motion objective(s). Continuous time series data of movement is processed using a sliding fixed width window, estimating the basis weights of each cost function for each window by minimizing the Karush-Kuhn-Tucker optimality conditions. The quality of the cost function recovery is verified by evaluating the residual. The successfully estimated basis weights are averaged together to create a set of time varying basis weights that describe the changing control strategy of the motion and can be used to segment the movement with simple thresholds. The proposed algorithm is first demonstrated on simulation data and then demonstrated on a dataset of human subjects performing a series of squatting tasks. The proposed approach reliably identifies the squatting movements, achieving a segmentation accuracy of 84%.

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 distilled prediction

Teacher imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesInsufficient payload (model declined to judge)
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Bench or experimental · Consensus signal: Bench or experimental
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.239
Threshold uncertainty score1.000

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

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 communication0.0000.001
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 head0.053
GPT teacher head0.274
Teacher spread0.221 · 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 teacher head, not a consensus.

Study designBench or experimental
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

Citations34
Published2016
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same topicMotor Control and AdaptationFrench-language works237,207