Representing high-dimensional data to intelligent prostheses and other wearable assistive robots: A first comparison of tile coding and selective Kanerva coding
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Prosthetic devices have advanced in their capabilities and in the number and type of sensors included in their design. As the space of sensorimotor data available to a conventional or machine learning prosthetic control system increases in dimensionality and complexity, it becomes increasingly important that this data be represented in a useful and computationally efficient way. Well structured sensory data allows prosthetic control systems to make informed, appropriate control decisions. In this study, we explore the impact that increased sensorimotor information has on current machine learning prosthetic control approaches. Specifically, we examine the effect that high-dimensional sensory data has on the computation time and prediction performance of a true-online temporal-difference learning prediction method as embedded within a resource-limited upper-limb prosthesis control system. We present results comparing tile coding, the dominant linear representation for real-time prosthetic machine learning, with a newly proposed modification to Kanerva coding that we call selective Kanerva coding. In addition to showing promising results for selective Kanerva coding, our results confirm potential limitations to tile coding as the number of sensory input dimensions increases. To our knowledge, this study is the first to explicitly examine representations for realtime machine learning prosthetic devices in general terms. This work therefore provides an important step towards forming an efficient prosthesis-eye view of the world, wherein prompt and accurate representations of high-dimensional data may be provided to machine learning control systems within artificial limbs and other assistive rehabilitation technologies.
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 | 0.001 | 0.005 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 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".