MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2904019300 · doi:10.3389/frobt.2018.00129

An Overview on Principles for Energy Efficient Robot Locomotion

2018· review· en· W2904019300 on OpenAlexaff
Navvab Kashiri, Andy Abate, Sabrina J. Abram, Alin Albu‐Schäffer, Patrick Clary, Monica A. Daley, Salman Faraji, Raphaël Furnémont, Manolo Garabini, Hartmut Geyer, Alena M. Grabowski, Jonathan Hurst, Jörn Malzahn, Glenn Mathijssen, David Remy, Wesley Roozing, Mohammad Shahbazi, Surabhi N. Simha, Jae-Bok Song, Nils Smit-Anseeuw, Stefano Stramigioli, Bram Vanderborght, Yevgeniy Yesilevskiy, Nikos G. Tsagarakis

Bibliographic record

VenueFrontiers in Robotics and AI · 2018
Typereview
Languageen
FieldEngineering
TopicRobotic Locomotion and Control
Canadian institutionsSimon Fraser University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsRobotComputer scienceEfficient energy useActuatorControl engineeringBiomimeticsLegged robotEnergy (signal processing)Robot locomotionSimulationMobile robotRobot controlArtificial intelligenceEngineering

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Despite enhancements in the development of robotic systems, the energy economy of today's robots lags far behind that of biological systems. This is in particular critical for untethered legged robot locomotion. To elucidate the current stage of energy efficiency in legged robotic systems, this paper provides an overview on recent advancements in development of such platforms. The covered different perspectives include actuation, leg structure, control and locomotion principles. We review various robotic actuators exploiting compliance in series and in parallel with the drive-train to permit energy recycling during locomotion. We discuss the importance of limb segmentation under efficiency aspects and with respect to design, dynamics analysis and control of legged robots. This paper also reviews a number of control approaches allowing for energy efficient locomotion of robots by exploiting the natural dynamics of the system, and by utilizing optimal control approaches targeting locomotion expenditure. To this end, a set of locomotion principles elaborating on models for energetics, dynamics, and of the systems is studied.

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: Theoretical or conceptual · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Review · Consensus signal: Review
Teacher disagreement score0.008
Threshold uncertainty score0.027

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0030.002
Science and technology studies0.0010.001
Scholarly communication0.0010.003
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0020.002
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0080.005

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 head0.046
GPT teacher head0.298
Teacher spread0.252 · 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 designTheoretical or conceptual
Domainnot available
GenreReview

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

Citations118
Published2018
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueFrontiers in Robotics and AISame topicRobotic Locomotion and ControlFrench-language works237,207