MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2921601796 · doi:10.1101/580779

A simple model of a quadruped discovers single-foot walking and trotting as energy optimal strategies

2019· preprint· en· W2921601796 on OpenAlex

Why this work is in the frame

A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.

affAt least one author lists a Canadian institution in the pinned OpenAlex snapshot.

Bibliographic record

VenuebioRxiv (Cold Spring Harbor Laboratory) · 2019
Typepreprint
Languageen
FieldEngineering
TopicRobotic Locomotion and Control
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Calgary
Fundersnot available
KeywordsQuadrupedalismGround reaction forceOffset (computer science)Computer scienceControl theory (sociology)GaitSimple (philosophy)Work (physics)BipedalismSimulationMathematicsKinematicsPhysicsGeologyEngineeringPhysical medicine and rehabilitationMechanical engineeringClassical mechanics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Abstract It is widely held that quadrupeds choose steady gaits that minimize their energetic cost of transport, but it is difficult to explore the entire range of possible footfall sequences empirically. We present a simple model of a quadruped that can spontaneously produce any of the 2300+ planar footfall sequences available to quadrupeds. Through trajectory optimization of a work and force-rate cost, and a large sample of random initial guesses, we provide stronger evidence towards the global optimality of symmetrical four-beat walking at low speeds and two beat running (trotting) at intermediate speeds. Using input parameters based on measurements in dogs ( Canis lupus familiaris ), the model predicts the correct phase offset in walking and a realistic walk-trot transition speed. It also spontaneously reproduces the double-hump ground reaction force profile observed in walking, and the smooth single-hump profile observed in trotting, despite the model’s lack of springs. However, the model incorrectly predicts duty factor at the slowest speeds, and does not choose galloping as globally optimal at high speeds. These limitations might point to missing levels of complexity that could be added to future quadrupedal models, but the present results suggest that massive legs, elastic components, head-neck oscillations and even multi-linked legs are not critical determiners for the optimality of natural quadrupedal walking and trotting. Author summary Why do quadrupedal mammals move in consistent ways, when so many options are available? We tackled this problem by determining energetically-optimal gaits using a simple computational model of a four-legged animal. The model can use virtually any pattern of movement (physics-permitting!) but selects natural movement strategies as energetically optimal. The similarities between the computer-based predictions and natural animal movement are striking, and suggest mammals utilize movement strategies that optimize energy use when they move.

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.

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 categoriesMeta-epidemiology (narrow)
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Simulation or modeling · Consensus signal: Simulation or modeling
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.335
Threshold uncertainty score1.000

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
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)0.0000.000

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 head0.011
GPT teacher head0.199
Teacher spread0.187 · 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