Feedback Control For Cassie With Deep Reinforcement Learning
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Bipedal locomotion skills are challenging to develop. Control strategies often use local linearization of the dynamics in conjunction with reduced-order abstractions to yield tractable solutions. In these model-based control strategies, the controller is often not fully aware of many details, including torque limits, joint limits, and other non-linearities that are necessarily excluded from the control computations for simplicity. Deep reinforcement learning (DRL) offers a promising model-free approach for controlling bipedal locomotion which can more fully exploit the dynamics. However, current results in the machine learning literature are often based on ad-hoc simulation models that are not based on corresponding hardware. Thus it remains unclear how well DRL will succeed on realizable bipedal robots. In this paper, we demonstrate the effectiveness of DRL using a realistic model of Cassie, a bipedal robot. By formulating a feedback control problem as finding the optimal policy for a Markov Decision Process, we are able to learn robust walking controllers that imitate a reference motion with DRL. Controllers for different walking speeds are learned by imitating simple time-scaled versions of the original reference motion. Controller robustness is demonstrated through several challenging tests, including sensory delay, walking blindly on irregular terrain and unexpected pushes at the pelvis. We also show we can interpolate between individual policies and that robustness can be improved with an interpolated policy.
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 | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 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".