MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2965243272 · doi:10.1109/tro.2019.2926388

Inverse Optimal Control for Multiphase Cost Functions

2019· article· en· W2965243272 on OpenAlexaff
Wanxin Jin, Dana Kulić, Jonathan Feng-Shun Lin, Shaoshuai Mou, Sandra Hirche

Bibliographic record

VenueIEEE Transactions on Robotics · 2019
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEngineering
TopicRobot Manipulation and Learning
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Waterloo
FundersNorthrop Grumman
KeywordsTrajectoryFunction (biology)Control theory (sociology)InversePhase (matter)SegmentationComputer scienceSeries (stratigraphy)MathematicsOptimal controlMathematical optimizationAlgorithmArtificial intelligenceControl (management)GeometryPhysics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

In this paper, we consider a dynamical system whose trajectory is a result of minimizing a multiphase cost function. The multiphase cost function is assumed to be a weighted sum of specified features (or basis functions) with phase-dependent weights that switch at some unknown phase transition points. A new inverse optimal control approach for recovering the cost weights of each phase and estimating the phase transition points is proposed. The key idea is to use a length-adapted window moving along the observed trajectory, where the window length is determined by finding the minimal observation length that suffices for a successful cost weight recovery. The effectiveness of the proposed method is first evaluated on a simulated robot arm, and then, demonstrated on a dataset of human participants performing a series of squatting tasks. The results demonstrate that the proposed method reliably retrieves the cost function of each phase and segments each phase of motion from the trajectory with a segmentation accuracy above 90%.

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)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.004
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: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.005
Threshold uncertainty score0.010

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.004
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0010.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.001
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0010.001
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 head0.021
GPT teacher head0.237
Teacher spread0.216 · 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
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

Citations51
Published2019
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueIEEE Transactions on RoboticsSame topicRobot Manipulation and LearningFrench-language works237,207