Inverse optimal control with time-varying objectives: application to human jumping movement analysis
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Analysis of complex human movements can provide valuable insights for movement rehabilitation, sports training, humanoid robot design and control, and human-robot interaction. To accomplish complex movement, the central nervous system must coordinate the musculo-skeletal system to achieve task and internal (e.g., effort minimisation) objectives. This paper proposes an inverse optimal control approach for analysing complex human movement that does not assume that the control objective(s) remains constant throughout the movement. The movement trajectory is assumed to be optimal with respect to a cost function composed of the sum of weighted basis cost functions, which may be time varying. The weights of the cost function are recovered using a sliding window. To illustrate the proposed approach, a dataset consisting of standing broad jump to targets at three different distances is collected. The method can be used to extract control objectives that influence task success, identify different motion strategies/styles, as well as to observe how control strategy changes during the motor learning process. Kinematic analysis confirms that the identified control objectives, including centre-of-mass takeoff vector and foot placement upon landing are important to ensure that a given participant lands on the target. The dataset, including nearly 800 jump trajectories from 22 participants is also provided.
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 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 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".