MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort

Online Dynamic Trajectory Optimization and Control for a Quadruped Robot

2021· preprint· en· W3082102837 on OpenAlexaff
Oğuzhan Cebe, Carlo Tiseo, Guiyang Xin, Hsiu-Chin Lin, Joshua Smith, Michael Mistry

Bibliographic record

Venuenot available
Typepreprint
Languageen
FieldEngineering
TopicRobotic Locomotion and Control
Canadian institutionsMcGill University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsTraverseRobotTrajectoryTerrainComputer scienceMotion planningTask (project management)Moment (physics)Control theory (sociology)Trajectory optimizationSimulationBase (topology)ComputationPlannerArtificial intelligenceEngineeringControl (management)MathematicsAlgorithmGeography

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Legged robot locomotion requires the planning of stable reference trajectories, especially while traversing uneven terrain. The proposed trajectory optimization framework is capable of generating dynamically stable base and footstep trajectories for multiple steps. The locomotion task can be defined with contact locations, base motion or both, making the algorithm suitable for multiple scenarios (e.g., presence of moving obstacles). The planner uses a simplified momentum-based task space model for the robot dynamics, allowing computation times that are fast enough for online replanning. This fast planning capability also enables the quadruped to accommodate for drift and environmental changes. The algorithm is tested on simulation and a real robot across multiple scenarios, which includes uneven terrain, stairs and moving obstacles. The results show that the planner is capable of generating stable trajectories in the real robot even when a box of 15 cm height is placed in front of its path at the last moment.

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: Simulation or modeling · Consensus signal: Simulation or modeling
GenreCandidate signal: Methods · Consensus signal: Methods
Teacher disagreement score0.015
Threshold uncertainty score0.030

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.001
Scholarly communication0.0010.000
Open science0.0000.001
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0020.000

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 head0.009
GPT teacher head0.226
Teacher spread0.217 · 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 designSimulation or modeling
Domainnot available
GenreMethods

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

Citations6
Published2021
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same topicRobotic Locomotion and ControlFrench-language works237,207