MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W3167076322 · doi:10.1111/cgf.14274

Inverse Dynamics Filtering for Sampling‐based Motion Control

2021· article· en· W3167076322 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

VenueComputer Graphics Forum · 2021
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEngineering
TopicHuman Motion and Animation
Canadian institutionsMcGill University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsPolygon (computer graphics)Inverse dynamicsComputer scienceInverseDynamics (music)Filter (signal processing)Sampling (signal processing)Zero moment pointMotion (physics)Computer visionAlgorithmMathematicsArtificial intelligenceKinematicsGeometryRobotFrame (networking)

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Abstract We improve the sampling‐based motion control method proposed by Liu et al. using inverse dynamics. To deal with noise in the motion capture we filter the motion data using a Butterworth filter where we choose the cutoff frequency such that the zero‐moment point falls within the support polygon for the greatest number of frames. We discuss how to detect foot contact for foot and ground optimization and inverse dynamics, and we optimize to increase the area of supporting polygon. Sample simulations receive filtered inverse dynamics torques at frames where the ZMP is sufficiently close to the support polygon, which simplifies the problem of finding the PD targets that produce physically valid control matching the target motion. We test our method on different motions and we demonstrate that our method has lower error, higher success rates, and generally produces smoother results.

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 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: none
Teacher disagreement score0.955
Threshold uncertainty score0.519

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
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 head0.020
GPT teacher head0.227
Teacher spread0.207 · 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