A model-free deep reinforcement learning approach for control of exoskeleton gait patterns
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract Lower-body exoskeleton control that adapts to users and provides assistance-as-needed can increase user participation and motor learning and allow for more effective gait rehabilitation. Adaptive model-based control methods have previously been developed to consider a user’s interaction with an exoskeleton; however, the predefined dynamics models required are challenging to define accurately, due to the complex dynamics and nonlinearities of the human-exoskeleton interaction. Model-free deep reinforcement learning (DRL) approaches can provide accurate and robust control in robotics applications and have shown potential for lower-body exoskeletons. In this paper, we present a new model-free DRL method for end-to-end learning of desired gait patterns for over-ground gait rehabilitation with an exoskeleton. This control technique is the first to accurately track any gait pattern desired in physiotherapy without requiring a predefined dynamics model and is robust to varying post-stroke individuals’ baseline gait patterns and their interactions and perturbations. Simulated experiments of an exoskeleton paired to a musculoskeletal model show that the DRL method is robust to different post-stroke users and is able to accurately track desired gait pattern trajectories both seen and unseen in training.
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 | 0.001 |
| 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".