Autonomous Locomotion Trajectory Shaping and Nonlinear Control for Lower Limb Exoskeletons
Bibliographic record
Abstract
This article presents a strategy for autonomous locomotion trajectory planning for high-level control of lower limb exoskeletons by defining a novel set of adaptive central pattern generators (ACPGs) to facilitate safe and compliant interaction with the human. A time-varying bounded-gain adaptive disturbance observer is designed for estimating the human–robot interaction (HRI) needed for online central pattern generator (CPG)-based trajectory shaping and low-level nonlinear trajectory tracking control. The proposed ACPG dynamics for each exoskeleton joint updates the motion frequency and amplitude based on the observed HRI torque, which is also coupled with adjacent joints’ CPGs to regulate their phase differences in real time. An integrated Lyapunov analysis is conducted to ensure the closed-loop system’s stability and uniformly ultimately boundedness of both the tracking error and the torque estimation error in the controlled exoskeleton. Experimental studies are performed with an able-bodied human wearer by applying arbitrary torques on the exoskeleton’s joints in order to evaluate the proposed autonomous control strategy in online adjustment and personalization of the locomotion.
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 | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| 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".