MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4285549009 · doi:10.1109/lra.2021.3131698

Bridging the Model-Reality Gap With Lipschitz Network Adaptation

2021· article· en· W4285549009 on OpenAlexafffund
Siqi Zhou, Karime Pereida, Wenda Zhao, Angela P. Schoellig

Bibliographic record

VenueIEEE Robotics and Automation Letters · 2021
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldPhysics and Astronomy
TopicModel Reduction and Neural Networks
Canadian institutionsDynamic Systems Analysis (Canada)Vector InstituteUniversity of Toronto
FundersNatural Sciences and Engineering Research Council of CanadaCanada Research Chairs
KeywordsInverted pendulumLipschitz continuityComputer scienceControl theory (sociology)RobotController (irrigation)Leverage (statistics)Nonlinear systemControl engineeringArtificial neural networkAffine transformationArtificial intelligenceEngineeringControl (management)Mathematics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

As robots venture into the real world, they are subject to unmodeled dynamics and disturbances. Traditional model-based control approaches have been proven successful in relatively static and known operating environments. However, when an accurate model of the robot is not available, model-based design can lead to suboptimal and even unsafe behaviour. In this work, we propose a method that bridges the model-reality gap and enables the application of model-based approaches even if dynamic uncertainties are present. In particular, we present a learning-based model reference adaptation approach that makes a robot system, with possibly uncertain dynamics, behave as a predefined reference model. In turn, the reference model can be used for model-based controller design. In contrast to typical model reference adaptation control approaches, we leverage the representative power of neural networks to capture highly nonlinear dynamics uncertainties and guarantee stability by encoding a certifying Lipschitz condition in the architectural design of a special type of neural network called the Lipschitz network. Our approach applies to a general class of nonlinear control-affine systems even when our prior knowledge about the true robot system is limited. We demonstrate our approach in flying inverted pendulum experiments, where an off-the-shelf quadrotor is challenged to balance an inverted pendulum while hovering or tracking circular trajectories.

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)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.003
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 score0.003
Threshold uncertainty score0.006

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.003
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.001
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0010.002
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.000

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 head0.030
GPT teacher head0.241
Teacher spread0.211 · 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

Citations13
Published2021
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueIEEE Robotics and Automation LettersSame topicModel Reduction and Neural NetworksFrench-language works237,207