MétaCan
Menu
← Back to cohort
Record W4287029293 · doi:10.48550/arxiv.2108.01797

Rapid Convex Optimization of Centroidal Dynamics using Block Coordinate Descent

2021· preprint· en· W4287029293 on OpenAlexfundno aff
Paarth Shah, Avadesh Meduri, Wolfgang Merkt, Majid Khadiv, Ioannis Havoutis, Ludovic Righetti

Bibliographic record

VenuearXiv (Cornell University) · 2021
Typepreprint
Languageen
FieldNeuroscience
TopicMotor Control and Adaptation
Canadian institutionsnot available
FundersEngineering and Physical Sciences Research CouncilYork UniversityEuropean CommissionNational Science FoundationAmazon Web ServicesUK Research and Innovation
KeywordsSolverCoordinate descentBlock (permutation group theory)Regular polygonMathematical optimizationComputer scienceConvex optimizationQuadratic equationQuadratic programmingMathematicsGeometry

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

In this paper we explore the use of block coordinate descent (BCD) to optimize the centroidal momentum dynamics for dynamically consistent multi-contact behaviors. The centroidal dynamics have recently received a large amount of attention in order to create physically realizable motions for robots with hands and feet while being computationally more tractable than full rigid body dynamics models. Our contribution lies in exploiting the structure of the dynamics in order to simplify the original non-convex problem into two convex subproblems. We iterate between these two subproblems for a set number of iterations or until a consensus is reached. We explore the properties of the proposed optimization method for the centroidal dynamics and verify in simulation that motions generated by our approach can be tracked by the quadruped Solo12. In addition, we compare our method to a recently proposed convexification using a sequence of convex relaxations as well as a more standard interior point method used in the off- the-shelf solver IPOPT to show that our approach finds similar, if not better, trajectories (in terms of cost), and is more than four times faster than both approaches. Finally, compared to previous approaches, we note its practicality due to the convex nature of each subproblem which allows our method to be used with any off-the-shelf quadratic programming solver.

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)0.002
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: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.006
Threshold uncertainty score0.013

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.002
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.001
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0040.001

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 head0.085
GPT teacher head0.189
Teacher spread0.104 · 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
GenreEmpirical

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

Citations0
Published2021
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venuearXiv (Cornell University)→Same topicMotor Control and Adaptation→French-language works237,207→