Be Careful What You Wish for: Cost Function Sensitivity in Predictive Simulations for Assistive Device Design
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Software packages that use optimization to predict the motion of dynamic systems are powerful tools for studying human movement. These “predictive simulations” are gaining popularity in parameter optimization studies for designing assistive devices such as exoskeletons. The cost function is a critical component of the optimization problem and can dramatically affect the solution. Many cost functions have been proposed that are biologically inspired and that produce reasonable solutions, but which may lead to different conclusions in some contexts. We used OpenSim Moco to generate predictive simulations of human walking using several cost functions, each of which produced a reasonable trajectory of the human model. We then augmented the model with motors that generated hip flexion, knee flexion, or ankle plantarflexion torques, and repeated the predictive simulations to determine the optimal motor torques. The model was assumed to be planar and bilaterally symmetric to reduce computation time. Peak torques varied from 41.3 to 79.0 N·m for the hip flexion motors, from 48.0 to 94.2 N·m for the knee flexion motors, and from 42.6 to 79.8 N·m for the ankle plantarflexion motors, which could have important design consequences. This study highlights the importance of evaluating the robustness of results from predictive simulations.
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 | 0.005 | 0.091 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.003 | 0.005 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.003 | 0.005 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.016 | 0.007 |
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".