Perspective Chapter: Multi-Contact Humanoid Stability for Increased Interaction in Unstructured Environments
Bibliographic record
Abstract
This paper presents a practical solution to the problem of multi-legged robot stability moving on unstructured 3D terrains using a multi-contact approach. The solution is based on a modified version of the contact wrench set method, which has been reformulated to utilize three arbitrary contact points representing the physics of contact between the robot and the environment. The new formulations are then used to test the stability of a life-size humanoid robot. The proposed method extends available formulations making the CWS tool suitable for a variety of terrains having various physical and geometrical characteristics including heterogenous coplanar (e.g., stairs and sloped terrain) and noncoplanar surfaces (e.g., gravel, sand, compliant terrains, etc.). The results provided by the new formulations are visualized using a graphical visualization tool, showing the adaptability of the proposed formulation in multi-contact locomotion. The results show that the proposed approach effectively quantifies the robot’s stability on a wide range of surfaces and environments, such as mines, industrial facilities, and urban search and rescue operations. Experimental tests on a life-size humanoid are also presented.
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 distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 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 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 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 teacher head, 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".