Deep Reinforcement Learning based Personalized Locomotion Planning for Lower-Limb Exoskeletons
Bibliographic record
Abstract
This paper introduces intelligent central pattern generators (iCPGs) that can plan personalized walking trajectories for lower-limb exoskeletons. This can make walking more comfortable for the users by resolving one of the significant shortcomings of most commercially available exoskeletons, which is the use of pre-defined fixed trajectories for all users. The proposed method combines reinforcement learning (RL) with previously introduced adaptable central pattern generators (ACPGs) to learn a user's physical interaction behaviour and refine the exoskeleton's walking trajectories. The ACPG method embeds physical human-robot interaction (pHRI) in CPGs to make changing gait trajectories in real-time, possible. However, to effectively refine gait trajectories based on pHRIs, the parameters must be precisely identified and updated as a user interacts with the exoskeleton. Our proposed method uses RL to modify (amplify/attenuate) the pHRI energy based on a user's interaction behaviour, and form an effective energy value which can facilitate reaching desired gait pattern for users via iCPG dynamics. The proposed method can resolve the aforementioned challenges with ACPGs and personalized trajectory generation. The simulation and experimental results provide evidence that the proposed method can effectively adapt to the user's behaviour in different walking scenarios with the Indego lower-limb exoskeleton.
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 | 0.001 |
| 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 | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| 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".