Hierarchical generative modelling for autonomous robots
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract Humans generate intricate whole-body motions by planning, executing and combining individual limb movements. We investigated this fundamental aspect of motor control and approached the problem of autonomous task completion by hierarchical generative modelling with multi-level planning, emulating the deep temporal architecture of human motor control. We explored the temporal depth of nested timescales, where successive levels of a forward or generative model unfold, for example, object delivery requires both global planning and local coordination of limb movements. This separation of temporal scales suggests the advantage of hierarchically organizing the global planning and local control of individual limbs. We validated our proposed formulation extensively through physics simulation. Using a hierarchical generative model, we showcase that an embodied artificial intelligence system, a humanoid robot, can autonomously complete a complex task requiring a holistic use of locomotion, manipulation and grasping: the robot adeptly retrieves and transports a box, opens and walks through a door, kicks a football and exhibits robust performance even in the presence of body damage and ground irregularities. Our findings demonstrated the efficacy and feasibility of human-inspired motor control for an embodied artificial intelligence robot, highlighting the viability of the formulized hierarchical architecture for achieving autonomous completion of challenging goal-directed tasks.
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 | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.002 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 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".