MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4402350775 · doi:10.1109/lra.2024.3455907

Tailoring Solution Accuracy for Fast Whole-Body Model Predictive Control of Legged Robots

2024· article· en· W4402350775 on OpenAlexfundno aff
Charles Khazoom, Seungwoo Hong, Matthew Chignoli, Elijah Stanger–Jones, Sangbae Kim

Bibliographic record

VenueIEEE Robotics and Automation Letters · 2024
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEngineering
TopicRobotic Locomotion and Control
Canadian institutionsnot available
FundersFonds de recherche du Québec – Nature et technologiesNatural Sciences and Engineering Research Council of Canada
KeywordsModel predictive controlRobotComputer scienceControl (management)Artificial intelligence

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Thanks to recent advancements in accelerating non-linear model predictive control (NMPC), it is now feasible to deploy whole-body NMPC at real-time rates for humanoid robots. However, enforcing inequality constraints in real time for such high-dimensional systems remains challenging due to the need for additional iterations. This letter presents an implementation of whole-body NMPC for legged robots that provides low-accuracy solutions to NMPC with general equality and inequality constraints. Instead of aiming for highly accurate optimal solutions, we leverage the alternating direction method of multipliers to rapidly provide low-accuracy solutions to quadratic programming subproblems. Our extensive simulation results indicate that real robots often cannot benefit from highly accurate solutions due to dynamics discretization errors, inertial modeling errors and delays. We incorporate control barrier functions (CBFs) at the initial timestep of the NMPC for the self-collision constraints, resulting in up to a 26-fold reduction in the number of self-collisions without adding computational burden. The controller is reliably deployed on hardware at 90 Hz for a problem involving 32 timesteps, 2004 variables, and 3768 constraints. The NMPC delivers sufficiently accurate solutions, enabling the MIT Humanoid to plan complex crossed-leg and arm motions that enhance stability when walking and recovering from significant disturbances.

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)0.000
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: Methods · Consensus signal: Methods
Teacher disagreement score0.003
Threshold uncertainty score0.007

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.002
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.000
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0020.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.011
GPT teacher head0.226
Teacher spread0.215 · 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
GenreMethods

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

Citations40
Published2024
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueIEEE Robotics and Automation LettersSame topicRobotic Locomotion and ControlFrench-language works237,207