Development and Balancing Control of Control Moment Gyroscope (CMG) Unicycle–Legged Robot
Why this work is in the frame
A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
A wheeled–legged robot has the advantage of stable and agile movement on flat ground and an excellent ability to overcome obstacles. However, when faced with a narrow footprint, there is a limit to its ability to move. We developed the control moment gyroscope (CMG) unicycle–legged robot to solve this problem. A scissored pair of CMGs was applied to control the roll balance, and the pitch balance was modeled as a double-inverted pendulum. We performed Linear Quadratic Regulator (LQR) control and model predictive control (MPC) in a system in which the control systems in the roll and pitch directions were separated. We also devised a method for controlling the rotation of the robot in the yaw direction using torque generated by the CMG, and the performance of these controllers was verified in the Gazebo simulator. In addition, forward driving control was performed to verify mobility, which is the main advantage of the wheeled–legged robot; it was confirmed that this control enabled the robot to pass through a narrow space of 0.15 m. Before implementing the verified controllers in the real world, we built a CMG test platform and confirmed that balancing control was maintained within ±1∘.
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.
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 | 0.000 |
| 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 | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| 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 it