MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4415355139 · doi:10.1016/j.cag.2025.104457

Imitation in relative terms using ReGAIL: Making motion controllers agile and transferable

2025· article· en· W4415355139 on OpenAlexaff
Paul Boursin, Yannis Kedadry, Tony Chevalier, Victor Zordan, Paul G. Kry, Sophie Grégoire, Marie‐Paule Cani

Bibliographic record

VenueComputers & Graphics · 2025
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEngineering
TopicHuman Motion and Animation
Canadian institutionsMcGill University
FundersConseil National de la Recherche ScientifiqueCentre National de la Recherche Scientifique
KeywordsControl theory (sociology)NoveltyRobustness (evolution)RobotTrajectoryController (irrigation)Agile software developmentHumanoid robotGenerator (circuit theory)

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

We present an approach for training “agile” character control policies, able to produce a wide variety of motor skills from a single reference motion cycle. Our technique builds off of generative adversarial imitation learning (GAIL), with a key novelty of our approach being to provide modification to the observation map in order to improve agility and robustness. Namely, to support more agile behavior, we adjust the value measurements of the training discriminator through relative features - hence the name ReGAIL. Our state observations include both task relevant relative velocities and poses, as well as relative goal deviation information. In addition, to increase robustness of the resulting gaits, servo gains and damping values are included as part of the policy action to let the controller learn how to best combine tension and relaxation during motion. From a policy informed by a single reference motion, our resulting agent is able to maneuver as needed, at runtime, from walking forward to walking backward or sideways, turning and stepping nimbly. Moreover, thanks to the use of observations in relative frames, the trained controllers are robust to morphological changes of the simulated character, which makes adaptation to new morphologies straightforward. We demonstrate our approach for a humanoid and a quadruped, on both flat and sloped terrains, as well as provide ablation studies to validate the design choices of our framework. In addition, we present an application to prehistoric research, where being able to simulate hominids of specific morphologies on rough terrain is valuable with encouraging results.

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)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.003
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: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.002
Threshold uncertainty score0.007

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.003
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.001
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0010.002
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0020.001

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 head0.016
GPT teacher head0.242
Teacher spread0.226 · 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
GenreEmpirical

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

Citations2
Published2025
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueComputers & GraphicsSame topicHuman Motion and AnimationFrench-language works237,207