Push recovery and active balancing for inexpensive humanoid robots
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Active balancing of a humanoid robot is a challenging task due to the complexity of combining a walking gait, dynamic balancing, vision and high-level behaviors. My Ph.D research focuses on the active balancing and push recovery problems that allow inexpensive humanoid robots to balance while standing and walking, and to compensate for external forces. In this research, I have proposed a push recovery mechanism that employs two machine learning techniques, Reinforcement Learning (RL) and Deep Reinforcement Learning (DRL) to learn recovery step trajectories during push recovery using a closed-loop feedback control. I have implemented a 3D model using the Robot Operating System (ROS) and Gazebo. To reduce wear and tear on the real robot, I used this model for learning the recovery steps for different impact strengths and directions. I evaluated my approach in both in the real world and in simulation. All the real world experiments are performed by Polaris, a teen- sized humanoid robot in the Autonomous Agent Laboratory (AALab), University of Manitoba. The design, implementation, and evaluation of hardware, software, and kinematic models are discussed in this document.
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 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 itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, 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".