↓ Skip to main content

Humanoids Learning to Walk: A Natural CPG-Actor-Critic Architecture

Overview of attention for article published in Frontiers in Neurorobotics, January 2013
Altmetric Badge

Mentioned by

googleplus
1 Google+ user

Citations

dimensions_citation
20 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
67 Mendeley
citeulike
1 CiteULike
You are seeing a free-to-access but limited selection of the activity Altmetric has collected about this research output. Click here to find out more.
Title
Humanoids Learning to Walk: A Natural CPG-Actor-Critic Architecture
Published in
Frontiers in Neurorobotics, January 2013
DOI 10.3389/fnbot.2013.00005
Pubmed ID
Authors

Cai Li, Robert Lowe, Tom Ziemke

Abstract

The identification of learning mechanisms for locomotion has been the subject of much research for some time but many challenges remain. Dynamic systems theory (DST) offers a novel approach to humanoid learning through environmental interaction. Reinforcement learning (RL) has offered a promising method to adaptively link the dynamic system to the environment it interacts with via a reward-based value system. In this paper, we propose a model that integrates the above perspectives and applies it to the case of a humanoid (NAO) robot learning to walk the ability of which emerges from its value-based interaction with the environment. In the model, a simplified central pattern generator (CPG) architecture inspired by neuroscientific research and DST is integrated with an actor-critic approach to RL (cpg-actor-critic). In the cpg-actor-critic architecture, least-square-temporal-difference based learning converges to the optimal solution quickly by using natural gradient learning and balancing exploration and exploitation. Futhermore, rather than using a traditional (designer-specified) reward it uses a dynamic value function as a stability indicator that adapts to the environment. The results obtained are analyzed using a novel DST-based embodied cognition approach. Learning to walk, from this perspective, is a process of integrating levels of sensorimotor activity and value.

Mendeley readers

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 67 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Germany 4 6%
United States 2 3%
Iran, Islamic Republic of 1 1%
Japan 1 1%
Unknown 59 88%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Ph. D. Student 15 22%
Student > Master 13 19%
Researcher 7 10%
Student > Doctoral Student 7 10%
Professor 2 3%
Other 9 13%
Unknown 14 21%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Engineering 24 36%
Computer Science 11 16%
Medicine and Dentistry 5 7%
Nursing and Health Professions 2 3%
Unspecified 2 3%
Other 9 13%
Unknown 14 21%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 1. This is our high-level measure of the quality and quantity of online attention that it has received. This Attention Score, as well as the ranking and number of research outputs shown below, was calculated when the research output was last mentioned on 25 July 2014.
All research outputs
#17,285,036
of 25,371,288 outputs
Outputs from Frontiers in Neurorobotics
#496
of 1,039 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#193,604
of 288,986 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Frontiers in Neurorobotics
#15
of 20 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 25,371,288 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 21st percentile – i.e., 21% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 1,039 research outputs from this source. They receive a mean Attention Score of 4.0. This one is in the 46th percentile – i.e., 46% of its peers scored the same or lower than it.
Older research outputs will score higher simply because they've had more time to accumulate mentions. To account for age we can compare this Altmetric Attention Score to the 288,986 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 23rd percentile – i.e., 23% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
We're also able to compare this research output to 20 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 20th percentile – i.e., 20% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.