Comments
Impossible_Cookie596 OP t1_j6n5dfi wrote
Abstract: The dynamic response of the legged robot locomotion is non-Lipschitz and can be stochastic due to environmental uncertainties. To test, validate, and characterize the safety performance of legged robots, existing solutions on observed and inferred risk can be incomplete and sampling inefficient. Some formal verification methods suffer from the model precision and other surrogate assumptions. In this paper, we propose a scenario sampling based testing framework that characterizes the overall safety performance of a legged robot by specifying (i) where (in terms of a set of states) the robot is potentially safe, and (ii) how safe the robot is within the specified set. The framework can also help certify the commercial deployment of the legged robot in real-world environment along with human and compare safety performance among legged robots with different mechanical structures and dynamic properties. The proposed framework is further deployed to evaluate a group of state-of-the-art legged robot locomotion controllers from various model-based, deep neural network involved, and reinforcement learning based methods in the literature. Among a series of intended work domains of the studied legged robots (e.g. tracking speed on sloped surface, with abrupt changes on demanded velocity, and against adversarial push-over disturbances), we show that the method can adequately capture the overall safety characterization and the subtle performance insights. Many of the observed safety outcomes, to the best of our knowledge, have never been reported by the existing work in the legged robot literature.
ShittyBeatlesFCPres t1_j6n8j8m wrote
It seems silly to only have two legs when you can add a third for stability and balance. Humanoid robots will never be as safe as Kangarooid roobots, assuming the roobots don’t have boxing gloves on, anyway. Humans are terribly designed.
Another option might be tank treads. That worked well in Basewars for NES.
Lady-Seashell-Bikini t1_j6nbsha wrote
I was just thinking that wheels would be better anyway. Not only would they be more stable, but they would force more city planners to consider wheelchair movement.
sennbat t1_j6nklsg wrote
Wheels are incredibly limiting for many of the dangerous-to-humans purposes robots would be very useful for. Wheels only really work at all in an environment explicitly built to support wheels, and they can't handle any kind of rapid elevation change with fixed infrastructure.
General_Chairarm t1_j6nu6n1 wrote
Can we not pave everything over for the sake of wheels? That’d be great.
Lady-Seashell-Bikini t1_j6nug5s wrote
I'm talking about cities, where there are wheelchair users.
[deleted] t1_j6nag29 wrote
[removed]
AutoModerator t1_j6n5auu wrote
Welcome to r/science! This is a heavily moderated subreddit in order to keep the discussion on science. However, we recognize that many people want to discuss how they feel the research relates to their own personal lives, so to give people a space to do that, personal anecdotes are allowed as responses to this comment. Any anecdotal comments elsewhere in the discussion will be removed and our normal comment rules apply to all other comments.
I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please contact the moderators of this subreddit if you have any questions or concerns.
[deleted] t1_j6oah3s wrote
[removed]
[deleted] t1_j6p98eb wrote
[removed]
CletusDSpuckler t1_j6njtwu wrote
Safety regulation #0: Ambulatory robots do NOT get to build more ambulatory robots.