Difference: OptimizingWalking (14 vs. 15)

Optimizing Walking Controllers - David Matheson

(a) Contribution: This paper introduces parameter optimization for full-body 3d walking controllers that consider body shape, step length as well as key biomechanical properties. Using biomechanical principles to construct more human motion constraints and objective functions results in more realistic looking motion with no reference data (ie no mocap).

(b) Evaluation: In general the evaluation is very good. There is a breakdown of the effect of each term and a quantitive comparison of key metrics with mocap and previous simbicon controllers. The evaluation of robustness and changing terrain was a good summary. More details would have made the paper too long. I would have liked to seen a more quantitative explanation of why CMA was the best optimization algorithm.

(c) Reproducibility: All constraints and terms of the objective function are laid out in great detail. The parameters of the simulation are provided. Therefore it should be possible to reproduce this paper and obtained the same experimental results.

(d) Improvements in Research/Writing: The paper is very clear and easy to follow. It does a good job explaining all the constraints on each joint. It may have been easier to follow all the constraints if they were presented in a table where each row contained a joint and its constraints.

-- Main.davidm - 25 Nov 2011