Advertisement

Journal of Mathematical Sciences

, Volume 195, Issue 3, pp 269–287 | Cite as

On Inverse Optimal Control Problems of Human Locomotion: Stability and Robustness of the Minimizers

  • F. C. ChittaroEmail author
  • F. Jean
  • P. Mason
Article
First Online:

Abstract

In recent papers, models of human locomotion by means of optimal control problems have been proposed. In this paradigm, the trajectories are assumed to be solutions of an optimal control problem whose cost has to be determined. The purpose of the present paper is to analyze the class of optimal control problems defined in this way. We prove strong convergence results for their solutions, on the one hand, for perturbations of the initial and final points (stability), and, on the other hand, for perturbations of the cost (robustness).

Keywords

Optimal Control Problem Uniform Convergence Linear Matrix Inequality Optimal Trajectory Humanoid Robot 
These keywords were added by machine and not by the authors. This process is experimental and the keywords may be updated as the learning algorithm improves.
This is a preview of subscription content, log in to check access.

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

References

  1. 1.
    A. A. Agrachev and Yu. L. Sachkov, “Control theory from the geometric viewpoint,” in: Encyclopaedia of Mathematical Sciences, 87, Springer-Verlag, Berlin (2004).Google Scholar
  2. 2.
    G. Arechavaleta, J.-P. Laumond, H. Hicheur, and A. Berthoz, “Optimizing principles underlying the shape of trajectories in goal oriented locomotion for humans,” in: IEEE/RAS International Conference on Humanoid Robots, Genoa (2006).Google Scholar
  3. 3.
    G. Arechavaleta, J.-P. Laumond, H. Hicheur, and A. Berthoz, “On the nonholonomic nature of human locomotion,” Autonomous Robots, 25, 25–35 (2008).CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    G. Arechavaleta, J.-P. Laumond, H. Hicheur, and A. Berthoz, “An optimality principle governing human walking,” IEEE Trans. on Robotics, 24, No. 1, 5–14 (2008).CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    A. V. Arutyunov and R. B. Vinter, “A simple ‘finite approximations’ proofs of the Pontryagin maximum principle under reduced differentiability hypotheses,” Set-Valued Anal., 12, Nos. 1–2, 5–24 (2004).MathSciNetCrossRefzbMATHGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    T. Bayen, Y. Chitour, F. Jean, and P. Mason, “Asymptotic analysis of an optimal control problem connected to the human locomotion,” in: Joint 48th IEEE Conference on Decision and Control and 28th Chinese Control Conference, Shanghai (2009).Google Scholar
  7. 7.
    B. Berret, F. Jean, and J.-P. Gauthier, “A biomechanical inactivation principle,” Proc. Steklov Inst. Math., 268, 93–116 (2010).MathSciNetCrossRefzbMATHGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    B. Bonnard and M. Chyba, “Singular trajectories and their role in control theory,” in: Math. Appl., 40, Springer-Verlag, Berlin (2003).Google Scholar
  9. 9.
    S. Boyd, L. E. Ghaoui, E. Feron, and Balakrishnan V., Linear Matrix Inequalities in System and Control Theory, SIAM, Philadelphia (1994).CrossRefzbMATHGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Y. Chitour, F. Jean, and P. Mason, “Optimal control models of the goal-oriented Human Locomotion,” SIAM J. Control Optim., 50, 147–170 (2012).MathSciNetCrossRefzbMATHGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    B. Dacorogna, Direct Methods in the Calculus of Variations, Springer-Verlag, New York (1989).CrossRefzbMATHGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    C. Darlot, J.-P. Gauthier, F. Jean, C. Papaxanthis, and T. Pozzo, “The inactivation principle: Mathematical solutions minimizing the absolute work and biological implications for the planning of arm movements,” PLoS Comput. Biol., 4, No. 10 (2008).Google Scholar
  13. 13.
    R. Kalman, “When is a linear control system optimal?” J. Basic Eng., 86, 51–60 (1964).CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    K. Mombaur, A. Truong, and J.-P. Laumond, “From human to humanoid locomotion—an inverse optimal control approach,” Auton. Robots, 28, 369–383 (2010).CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    A. Y. Ng and S. Russell, “Algorithms for inverse reinforcement learning,” in: Proc. 17th International Conf. on Machine Learning, Morgan Kaufmann, San Francisco (2000), pp. 663–670.Google Scholar
  16. 16.
    L. S. Pontryagin, V. G. Boltyanskii, R. V. Gamkrelidze, and E. F. Mishchenko, The Mathematical Theory of Optimal Processes, Wiley-Interscience, New York–London (1962).zbMATHGoogle Scholar
  17. 17.
    E. Todorov, “Optimal control theory,” in: Bayesian Brain: Probabilistic Approaches to Neural Coding (K. Doya et al., eds.), MIT Press, Cambridge (2006), pp. 269–298.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media New York 2013

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Laboratoire des Signaux et SystèmesGif-sur-YvetteFrance
  2. 2.ENSTA ParisTechParisFrance
  3. 3.Team GECO, INRIA Saclay — Île-de-FranceParisFrance

Personalised recommendations

Cite article

Buy options