1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
45
46
47
48
49
50
51
52
53
54
55
56
57
58
59
60
61
62
63
64
65
66
67
68
69
70
71
72
73
74
75
76
77
78
79
80
81
82
83
84
85
86
87
88
89
90
91
92
93
94
95
96
97
98
99
100
101
102
103
104
105
106
107
108
109
110
111
112
113
114
115
116
117
118
119
120
121
122
123
124
125
126
127
128
129
130
131
132
133
134
135
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
||
|
![]() |
||||||||||||
particular RV at the end of a single step for a range of applied perturbation scalings. |
![]() |
||||||||||||
curve, a different initial state is used. The initial state for step n n-1 steps with the open-loop base PCG. By the fourth step, the figure is falling noticeably. |
![]() |
||||||||||||
|
|
![]() |
|||||||||||
|
![]() |
||||||||||||
|
![]() |
||||||||||||
(a) |
(b) |
![]() |
|||||||||||
Similarly, hip roll is nearly linear with respect to Qlat. These relationships provide evidence which supports our assumption that the discrete system can be modelled using a linear model. Despite the fact that the perturbations themselves are mutually independent, their effect on the RVs is not cleanly decoupled. Thus, they do not provide truly independent control over each RV dimension |
![]() |
||||||||||||
as desired. |
In general, however, the magnitudes of the undesired variations are not excessively |
![]() |
|||||||||||
large relative to the accessible range of RV values in the desired control dimensions. |
Completely |
![]() |
|||||||||||
independent control of the RVs would imply a diagonal discrete system Jacobian. |
The relatively |
![]() |
|||||||||||
small effects of each perturbation on other's control dimension mean that the off-diagonal elements of the discrete system Jacobian will be small compared to the diagonal elements. |
![]() |