Michael C. Mulder

Computer science program requirements and accreditation

Members of the IEEE Computer Society and ACM frequently encounter new computer science graduates inadequately prepared to handle the professional responsibilities implied by their degree. This faulty preparation can be traced to institutions lacking the faculty and facilities to support their programs or meet enrollment demands. The Computer Society and ACM receive inquiries from parents, companies, and government agencies seeking locations of quality computing programs. To remedy educational deficiencies, both organizations took the first steps in June 1982 to establish a national organization to set standards and evaluate academic programs. This accreditation program will complement the work of the Accreditation Board for Engineering and Technology (ABET), which is restricted to schools of engineering. The Educational Activities Board of the Computer Society and the Education Board of the ACM formed the Joint Task Force on Computer Science Program Accreditation, cochaired by Michael Mulder of the Computer Society and John Dalphin of ACM, to initiate the evaluation program. In the spring of 1983, the task force recommended that a computer science accreditation commission be established with the responsibility of accrediting those highly technical programs not located in engineering schools, so outside the ABET accrediting process. This recommendation was approved by the Computer Society Governing Board and the ACM Council. The Computer Society Educational Activities Board and the ACM Education Board were then charged with developing the organization of the accrediting commission and further refining the evaluation criteria to be implemented. The following task force report outlines the proposed evaluation criteria. In publishing this report, the task force solicits comments that will guide the work of the computer science accrediting commission now being established. Please send your suggestions to the Joint Accreditation Task Force, Association for Computing Machinery, 11 West 42nd Street, New York, NY 10036; or the Joint Accreditation Task Force, IEEE Computer Society, P.O. Box 639, Silver Spring, MD 20901. We would like to acknowledge the extensive work carried out by the members of the task force in developing the material contained in the following report. Taylor L. Booth David Kniefel 1982 Vice-President Chair For Educational Activities Education Board IEEE Computer Society ACM

A knowledge based control strategy for a biped

The characteristics of a knowledge-based control strategy that support dynamic stability in a walking machine are discussed. A generalized set of solutions is optimized through simulation, and tabulated in an organized way for real-time use. Once properly evoked, the generalized solutions are modified on the basis of, sensory input. The result is a faster, less complex and adaptive control process. This work is part of a larger research effort centered on autonomous motion of bipeds.<<ETX>>

Computing as a discipline: preliminary report of the ACM task force on the core of computer science

It is ACMs 40th year and an old debate continues. Is computer science a science? An engineering discipline? Or merely a technology, an inventor and purveyor of computing commodities? What is the intellectual substance of the discipline? Is it lasting, or will it fade within a generation? Do core curricula in computer science and engineering accurately reflect the field? How can theory and lab work be integrated in a computing curriculum? We project an image of a technology-oriented discipline whose fundamentals are in mathematics and engineering — for example, we represent algorithms as the most basic objects of concern and programming and hardware design as the primary activities. The view that “computer science equals programming” is especially strong in our curricula: the introductory course is programming, the technology is in our core courses, and the science is in our electives. This view blocks progress in reorganizing the curriculum and turns away the best students, who want a greater challenge. It denies a coherent approach to making experimental and theoretical computer science integral and harmonious parts of a curriculum. Those in the discipline know that computer science encompasses far more than programming. The emphasis on programming arises from our long-standing belief that programming languages are excellent vehicles for gaining access to the rest of the field — but this belief limits out ability to speak about the discipline in terms that reveal its full breadth and richness. The field has matured enough that it is now possible to describe its intellectual substance in a new and compelling way. In the spring of 1986, ACM President Adele Goldberg and ACM Education Board Chairman Robert Aiken appointed this task force with the enthusiastic cooperation of the IEEE Computer Society. At the same time, the Computer Society formed a task force on computing laboratories with the enthusiastic cooperation of the ACM. The charter of the task force has three components:Present a description of computer science that emphasizes fundamental questions and significant accomplishments. Propose a new teaching paradigm for computer science that conforms to traditional scientific standards and harmoniously integrates theory and experimentation. Give at least one detailed example of a three-semester introductory course sequence in computer science based on the curriculum model and the disciplinary description. We immediately extended our task to encompass computer science and computer engineering, for we came to the conclusion that in the core material there is no fundamental difference between the two fields. We use the phrase “discipline of computing” to embrace all of computer science and engineering. The rest of this paper is a summary of the recommendation. The description of the discipline is presented in a series of passes, starting from a short definition and culminating with a matrix as shown in the figure. The short definition: Computer science and engineering is the systematic study of algorithmic processes that describe and transform information: their theory, analysis, design, efficiency, implementation, and application. The fundamental question underlying all of computing is, “What can be (efficiently) automated?” The detailed description of the field fills in each of the 27 cells in the matrix with significant issues and accomplishments. (That description occupies about 16 pages of the report.) For the curriculum model, we recommend that the introductory course consist of regular lectures and a closely coordinated weekly laboratory. The lectures emphasize fundamentals; the laboratories emphasize technology and know-how. The pattern of closely coordinated lectures and labs can be repeated where appropriate in other courses. The recommended model is traditional in the physical sciences and in engineering: lectures emphasize enduring principles and concepts while laboratories emphasize the transient material and skills relating to the current technology.

Dynamic stability in bipedal motion: Adaptive control strategies for balance and controlled motion

Abstract The exploration of dynamic stability in bidedal machines requires a great deal of knowledge about the science of balancing, both equilibrium and motion. Recent work in robotic legged locomotion has concentrated on systems that require three or more legs on the ground at any given time. This research focuses on adaptive control strategies for a bipedal machine that will allow balance and controlled motion with one leg and, if not walking, on two legs on the ground at any given time. Our approach is to optimize a set of balance and motion profiles through extensive simulation and to validate the profiles on an experimental testbed. Once validated as capable of providing dynamic stability, the adaptive control model uses these profiles as nominal control. The sensory input is then used to modify the nominal control to allow precise control at each sampling period. Simply stated, our control model continuously measures the rate of fall of the biped, and adjusts torques at the knees and hips to constrain this fall to dynamic balance and controlled motion. As should be suspected at this time, our control model is sensor driven and does not require a solution to the Lagrangian equations of motion. The result is a faster, less complex, adaptive control process. Our experimental bipedal testbed currently, and repeatedly, exhibits 25 + stable steps on a flat but slightly varied terrain. Current technology could not provide the kind of actuation and measurements necessary to implement our control model; therefore, our team has developed new low pressure, servoed hydraulic systems and sensory devices. Our most recent experimentation has used parallel computing methods and devices in the C + + programming language on a transputer (parallel computer) based Cogent XTM parallel computing workstation. A new dimension to our research is the translation of our knowledge to manufacturing systems and machines. We are currently investigating how our knowledge of limb coordination and reflex can be applied to the coordination of multiple jointed appendages. In addition, we will explore the use of our positioning and balancing technology in the work cell.

Mathematical model of a multi-segment, multi-joint biped: summary and observations

The interaction of a biped and the external force of gravity is predicted by applying Newtons equation to a point-mass model. Numerical integration predicts angles and angular velocities over time. Two modes of calculation are necessary, depending on whether both feet are in contact with the ground or only one. Transition equations to transfer between these two modes are based on assuming an inelastic collision at the moment of foot contact.<<ETX>>

Bipedal Balancing: A New Approach

Progress in the development of a walking robotic biped depends on an understanding of the process of achieving and maintaining balance. Based upon the inverted pendulum model, Raibert has built a hopping monoped able to remain upright [1]. More recently, Furusho and Masubuchi built a bipedal walking machine [2] able to demonstrate a true walking gait. However, as with Raibert’s hopping machine, the motion of the machine is constrained to the sagittal plane. No one has yet demonstrated a biped able to maintain balance in three dimensions.

Computer science accreditation (panel session): an introduction and status of the national program

Panelists will discuss Accreditation in the Computing Sciences in general and the status of the program being launched for visitation and accreditation of programs in Computer Science to start during the Fall of 1985. The Representative Directors of the Computing Sciences Accreditation Board who represent ACM and the IEEE Computer Society will outline current activities and plans for the future. *CSAB = Computing Sciences Accreditation Board, Inc.

Accreditation in computer science

At the February 1983 SIGCSE Technical Symposium, the initial version of the minimum guidelines for aceredltation of computer science programs was presented by the ACM IEEE/Computer Society Joint Task Force for Computer Science Program Accreditation. Since that time the guidelines kave been refined, edited, and accepted by the governing bodies of both societies. Interpretive guidelines to accompany the accreditation document are in draft form, and a mechanism to formally establish accreditation of computer science programs is being investigated.