Staged Multi-Agent Training (SMAT) for Hip Exoskeletons: Metabolic and Biomechanical Validation of a Simulation-Trained Co-Adaptive Controller

Learning-based controllers can deliver exoskeleton assistance after training entirely in physics-based simulation, yet few controllers that address human-device co-adaptation have been validated on real users by whole-body metabolic measurement, the standard benchmark for assistive walking. Co-adaptation is challenging: as the device alters joint dynamics, the wearer reorganizes neuromuscular coordination, producing a non-stationary learning problem. Staged Multi-Agent Training (SMAT), a four-stage curriculum that progressively trains a musculoskeletal human actor and a bilateral hip exoskeleton actor, was introduced and shown to reduce simulated hip-muscle activation and provide positive assistance on hardware. This article provides the first physiological validation of SMAT. The policy was deployed on a hip exoskeleton and tested with eight healthy adults, with metabolic cost measured by indirect calorimetry across no-exoskeleton, passive, and active conditions. Active assistance lowered net metabolic rate by 19.7% relative to the passive device (p < 0.001). Biomechanical analysis confirmed predominantly positive hip mechanical power across all subjects (positive-power ratio 0.98), and the policy generalized across walking speeds and terrains. Together, these results show that a single simulation-trained SMAT policy, deployed without subject-specific retraining, delivers a significant metabolic benefit on real users while remaining robust beyond the conditions it was trained on.

Diagnosis Is Not Prescription: Linguistic Co-Adaptation Explains Patching Hazards in LLM Pipelines

When a multi-module LLM agent fails, the module most responsible for the failure is not necessarily the best place to intervene. We demonstrate this Diagnostic Paradox empirically: causal analysis consistently identifies the routing module -- which selects which tool to call next -- as the primary bottleneck across three independent agent families. Yet injecting prompt-level correction examples into this module consistently degrades performance, sometimes severely. Patching an upstream query-rewriting module instead reliably improves outcomes. The effect holds with statistical significance on two agent families and directional consistency on a third; alternative repair strategies at the routing module (instruction rewriting, model upgrade) are neutral, confirming that the harm is specific to correction-injection patching. We explain this asymmetry through the Linguistic Contract hypothesis: each downstream module implicitly adapts to its upstream's characteristic error distribution, so correcting the bottleneck breaks this implicit alignment in a way that upstream corrections do not. We operationalize this via a per-agent co-adaptation measure, derived from diagnosis alone, and show it is consistently associated with patching harm across agent families: higher co-adaptation co-occurs with harm, lower with safety. This trend holds across all three agent families, providing preliminary support for the hypothesis beyond a single-agent observation.