Pith. sign in

REVIEW 4 major objections 6 minor 3 cited by

Quadratic Programming Optimization for Bio-Inspired Thruster-Assisted Bipedal Locomotion on Inclined Slopes

T0 review · 4 major / 6 minor · reviewed 2026-08-12 · deepseek-v4-flash

Challenge this review Re-run · record.json Download PDF Read on arXiv ↗ Review JSON

Pith's one-line read The paper claims that a quadratic-programming controller using a virtual inverted-pendulum model, friction-cone constraints, and whole-body force mapping can produce stable thruster-assisted walking on a 30-degree inclined slope in…

desk verdict Simulation-only QP thruster-assisted walking for the Harpy biped: a plausible extension of established legged-control components, but the evidence is thin and the ROM-to-full-model transfer is not quantitatively validated. read the letter →

arxiv 2411.12968 v1 pith:XPGDUQTW submitted 2024-11-20 cs.RO

Shreyansh Pitroda , Eric Sihite , Kaushik Venkatesh Krishnamurthy , Chenghao Wang , Adarsh Salagame , Reza Nemovi , Alireza Ramezani , Morteza Gharib This is my paper · ORCID
classification cs.RO
keywords quadraticprogrammingbipedallocomotionthruster-assistedwalkingreduced-ordermodelVLIPfrictionconewhole-bodycontrolinclinedslope
verification ladder T0 review T1 audit T2 compute T3 formal

The pith

A machine-rendered reading of the paper's core claim, the machinery that carries it, and where it could break.

The reading

The paper aims to show that a bipedal robot with body-mounted thrusters can walk up a steep 30-degree slope using a quadratic-programming (QP) controller rather than hand-tuned heuristics. The controller plans ground reaction forces with a simplified virtual linear inverted pendulum model, enforces friction-cone constraints so the feet do not slip, and maps the planned forces through a whole-body controller to joint torques and thruster forces. In simulation of the Harpy robot, the gait tracks the reference, settles into a stable limit cycle, and the QP solves in 0.3 milliseconds. This matters because thrusters could let legged robots climb inclines that exceed what leg friction alone can support, just as Chukar birds use their wings to run up steep walls.

What carries the argument

The load-bearing object is the virtual linear inverted pendulum (VLIP) reduced-order model projected onto the sagittal plane, in which the robot is a point mass on massless legs with thrusters able to push in any direction. This model is linearized and discretized into a state-space form, and a condensed quadratic program solves for the ground reaction forces $[\lambda_x,\lambda_z]^\top$ that minimize tracking error while respecting friction-cone inequalities. A whole-body mapping, built from the full model's dynamics with contact and planner constraint Jacobians, then turns those reduced-order forces into stance-leg torques and thruster forces for the high-fidelity simulation model.

What would settle it

Put the same controller on the physical Harpy robot on a 30-degree slope and see whether the gait converges to the reference; if the real thruster mounting directions and distributed body inertia invalidate the simplified model, the walk will not stabilize. A cheaper check is to rerun the simulation with the thrusters restricted to Harpy's actual force directions instead of the idealized any-direction assumption and observe whether the stable limit cycle survives.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

The paper's central claim is that adding thrust vectoring to a bipedal walking controller makes the reduced-order stance dynamics fully actuated, and that a QP formulation can exploit this to produce stable slope walking. The QP minimizes tracking error in the linearized discrete dynamics with state $x = [P_{B,x}, \dot{P}_{B,x}]^\top$ and inputs $u = [\lambda_x, \lambda_z]^\top$, subject to friction-cone bounds $\lambda_z > \lambda_{\min}$ and $\lambda_x < \mu|\lambda_z|$. Its outputs are ground reaction forces; the body acceleration equation then gives the thruster forces, and a whole-body mapping converts these, together with a polynomial swing-leg trajectory, into stance-leg torques. On the simulated Harpy model at a 30-degree slope, the body position and velocity track the QP reference, the planned contact forces stay inside the friction cone, and the walk converges to a stable limit cycle.

Load-bearing premise

The load-bearing premise is that the robot's body and legs behave like the simplified pendulum model used by the controller -- a point mass on massless legs with thrusters that can push in any direction -- so forces computed on that model remain correct for the full machine.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • The controller tracks the reference trajectory in simulation, so the QP and whole-body pipeline is a working control pattern for thruster-assisted slope walking, not just a planning abstraction.
  • Because the QP enforces friction-cone bounds, the planned gait is slip-free by construction, and the simulated ground forces remain inside the cone throughout the walk.
  • The 0.3 ms solve time at a 100 Hz update rate leaves ample computation margin, supporting real-time use on the physical robot.
  • Thrusters make the simplified stance dynamics fully actuated, so the controller can track a desired velocity profile instead of only stabilizing an underactuated gait.
  • The repeated stable limit cycle in simulation indicates that the swing-leg trajectory and the stance QP form a complete, repeatable gait cycle.

Reading between the lines

Editorial extensions of the paper, not claims the author makes directly.

  • A direct test of the thruster's role would be to raise the slope until a no-thruster controller slips and then show this controller continues walking; the gap would quantify how much thrust adds beyond friction-limited locomotion.
  • The planner constraint that zeros yaw, roll, and lateral acceleration confines the demonstrated result to the sagittal plane, so a 3D extension would need the QP to also manage lateral foot placement; the paper identifies 3D motion as its next step.
  • Because the thrusters are idealized as massless and omni-directional, the simulation margin may shrink when real actuator mounting angles and response delays are added; adding those constraints to the QP is a testable refinement.
Share X Bluesky LinkedIn Reddit HN

Editorial analysis

A structured set of objections, weighed in public.

Desk editor's note, referee report, and a circularity audit.

Referee Report

4 major / 6 minor

Summary. The paper proposes a quadratic-programming (QP) based stance controller for the Harpy bipedal robot with thrusters, combined with a whole-body force mapping, to achieve thruster-assisted walking on a 30-degree inclined slope. The QP uses a variable-length inverted pendulum (VLIP) reduced-order model to compute ground reaction forces and thruster forces under friction-cone constraints, and a whole-body controller maps these forces to joint torques. Validation is performed in a single Matlab Simscape simulation, with qualitative plots of body states, joint angles, ground reaction forces, and thruster forces. The paper claims that the QP computes contact forces in 0.3 ms and that the controller quickly reaches a stable limit cycle.

Significance. If the simulation claims are quantitatively verified, the work would be a useful demonstration of optimization-based control for legged-aerial systems, extending standard VLIP and whole-body control ideas to thruster-assisted slope walking. The architecture is clearly relevant to bio-inspired wing-assisted incline running. The paper also provides a complete model derivation and reports a favorable QP solve time. However, the current evidence is mostly qualitative, and the central claim of stable limit-cycle walking rests on unverified reduced-order assumptions and an unquantified match between commanded and simulated contact forces.

major comments (4)
  1. [Section V, Figs. 4–8] The central claim that the QP controller 'quickly was able to achieve a stable limit cycle' is not supported by the evidence presented. Please report quantitative tracking-error norms for body position and velocity, a comparison of the QP-commanded ground reaction forces with the forces produced by the compliant ground model (Eq. 9), and a gait-cycle metric such as periodicity, orbital stability, or CoM height excursion. Without these, the simulation demonstration in Fig. 4 remains qualitative and the attributed effectiveness of the QP is not established.
  2. [Section II-C and Section IV-A/B] The QP relies on VLIP assumptions of constant CoM height and zero vertical acceleration (PB,z = z0, \ddot PB,z = 0), but the whole-body controller in Eq. (29) does not enforce these conditions; body height, pitch, and vertical acceleration are free to vary in the high-fidelity model. Please provide plots of PB,z, pitch, and \ddot PB,z over the gait and verify that the reduced-order model assumptions are actually satisfied. If they are not, the inversion of Eq. (12) to compute thruster forces may produce incorrect commands, so this verification is load-bearing for the paper's central claim.
  3. [Section IV-A, Eqs. (23)–(25)] The friction-cone constraints are stated incompletely: 'λz > λmin and λx < μ|λz|' omits the lower bound on λx (λx ≥ −μλz) and does not define an upper bound on λz, and the inequality in Eq. (24) is written as strict ('Ain u < Bin') although a QP requires non-strict inequalities. Please state the complete cone as implemented in Bin, specify which μ from the Stribeck model in Eq. (9) is used in the QP, and reconcile the strict inequality notation.
  4. [Section IV-B, Eq. (29)] The whole-body controller imposes a rigid-contact constraint Js \ddot q = −˙Js ˙q, while the simulation uses a compliant ground model with Stribeck friction (Eq. 9). The paper does not demonstrate that the actual ground reaction forces in the simulation track the QP-commanded GRFs, which is necessary to claim that the controller applies the QP solution to the high-fidelity model. Please add such a comparison and report any foot slip or contact-model mismatch.
minor comments (6)
  1. [Section II-C, Eq. (12)] The term 'cosQP(α)' appears to be a typo and should read 'cos(α)'.
  2. [Section I] The sentence 'Harpy’s height measures 600 cm' is presumably a typo for 60 cm; please correct the value and verify all physical dimensions.
  3. [Section V-A] The PID gains used in Eq. (16) are not reported; please list Kp, Ki, and Kd so that the simulation is reproducible.
  4. [Section V-B] The statement that 'even when QP optimization is not running robot never violates friction cone condition' is unclear; please clarify whether it refers to the intervals between 100 Hz QP updates and define how constraint satisfaction is monitored.
  5. [Section V-B, Fig. 8] The caption of Fig. 8 states that the figure shows λx, λz and thruster forces, while the text refers to it as ground reaction forces from the QP solver; please align the caption with the text and label the axes clearly.
  6. [Section IV-A, Eq. (18)] The linearization in Eq. (18) uses λz in the state matrix A while λz is also treated as an optimization variable in the input vector u; please state the operating point used for this linearization and justify the resulting time-invariant prediction over the horizon.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 0.0 of 10

No significant circularity; the QP tracks a user-specified reference and the simulation is evaluated against an independently integrated high-fidelity model.

full rationale

The paper's central chain is: derive a VLIP reduced-order model (Sec. II-C), formulate a QP that tracks a user-specified reference while imposing friction-cone constraints (Sec. IV-A), map the QP forces to thruster and joint commands via the whole-body controller (Sec. IV-B), and then simulate the full Harpy model with a compliant ground model (Secs. II-A, II-B, V). The simulation result -- a stable limit cycle on a 30-degree slope -- is not an identity: the QP's decision variables are contact forces, and the whole-body controller uses Eq. (12) only as a feedforward mapping to compute thruster forces from commanded accelerations and QP contact forces. The high-fidelity simulation integrates Eq. (11) independently, with masses and inertias, so the VLIP assumptions are not imported as the predicted outcome. The stiffness/damping gains, QP weights, and reference trajectories are hand-tuned inputs, not quantities fitted to the simulation output, so no 'prediction' is forced by construction. The self-citations to prior Harpy, M4, and LEONARDO work are contextual and hardware-description references, not load-bearing uniqueness theorems or unverified ansatze. Concerns about whether the VLIP assumptions hold on hardware or whether the limit cycle is quantitatively validated are correctness/robustness issues, not circularity.

Assumptions & free parameters 4 free parameters · 6 assumptions · 0 invented entities

The central claim rests on standard rigid-body dynamics plus several domain simplifications: massless links, arbitrary-direction thrusters, planar motion, and a point-foot VLIP model. The hand-tuned QP weights and unstated PID gains are free parameters that the tracking performance depends on. No new physical entities are introduced.

free parameters (4)
  • QP weight Q = diag([300000, 2000])
    Chosen by hand to weigh position vs velocity tracking error; the tracking quality shown in Fig. 4 depends on these values.
  • QP control cost R = diag([1, 1])
    Chosen by hand to penalize control effort on [λx, λz]; trades off tracking vs force magnitude.
  • Swing PID gains = Not reported
    Kp, Ki, Kd in Eq. (16) are not specified anywhere; the swing leg tracking performance shown in Fig. 5 depends on them.
  • Ground contact parameters = µs=0.8, µc=0.64, µv=0.8, kg,p=8000, kg,d=268
    Chosen for the simulation ground model (Eq. 9); the friction-cone constraints in the QP use µ and therefore the controller's feasibility depends on these values.
assumptions (6)
  • standard math Standard Euler-Lagrange and SO(3) rigid-body dynamics
    Used to derive equations of motion (Eq. 5) and the whole-body dynamics (Eq. 26); standard classical mechanics.
  • domain assumption Links massless, mass concentrated at body and motors
    Stated in Section II-A to simplify the dynamics; the HFM and ROM both rely on this.
  • domain assumption Thrusters massless and can produce force in any direction
    Section II-A states this to simplify the problem; real ducted fans on Harpy have fixed axes and limited thrust magnitude.
  • domain assumption VLIP point-foot model with no slip, CoP at stance foot
    Section II-C assumes no slip (c¨=0) and PB,z = z0, PB,z double-dot = 0; this is the LIP constraint that reduces the model to Eq. (14).
  • domain assumption Motion constrained to the sagittal plane
    Eq. (28) Jc forces y, roll, and yaw accelerations to zero; the whole-body controller is only valid for planar motion.
  • ad hoc to paper QP-derived GRFs can be directly applied to the high-fidelity model
    The QP solves for [λx,λz] from the ROM and the WBC applies them as ground forces (Eq. 29); the high-fidelity Simscape model must behave consistently with this force mapping, which is not validated.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Quadratic Programming Optimization for Bio-Inspired Thruster-Assisted Bipedal Locomotion on Inclined Slopes." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/XPGDUQTW

@misc{pith2026241112968,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Quadratic Programming Optimization for Bio-Inspired Thruster-Assisted Bipedal Locomotion on Inclined Slopes},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/XPGDUQTW}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2411.12968}
}
read the original abstract

Our work aims to make significant strides in understanding unexplored locomotion control paradigms based on the integration of posture manipulation and thrust vectoring. These techniques are commonly seen in nature, such as Chukar birds using their wings to run on a nearly vertical wall. In this work, we show quadratic programming with contact constraints which is then given to the whole body controller to map on robot states to produce a thruster-assisted slope walking controller for our state-of-the-art Harpy platform. Harpy is a bipedal robot capable of legged-aerial locomotion using its legs and thrusters attached to its main frame. The optimization-based walking controller has been used for dynamic locomotion such as slope walking, but the addition of thrusters to perform inclined slope walking has not been extensively explored. In this work, we derive a thruster-assisted bipedal walking with the quadratic programming (QP) controller and implement it in simulation to study its performance.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2411.12968 by the authors.

Figure 1
Figure 1. Illustrates the Harpy platform, a bipedal robot with a thruster [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p001_1.png] view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. Illustrates Reduced-order model (ROM) and High fidelity model [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p002_2.png] view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. Snapshot of the simulation result, showing thruster-assisted inclined [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p003_3.png] view at source ↗
Figures from the paper (4 more)
Figure 4
Figure 4. Figure 4: Shows the Harpy states and QP references throughout the [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p004_4.png]
Figure 6
Figure 6. Figure 6: Illustrates simulated joint torques during the inclined walking. [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p005_6.png]
Figure 7
Figure 7. Figure 7: Illustrates ground reaction forces from the ground model in the [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p005_7.png]
Figure 8
Figure 8. Figure 8: Illustrates λx, λz generated by QP solver and calculated thruster forces. to the reference trajectory, which is the primary objective of the Quadratic Programming (QP) approach [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p006_8.png]

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Forward citations

Cited by 3 Pith papers

Reviewed papers in the Pith corpus that reference this work. Sorted by Pith novelty score. Full citation record

  1. Quadratic Programming-Based Posture Manipulation and Thrust-vectoring for Agile Dynamic Walking on Narrow Pathways

    cs.RO 2025-07 conditional novelty 5.0 of 10

    A centroidal-dynamics MPC controller with thrust-vectoring enables a simulated quadruped to walk on a narrow beam and reject lateral pushes.

  2. Analysis of Harpy's Constrained Trotting and Jumping Maneuver

    cs.RO 2025-08 unverdicted novelty 4.0 of 10

    The provided manuscript text does not contain the claimed analysis of the Harpy robot, making the abstract's conclusions unverifiable from this document.

  3. Optimal Trajectory Planning in a Vertically Undulating Snake Locomotion using Contact-implicit Optimization

    cs.RO 2025-08 conditional novelty 4.0 of 10

    A contact-implicit reduced-order model using Moreau time-stepping roughly reproduces vertical undulation of a snake robot in simulation and hardware, but validation is qualitative and no optimal trajectory planning is...

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

20 extracted references · 6 canonical work pages · cited by 3 Pith papers

  1. [1]

    Dynamically Stable Legged Locomotion,

    M. H. Raibert and H. B. Brown, “Dynamically Stable Legged Locomotion,”

    work page

  2. [2]

    Capture Point: A Step toward Humanoid Push Recovery,

    J. Pratt, J. Carff, S. Drakunov, and A. Goswami, “Capture Point: A Step toward Humanoid Push Recovery,” in 2006 6th IEEE- RAS International Conference on Humanoid Robots , University of Genova, Genova, Italy: IEEE, Dec. 2006, pp. 200–207

    2006

  3. [3]

    Heuristic Planning for Rough Terrain Locomotion in Presence of External Disturbances and Variable Perception Quality,

    M. Focchi, R. Orsolino, M. Camurri, et al., “Heuristic Planning for Rough Terrain Locomotion in Presence of External Disturbances and Variable Perception Quality,” in Advances in Robotics Research: From Lab to Market: ECHORD++: Robotic Science Supporting In- novation, ser. Springer Tracts in Advanced Robotics, Cham: Springer International Publishing, 2020...

    work page 2020

  4. [4]

    Real-time Model Predictive Control for Versatile Dynamic Motions in Quadrupedal Robots,

    Y . Ding, A. Pandala, and H. Park, “Real-time Model Predictive Control for Versatile Dynamic Motions in Quadrupedal Robots,” in 2019 International Conference on Robotics and Automation (ICRA) , May 2019, pp. 8484–8490

    work page 2019

  5. [5]

    Computationally-Robust and Efficient Prioritized Whole-Body Con- troller with Contact Constraints,

    D. Kim, J. Lee, J. Ahn, O. Campbell, H. Hwang, and L. Sentis, “Computationally-Robust and Efficient Prioritized Whole-Body Con- troller with Contact Constraints,” in 2018 IEEE/RSJ International Conference on Intelligent Robots and Systems (IROS) , Oct. 2018, pp. 1–8

    work page 2018

  6. [6]

    Mechanism, Actuation, Perception, and Control of Highly Dynamic Multilegged Robots: A Review,

    J. He and F. Gao, “Mechanism, Actuation, Perception, and Control of Highly Dynamic Multilegged Robots: A Review,” Chinese Journal of Mechanical Engineering , vol. 33, no. 1, p. 79, Nov. 2020

    work page 2020

  7. [7]

    Multi-Modal Mobility Morphobot (M4) with appendage repurpos- ing for locomotion plasticity enhancement,

    E. Sihite, A. Kalantari, R. Nemovi, A. Ramezani, and M. Gharib, “Multi-Modal Mobility Morphobot (M4) with appendage repurpos- ing for locomotion plasticity enhancement,” Nature Communications, vol. 14, no. 1, p. 3323, Jun. 2023

    2023

  8. [8]

    Sihite, B

    E. Sihite, B. Mottis, P. Ghanem, A. Ramezani, and M. Gharib, Efficient Path Planning and Tracking for Multi-Modal Legged-Aerial Locomotion Using Integrated Probabilistic Road Maps (PRM) and Reference Governors (RG) . May 2022

    2022

Show all 20 references
  1. [9]

    Minimum Time Trajectory Generation for Bounding Flight: Combining Posture Control and Thrust Vectoring,

    I. Mandralis, E. Sihite, A. Ramezani, and M. Gharib, “Minimum Time Trajectory Generation for Bounding Flight: Combining Posture Control and Thrust Vectoring,” in2023 European Control Conference (ECC), Jun. 2023, pp. 1–7

    2023

  2. [10]

    A bipedal walking robot that can fly, slackline, and skateboard,

    K. Kim, P. Spieler, E.-S. Lupu, A. Ramezani, and S.-J. Chung, “A bipedal walking robot that can fly, slackline, and skateboard,”Science Robotics, vol. 6, no. 59, eabf8136, Oct. 2021

    2021

  3. [11]

    Rough-Terrain Locomotion and Unilateral Contact Force Regula- tions With a Multi-Modal Legged Robot,

    K. Liang, E. Sihite, P. Dangol, A. Lessieur, and A. Ramezani, “Rough-Terrain Locomotion and Unilateral Contact Force Regula- tions With a Multi-Modal Legged Robot,” in 2021 American Control Conference (ACC), May 2021, pp. 1762–1769

    2021

  4. [12]

    Optimization-free Ground Contact Force Constraint Satisfaction in Quadrupedal Locomotion,

    E. Sihite, P. Dangol, and A. Ramezani, “Optimization-free Ground Contact Force Constraint Satisfaction in Quadrupedal Locomotion,” in 2021 60th IEEE Conference on Decision and Control (CDC), Dec. 2021, pp. 713–719

    2021

  5. [14]

    Wing-Assisted Incline Running and the Evolution of Flight,

    K. P. Dial, “Wing-Assisted Incline Running and the Evolution of Flight,” Science, vol. 299, no. 5605, pp. 402–404, Jan. 2003

    2003

  6. [15]

    Aerodynamics of wing-assisted incline running in birds,

    B. W. Tobalske and K. P. Dial, “Aerodynamics of wing-assisted incline running in birds,” Journal of Experimental Biology, vol. 210, no. 10, pp. 1742–1751, May 2007

    2007

  7. [16]

    Dynamic multimodal locomotion: A quick overview of hardware and control.,

    S. Pitroda, “Dynamic multimodal locomotion: A quick overview of hardware and control.,” 2023

    2023

  8. [17]

    Control of Thruster-Assisted, Bipedal Legged Locomotion of the Harpy Robot,

    P. Dangol, E. Sihite, and A. Ramezani, “Control of Thruster-Assisted, Bipedal Legged Locomotion of the Harpy Robot,” Frontiers in Robotics and AI , vol. 8, Dec. 2021

    2021

  9. [18]

    Capture Point Control in Thruster-Assisted Bipedal Locomotion,

    S. Pitroda, A. Bondada, K. Venkatesh, et al., “Capture Point Control in Thruster-Assisted Bipedal Locomotion,” in 2024 IEEE Interna- tional Conference on Advanced Intelligent Mechatronics (AIM) , Jul. 2024, pp. 1139–1144

    2024

  10. [19]

    Performance Analysis and Feedback Control of ATRIAS, A Three- Dimensional Bipedal Robot,

    A. Ramezani, J. W. Hurst, K. Akbari Hamed, and J. W. Grizzle, “Performance Analysis and Feedback Control of ATRIAS, A Three- Dimensional Bipedal Robot,” Journal of Dynamic Systems, Measure- ment, and Control , vol. 136, no. 2, Mar. 2014

    2014

  11. [20]

    Feedback control design for marlo, a 3d-bipedal robot.,

    A. Ramezani, “Feedback control design for marlo, a 3d-bipedal robot.,” 2013

    2013

  12. [21]

    qpSWIFT: A Real-Time Sparse Quadratic Program Solver for Robotic Applications,

    A. G. Pandala, Y . Ding, and H.-W. Park, “qpSWIFT: A Real-Time Sparse Quadratic Program Solver for Robotic Applications,” IEEE Robotics and Automation Letters , vol. 4, no. 4, pp. 3355–3362, Oct. 2019

    2019

Pith tools

Reviewed August 12, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.