Pith. sign in

REVIEW 4 major objections 6 minor 37 references

Robust Push Recovery on Bipedal Robots: Leveraging Multi-Domain Hybrid Systems with Reduced-Order Model Predictive Control

T0 review · 4 major / 6 minor · reviewed 2026-08-16 · 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 robust push recovery during walking requires optimizing foot placement, step timing, and ankle torque together, and gives a real-time MPC controller that does so.

desk verdict A clean reduced-order MPC for push recovery that unifies foot placement, step timing, and ZMP control; simulation results are plausible but the full-order tracking gap and single-run validation need attention. read the letter →

arxiv 2504.18698 v1 pith:VMJBDM2S submitted 2025-04-25 cs.RO

Min Dai , Aaron D. Ames This is my paper · ORCID
classification cs.RO
keywords pushrecoverybipedallocomotionmodelpredictivecontrolreduced-orderzeromomentpointmulti-domainwalkingfootplacementsteptiming
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

In the tested cases, a walking robot recovers from large unknown pushes only when it can use three control levers at the same time: where the next foot lands, when it lands, and how the ankle shifts the center of pressure inside the stance foot. The authors build a reduced-order model they call the ZLIP model, which places the zero moment point as a state inside the standard linear inverted pendulum, and wrap it in a model predictive controller that optimizes foot placement, step duration, and ZMP motion over a short preview horizon. In simulation on a 3D underactuated biped, the full three-lever controller stabilizes pushes that defeat controllers using any two of the three levers, for both flat-footed and multi-domain heel-to-toe gaits. If the claim holds, it unifies previously separate push-recovery strategies into one real-time optimization.

What carries the argument

The load-bearing object is the ZLIP model, an augmented linear inverted pendulum whose state is $\xi=[p, L, p_{\mathrm{zmp}}]^T$, where $p$ is the horizontal center-of-mass position, $L$ is the mass-normalized centroidal angular momentum, and $p_{\mathrm{zmp}}$ is the horizontal zero-moment-point position relative to the stance pivot. Its continuous dynamics are linear in the ZMP velocity $\dot{p}_{\mathrm{zmp}}$, and its discrete transition maps encode foot placement as the swing-foot touchdown position and allow instantaneous ZMP jumps; domain durations are also control inputs. This single model covers flat-footed walking as the special case of a trivial underactuated phase with no ZMP travel, and heel-to-toe multi-domain walking with fully actuated, underactuated, and overactuated phases. The model turns the full hybrid dynamics into a step-to-step nonlinear program whose solution generates foot placement, step timing, and ZMP commands, which are then converted into center-of-mass references and tracked by a task-space quadratic-programming controller.

What would settle it

Conduct a hardware push-recovery trial on the same biped under a 130 N sagittal push, measuring the actual ZMP with instrumented feet; if the closed-loop system becomes unstable while the commanded ZMP stays inside the support polygon and the MPC remains feasible, the tracking assumption behind the claim would be refuted.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

The central claim, stated as the paper's key contribution, is that this is the first optimization-based push-recovery framework to simultaneously employ foot placement, step time adjustment, and ankle torque. The ZLIP model represents the center of mass, its mass-normalized angular momentum, and the ZMP position as a linear three-state system, making the ZMP velocity, instantaneous ZMP jumps, and domain durations control inputs. Because the model's dynamics are linear, the MPC can be formulated step-to-step as a small nonlinear program rather than a full transcription, and the ablation studies in the results section show that disabling any one of the three control levers leads to falling under the tested disturbances, while the complete controller recovers from a 130 N sagittal push lasting 0.5 s, a 300 N lateral push, and a 100 N push during multi-domain heel-to-toe walking.

Load-bearing premise

The load-bearing premise is that the low-level tracking controller can make the full robot reproduce the reduced-model plan closely enough: the ZLIP commands are realized through a center-of-mass reference, and the paper validates this inheritance of stability only in simulation, with no formal proof and no hardware experiment.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • Removing any one of the three levers--ankle or ZMP control, step-time control, or foot-placement control--makes the robot fall under the tested pushes, while the complete controller recovers.
  • The MPC shortens the fully actuated and double-support phases in response to a push, a step-time reaction similar to human perturbation responses.
  • The same framework applies to both flat-footed walking and multi-domain heel-to-toe walking, so the robustness gains are not tied to a single contact mode.
  • The planner runs at 50 Hz with an average solve time of 8 ms on a desktop CPU with no special optimization, so the approach is feasible for real-time use.
  • A two-step preview horizon is sufficient for the tested disturbances, and the framework can be extended to more preview steps if needed.

Reading between the lines

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

  • The same ZLIP formulation could be extended to full-body humanoids by adding centroidal angular momentum regulation as an additional continuous control input, a direction the paper itself names as future work.
  • Because the step-to-step NLP avoids discretizing the continuous dynamics, adding preview steps may be relatively cheap; a testable extension is to measure how solve time grows with horizon length and with the number of contact phases.
  • The reported failure modes suggest a hierarchy in which foot placement is the indispensable recovery lever, while step time and ZMP control add margin when foot placement alone would exceed kinematic limits; the paper does not prove this ordering, so it remains an inference from the ablations.
  • Since the reduced model treats domain transitions as purely time-based, coupling the ZLIP planner to contact-event or slip feedback is a natural next test for robustness on less ideal surfaces.
Share X Bluesky LinkedIn Reddit HN

Signed reviews

No signed human review yet.

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 unified push-recovery framework for bipedal walking that combines foot placement, step-time adjustment, and ankle/ZMP control in a single model predictive control (MPC) layer. The reduced-order model, called ZLIP, augments the linear inverted pendulum with a ZMP state and control input, and its step-to-step linear dynamics are used to formulate a small nonlinear program with ZMP support-polygon constraints and step-time constraints. The MPC determines foot placement, step timing, and ZMP trajectories for flat-footed and multi-domain (heel-to-toe) walking. A task-space quadratic program tracks Bézier-parameterized output trajectories on a simulated Cassie robot. Validation is performed in MuJoCo: an ablation study for a 130 N sagittal push and a 300 N lateral push in flat-footed walking, and a 100 N push for multi-domain walking. The paper claims, to the authors' knowledge, that this is the first method to simultaneously employ foot placement, step time adjustment, and ankle torque in an optimization-based framework, and that the proposed method significantly enlarges the push-recovery envelope.

Significance. If the underlying realizability assumptions are met, this paper would be a valuable contribution: it integrates three well-studied recovery strategies into one MPC formulation, exploits closed-form step-to-step dynamics to keep the optimization small, explicitly handles multi-domain contact phases, and demonstrates real-time feasibility (8 ms average solve time at 50 Hz). The ablation study comparing the full method against controllers with one strategy disabled is a useful and honest way to examine the contribution of each mechanism. The main significance is therefore conditional on closing the gap between the reduced-order ZLIP plan and the actual full-order robot behavior, since the paper does not demonstrate that the planned ZMP commands are actually realized.

major comments (4)
  1. [V-B, Eq. (8)] The realizability of the planned ZLIP ZMP trajectory is not established. Equation (8) constrains only the current CoM position, the pre-impact CoM position, and the pre-impact angular momentum; it does not constrain intermediate CoM accelerations to follow the ZLIP dynamics of Eq. (4). Consequently, even with perfect low-level tracking of the Bézier CoM reference, the realized CoP/ZMP need not match the planned p_zmp, and the closed-loop hybrid system may not inherit the reduced-order stability properties. No measured CoP/ZMP or CoM tracking error is reported in Section VI. I ask the authors to report planned versus realized ZMP and CoM tracking errors in the simulations, and to provide either a formal tracking bound or additional constraints on Eq. (8) that enforce the ZLIP dynamics along the Bézier reference.
  2. [VI, Figs. 7-10] The central claim that "only the proposed method can stabilize walking under such extreme disturbances" is supported by one deterministic simulation per condition. There is no systematic characterization of the push-recovery envelope, for example through sweeps over force magnitude, duration, and direction, and no multiple trials with perturbed initial conditions. Since the abstract and Section I claim a significantly enlarged push-recovery envelope, I request a quantitative envelope comparison across controllers with success/failure regions rather than single representative runs.
  3. [IV-A] The MPC initial condition Xnow omits the current ZMP state and instead assumes that the ZMP follows the nominal reference trajectory from prior work. Because the actual ZMP is not measured on Cassie and the planned ZMP is only indirectly executed through the CoM reference, the reduced-order state used for feedback may diverge from the true robot state under large perturbations. A sensitivity analysis, or the use of an estimator for p_zmp, is needed to support the robustness conclusions.
  4. [VI-A, Fig. 7] The ablated controllers are not pure. The "no foot placement" condition still allows a 5 cm relaxation around the nominal foot placement, and the "no ZMP" and "no step time" conditions are implemented by fixing bounds rather than removing the corresponding decision variables. This makes the attribution of the improvement to each individual control input less clean than stated. Please state exactly which decision variables are frozen and verify that the relaxed variants indeed exclude the mechanism under test.
minor comments (6)
  1. [III] There is a typo in Section III: "multi-domian" should be "multi-domain".
  2. [VI-B] The symbol TSS is used in Section VI-B without being defined; it appears to denote the total single-support time (TFA + TUA) and should be defined at first use.
  3. [Fig. 10] The caption of Fig. 10 lists panels (a), (b), (c), and (e), but the text refers to panel (d); the caption should include panel (d) or the in-text reference should be corrected.
  4. [VI-A] The sentence "A preview of n = 2 steps is used for [35] the ZLIP-based MPC planner" contains an unexplained citation bracket in the middle of the sentence and should be reworded.
  5. [I] The claim that this is "the first method that simultaneously employs all three control strategies" should be qualified relative to existing DCM/Capture-Point step-timing controllers [20]-[23] and constrained-foothold MPC footstep planners [17], which already combine subsets of these mechanisms; please explain the distinguishing features explicitly.
  6. [V-A, Eq. (6)] The notation in Eq. (6) would benefit from a brief definition of T^i_j as the newly received duration for domain i, since the superscript/subscript convention is otherwise introduced only implicitly.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 0.0 of 10

No circularity: the push-recovery results are produced by fixed controllers in a high-fidelity simulator with ablations, not fitted or derived from the claimed outcome.

full rationale

The central claim—that the unified MPC controller with foot placement, step-time adjustment, and ZMP/ankle control enlarges the push-recovery envelope—is supported by high-fidelity MuJoCo simulations and a three-way ablation, not by assigning any fitted parameter to the recovery outcomes. The ZLIP reduced-order model (Eq. 4) and the MPC problem (ZLIP-MPC) generate commands from an optimization whose cost and constraints do not encode the simulated stabilization success; the result is therefore not equivalent to its inputs by construction. The paper does import the multi-domain hybrid model, output definitions, and nominal reference orbits from the authors' prior work [24], and the implementation section explicitly refers to [24] for guards and output construction. This is a dependency on prior work, but it is not circular: no prediction is defined in terms of the quantity it claims to predict, and no forwarded uniqueness theorem or ansatz is justified solely by a self-citation. The realizability gap between the planned ZLIP ZMP trajectory and the Bézier CoM reference in Eq. (8) is a genuine correctness/tracking concern, but it is not a circularity—it is a question of whether low-level tracking inherits the reduced-order plan, which the paper validates empirically rather than defines into the result.

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

The central claim rests on standard LIP-style modeling assumptions, tunable controller weights, and the assumption that the reduced-order plans are realizable by the full-order robot through the low-level QP. No new physical entities are introduced; the ZLIP model is a mathematical extension of existing LIP and ZMP concepts.

free parameters (6)
  • MPC cost weights (W, Wsw, WT, Wdeltazmp, Wdotpzmp)
    The quadratic cost weights in J and JX determine the trade-off between state tracking and control effort; values are not listed in the paper, so the exact controller is under-specified.
  • Low-level QP gains Kp, Kd and weight Qi
    Gains for exponential output tracking in TSC-QP; not provided, affecting reproducibility.
  • Preview horizon n = 2
    Chosen for real-time performance with a citation to [35], but the specific value is a design choice.
  • Nominal step durations TFA, TUA, TOA = TSS=0.4s, TOA=0.1s (multi-domain); TFA=0.3s, TOA=0.1s (flat-footed)
    Set by the user commands and influence the nominal orbit; values are chosen by the authors.
  • Minimum single-support time constraint TFA+TUA >= 0.2s = 0.2
    Hand-chosen to allow the swing foot to complete its motion; affects the feasibility of recovered steps.
  • CoM height z0 = 0.8 m
    A physical constant of the Cassie robot, but the assumption that it remains constant during walking is a modeling simplification used in the ZLIP derivation.
assumptions (6)
  • domain assumption The robot's CoM is modeled as a point mass at constant height z0, with massless legs and no impact dynamics (LIP assumption).
    Used to derive the ZLIP continuous dynamics in Eq. (4); this is the standard Linear Inverted Pendulum simplification.
  • domain assumption The sagittal and coronal plane dynamics are decoupled and independent.
    The MPC state is stacked as [xi_x; xi_y], treating the two planes separately; this is a common reduced-order assumption.
  • domain assumption The low-level task-space QP (TSC-QP) tracks the desired outputs accurately enough for the planned reduced-order trajectories to be realizable.
    No formal stability proof of the closed-loop hybrid system is given; simulation is used as validation, so the tracking accuracy is assumed sufficient.
  • standard math Foot contact impacts are instantaneous and plastic.
    Standard hybrid model for bipedal walking, based on [16].
  • ad hoc to paper The ZMP can be commanded directly via its time derivative and may jump instantaneously at domain transitions.
    This is a modeling choice in ZLIP-DT; physically, ZMP is determined by contact forces, not an independent control input, so this abstraction must be realized indirectly through CoM tracking.
  • domain assumption The nominal periodic orbits (period-1 sagittal, period-2 coronal) exist and can be used as reference trajectories.
    The cost function penalizes deviation from reference states derived in the authors' prior work [24].

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Robust Push Recovery on Bipedal Robots: Leveraging Multi-Domain Hybrid Systems with Reduced-Order Model Predictive Control." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/VMJBDM2S

@misc{pith2026250418698,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Robust Push Recovery on Bipedal Robots: Leveraging Multi-Domain Hybrid Systems with Reduced-Order Model Predictive Control},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/VMJBDM2S}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2504.18698}
}
read the original abstract

In this paper, we present a novel control framework to achieve robust push recovery on bipedal robots while locomoting. The key contribution is the unification of hybrid system models of locomotion with a reduced-order model predictive controller determining: foot placement, step timing, and ankle control. The proposed reduced-order model is an augmented Linear Inverted Pendulum model with zero moment point coordinates; this is integrated within a model predictive control framework for robust stabilization under external disturbances. By explicitly leveraging the hybrid dynamics of locomotion, our approach significantly improves stability and robustness across varying walking heights, speeds, step durations, and is effective for both flat-footed and more complex multi-domain heel-to-toe walking patterns. The framework is validated with high-fidelity simulation on Cassie, a 3D underactuated robot, showcasing real-time feasibility and substantially improved stability. The results demonstrate the robustness of the proposed method in dynamic environments.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2504.18698 by the authors.

Figure 1
Figure 1. Cassie modifying its step time, foot placement, and using ankle [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p001_1.png] view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. A directed graph showing the hybrid system model used to describe [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p002_2.png] view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. Visualization of the ZLIP model when applied for heel-to-toe [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p003_3.png] view at source ↗
Figures from the paper (6 more)
Figure 4
Figure 4. Figure 4: Top-down view of the ZMP constraints as shaded red areas for (a) [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p004_4.png]
Figure 5
Figure 5. Figure 5: Schematic of Cassie’s physical structure and the output definitions [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p005_5.png]
Figure 6
Figure 6. Figure 6: Flowchart summarizing the key components and their interactions [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p006_6.png]
Figure 8
Figure 8. Figure 8: (a) Resultant sagittal CoM velocities and (b) phasing variable [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p006_8.png]
Figure 9
Figure 9. Figure 9: (a) Cassie recovers from a 300N lateral push. (b) Resultant CoM [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p007_9.png]
Figure 10
Figure 10. Figure 10: (a) Cassie recovers from a 0.5s, 100N push while performing heel [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p007_10.png]

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

37 extracted references · 32 canonical work pages

  1. [24]

    Multi-domain walking with reduced- order models of locomotion,

    M. Dai, J. Lee, and A. D. Ames, “Multi-domain walking with reduced- order models of locomotion,” in 2024 American Control Conference (ACC). IEEE, 2024, pp. 2830–2837

    work page 2024

  2. [1]

    Dynamic Walking: Toward Agile and Efficient Bipedal Robots,

    J. Reher and A. D. Ames, “Dynamic Walking: Toward Agile and Efficient Bipedal Robots,” Annual Review of Control, Robotics, and Autonomous Systems , vol. 4, no. 1, pp. 535–572, 2021

    work page 2021

  3. [2]

    The organization of human postural movements: a formal basis and experimental synthesis,

    L. M. Nashner and G. McCollum, “The organization of human postural movements: a formal basis and experimental synthesis,” Behavioral and brain sciences , vol. 8, no. 1, pp. 135–150, 1985

    work page 1985

  4. [3]

    Online Centroidal Angular Momentum Reference Generation and Motion Optimization for Humanoid Push Recovery,

    R. Schuller, G. Mesesan, J. Englsberger, J. Lee, and C. Ott, “Online Centroidal Angular Momentum Reference Generation and Motion Optimization for Humanoid Push Recovery,” IEEE Robotics and Automation Letters, vol. 6, no. 3, pp. 5689–5696, Jul. 2021, conference Name: IEEE Robotics and Automation Letters

    work page 2021

  5. [4]

    Humanoid Balancing Behavior Featured by Underactuated Foot Motion,

    Z. Li, C. Zhou, Q. Zhu, and R. Xiong, “Humanoid Balancing Behavior Featured by Underactuated Foot Motion,” IEEE Transactions on Robotics, vol. 33, no. 2, pp. 298–312, Apr. 2017, conference Name: IEEE Transactions on Robotics

    work page 2017

  6. [5]

    Push Recovery by stepping for humanoid robots with force controlled joints,

    B. J. Stephens and C. G. Atkeson, “Push Recovery by stepping for humanoid robots with force controlled joints,” in 2010 10th IEEE-RAS International Conference on Humanoid Robots . Nashville, TN, USA: IEEE, Dec. 2010, pp. 52–59

    work page 2010

  7. [6]

    Biped walking pattern generation by using preview control of zero-moment point,

    S. Kajita, F. Kanehiro, K. Kaneko, K. Fujiwara, K. Harada, K. Yokoi, and H. Hirukawa, “Biped walking pattern generation by using preview control of zero-moment point,” in Proceedings of the 2003 IEEE International Conference on Robotics & Automation , vol. 2, Taipei, Taiwan, Sep. 2003

    work page 2003

  8. [7]

    Zero-moment point — thirty five years of its life,

    M. Vukobratovi ´c and B. Borovac, “Zero-moment point — thirty five years of its life,” International Journal of Humanoid Robotics , vol. 01, no. 01, pp. 157–173, Mar. 2004

    2004

Show all 37 references
  1. [8]

    Provably Stabilizing Global-Position Tracking Control for Hybrid Models of Multi-Domain Bipedal Walking via Multiple Lyapunov Analysis

    Y . Gao, K. Barhydt, C. Niezrecki, and Y . Gu, “Provably Stabilizing Global-Position Tracking Control for Hybrid Models of Multi-Domain Bipedal Walking via Multiple Lyapunov Analysis.”

  2. [9]

    Online walking gait generation with adaptive foot positioning through Linear Model Predictive control,

    H. Diedam, D. Dimitrov, P.-B. Wieber, K. Mombaur, and M. Diehl, “Online walking gait generation with adaptive foot positioning through Linear Model Predictive control,” in 2008 IEEE/RSJ International Conference on Intelligent Robots and Systems , Sep. 2008, pp. 1121– 1126, iSS...

    2008

  3. [10]

    Ro- bust bipedal locomotion control based on model predictive control and divergent component of motion,

    M. Shafiee-Ashtiani, A. Yousefi-Koma, and M. Shariat-Panahi, “Ro- bust bipedal locomotion control based on model predictive control and divergent component of motion,” in 2017 IEEE International Conference on Robotics and Automation (ICRA) , May 2017, pp. 3505– 3510

    2017

  4. [11]

    M. H. Raibert, Legged robots that balance . MIT press, 1986

    1986

  5. [12]

    Velocity-Based Stability Margins for Fast Bipedal Walking,

    J. Pratt and R. Tedrake, “Velocity-Based Stability Margins for Fast Bipedal Walking,” in Fast Motions in Biomechanics and Robotics . Berlin, Heidelberg: Springer, 2006, vol. 340, pp. 299–324

    2006

  6. [13]

    Angular Momentum about the Contact Point for Control of Bipedal Locomotion: Validation in a LIP-based Controller,

    Y . Gong and J. Grizzle, “Angular Momentum about the Contact Point for Control of Bipedal Locomotion: Validation in a LIP-based Controller,” Apr. 2021, arXiv:2008.10763 [cs, eess]

    2021 arXiv

  7. [14]

    3-D Underactuated Bipedal Walking via H-LIP Based Gait Synthesis and Stepping Stabilization,

    X. Xiong and A. Ames, “3-D Underactuated Bipedal Walking via H-LIP Based Gait Synthesis and Stepping Stabilization,” IEEE Trans- actions on Robotics , vol. 38, no. 4, pp. 2405–2425, Aug. 2022

    2022

  8. [15]

    Control of ATRIAS in three dimen- sions: Walking as a forced-oscillation problem,

    S. Rezazadeh and J. W. Hurst, “Control of ATRIAS in three dimen- sions: Walking as a forced-oscillation problem,” The International Journal of Robotics Research , vol. 39, no. 7, pp. 774–796, Jun. 2020

    2020

  9. [16]

    Models, feedback control, and open problems of 3D bipedal robotic walking,

    J. W. Grizzle, C. Chevallereau, R. W. Sinnet, and A. D. Ames, “Models, feedback control, and open problems of 3D bipedal robotic walking,” Automatica, vol. 50, no. 8, pp. 1955–1988, Aug. 2014

    1955

  10. [17]

    Bipedal Walking on Constrained Footholds with MPC Footstep Control,

    B. Acosta and M. Posa, “Bipedal Walking on Constrained Footholds with MPC Footstep Control,” Sep. 2023, arXiv:2309.07993 [cs]

    2023 arXiv

  11. [18]

    Stair Climbing using the Angular Momentum Linear In- verted Pendulum Model and Model Predictive Control,

    O. Dosunmu-Ogunbi, A. Shrivastava, G. Gibson, and J. W. Griz- zle, “Stair Climbing using the Angular Momentum Linear In- verted Pendulum Model and Model Predictive Control,” Jul. 2023, arXiv:2307.02448 [cs, eess]

    2023 arXiv

  12. [19]

    Footstep Adjustment for Biped Push Recovery on Slippery Surfaces,

    E. Ghorbani, H. Karimpour, V . Pasandi, and M. Keshmiri, “Footstep Adjustment for Biped Push Recovery on Slippery Surfaces,” Multi- body System Dynamics , vol. 56, no. 3, pp. 189–219, Nov. 2022, arXiv:2111.05203 [cs, eess]

    2022 arXiv

  13. [20]

    Walking stabilization using step timing and location adjustment on the humanoid robot, Atlas,

    R. J. Griffin, G. Wiedebach, S. Bertrand, A. Leonessa, and J. Pratt, “Walking stabilization using step timing and location adjustment on the humanoid robot, Atlas,” in 2017 IEEE/RSJ International Confer- ence on Intelligent Robots and Systems (IROS) , Sep. 2017, pp. 667– 673, ...

    2017

  14. [21]

    Online DCM Trajectory Adaptation for Push and Stumble Recovery during Humanoid Lo- comotion,

    G. Mesesan, J. Englsberger, and C. Ott, “Online DCM Trajectory Adaptation for Push and Stumble Recovery during Humanoid Lo- comotion,” in 2021 IEEE International Conference on Robotics and Automation (ICRA) . Xi’an, China: IEEE, May 2021, pp. 12 780– 12 786

    2021

  15. [22]

    Walking Control Based on Step Timing Adaptation,

    M. Khadiv, A. Herzog, S. A. A. Moosavian, and L. Righetti, “Walking Control Based on Step Timing Adaptation,” IEEE Transactions on Robotics, vol. 36, no. 3, pp. 629–643, Jun. 2020

    2020

  16. [23]

    On- line regeneration of bipedal walking gait pattern optimizing footstep placement and timing,

    P. Kryczka, P. Kormushev, N. G. Tsagarakis, and D. G. Caldwell, “On- line regeneration of bipedal walking gait pattern optimizing footstep placement and timing,” in 2015 IEEE/RSJ International Conference on Intelligent Robots and Systems (IROS) . Hamburg, Germany: IEEE, Sep. 2...

    2015

  17. [25]

    Human-data based cost of bipedal robotic walking,

    A. D. Ames, R. Vasudevan, and R. Bajcsy, “Human-data based cost of bipedal robotic walking,” in Proceedings of the 14th international conference on Hybrid systems: computation and control , 2011, pp. 153–162

    2011

  18. [26]

    Once-Per-Step Control of Ankle Push- Off Work Improves Balance in a Three-Dimensional Simulation of Bipedal Walking,

    M. Kim and S. H. Collins, “Once-Per-Step Control of Ankle Push- Off Work Improves Balance in a Three-Dimensional Simulation of Bipedal Walking,” IEEE Transactions on Robotics , vol. 33, no. 2, pp. 406–418, Apr. 2017

    2017

  19. [27]

    Faster and Smoother Walking of Humanoid HRP-2 with Passive Toe Joints,

    R. Sellaouti, O. Stasse, S. Kajita, K. Yokoi, and A. Kheddar, “Faster and Smoother Walking of Humanoid HRP-2 with Passive Toe Joints,” in 2006 IEEE/RSJ International Conference on Intelligent Robots and Systems, Oct. 2006, pp. 4909–4914, iSSN: 2153-0866

    2006

  20. [28]

    Centroidal dynamics of a humanoid robot,

    D. E. Orin, A. Goswami, and S.-H. Lee, “Centroidal dynamics of a humanoid robot,” Autonomous Robots, vol. 35, no. 2-3, pp. 161–176, Oct. 2013

    2013

  21. [29]

    CasADi – A software framework for nonlinear optimization and optimal control,

    J. A. E. Andersson, J. Gillis, G. Horn, J. B. Rawlings, and M. Diehl, “CasADi – A software framework for nonlinear optimization and optimal control,” Mathematical Programming Computation , vol. 11, no. 1, pp. 1–36, 2019

    2019

  22. [30]

    On the implementation of an interior- point filter line-search algorithm for large-scale nonlinear program- ming,

    A. W ¨achter and L. T. Biegler, “On the implementation of an interior- point filter line-search algorithm for large-scale nonlinear program- ming,” Mathematical programming, vol. 106, pp. 25–57, 2006

    2006

  23. [31]

    https://www.agilityrobotics.com/robots#cassie

    Agility Robotics. https://www.agilityrobotics.com/robots#cassie

  24. [32]

    Quadratic Programming for Multirobot and Task-Space Force Control,

    K. Bouyarmane, K. Chappellet, J. Vaillant, and A. Kheddar, “Quadratic Programming for Multirobot and Task-Space Force Control,” IEEE Transactions on Robotics , vol. 35, no. 1, pp. 64–77, Feb. 2019

    2019

  25. [33]

    https://github.com/osudrl/cassie-mujoco-sim, 2018

    Agility Robotics. https://github.com/osudrl/cassie-mujoco-sim, 2018

    2018

  26. [34]

    MuJoCo: A physics engine for model-based control,

    E. Todorov, T. Erez, and Y . Tassa, “MuJoCo: A physics engine for model-based control,” in 2012 IEEE/RSJ International Conference on Intelligent Robots and Systems , Oct. 2012, pp. 5026–5033

    2012

  27. [35]

    Two steps is enough: No need to plan far ahead for walking balance,

    P. Zaytsev, S. J. Hasaneini, and A. Ruina, “Two steps is enough: No need to plan far ahead for walking balance,” in 2015 IEEE Interna- tional Conference on Robotics and Automation (ICRA) . Seattle, W A, USA: IEEE, May 2015, pp. 6295–6300

    2015

  28. [36]

    Terminology and forensic gait analysis,

    I. Birch, W. Vernon, J. Walker, and M. Young, “Terminology and forensic gait analysis,” Science & Justice , vol. 55, no. 4, pp. 279–284, Jul. 2015

    2015

  29. [37]

    Footstep Modification Including Step Time and Angular Momentum Under Disturbances on Sparse Footholds,

    Y . Kojio, Y . Omori, K. Kojima, F. Sugai, Y . Kakiuchi, K. Okada, and M. Inaba, “Footstep Modification Including Step Time and Angular Momentum Under Disturbances on Sparse Footholds,” IEEE Robotics and Automation Letters , vol. 5, no. 3, pp. 4907–4914, Jul. 2020

    2020

Pith tools

Reviewed August 16, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.