Pith. sign in

REVIEW 4 major objections 4 minor 40 references

AGILOped: Agile Open-Source Humanoid Robot for Research

T0 review · 4 major / 4 minor · reviewed 2026-08-04 · deepseek-v4-flash

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

Pith's one-line read AGILOped: a $6,380 open-source humanoid robot that walks, jumps, mitigates falls, and stands up, built from 3D-printed parts and off-the-shelf actuators.

desk verdict A genuinely open, low-cost child-sized humanoid that walks, jumps, and gets up, with the kinematic chain's rigidity asserted rather than measured. read the letter →

arxiv 2509.09364 v1 pith:2LN46RHM submitted 2025-09-11 cs.RO

Grzegorz Ficht , Luis Denninger , Sven Behnke This is my paper
classification cs.RO
keywords open-sourcehumanoidquasi-direct-driveactuator3D-printedrobotparallelkinematicspassiveanklebipedalwalkingfallmitigationlow-costrobotics
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

This paper presents AGILOped, a 110 cm, 14.5 kg open-source humanoid robot that costs about $6,380 and uses only a 3D printer, off-the-shelf backdrivable actuators, and standard electronics. The authors claim this platform closes the gap between high dynamic performance and accessibility, showing experiments in forward walking, vertical jumping of about 10 cm, controlled falling with impact mitigation, and autonomous standing up after a fall. If these results hold, any research lab with a 3D printer and modest budget could build and modify a humanoid capable of behaviors usually reserved for expensive or closed platforms. The design relies on a parallel parallelogram leg mechanism with a passive ankle, keeping inertia low and cost down, while the open CAD and software invite community customization.

What carries the argument

The double 4-bar parallelogram linkage in each leg, which couples the thigh and shank actuators to the hip, knee, and passive ankle joints. It reduces the number of actuators needed for a 5-joint leg, creates a fast knee with torque shared between thigh and shank, and keeps the foot orientation horizontally constrained to the torso, lowering reflected inertia. The backdrivable quasi-direct-drive actuators (MyActuator RMD X6-40) with integrated controllers provide proprioceptive torque feedback and impedance control, and the whole system runs on a Raspberry Pi with a ROS-based software stack.

What would settle it

Measure the actual passive ankle angle during walking or jumping using external motion capture or high-speed video, and compare it with the value predicted from the thigh and shank encoders via Eq. (1). A systematic error or growing backlash with repeated falls would show the kinematic model breaks. Alternatively, run repeated fall tests until structural failure to test the durability claim.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

The central claim is that a carefully designed, mostly 3D-printed humanoid using off-the-shelf quasi-direct-drive actuators can achieve dynamic whole-body behaviors at a fraction of the cost of existing research platforms. AGILOped has 10 actuators controlling 12 joints: each leg uses a double 4-bar parallelogram that lets two hip actuators drive hip pitch, knee pitch, and a passive ankle pitch, with the foot orientation locked to the torso. This kinematic coupling (q_h = q_th, q_k = q_sh - q_th, q_a = -q_sh) reduces actuator count and leg inertia, and the authors show experimentally that the resulting robot can walk forward with feedback control, jump, survive falls with compliant TPU parts

Load-bearing premise

The kinematic constraint of the double 4-bar parallelogram—that the passive ankle angle follows q_a = -q_sh with no play or flex—must hold under dynamic loads; any backlash or deformation in the 3D-printed links or manually assembled rods would invalidate the leg model, balance estimation, and gait control.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • If the platform works as reported, research groups can build a dynamic humanoid for roughly $6,380 plus 3D-printing time, enabling reproducible experiments and hardware modifications across labs.
  • The passive-ankle parallelogram design offers a template for reducing leg inertia and actuator count in other open humanoid designs, potentially speeding up whole-body control and reduced-order model research.
  • The demonstrated fall mitigation and get-up routine suggest that 3D-printed structures with TPU compliance can endure repeated impacts, extending the practical lifetime of low-cost humanoids.
  • The open CAD and software stack could accelerate the adoption of learning-based and model-based control approaches by providing a fully transparent hardware platform.
  • The low-cost AHRS solution and simple electronics lower the software and sensing barrier for new robotics research groups entering the field.

Reading between the lines

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

  • If the kinematic coupling holds precisely, AGILOped becomes a natural testbed for studying how a passive ankle affects balance and gait, since the ankle is not directly actuated—a comparison against an ankle-actuated variant would isolate that contribution.
  • The reported 10 cm jump height is limited by the lack of a dedicated force controller; implementing one could raise jump height, a testable extension of the paper's keyframe-based approach.
  • The no-backlash and long-term durability claims are extrapolated from prior NimbRo robots rather than AGILOped-specific measurements; direct measurement of joint backlash and fatigue under repeated falls would validate or refute this transfer.
  • The open-source release may enable crowdsourced hardware iterations, such as different feet, arms, or actuator replacements, creating a community benchmark for low-cost dynamic humanoids.
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 / 4 minor

Summary. The paper presents AGILOped, an open-source 110 cm, 14.5 kg humanoid robot built from off-the-shelf components and 3D-printed structural parts, with a total cost of about $6,380. The key mechanical contribution is a double 4-bar parallelogram leg that couples hip, knee, and ankle motions with only four actuators per leg, giving a passive ankle whose foot orientation is nominally locked to the torso. The authors describe the actuator electronics, low-level impedance control, a CPG-based walking controller, and a keyframe-based jump, fall-mitigation, and get-up system. Experimental sections show forward walking on artificial grass, vertical jumps of 'about 10 cm', and a sequence of a backwards fall followed by standing up. The central claim is that AGILOped closes the gap between high-performance and accessible humanoid platforms for research.

Significance. If the claims hold, AGILOped would be a valuable contribution: it is one of the most affordable adult-sized open humanoid platforms with dynamic capabilities, and the open CAD/BOM/software lowers the entry barrier for research groups. The design choice of a parallel-kinematic leg with only ten actuators is elegant and potentially lowers both cost and leg inertia. The paper gives cost breakdown, dimensions, electronics schematics, and a clear kinematic model, and reports real hardware demonstrations rather than simulations only. The reported 3D-printed construction with off-the-shelf actuators is in line with the authors' prior NimbRo work, lending some credibility to the platform's practicability. However, the quantitative evidence is thin, and the load-bearing kinematic constraint is not validated under dynamic load. If those gaps are addressed, this could become a useful reference platform paper.

major comments (4)
  1. [Section III-B, Eq. (1)-(2)] The kinematic constraint Eq. (1) is load-bearing: the double 4-bar parallelograms with 3D-printed links and manually-threaded aluminum rods with screwed-in universal joints are assumed rigid and backlash-free, yielding the constant Jacobian in Eq. (2). The paper provides no measurement of joint-angle error, backlash, or deflection under dynamic loading. If the links flex or the universal joints have play, the passive ankle and foot-orientation locking fail, corrupting the joint estimates used by the state estimator and balance controller. I ask for a concrete validation: e.g., compare motor-encoder-derived joint angles with visual marker measurements during walking/jumping, or report a stiffness/backlash test under representative loads.
  2. [Section V-B, Jumping] The jump experiment reports 'about 10 cm' without repeated trials, error bars, or a success criterion. The statement that the robot 'jumps slightly backwards' suggests a systematic CoM/control issue that is not analyzed. To support the high-performance claim, please report the number of trials, mean and variance of jump height, the landing success rate, and ideally ground-reaction-force data synchronized with a motion-capture height measurement.
  3. [Section V-A, Walking] The walking demonstration is qualitative: Fig. 6 shows CoM/ZMP traces and force plots, but no walking speed, step length, step frequency, number of consecutive steps, or trial count is given. Since the robot is claimed to 'walk forward' and the gait is a core capability, at least walking speed and step metrics are needed to assess performance and reproducibility against other platforms.
  4. [Section III-B, V-C, Falling Mitigation] The durability/robustness claim rests largely on prior NimbRo-OP2(X) experience, not on AGILOped-specific testing. The text states that AGILOped was 'pushed from any side', but only a backwards fall is shown; other fall directions and impact cases are not reported. As fall robustness is central to the 'mitigation and getting-up' demonstration, please provide AGILOped-specific evidence: number of falls from each direction, inspection results for structural parts and parallel-rod joints, and any repairs or failures encountered.
minor comments (4)
  1. [Table II] Typo: 'RaspBerry Pi' should be 'Raspberry Pi'. Also '1 GBRAM' should have a space.
  2. [Eq. (3)] The min() operation is unclear for vector torque: is it element-wise clipping of each component to tau_max, or a scalar limit on the torque vector? Please clarify notation.
  3. [Table I] The footnotes e/f on Unitree G1 are hard to interpret ('non-programmable' and 'for developers' are ambiguous). The table header abbreviations 'Max. HFE Tor.' and 'Max. KFE Tor.' should be expanded for readability.
  4. [Overall] Spelling inconsistency: 'Nvidia' and 'NVidia' are both used. Also, 'varioShore TPU' is not defined; a brief material explanation or citation would help readers unfamiliar with this product.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 1.0 of 10

No circular derivation found: Eq. (1)-(3) are design/control identities, experiments are direct measurements, and self-citations are supporting context, not load-bearing inputs.

full rationale

The paper's core technical relations are definitions or design identities. Eq. (1) expresses the kinematic coupling imposed by the double 4-bar parallelogram mechanism: q_h=q_th, q_k=q_sh-q_th, q_a=-q_sh. Eq. (2) is the differential/Jacobian of that same relation, and Eq. (3) is a standard impedance control law. None of these are fitted to experimental data and then 'predicted' back. The reported walking, jumping, fall-mitigation, and get-up results are direct empirical measurements of the physical robot, with no parameter fitted to the same data being presented as a prediction. The paper does cite prior work by the same authors for context: NimbRo-OP2(X) durability [15],[24],[32], the centroidal state estimator [38], and the software stack [39]. These are supporting references that describe different physical systems or prior software; they do not by construction force the present claims. The most plausible concern is correctness/robustness, not circularity: Eq. (1) assumes rigid, backlash-free parallelograms, and the paper provides no direct measurement of kinematic accuracy under load. However, an unverified assumption is a validity risk, not a self-referential reduction of the argument to its inputs. Thus the paper is self-contained in the sense relevant to circularity, and only a minor, non-load-bearing reliance on the authors' prior platform observations prevents a pure 0 score.

Assumptions & free parameters 3 free parameters · 5 assumptions · 0 invented entities

The paper introduces a physical robot platform, not a theoretical entity such as a particle or force. The robot is an engineered artifact with posted design files; it is not a postulated entity requiring independent falsifiable evidence beyond the presented experiments.

free parameters (3)
  • Impedance controller gains (K_p, K_d) and torque limit tau_max = not reported
    Tuned by hand for the demonstrations; values are not given, yet they directly determine walking, jump, and fall behavior (Eq. 3).
  • CPG gait parameters = not reported
    Adapted from NimbRo-OP2X and tuned for AGILOped; no values provided, but they set step frequency and CoM tracking behavior.
  • Jump keyframes = resulting jump height about 10 cm
    Hand-designed whole-body keyframes; the resulting jump height is about 10 cm, described as limited by lack of a force controller and incorrect CoM assumptions.
assumptions (5)
  • domain assumption The double 4-bar parallelogram linkages maintain the kinematic constraint q_h = q_th, q_k = q_sh - q_th, q_a = -q_sh with negligible backlash under dynamic loads.
    Invoked in Eq. (1) and the leg design; if the printed links or universal joints deform, the passive ankle model and foot orientation constraint fail. No backlash measurement is provided.
  • domain assumption The MyActuator RMD X6-40 actuators provide the rated 40 Nm peak torque and 11.5 rad/s no-load speed in the assembled configuration.
    The design relies on vendor datasheet values; no in-situ torque or speed characterization is reported.
  • domain assumption The 3D-printed Nylon or PLA structure has sufficient fatigue life for repeated falls, inferred from the prior NimbRo-OP2(X) robots that operated for several years in RoboCup conditions without breaking structural parts.
    The fall-mitigation robustness claim is based on prior platforms, not a fatigue test on AGILOped.
  • domain assumption The linear inverted pendulum (LIP) model accurately describes the CoM dynamics in the lateral plane for the CPG gait.
    Used in Section V-A to compute ZMP and adjust step timing; the validity is assumed, not experimentally validated.
  • domain assumption The two 26.1 V batteries in series provide 52.2 V, and all components tolerate this voltage.
    The power design (Section III-A) assumes the actuators (20 to 52 V range) and electronics can operate at the combined voltage, with a hot-swap diode circuit.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of AGILOped: Agile Open-Source Humanoid Robot for Research." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/2LN46RHM

@misc{pith2026250909364,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: AGILOped: Agile Open-Source Humanoid Robot for Research},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/2LN46RHM}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2509.09364}
}
read the original abstract

With academic and commercial interest for humanoid robots peaking, multiple platforms are being developed. Through a high level of customization, they showcase impressive performance. Most of these systems remain closed-source or have high acquisition and maintenance costs, however. In this work, we present AGILOped - an open-source humanoid robot that closes the gap between high performance and accessibility. Our robot is driven by off-the-shelf backdrivable actuators with high power density and uses standard electronic components. With a height of 110 cm and weighing only 14.5 kg, AGILOped can be operated without a gantry by a single person. Experiments in walking, jumping, impact mitigation and getting-up demonstrate its viability for use in research.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2509.09364 by the authors.

Figure 1
Figure 1. The kinematics, CAD model and constructed version of AGILOped. [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p001_1.png] view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. AGILOped dimensions labelled in frontal and side view. [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p003_2.png] view at source ↗
Figure 4
Figure 4. Upper body design details. Featuring a rigid cage, elastomer-based [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p004_4.png] view at source ↗
Figures from the paper (3 more)
Figure 5
Figure 5. Figure 5: Electronics layout. AGILOped is powered by two [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p005_5.png]
Figure 7
Figure 7. Figure 7: Vertical jump experiment. (top) Sequence of keyframes that propel [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p006_7.png]
Figure 8
Figure 8. Figure 8: Time series of AGILOped falling backwards and standing up again. Upon detecting the fall, the robot rapidly moves its arms backward to reduce [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p007_8.png]

Discussion (0). Sign in to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

40 extracted references · 4 linked inside Pith

  1. [1]

    Control of a biped somersault in 3d,

    R. R. Playter and M. H. Raibert, “Control of a biped somersault in 3d,” inProceedings of the IEEE/RSJ international conference on intelligent robots and systems, vol. 1. IEEE, 1992, pp. 582–589

    1992

  2. [2]

    (2017, Nov) What’s new, Atlas? [Online]

    Boston Dynamics. (2017, Nov) What’s new, Atlas? [Online]. Available: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fRj34o4hN4I Fig. 8: Time series of AGILOped falling backwards and standing up again. Upon detecting the fall, the robot rapidly moves its arms backward to reduce the impact. From a prone position, it pushes itself back up onto its feet, followed by a stand...

    2017

  3. [3]

    ATRIAS: Design and validation of a tether- free 3d-capable spring-mass bipedal robot,

    C. Hubicki, J. Grimes, M. Jones, D. Renjewski, A. Badri-Spröwitz, A. Abate, and J. Hurst, “ATRIAS: Design and validation of a tether- free 3d-capable spring-mass bipedal robot,”The International Journal of Robotics Research (IJRR), vol. 35, 06 2016

    2016

  4. [4]

    A modular compliant ac- tuator for emerging high performance and fall-resilient humanoids,

    F. Negrello, M. Garabini, M. G. Catalano, J. Malzahn, D. G. Cald- well, A. Bicchi, and N. G. Tsagarakis, “A modular compliant ac- tuator for emerging high performance and fall-resilient humanoids,” inIEEE-RAS 15th International Conference on Humanoid Robots (Humanoids), 2015, pp. 414–420

    2015

  5. [5]

    Mini cheetah: A platform for pushing the limits of dynamic quadruped control,

    B. Katz, J. Di Carlo, and S. Kim, “Mini cheetah: A platform for pushing the limits of dynamic quadruped control,” inIEEE Inter- national Conference on Robotics and Automation (ICRA), 2019, pp. 6295–6301

    2019

  6. [6]

    Tello leg: The study of design principles and metrics for dynamic humanoid robots,

    Y . Sim and J. Ramos, “Tello leg: The study of design principles and metrics for dynamic humanoid robots,”IEEE Robotics and Automation Letters (RA-L), vol. 7, no. 4, pp. 9318–9325, 2022

    2022

  7. [7]

    Dynamic loco- manipulation on hector: Humanoid for enhanced control and open- source research,

    J. Li, J. Ma, O. Kolt, M. Shah, and Q. Nguyen, “Dynamic loco- manipulation on hector: Humanoid for enhanced control and open- source research,”arXiv preprint arXiv:2312.11868, 2023

    arXiv 2023

  8. [8]

    Design of a highly dynamic humanoid robot,

    T. Zhu, “Design of a highly dynamic humanoid robot,” UCLA Electronic Theses and Dissertations, 2023

    2023

Show all 40 references
  1. [9]

    Design and development of the MIT humanoid: A dynamic and robust research platform,

    A. SaLoutos, E. Stanger-Joncs, Y . Ding, M. Chignoli, and S. Kim, “Design and development of the MIT humanoid: A dynamic and robust research platform,” inIEEE-RAS International Conference on Humanoid Robots (Humanoids), 2023, pp. 1–8

    2023

  2. [10]

    Berkeley humanoid: A research platform for learning-based control,

    Q. Liao, B. Zhang, X. Huang, X. Huang, Z. Li, and K. Sreenath, “Berkeley humanoid: A research platform for learning-based control,” arXiv preprint arXiv:2407.21781, 2024

    2024 arXiv

  3. [11]

    Mechatronic design of NAO humanoid,

    D. Gouaillier, V . Hugel, P. Blazevic, C. Kilner, J. Monceaux, P. Lafour- cade, B. Marnier, J. Serre, and B. Maisonnier, “Mechatronic design of NAO humanoid,” inInt. Conf. on Robotics and Automation, 2009

    2009

  4. [12]

    Development of open humanoid platform DARwIn-OP,

    I. Ha, Y . Tamura, H. Asama, J. Han, and D. Hong, “Development of open humanoid platform DARwIn-OP,” inSICE Annual Conf., 2011

    2011

  5. [13]

    Booster T1,

    Booster Robotics, “Booster T1,” https://www.boosterobotics.com/, 2024

    2024

  6. [14]

    RoboCup Robot Program,

    RoboCup Federation, “RoboCup Robot Program,” https: //robotprogram.robocup.org/, 2024

    2024

  7. [15]

    Nimbro-OP2X: affordable adult- sized 3D-printed open-source humanoid robot for research,

    G. Ficht, H. Farazi, D. Rodriguez, D. Pavlichenko, P. Allgeuer, A. Brandenburger, and S. Behnke, “Nimbro-OP2X: affordable adult- sized 3D-printed open-source humanoid robot for research,”Interna- tional Journal of Humanoid Robotics, vol. 17, no. 05, p. 2050021, 2020

    2020

  8. [16]

    Unitree G1,

    Unitree Robotics, “Unitree G1,” https://www.unitree.com/, 2024

    2024

  9. [17]

    The MIT humanoid robot: Design, motion planning, and control for acrobatic behaviors,

    M. Chignoli, D. Kim, E. Stanger-Jones, and S. Kim, “The MIT humanoid robot: Design, motion planning, and control for acrobatic behaviors,” inIEEE-RAS International Conference on Humanoid Robots (Humanoids), 2021, pp. 1–8

    2021

  10. [18]

    Fourier GR-1,

    Fourier Intelligence, “Fourier GR-1,” https://fourierintelligence.com/ gr1/, 2024

    2024

  11. [19]

    A minimized falling damage method for humanoid robots,

    Q. Li, X. Chen, Y . Zhou, Z. Yu, W. Zhang, and Q. Huang, “A minimized falling damage method for humanoid robots,”Interna- tional Journal of Advanced Robotic Systems, vol. 14, no. 5, p. 1729881417728016, 2017

    2017

  12. [20]

    Falling motion control for humanoid robots while walking,

    K. Ogata, K. Terada, and Y . Kuniyoshi, “Falling motion control for humanoid robots while walking,” in7th IEEE-RAS International Conference on Humanoid Robots (Humanoids), 2007, pp. 306–311

    2007

  13. [21]

    Direction-changing fall control of humanoid robots: theory and experiments,

    A. Goswami, S.-k. Yun, U. Nagarajan, S.-H. Lee, K. Yin, and S. Kalyanakrishnan, “Direction-changing fall control of humanoid robots: theory and experiments,”Autonomous Robots, vol. 36, pp. 199– 223, 2014

    2014

  14. [22]

    Development of life-sized humanoid robot platform with robustness for falling down, long time working and error occurrence,

    Y . Kakiuchi, M. Kamon, N. Shimomura, S. Yukizaki, N. Takasugi, S. Nozawa, K. Okada, and M. Inaba, “Development of life-sized humanoid robot platform with robustness for falling down, long time working and error occurrence,” inIEEE/RSJ International Conference on Intelligent R...

    2017

  15. [23]

    Designing falling motions for a humanoid soccer goalie,

    T. Wilken, M. Missura, and S. Behnke, “Designing falling motions for a humanoid soccer goalie,” in4th Workshop on Humanoid Soccer Robots, International Conference on Humanoid Robots (Humanoids), 2009

    2009

  16. [24]

    NimbRo-OP2: Grown-up 3D Printed Open Humanoid Platform for Research,

    G. Ficht, P. Allgeuer, H. Farazi, and S. Behnke, “NimbRo-OP2: Grown-up 3D Printed Open Humanoid Platform for Research,” in17th IEEE-RAS Int. Conference on Humanoid Robots (Humanoids), 2017

    2017

  17. [25]

    (2024, Sept) AK Series Product Page

    T-Motor. (2024, Sept) AK Series Product Page. [Online]. Available: https://store.tmotor.com/categorys/robot-dynamics

    2024

  18. [26]

    (2024, Sept) BEAR Product Page

    Westwood Robotics. (2024, Sept) BEAR Product Page. [Online]. Available: https://www.westwoodrobotics.io/bearseries/

    2024

  19. [27]

    (2024, Sept) RMD-X Product Page

    MyActuator. (2024, Sept) RMD-X Product Page. [Online]. Available: https://www.myactuator.com/rmd-xplanetary-motor-1

    2024

  20. [28]

    Moment and power of lower limb joints in running,

    A. Belli, H. Kyröläinen, and P. Komi, “Moment and power of lower limb joints in running,”International Journal of Sports Medicine, vol. 23, no. 02, pp. 136–141, 2002

    2002

  21. [29]

    Endurance running and the evolution of homo,

    D. M. Bramble and D. E. Lieberman, “Endurance running and the evolution of homo,”Nature, vol. 432, no. 7015, pp. 345–352, 2004

    2004

  22. [30]

    Femoral anteversion: a necessary angle or an evolutionary vestige?

    E. Tayton, “Femoral anteversion: a necessary angle or an evolutionary vestige?”The Journal of Bone & Joint Surgery British V olume, vol. 89, no. 10, pp. 1283–1288, 2007

    2007

  23. [31]

    Development of the human hind limb and its importance for the evolution of bipedalism,

    C. Tardieu, “Development of the human hind limb and its importance for the evolution of bipedalism,”Evolutionary Anthropology: Issues, News, and Reviews, vol. 19, no. 5, pp. 174–186, 2010

    2010

  24. [32]

    RoboCup 2023 Humanoid AdultSize winner NimbRo: NimbRoNet3 visual perception and re- sponsive gait with waveform in-walk kicks,

    D. Pavlichenko, G. Ficht, A. Villar-Corrales, L. Denninger, J. Brocker, T. Sinen, M. Schreiber, and S. Behnke, “RoboCup 2023 Humanoid AdultSize winner NimbRo: NimbRoNet3 visual perception and re- sponsive gait with waveform in-walk kicks,” inRoboCup 2023: Robot World Cup XXVI....

    2023

  25. [33]

    Dynamic Walking on Highly Underactuated Point Foot Humanoids: Closing the Loop between HZD and HLIP,

    A. B. Ghansah, J. Kim, K. Li, and A. D. Ames, “Dynamic Walking on Highly Underactuated Point Foot Humanoids: Closing the Loop between HZD and HLIP,”arXiv preprint arXiv:2406.13115, 2024

    2024 arXiv

  26. [34]

    A guideline for hu- manoid leg design with oblique axes for bipedal locomotion,

    K. Fründ, A. L. Shu, F. C. Loeffl, and C. Ott, “A guideline for hu- manoid leg design with oblique axes for bipedal locomotion,” inIEEE- RAS International Conference on Humanoid Robots (Humanoids), 2022, pp. 60–66

    2022

  27. [35]

    Energet- ics and biomechanics of running footwear with increased longitudinal bending stiffness: a narrative review,

    J. A. Ortega, L. A. Healey, W. Swinnen, and W. Hoogkamer, “Energet- ics and biomechanics of running footwear with increased longitudinal bending stiffness: a narrative review,”Sports Medicine, vol. 51, no. 5, pp. 873–894, 2021

    2021

  28. [36]

    Effect of process parameters on the hardness of 3D-printed thermoplastic polyurethane that includes foaming agent,

    M. C. Iacob, D. Popescu, and F. Baciu, “Effect of process parameters on the hardness of 3D-printed thermoplastic polyurethane that includes foaming agent,”Materiale Plastice, vol. 60, no. 4, pp. 144–154, 2023

    2023

  29. [37]

    The duke humanoid: Design and control for energy efficient bipedal locomotion using passive dynamics,

    B. Xia, B. Li, J. Lee, M. Scutari, and B. Chen, “The duke humanoid: Design and control for energy efficient bipedal locomotion using passive dynamics,”arXiv preprint arXiv:2409.19795, 2024

    2024 arXiv

  30. [38]

    Centroidal state estimation and control for hardware-constrained humanoid robots,

    G. Ficht and S. Behnke, “Centroidal state estimation and control for hardware-constrained humanoid robots,” inIEEE-RAS International Conference on Humanoid Robots (Humanoids), 2023, pp. 1–8

    2023

  31. [39]

    The igus Humanoid Open Platform: A child-sized 3D printed open-source robot for research,

    P. Allgeuer, H. Farazi, G. Ficht, M. Schreiber, and S. Behnke, “The igus Humanoid Open Platform: A child-sized 3D printed open-source robot for research,”KI-Künstliche Intelligenz, vol. 30, pp. 315–319, 2016

    2016

  32. [40]

    Study of dynamic biped locomotion on rugged terrain-derivation and application of the linear inverted pendulum mode,

    S. Kajita and K. Tani, “Study of dynamic biped locomotion on rugged terrain-derivation and application of the linear inverted pendulum mode,” inIEEE International Conference on Robotics and Automation (ICRA), 1991, pp. 1405–1406

    1991

Pith tools

Reviewed August 4, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.