Pith. sign in

REVIEW 4 major objections 5 minor 30 references

Impact-Robust Posture Optimization for Aerial Manipulation

T0 review · 4 major / 5 minor · reviewed 2026-08-02 · deepseek-v4-flash

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

Pith's one-line read By adding a gradient of an inertia-based metric to the posture command, this paper shows that a redundant torque-controlled robot can reduce post-impact motion spikes by up to 51% and avoid actuator saturation.

desk verdict Useful TSID integration of an impact-robustness posture task, but the metric's theoretical justification doesn't survive the rigid-impact model; single-run simulations keep it conditional. read the letter →

arxiv 2602.13762 v2 pith:V3MOLMO7 submitted 2026-02-14 cs.RO

Amr Afifi , Ahmad Gazar , Javier Alonso-Mora , Paolo Robuffo Giordano , Antonio Franchi This is my paper · ORCID
classification cs.RO
keywords aerialmanipulationimpactrobustnesspostureoptimizationkinematicredundancytask-spaceinversedynamicswhole-bodycontrolrigidmodelactuatorsaturation
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 argues that impacts, which cause sudden velocity changes, need not be handled by feedback alone: a robot can choose a better posture before contact. It introduces a configuration-dependent metric, the Impact-Robustness Metric H(q), which measures how much a given posture amplifies a velocity jump along a known contact direction. Minimizing this metric is posed as a min-max optimization and then approximated as a low-priority gradient task inside a whole-body quadratic-program controller. In simulation, this reconfiguration reduces the integrated post-impact motion by up to 51% for an aerial manipulator and up to 45% for a humanoid, and prevents actuator saturation. A sympathetic reader would care because torque-controlled redundant robots can thus absorb anticipated impacts proactively, at negligible online computational cost, without sacrificing higher-priority tasks.

What carries the argument

The central object is the Dynamic Impact Ellipsoid, Λ_c(q) = J_c(q) M(q)^{-2} J_c(q)^T, a configuration-dependent matrix that maps an impulse into a velocity change. Its projection along the known contact normal, H(q) = n^T Λ_c(q) n, is the Impact-Robustness Metric. The mechanism is to insert -K ∇_q H(q) into the desired posture acceleration inside the TSID quadratic program; this turns the min-max posture optimization into a real-time gradient task that reconfigures the robot while higher-priority tasks, such as attitude and end-effector pose, remain enforced.

What would settle it

Run the contact task with the actual surface normal rotated 5-10 degrees from the normal used to compute ∇_q H; if the integrated post-impact motion q_total_impact rises to or above nominal TSID's, the claim fails under directional uncertainty. A simpler analytic check: at the converged bracing posture, H(q) should be lower than at the initial posture; if it is not, the gradient task is not minimizing its own metric.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

The central claim is that the posture a redundant robot holds just before an expected impact determines how violently the impact propagates into state and control commands. Using a rigid impact model, the paper defines H(q) = n^T J_c M^{-2} J_c^T n, the effective inertia along the contact normal; minimizing H(q) makes the robot present more inertia to the impact and damps the post-impact velocity jump. The paper embeds this minimization as a gradient-descent term -K ∇_q H(q) in the desired posture acceleration of a Task Space Inverse Dynamics quadratic program, turning an intractable posture optimization into a smooth, low-priority motion task. Simulations show this pre-impact reconfiguratio

Load-bearing premise

The load-bearing premise is that the impact is anticipated with a known contact Jacobian, contact normal, and bounded impulse magnitude; if the real contact arrives from a different direction, the robot may brace incorrectly and the method can perform worse than standard TSID.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • A torque-controlled robot with spare degrees of freedom can brace before a known contact, reducing the post-impact velocity jump that feedback controllers otherwise turn into control spikes.
  • Because the gradient is computed offline, the online controller adds only a matrix-vector product to nominal TSID, so impact robustness does not slow down the control loop.
  • The same residual transfers to legged robots: in the paper's simulations, a quadruped and a humanoid each moved less during an imposed impact (up to 45% less), showing the idea scales with kinematic redundancy.
  • The method avoids actuator saturation without adding hard constraints, so it can be combined with constraint-based impact-aware controllers rather than replacing them.

Reading between the lines

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

  • If the contact normal is uncertain, the bracing posture is computed for the wrong direction; an untested extension would minimize H(q) over a cone of plausible normals rather than a single n, at the cost of a worst-case gradient.
  • The metric H(q) captures only the instantaneous velocity jump, not the closed-loop transient afterward, so it could be paired with a kinetic-energy or command-rate term to predict saturation more directly.
  • Because the gradient task is local, it may converge to a suboptimal posture; a planner-level global search over H(q) could provide a better initial configuration for the online gradient.
  • When a higher-priority task consumes all redundancy, the posture task silently loses authority; monitoring the null-space projection would tell an operator whether impact-robustness is actually active before contact.
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 / 5 minor

Summary. The paper proposes an impact-robust posture optimization method for kinematically redundant torque-controlled robots. Using a rigid impact model, it defines a configuration-dependent metric H(q)=n^T J_c M^-2 J_c^T n, which quantifies effective inertia along the anticipated contact normal. The method adds a gradient descent term -K∇_q H(q) to the desired posture acceleration inside a TSID whole-body QP, creating a low-priority posture task that reconfigures the robot before anticipated impacts. The authors evaluate the method in Gazebo/ODE on a hexarotor with a 3-DoF arm in vertical and lateral repeated contact tasks, reporting up to 51% reduction in the integrated joint-velocity norm during impacts and avoidance of actuator saturation compared with nominal TSID. Additional simulations on the Solo quadruped and Talos humanoid under 400 ms force pushes report up to 45% reduction. The paper claims the method is simple, non-conservative, and complementary to impact-invariant and reference-spreading approaches.

Significance. If the derivation were correct, the method would be a practically valuable way to exploit kinematic redundancy for impact robustness without hard constraints. Strengths include a clean QP formulation, explicit hierarchy among tilt/EE/posture tasks, offline gradient computation via CasADi, and evaluation in a realistic simulator on three platforms. The algebraic steps from Eqs. (7)–(10) are internally consistent, but the physical premise that λ is an independent bounded parameter is incompatible with the rigid impact law, so the stated mechanism is not established. The empirical results also rest on single runs and on finite-duration pushes rather than impacts in the legged cases. The contribution remains plausible as a heuristic, but the theory needs correction and the evidence needs statistical support. No code or data repository is provided, which limits reproducibility for a simulation-only paper.

major comments (4)
  1. [Section III, Eqs. (4b), (7)–(10)] The derivation treats λ as an exogenous bounded uncertainty. Under the paper's own rigid-impact model, with restitution e, the impulse is determined by the pre-impact normal velocity v_n = n^T J_c ν^-: substituting ν^+ = ν^- + M^{-1}J_c^T n λ into n^T J_c ν^+ = -e v_n gives λ = -(1+e) v_n / (n^T J_c M^{-1}J_c^T n). The actual jump norm is then |1+e| |v_n| ||M^{-1}J_c^T n|| / (n^T J_c M^{-1}J_c^T n), not √H(q). Minimizing H(q)=||M^{-1}J_c^T n||² can increase the actual jump when the denominator decreases; a low-H configuration is not necessarily impact-robust. To support the paper's claim, replace the bounded-λ formulation with the correct expression under the rigid impact law, or explicitly adopt a different exogenous-impulse model and defend it.
  2. [Section V-C, Table I, Figs. 7–8] The 'impacts' for the legged robots are 6.5 N and 32 N forces applied for 400 ms. These are finite-duration pushes, not instantaneous rigid impacts governed by Eq. (4b). The reductions in q_total_impact in Table I therefore do not test the impact model and should not be presented as impact results. Please either simulate true impact events (impulsive contacts) for those platforms, or clearly label these as disturbance-rejection tests and discuss why they are informative for the impact-robustness claim. The current framing conflates two different physical regimes.
  3. [Section V, Table I and Figs. 4–6] Each reported reduction is a single simulation run. There are no error bars, no variation of initial conditions or disturbance realizations, and no sensitivity study over the tunable gain K in Eq. (20) and posture weight W in Eq. (19a). Because the method's benefit depends on local gradient descent in a nonconvex metric, single deterministic runs cannot establish robustness. Please report repeated trials (e.g., different noise seeds, contact speeds, or gain values) with means and intervals, and state the chosen K and W values. This is particularly important because the paper's headline percentages (51%, 45%) are point estimates.
  4. [Sec. V-A, Eq. (21)] The metric q_total_impact integrates ||ν_a|| over T, 'the sum of impact durations,' but the impact duration may differ between controllers and trials. If the impact-robust controller reduces contact time, integrating over a shorter interval trivially lowers the integral. Please define how T is determined (e.g., fixed window, threshold on contact force) and confirm that the same T is used for both controllers and all trials.
minor comments (5)
  1. [Section II-B] The actuation matrix G(q) is introduced as ∈ R^{n×m}, but n and m are not defined; please clarify the dimensions and the relationship between rotor angular velocities u_b and joint torques τ.
  2. [Section V-B] Typos: 'telekyb3 3' should likely be 'telekyb3'; 'simultaneously' should be 'simultaneous'; in the Discussion, 'utilizing' should be 'utilizing' or 'using'.
  3. [Equation (21)] Use a consistent symbol for the actual velocity (ν^a appears undefined) and state whether joint velocities, base velocities, or all generalized velocities are included in the norm.
  4. [Sections III and VI] Reference [13] is the closest prior work and defines the same dynamic impact ellipsoid; please add a short quantitative or qualitative comparison in Sec. III or Sec. VI to clarify the novelty beyond the TSID integration.
  5. [General] No code or data repository is provided; for a simulation-only paper, sharing code would substantially aid reproducibility. Also, specify units for H(q) in Fig. 3 and for q_total_impact in Table I.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 0.0 of 10

No significant circularity: the impact-robustness metric is derived from the rigid impact model under a stated bounded-impulse assumption, and the reported reductions are independent simulation measurements.

full rationale

The paper's central derivation is not circular. The metric H(q) in Eq. (11a) is defined directly from the rigid impact model (Eq. 4b), the expansion Δν = M^{-1}J_c^T n λ, and the min–max problem (Eqs. 7–10). Under Assumption 1, treating λ as a bounded uncertainty makes the worst-case ||Δν||^2 proportional to H(q), so minimizing H is a legitimate robust reformulation of the stated objective. The success metric q_total_impact (Eq. 21) is measured separately as an integral of actual robot velocity during impacts; it is not defined as H and is not fitted to H. The gradient term −K∇_q H in Eq. (20) is a feedforward posture task with a tunable gain, not a parameter fitted to the reported reductions. The method is compared against nominal TSID in simulation, which is an external benchmark rather than a consequence of the derivation. The closest prior work [13] is an external citation used for the Dynamic Impact Ellipsoid, not a self-citation, and no uniqueness theorem is imported from the authors. Self-citations in the paper are background references (e.g., earlier aerial-manipulation and modeling work) and are not load-bearing for the impact-robustness result. The limitations acknowledged in the paper—dependence on a known contact normal and exhaustion of redundancy—are correctness and applicability risks, not circular steps. The skeptic's concern that the actual impact impulse is determined by the impact law rather than being freely bounded is a modeling criticism, not a demonstration that the derivation reduces to its own inputs; it therefore falls outside circularity analysis.

Assumptions & free parameters 2 free parameters · 5 assumptions · 0 invented entities

The method contributes no new physical entities or fitted constants. The metric is the known Dynamic Impact Ellipsoid [13]; the free parameters are controller gains whose values are not disclosed. The central claim rests on domain assumptions about idealized impacts and on simulation fidelity.

free parameters (2)
  • K (gradient gain)
    Scales ∇_q H(q) in Eq. 20; value not reported, and the reported reductions depend on it.
  • W (posture task weight)
    Weights the impact-robustness residual in the TSID cost (Eq. 19a); value not reported.
assumptions (5)
  • domain assumption Rigid impact model: q+ = q−, ν+ − ν− = M^{-1}J_c^T λ (no slip, instantaneous contact)
    Invoked in Eq. 4; the entire metric depends on this impulse model.
  • domain assumption Assumption 1: anticipated impacts with known contact Jacobian J_c(q) and normal n, bounded magnitude |λ| ≤ λ̄
    Stated before Eq. 7; without it H(q) is not computable.
  • domain assumption Gradient descent on H(q) realized as a low-priority task converges to a local minimum that reduces actual post-impact spikes
    The mapping from minimizing H to reducing q_total_impact is validated only by simulation; no convergence proof is provided.
  • domain assumption Gazebo/ODE simulation faithfully models impact dynamics
    All results are from simulation; no hardware experiments are included.
  • domain assumption For legged robots, a 400 ms force is a valid proxy for an impact
    Used in Sec. V-C; this is a sustained push, not an instantaneous impact.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Impact-Robust Posture Optimization for Aerial Manipulation." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/V3MOLMO7

@misc{pith2026260213762,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Impact-Robust Posture Optimization for Aerial Manipulation},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/V3MOLMO7}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2602.13762}
}
read the original abstract

We present a novel method for optimizing the posture of kinematically redundant torque-controlled robots to improve robustness during impacts. A rigid impact model is used as the basis for a configuration-dependent metric that quantifies the variation between pre- and post-impact velocities. By finding configurations (postures) that minimize the aforementioned metric, spikes in the robot's state and input commands can be significantly reduced during impacts, improving safety and robustness. The problem of identifying impact-robust postures is posed as a min-max optimization of the aforementioned metric. To overcome the real-time intractability of the problem, we reformulate it as a gradient-based motion task that iteratively guides the robot towards configurations that minimize the proposed metric. This task is embedded within a task-space inverse dynamics (TSID) whole-body controller, enabling seamless integration with other control objectives. The method is applied to a kinematically redundant aerial manipulator performing repeated point contact tasks. We test our method inside a realistic physics simulator and compare it with the nominal TSID. Our method leads to a reduction (up to 51% w.r.t. standard TSID) of post-impact spikes in the robot's configuration and successfully avoids actuator saturation. Moreover, we demonstrate the importance of kinematic redundancy for impact robustness using additional numerical simulations on a quadruped and a humanoid robot, resulting in up to 45% reduction of post-impact spikes in the robot's state w.r.t. nominal TSID.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2602.13762 by the authors.

Figure 1
Figure 1. Left to right: snapshots of robot configurations in the vertical [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p005_1.png] view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. The evolution of the impact-robustness metric [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p006_3.png] view at source ↗
Figure 4
Figure 4. AM’s whole-body controls (rotors’ angular velocities, and [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p006_4.png] view at source ↗
Figures from the paper (3 more)
Figure 5
Figure 5. Figure 5: AM’s whole-body controls (rotors’ angular velocities, and [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p006_5.png]
Figure 7
Figure 7. Figure 7: Snapshots of Solo reacting to an impulse force disturbance [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p007_7.png]
Figure 8
Figure 8. Figure 8: Snapshots of Talos reacting to an impulse force disturbance [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p008_8.png]

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

30 extracted references

  1. [13]

    Impact configurations and measures for kinematically redundant and multiple armed robot systems,

    I. Walker, “Impact configurations and measures for kinematically redundant and multiple armed robot systems,” IEEE Transactions on Robotics and Automation , vol. 10, no. 5, pp. 670–683, 1994

    1994

  2. [1]

    Past, present, and future of aerial robotic manipulators,

    A. Ollero, M. Tognon, A. Suarez, D. Lee, and A. Franchi, “Past, present, and future of aerial robotic manipulators,” IEEE Transactions on Robotics, vol. 38, no. 1, pp. 626–645, 2022

    2022

  3. [2]

    Multi-aerial robotic system for power line inspection and maintenance: Comparative analysis from the aerial-core final experiments,

    A. Ollero, A. Suarez, C. Papaioannidis, I. Pitas, J. M. Marredo, V . D. Hoang, E. Ebeid, V . Kratky, M. Saska, C. Hanoune, A. Afifi, A. Franchi, C. V ourtsis, D. Floreano, G. Vasiljevic, S. Bogdan, A. Caballero, F. Ruggiero, V . Lippiello, C. Matilla, G. Cioffi, D. Scara- muzza, J. R. M. d. Dios, B. C. Arrue, C. Martin, K. Zurad, C. Gaitan, J. Rodriguez, ...

    2025

  4. [3]

    Impact invariant control with applications to bipedal locomotion,

    W. Yang and M. Posa, “Impact invariant control with applications to bipedal locomotion,” in 2021 IEEE/RSJ International Conference on Intelligent Robots and Systems (IROS) , 2021, pp. 5151–5158

    2021

  5. [4]

    A unified approach for motion and force control of robot manipulators: The operational space formulation,

    O. Khatib, “A unified approach for motion and force control of robot manipulators: The operational space formulation,” IEEE Journal on Robotics and Automation , vol. 3, no. 1, pp. 43–53, 1987

    1987

  6. [5]

    Synthesis of whole-body behaviors through hierarchical control of behavioral primitives,

    L. SENTIS and O. KHATIB, “Synthesis of whole-body behaviors through hierarchical control of behavioral primitives,” International Journal of Humanoid Robotics , vol. 02, no. 04, pp. 505–518, 2005

    2005

  7. [6]

    Inverse dynamics control of floating-base robots with external constraints: A unified view,

    L. Righetti, J. Buchli, M. Mistry, and S. Schaal, “Inverse dynamics control of floating-base robots with external constraints: A unified view,” in 2011 IEEE International Conference on Robotics and Au- tomation, 2011, pp. 1085–1090

    2011

  8. [7]

    Operational space control of constrained and underactuated systems,

    M. Mistry and L. Righetti, “Operational space control of constrained and underactuated systems,” in Robotics, ser. Robotics: Science and Systems. MIT Press Journals, 2012, pp. 225–232

    2012

Show all 30 references
  1. [8]

    Prioritized mo- tion–force control of constrained fully-actuated robots: “task space inverse dynamics

    A. Del Prete, F. Nori, G. Metta, and L. Natale, “Prioritized mo- tion–force control of constrained fully-actuated robots: “task space inverse dynamics”,” Robotics and Autonomous Systems , vol. 63, pp. 150–157, 2015

    2015

  2. [9]

    Optimization-based control for dynamic legged robots,

    P. M. Wensing, M. Posa, Y . Hu, A. Escande, N. Mansard, and A. D. Prete, “Optimization-based control for dynamic legged robots,” IEEE Transactions on Robotics , vol. 40, pp. 43–63, 2024

    2024

  3. [10]

    Control of humanoid robot motions with impacts: Numerical experiments with reference spreading control,

    M. Rijnen, E. de Mooij, S. Traversaro, F. Nori, N. van de Wouw, A. Saccon, and H. Nijmeijer, “Control of humanoid robot motions with impacts: Numerical experiments with reference spreading control,” in 2017 IEEE International Conference on Robotics and Automation (ICRA), 2017,...

    2017

  4. [11]

    Quadratic programming-based reference spreading control for dual-arm robotic manipulation with planned simultaneous impacts,

    J. Van Steen, G. Van Den Brandt, N. van de Wouw, J. Kober, and A. Saccon, “Quadratic programming-based reference spreading control for dual-arm robotic manipulation with planned simultaneous impacts,” IEEE Transactions on Robotics , vol. 40, pp. 3341–3355, 2024

    2024

  5. [12]

    Impact-aware task- space quadratic-programming control,

    Y . Wang, N. Dehio, A. Tanguy, and A. Kheddar, “Impact-aware task- space quadratic-programming control,” The International Journal of Robotics Research, vol. 42, no. 14, pp. 1265–1282, 2023

    2023

  6. [14]

    A study on impact-aware aerial robots colliding with the environment at non- vanishing speed,

    G. Indukumar, A. Saccon, A. Franchi, and C. Gabellieri, “A study on impact-aware aerial robots colliding with the environment at non- vanishing speed,” in 2025 International Conference on Unmanned Aircraft Systems (ICUAS). IEEE, 2025, pp. 162–169

    2025

  7. [15]

    Energy tank- based policies for robust aerial physical interaction with moving ob- jects,

    M. Brunner, L. Giacomini, R. Siegwart, and M. Tognon, “Energy tank- based policies for robust aerial physical interaction with moving ob- jects,” in 2022 International Conference on Robotics and Automation (ICRA), 2022, pp. 2054–2060

    2022

  8. [16]

    Design, modeling, control and experimental evaluation of flexy: a novel compliant quadrotor,

    P. De Petris, M. Nissov, M. Harms, and K. Alexis, “Design, modeling, control and experimental evaluation of flexy: a novel compliant quadrotor,” in 2024 International Conference on Unmanned Aircraft Systems (ICUAS), 2024, pp. 31–38

    2024

  9. [17]

    Compliant aerial manipulators: Toward a new generation of aerial robotic workers,

    T. Bartelds, A. Capra, S. Hamaza, S. Stramigioli, and M. Fumagalli, “Compliant aerial manipulators: Toward a new generation of aerial robotic workers,” IEEE Robotics and Automation Letters, vol. 1, no. 1, pp. 477–483, 2016

    2016

  10. [18]

    Featherstone, Rigid Body Dynamics Algorithms

    R. Featherstone, Rigid Body Dynamics Algorithms . Berlin, Heidel- berg: Springer-Verlag, 2007

    2007

  11. [19]

    Design of multirotor aerial vehicles: A taxonomy based on input allocation,

    M. Hamandi, F. Usai, Q. Sabl ´e, N. Staub, M. Tognon, and A. Franchi, “Design of multirotor aerial vehicles: A taxonomy based on input allocation,” The International Journal of Robotics Research , vol. 40, no. 8-9, pp. 1015–1044, 2021

    2021

  12. [20]

    An implicit time-stepping scheme for rigid body dynamics with inelastic collisions and coulomb friction,

    D. E. Stewart and J. C. Trinkle, “An implicit time-stepping scheme for rigid body dynamics with inelastic collisions and coulomb friction,” International Journal for Numerical Methods in Engineering , vol. 39, no. 15, pp. 2673–2691, 1996

    1996

  13. [21]

    A truly redundant aerial manip- ulator exploiting a multi-directional thrust base,

    M. Ryll, D. Bicego, and A. Franchi, “A truly redundant aerial manip- ulator exploiting a multi-directional thrust base,” IFAC-PapersOnLine, vol. 51, no. 22, pp. 138–143, 2018

    2018

  14. [22]

    Direct force feedback control and online multi-task optimization for aerial manipulators,

    G. Nava, Q. Sabl ´e, M. Tognon, D. Pucci, and A. Franchi, “Direct force feedback control and online multi-task optimization for aerial manipulators,” IEEE Robotics and Automation Letters , vol. 5, no. 2, pp. 331–338, 2020

    2020

  15. [23]

    Tilt-prioritized quadrocopter attitude control,

    D. Brescianini and R. D’Andrea, “Tilt-prioritized quadrocopter attitude control,” IEEE Transactions on Control Systems Technology , vol. 28, no. 2, pp. 376–387, 2018

    2018

  16. [24]

    Impedance control: An approach to manipulation,

    N. Hogan, “Impedance control: An approach to manipulation,” in 1984 American Control Conference, 1984, pp. 304–313

    1984

  17. [25]

    A whole-body soft- ware abstraction layer for control design of free-floating mechanical systems,

    F. Romano, S. Traversaro, D. Pucci, and F. Nori, “A whole-body soft- ware abstraction layer for control design of free-floating mechanical systems,” Journal of Software Engineering for Robotics , 2017

    2017

  18. [26]

    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

  19. [27]

    qpOASES: A parametric active-set algorithm for quadratic program- ming,

    H. Ferreau, C. Kirches, A. Potschka, H. Bock, and M. Diehl, “qpOASES: A parametric active-set algorithm for quadratic program- ming,” Mathematical Programming Computation , vol. 6, no. 4, pp. 327–363, 2014

    2014

  20. [28]

    Talos: A new humanoid research platform targeted for industrial applications,

    O. Stasse, T. Flayols, R. Budhiraja, K. Giraud-Esclasse, J. Carpentier, J. Mirabel, A. Del Prete, P. Sou `eres, N. Mansard, F. Lamiraux, J.- P. Laumond, L. Marchionni, H. Tome, and F. Ferro, “Talos: A new humanoid research platform targeted for industrial applications,” in 201...

    2017

  21. [29]

    An open torque-controlled mod- ular robot architecture for legged locomotion research,

    F. Grimminger, A. Meduri, M. Khadiv, J. Viereck, M. W ¨uthrich, M. Naveau, V . Berenz, S. Heim, F. Widmaier, T. Flayols, J. Fiene, A. Badri-Spr ¨owitz, and L. Righetti, “An open torque-controlled mod- ular robot architecture for legged locomotion research,” IEEE Robotics and A...

    2020

  22. [30]

    Robot control for simultaneous impact tasks via quadratic programming-based reference spreading,

    J. J. van Steen, N. van de Wouw, and A. Saccon, “Robot control for simultaneous impact tasks via quadratic programming-based reference spreading,” in 2022 American Control Conference (ACC) , 2022, pp. 3865–3872

    2022

Pith tools

Reviewed August 2, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.