Pith. sign in

REVIEW 4 major objections 5 minor 41 references

A single contact-implicit model predictive controller lets a ducted-fan spring-legged robot choose between hopping and flying without a predefined mode schedule, cutting injected control effort to about 27% of hovering.

Reviewed by Pith at T0; open to challenge. T0 means a machine referee read the full paper against a public rubric. the ladder, T0–T4 →

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

T0 review · deepseek-v4-flash

2026-08-01 15:08 UTC pith:UEBM3HIM

load-bearing objection First real hardware demo of contact-implicit MPC on a ducted-fan spring hopper, with automatic hop-to-flight transitions and a plausible but under-evidenced 26.78% efficiency claim. the 4 major comments →

arxiv 2607.18527 v1 pith:UEBM3HIM submitted 2026-07-20 cs.RO

DASH Robot: Minimalistic Design and Optimal Aerial-Terrestrial Locomotion via Contact-Implicit Control

Ryan Gomes Paiva , Conrad Ho , Jiarong Kang , Kunzhao Ren , Xiangru Xu , Xiaobin Xiong This is my paper
classification cs.RO
keywords aerial-terrestrial robotducted fancontact-implicit MPChoppingmode-free locomotionenergy efficiencycomplementarityspring leg
verification ladder T0 review T1 audit T2 compute T3 formal T4 reserved

The pith

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

This paper claims that a robot with one ducted fan and one springy pogo leg can be controlled by a single contact-implicit MPC, with no hand-coded switching between terrestrial and aerial modes. The controller treats contact through complementarity conditions, so hopping, flying, and transitions emerge from optimizing a cost that includes mechanical energy tracking. The authors demonstrate in-place hopping, flight at 0.5 m/s, and obstacle traversal where the optimizer autonomously leaves the ground and later returns to hopping. If this holds, it would mean hybrid locomotion can be unified in one optimization rather than layered mode logic, and that energy-efficient hopping can be discovered automatically.

Core claim

The central discovery is that a single optimization over a linear-complementarity contact model automatically picks the locomotion mode. When ground contact is feasible, the optimizer chooses hopping and intermittently stores and releases elastic energy; when an obstacle makes contact infeasible, the same optimizer transitions to flight. In hardware, hopping reduced the injected control effort, defined as the time integral of thrust minus the minimal motor-idling thrust, to 26.78% of the hovering case.

What carries the argument

The load-bearing object is the contact-implicit MPC: a model predictive controller built on time-stepping rigid-body dynamics with complementarity conditions for non-penetration and maximum dissipation, solved as a linear complementarity problem (LCP). Analytical gradients of the contact impulse, relaxed at contact boundaries, let a differential dynamic programming solver optimize the thrust, moment, and contact schedule concurrently. The cost function tracks the reference state plus mechanical energy, which encourages passive energy circulation through the spring leg.

Load-bearing premise

The load-bearing premise is that the leg behaves as an unmodeled passive spring while motion capture provides perfect translation state; if the spring's stiffness, damping, or leg-swing dynamics couple with thrust at the 0.03 s planning rate, or if state estimation becomes imperfect outdoors, the automatic mode-switching and efficiency gain may fail to generalize.

What would settle it

Instrument the leg with a force sensor and compare the measured ground-contact times against the contact phases planned by the CI-MPC during an obstacle-crossing run; if the measured and planned contact events deviate by more than one 0.03 s control step, the complementarity-based contact model is not the mechanism producing the behavior.

Watch this falsifier. Get emailed when new claim-graph text bears on it.

If this is right

  • Mode transitions in hybrid robots need not be scheduled in advance: feasibility and optimality in a single MPC are sufficient to switch between hopping and flying.
  • Spring-legged hopping can be selected automatically over hovering when ground contact is available, cutting injected thrust to about 27% of the flying case.
  • The same controller can be applied to other ducted-fan legged robots without rewriting switching logic, since contact behavior is determined by the optimization.
  • Energy tracking in the cost function is a mechanism that makes the optimizer prefer intermittent contact over sustained thrust; this may generalize to other energy-storing robots.

Where Pith is reading between the lines

These are editorial extensions of the paper, not claims the author makes directly.

  • If the efficiency result is robust, the energy-tracking term in the cost function is likely the key; a natural ablation study would remove that term and test whether the controller reverts to hovering or loses the 26.78% reduction.
  • The hardware experiments rely on motion capture for translational state, so the claimed autonomy still needs demonstration with onboard visual–inertial estimation before outdoor operation is credible.
  • The leg spring parameters are not reported; a sensitivity analysis varying stiffness and damping would tell whether the automatic hopping–flight transitions survive across leg designs.
  • The authors mention swimming as future work; the same contact-implicit formulation could be extended to a fluid-contact regime, but that would require a different contact model.

Editorial analysis

A structured set of objections, weighed in public.

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

Referee Report

4 major / 5 minor

Summary. The paper introduces DASH, a ducted-fan aerial-terrestrial robot with a passive spring leg, and proposes a contact-implicit MPC (CI-MPC) that solves a single optimization problem to select between hopping and flying without hand-coded mode schedules. The dynamics are formulated with LCP-based contact conditions, and the MPC is solved with differential dynamic programming using relaxed analytic gradients. Experiments demonstrate in-place hopping, flying with velocity tracking up to 0.5 m/s, and obstacle-triggered transitions between modes. The central quantitative claim is that hopping reduces the injected control effort, defined as ∫|T(t)−T_min|dt, to 26.78% of the flying case, and that this efficiency emerges from the optimizer rather than from explicit switching logic.

Significance. If substantiated, the paper's contribution is of interest to the hybrid aerial-terrestrial robotics community: it combines a mechanically simple platform with a unified contact-implicit control framework, avoiding predefined contact sequences and mode schedules. The hardware demonstrations of hopping, flying, and mode transition are valuable, and the use of complementarity-based contact dynamics with analytic gradients follows a modern and reproducible methodology. The claimed 26.78% control-effort reduction is a concrete, falsifiable result. However, the strength of the paper depends on three currently under-reported elements: the leg compliance model, the energy reference in the cost, and the experimental conditions behind the headline efficiency number. These omissions currently prevent reproduction and independent assessment of the central claims.

major comments (4)
  1. [Section VI.A, Fig. 8] The headline claim that hopping reduces injected control effort to 26.78% of the flying case is not supported by the reported data. No trial count, duration, standard deviation, or battery/voltage conditions are given. The metric ∫|T(t)−T_min|dt also depends on the unspecified constant T_min. Moreover, the comparison is between different task conditions: the hopping experiment is in-place with zero reference velocity, while the flying experiment includes tracking a reference velocity of up to 0.5 m/s (Fig. 7 and Section VI.A). A fair efficiency comparison should use the same task specification or explicitly report both tasks separately. Please provide repeated trials, error bars, exact T_min, and the experimental protocol.
  2. [Section IV.B and Table I] The terrestrial model in Eq. (7) treats the leg as a 'prismatic springy joint' but never specifies its spring stiffness, damping, or free length; these are hidden inside the generic h(q,v) term. The aerial model, Eqs. (5)–(6), ignores the leg dynamics entirely, with the justification that 'the leg and foot are of small weight.' However, Table I lists the carbon-fiber leg at 542 g, which is about 16.6% of the 3.272 kg total mass. This contradiction is load-bearing: energy circulation and hopping behavior depend directly on the leg compliance, and the relaxed contact gradients in Eqs. (21)–(29) rely on the leg-included dynamics. The paper must report the leg parameters (stiffness, damping, free length, effective mass) and either justify the small-weight assumption with data or include the leg dynamics in the model.
  3. [Section V.B, Eq. (20)] The MPC cost contains the term ∥E(x_k)−E_ref∥²_QE, which is described as enforcing 'coherent energy circulation.' However, E_ref is never defined. It is not stated whether E(x_k) is the total mechanical energy of the floating base, the energy of the leg spring, or a combined quantity; nor is the value of E_ref or its physical meaning specified. Because this term is central to the optimizer's mode selection and the claimed energy efficiency, the omission is a load-bearing reproducibility issue. Please define E(x_k) and E_ref explicitly, and explain how E_ref is chosen (e.g., from the desired hopping height or as an open parameter).
  4. [Section VI.A, System Identification] The actuation model in Eqs. (1)–(4) relies on coefficients c1–c4, and the text states they are identified through hardware experiments detailed in Section VI. However, no numerical values, confidence intervals, or identification residuals are reported. Furthermore, the paper enforces Ω1=Ω2, which sets τ_p=0; this makes c3 effectively unused and does not validate the coaxial moment model. Since these coefficients directly enter the MPC dynamics and therefore influence the planned contact modes and the efficiency result, the identified values and validation data should be reported.
minor comments (5)
  1. [Eq. (4) and Section IV.A] T_p is defined as a vector in Eq. (1), but in Eq. (4) it is used as a scalar magnitude (Tp). Please clarify notation, e.g., use |T_p| or define Tp as the scalar thrust magnitude.
  2. [Eqs. (23)–(24)] The expression for A_cc in Eq. (23) has unmatched brackets and the term 'Jns + Jts μ sign(λts)' is ambiguous. Please rewrite with explicit parentheses and define all subscripts (n, t, c, s) in the text near Eq. (21).
  3. [Section IV.B] The paper states the robot has 7 degrees of freedom on the ground (SE(3) plus one prismatic joint), but the aerial model in Eqs. (5)–(6) is a 6-DOF rigid body. The reduction from 7 to 6 DOF when the leg is ignored should be stated explicitly, and the effect on mass/inertia parameters should be quantified.
  4. [Section III.A and Table I] The text gives the total system mass as 'approximately 3.27 kg' and 'height of 4 feet.' Please use SI units throughout and verify the height: 4 feet seems large for a 3.27 kg pogo-style robot. Also, '10-inch radius' should be given in meters or millimeters.
  5. [Section III.B] The paper states that translational states are obtained from a motion capture system, and later describes 'autonomous mode transitions.' This is controller-level autonomy, not onboard autonomy. A sentence clearly stating this as a limitation (and distinguishing it from fully onboard operation) would prevent misinterpretation.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged

No significant circularity: efficiency and mode-emergence claims rest on hardware experiments and standard contact-implicit optimization, not on fitted-input predictions.

full rationale

The paper's central claims—automatic mode selection via CI-MPC and the 26.78% reduction in injected control effort for hopping vs. flying—are validated experimentally rather than derived from fitted parameters. The actuation coefficients c1–c4 are identified from bench tests (Section VI) and enter only the actuation model; they do not encode the efficiency result. The MPC cost (Eq. 20) does penalize control effort and energy deviation, so the optimizer is expected to seek low-effort solutions, but the empirical discovery that ground contact yields a lower-effort regime is not an identity: the optimizer could have failed to find hopping as a feasible solution. The contact-implicit dynamics use standard LCP formulations and externally developed DDP/Crocoddyl tools; no uniqueness theorem from the authors is invoked to force the result. Self-citations [6], [14], [19], [37] appear in related-work or future-extension contexts and are not load-bearing for the main claims. Reproducibility concerns exist—the leg spring stiffness, damping, and free length are not specified (Section IV.B), E_ref in Eq. (20) is not defined, and hardware translation states come from motion capture—but these are missing parameters or assumptions, not circular reductions. No equation in the paper reduces to its own input by construction.

Axiom & Free-Parameter Ledger

9 free parameters · 6 axioms · 0 invented entities

The central claims rest on several identified but mostly unreported parameters and strong modeling assumptions: fitted aerodynamic coefficients, unchosen MPC weights, an unparameterized leg spring, and heavy reliance on motion capture. These are not novel physical entities, but they are load-bearing inputs the reader must take on faith.

free parameters (9)
  • c1, c2 (propeller thrust coefficients) = not reported
    Identified from seesaw thrust-stand experiments; Eq. (1), Section VI. Values are not given in the paper.
  • c3 (coaxial moment coefficient) = not reported
    Identified from 3-DOF rotational stand moment measurements; Eq. (2), Section VI.
  • c4 (vane force coefficient) = not reported
    Identified from vane moment experiments; Eqs. (3)-(4), Section VI.
  • MPC cost weights Qx, QE, R = not reported
    Hand-tuned weights in Eq. (20); the relative weighting directly shapes whether hopping or flying emerges.
  • Energy reference E_ref = not reported
    Mechanical energy target in Eq. (20); chosen by the designers to encourage energy circulation.
  • Leg spring stiffness and damping = not reported
    The pogo leg is described qualitatively in Section III.A and modeled only as a 'prismatic springy joint' in Section IV.B; no stiffness, damping, or free length is given, although hopping efficiency depends on it.
  • Friction coefficient mu = not reported
    Assumed value for the polyhedral Coulomb friction cone in Eq. (16); not identified experimentally.
  • Relaxation variable rho = not reported
    Numerical smoothing parameter in Eq. (26)-(29); not specified, but it affects contact-breaking gradients.
  • Obstacle margin alpha = not reported
    Minimum-distance constraint parameter in Section V.B; chosen by the user and not reported.
axioms (6)
  • domain assumption Aerial flight can be modeled as a single rigid body with negligible leg and foot inertia.
    Section IV.B explicitly says 'we do not model the dynamics of the leg within the robot in aerial motion'; this is load-bearing for the planning model.
  • domain assumption Vane forces are linear in servo angle and proportional to total thrust: F_i = 0.5 ρ A c4 T_p α_i.
    Eq. (3)-(4) use small-angle and linear aerodynamics; no validation of this aero model beyond coefficient fitting is provided.
  • domain assumption The two coaxial propellers are constrained to equal speeds, so tau_p = 0.
    Section VI states this simplification is enforced in practice, eliminating one moment channel from the model.
  • domain assumption The LCP-based complementarity contact model with polyhedral friction cone adequately represents hopping impact and stance.
    Eq. (13)-(19) adopt the standard rigid-body contact formulation; the paper provides no contact-model validation against the real leg.
  • domain assumption Motion capture provides accurate translational state during all hardware experiments.
    Section III.B states translational states are obtained from a motion capture system; onboard visual-inertial estimation is mentioned only as future extension.
  • ad hoc to paper A cost function with a mechanical energy tracking term is a sufficient objective for generating energy-efficient hybrid locomotion.
    Eq. (20) adds E(x_k)-E_ref to the cost specifically to encourage energy circulation; the claimed 'emergent' hopping is in part encoded in this chosen objective.

pith-pipeline@v1.3.0-alltime-deepseek · 11288 in / 13726 out tokens · 158666 ms · 2026-08-01T15:08:14.595524+00:00 · methodology

0 comments
read the original abstract

We present a novel and minimalistic design of an aerial-terrestrial robot DASH: Ducted Aerial Spring Hopper. The goal is to enable both aerial and ground locomotion capabilities on a unified mobile robot that is mechanically-minimalistic, locomotion-versatile, and energy-efficient. We propose an organic integration of ducted fan co-axial body with a springy leg at the bottom for realization. The ducted fan module provides thrust-vectoring as the main actuation for agile flying; when it is combined with the light-weight spring leg, the robot realizes highly efficient ground hopping with energy circulation. Moreover, to realize optimal locomotion with two modes, we employ a contact-implicit model predictive controller to automatically choose locomotion modes and actuation. We successfully validated the design and control of DASH through a range of tasks, including periodic hopping, aerial flight, and mode-free locomotion with autonomous mode transitions during obstacle traversal.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2607.18527 by Conrad Ho, Jiarong Kang, Kunzhao Ren, Ryan Gomes Paiva, Xiangru Xu, Xiaobin Xiong.

Figure 1
Figure 1. Figure 1: (a) The hybrid robot DASH, equipped with unified actuation, [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p001_1.png] view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. Figure 2: Illustration of the mechanical components of DASH. [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p003_2.png] view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. Figure 3: Illustration of the electronics architecture of DASH. [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p003_3.png] view at source ↗
Figure 5
Figure 5. Figure 5: Control architecture of DASH enabling mode-free motion planning. [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p004_5.png] view at source ↗
Figure 6
Figure 6. Figure 6: Experimental results of CI-MPC controlled in-place hopping. [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p006_6.png] view at source ↗
Figure 9
Figure 9. Figure 9: Simulation results of DASH tracking a 0.3 m/s velocity command, [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p007_9.png] view at source ↗
Figure 10
Figure 10. Figure 10: Hybrid locomotion generated by the CI-MPC on hardware, where [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p007_10.png] view at source ↗
Figure 8
Figure 8. Figure 8: Comparison of mechanical energy circulation and control effort [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p007_8.png] view at source ↗

discussion (0)

Sign in with ORCID, Apple, or X to comment. Anyone can read and Pith papers without signing in.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

41 extracted references · 5 linked inside Pith

  1. [1]

    Optimization-based control for dynamic legged robots,

    P. M. Wensing, M. Posa, Y . Hu, A. Escande, N. Mansard, and A. Del Prete, “Optimization-based control for dynamic legged robots,” IEEE Transactions on Robotics, vol. 40, pp. 43–63, 2023

    2023

  2. [2]

    Bipedal walking on constrained footholds: Momentum regulation via vertical com control,

    M. Dai, X. Xiong, and A. Ames, “Bipedal walking on constrained footholds: Momentum regulation via vertical com control,” in2022 International Conference on Robotics and Automation (ICRA). IEEE, 2022, pp. 10 435–10 441

    2022

  3. [3]

    Float drone: A fully- actuated coaxial aerial robot for close-proximity operations,

    J. Lin, S. Ji, Y . Wu, T. Wu, Z. Han, and F. Gao, “Float drone: A fully- actuated coaxial aerial robot for close-proximity operations,”arXiv preprint arXiv:2503.00785, 2025

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2025

  4. [4]

    A ducted fan uav for safe aerial grabbing and transfer of multiple loads using electromagnets,

    Z. Yin and H. Pei, “A ducted fan uav for safe aerial grabbing and transfer of multiple loads using electromagnets,” in2024 IEEE/RSJ International Conference on Intelligent Robots and Systems (IROS), 2024, pp. 10 342–10 349

    2024

  5. [5]

    Hybrid locomotion at the insect scale: Combined flying and jumping for enhanced efficiency and versatility,

    Y .-H. Hsiao, S. Bai, Z. Guan, S. Kim, Z. Ren, P. Chirarattananon, and Y . Chen, “Hybrid locomotion at the insect scale: Combined flying and jumping for enhanced efficiency and versatility,”Science Advances, vol. 11, no. 15, p. eadu4474, 2025

    2025

  6. [6]

    Terrestrial locomotion of pogox: From hardware design to energy shaping and step-to-step dynamics based control,

    Y . Wang, J. Kang, Z. Chen, and X. Xiong, “Terrestrial locomotion of pogox: From hardware design to energy shaping and step-to-step dynamics based control,” in2024 IEEE International Conference on Robotics and Automation (ICRA), 2024, pp. 3419–3425

    2024

  7. [7]

    A letter on progress made on husky carbon: A legged- aerial, multi-modal platform,

    A. Salagame, S. Manjikian, C. Wang, K. V . Krishnamurthy, S. Pitroda, B. Gupta, T. Jacob, B. Mottis, E. Sihite, M. Ramezani, and A. Ramezani, “A letter on progress made on husky carbon: A legged- aerial, multi-modal platform,” 2022

    2022

  8. [8]

    An agile monopedal hopping quadcopter with synergistic hybrid locomotion,

    S. Bai, Q. Pan, R. Ding, H. Jia, Z. Yang, and P. Chirarattananon, “An agile monopedal hopping quadcopter with synergistic hybrid locomotion,”Science Robotics, vol. 9, no. 89, p. eadi8912, 2024

    2024

  9. [9]

    Legged and flying robots for disaster response,

    R. Siegwart, M. Hutter, P. Oettershagen, M. Burri, I. Gilitschenski, E. Galceran, and J. Nieto, “Legged and flying robots for disaster response,” inWorld engineering conference and convention (WECC). ETH-Z¨urich, 2015

    2015

  10. [10]

    Aerial robotic contact-based inspection: planning and control,

    K. Alexis, G. Darivianakis, M. Burri, and R. Siegwart, “Aerial robotic contact-based inspection: planning and control,”Autonomous Robots, vol. 40, no. 4, pp. 631–655, 2016

    2016

  11. [11]

    Nebula: Quest for robotic autonomy in challenging environments; team costar at the darpa subterranean challenge,

    A. Agha, K. Otsu, B. Morrell, D. D. Fan, R. Thakker, A. Santamaria- Navarro, S.-K. Kim, A. Bouman, X. Lei, J. Edlundet al., “Nebula: Quest for robotic autonomy in challenging environments; team costar at the darpa subterranean challenge,”arXiv preprint arXiv:2103.11470, 2021

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2021

  12. [12]

    Pogodrone: Design, model, and control of a jumping quadrotor,

    B. Zhu, J. Xu, A. Charway, and D. Salda ˜na, “Pogodrone: Design, model, and control of a jumping quadrotor,” in2022 International Conference on Robotics and Automation (ICRA). IEEE, 2022, pp. 2031–2037

    2022

  13. [13]

    Design and flight testing of the ducted-fan uav flight array system,

    T. Kim, H. Jeaong, S. Kim, I. Kim, S. Kim, J. Suk, and H.-S. Shin, “Design and flight testing of the ducted-fan uav flight array system,” Journal of Intelligent & Robotic Systems, vol. 107, no. 3, p. 32, 2023

    2023

  14. [14]

    Reference-steering via data- driven predictive control for hyper-accurate robotic flying-hopping locomotion,

    Y . Zeng, Y . Huang, and X. Xiong, “Reference-steering via data- driven predictive control for hyper-accurate robotic flying-hopping locomotion,”arXiv preprint arXiv:2411.18793, 2024

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2024

  15. [15]

    Skateduct: Utilizing vector thrust of ducted fan uavs for terrestrial-aerial locomotion,

    Z. Yin and H. Pei, “Skateduct: Utilizing vector thrust of ducted fan uavs for terrestrial-aerial locomotion,”IEEE Robotics and Automation Letters, vol. 10, no. 6, pp. 6047–6054, 2025

    2025

  16. [16]

    Trajectory planning and tracking of hybrid flying-crawling quadrotors,

    D. Hu, R. Xia, X. Jin, and Y . Tang, “Trajectory planning and tracking of hybrid flying-crawling quadrotors,”arXiv preprint arXiv:2312.08718, 2023

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2023

  17. [17]

    Self-supervised cost of transport estimation for multimodal path planning,

    V . Gherold, I. Mandralis, E. Sihite, A. Salagame, A. Ramezani, and M. Gharib, “Self-supervised cost of transport estimation for multimodal path planning,”IEEE Robotics and Automation Letters, vol. 10, no. 7, pp. 6872–6879, 2025

    2025

  18. [18]

    Unified terres- trial/aerial motion planning for hytaqs via nmpc,

    T. Wu, Y . Zhu, L. Zhang, J. Yang, and Y . Ding, “Unified terres- trial/aerial motion planning for hytaqs via nmpc,”IEEE Robotics and Automation Letters, vol. 8, no. 2, pp. 1085–1092, 2023

    2023

  19. [19]

    Energy-efficient motion planning for multi-modal hybrid loco- motion,

    H. T. Suh, X. Xiong, A. Singletary, A. D. Ames, and J. W. Bur- dick, “Energy-efficient motion planning for multi-modal hybrid loco- motion,” in2020 IEEE/RSJ International Conference on Intelligent Robots and Systems (IROS). IEEE, 2020, pp. 7027–7033

    2020

  20. [20]

    Contact- implicit model predictive control: Controlling diverse quadruped mo- tions without pre-planned contact modes or trajectories,

    G. Kim, D. Kang, J.-H. Kim, S. Hong, and H.-W. Park, “Contact- implicit model predictive control: Controlling diverse quadruped mo- tions without pre-planned contact modes or trajectories,”The Inter- national Journal of Robotics Research, vol. 44, no. 3, pp. 486–510, 2025

    2025

  21. [21]

    Hybrid ilqr model predictive control for contact implicit stabilization on legged robots,

    N. J. Kong, C. Li, G. Council, and A. M. Johnson, “Hybrid ilqr model predictive control for contact implicit stabilization on legged robots,” IEEE Transactions on Robotics, vol. 39, no. 6, pp. 4712–4727, 2023

    2023

  22. [22]

    Fast contact-implicit model predic- tive control,

    S. Le Cleac’h, T. A. Howell, S. Yang, C.-Y . Lee, J. Zhang, A. Bishop, M. Schwager, and Z. Manchester, “Fast contact-implicit model predic- tive control,”IEEE Transactions on Robotics, vol. 40, pp. 1617–1629, 2024

    2024

  23. [23]

    Contact-implicit model predictive control for dexterous in-hand manipulation: A long- horizon and robust approach,

    Y . Jiang, M. Yu, X. Zhu, M. Tomizuka, and X. Li, “Contact-implicit model predictive control for dexterous in-hand manipulation: A long- horizon and robust approach,” in2024 IEEE/RSJ International Con- ference on Intelligent Robots and Systems (IROS). IEEE, 2024, pp. 5260–5266

    2024

  24. [24]

    Reduced- order model guided contact-implicit model predictive control for humanoid locomotion,

    S. A. Esteban, V . Kurtz, A. B. Ghansah, and A. D. Ames, “Reduced- order model guided contact-implicit model predictive control for humanoid locomotion,”arXiv preprint arXiv:2502.15630, 2025

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2025

  25. [25]

    Multimodal locomotion: next genera- tion aerial–terrestrial mobile robotics,

    J. P. Ramirez and S. Hamaza, “Multimodal locomotion: next genera- tion aerial–terrestrial mobile robotics,”Advanced Intelligent Systems, vol. 7, no. 7, p. 2300327, 2025

    2025

  26. [26]

    Mtabot: An efficient morphable terrestrial-aerial robot with two transformable wheels,

    K. Shi, Z. Jiang, L. Ma, L. Qi, and M. Jin, “Mtabot: An efficient morphable terrestrial-aerial robot with two transformable wheels,” IEEE Robotics and Automation Letters, vol. 9, no. 2, pp. 1875–1882, 2024

    2024

  27. [27]

    Kou-iii: A bipedal robot with quadrotor-assisted locomotion,

    X. Zeng, L. Huang, G. Zhang, and Y . Li, “Kou-iii: A bipedal robot with quadrotor-assisted locomotion,”Mechatronics, vol. 107, p. 103310, 2025

    2025

  28. [28]

    B. W. McCormick,Aerodynamics of V/STOL flight. Courier Corpo- ration, 1999

    1999

  29. [29]

    Control of aerial robots: Hybrid force and position feedback for a ducted fan,

    L. Marconi and R. Naldi, “Control of aerial robots: Hybrid force and position feedback for a ducted fan,”IEEE Control Systems Magazine, vol. 32, no. 4, pp. 43–65, 2012

    2012

  30. [30]

    Design, modeling, and control of an aerial robot dragon: A dual-rotor- embedded multilink robot with the ability of multi-degree-of-freedom aerial transformation,

    M. Zhao, T. Anzai, F. Shi, X. Chen, K. Okada, and M. Inaba, “Design, modeling, and control of an aerial robot dragon: A dual-rotor- embedded multilink robot with the ability of multi-degree-of-freedom aerial transformation,”IEEE Robotics and Automation Letters, vol. 3, no. 2, pp. 1176–1183, 2018

    2018

  31. [31]

    Three-dimensional posture optimization for biped robot stepping over large ditch based on a ducted-fan propulsion system,

    Z. Huang, Z. Wang, J. Wei, J. Yu, Y . Zhou, P. Lao, X. Huang, X. Zhang, and Y . Zhang, “Three-dimensional posture optimization for biped robot stepping over large ditch based on a ducted-fan propulsion system,” in2020 IEEE/RSJ International Conference on Intelligent Robots and Systems (IROS), 2020, pp. 3591–3597

    2020

  32. [32]

    Whole-body nonlinear model predictive control through contacts for quadrupeds,

    M. Neunert, M. St ¨auble, M. Giftthaler, C. D. Bellicoso, J. Carius, C. Gehring, M. Hutter, and J. Buchli, “Whole-body nonlinear model predictive control through contacts for quadrupeds,”IEEE Robotics and Automation Letters, vol. 3, no. 3, pp. 1458–1465, 2018

    2018

  33. [33]

    Smooth approximations for hybrid optimal control problems with application to robotic walking,

    T. Westenbroek, X. Xiong, S. S. Sastry, and A. D. Ames, “Smooth approximations for hybrid optimal control problems with application to robotic walking,”IFAC-PapersOnLine, vol. 54, no. 5, pp. 181–186, 2021

    2021

  34. [34]

    Global planning for contact-rich manipulation via local smoothing of quasi-dynamic contact models,

    T. Pang, H. T. Suh, L. Yang, and R. Tedrake, “Global planning for contact-rich manipulation via local smoothing of quasi-dynamic contact models,”IEEE Transactions on robotics, vol. 39, no. 6, pp. 4691–4711, 2023

    2023

  35. [35]

    Mujoco ros: Integrating ros with the mujoco engine for accurate and scalable robotic simulation,

    D. P. Leins, R. Haschke, and H. Ritter, “Mujoco ros: Integrating ros with the mujoco engine for accurate and scalable robotic simulation,” in2025 IEEE International Conference on Simulation, Modeling, and Programming for Autonomous Robots (SIMPAR). IEEE, 2025, pp. 1–6

    2025

  36. [36]

    Contact models in robotics: a comparative analysis,

    Q. Le Lidec, W. Jallet, L. Montaut, I. Laptev, C. Schmid, and J. Carpentier, “Contact models in robotics: a comparative analysis,” IEEE Transactions on Robotics, vol. 40, pp. 3716–3733, 2024

    2024

  37. [37]

    Fast decentralized state estimation for legged robot locomotion via ekf and mhe,

    J. Kang, Y . Wang, and X. Xiong, “Fast decentralized state estimation for legged robot locomotion via ekf and mhe,”IEEE Robotics and Automation Letters, vol. 9, no. 12, pp. 10 914–10 921, 2024

    2024

  38. [38]

    Geometric tracking control of the attitude dynamics of a rigid body on so(3),

    T. Lee, “Geometric tracking control of the attitude dynamics of a rigid body on so(3),” inProceedings of the 2011 American Control Conference, 2011, pp. 1200–1205

    2011

  39. [39]

    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, 2014

    1955

  40. [40]

    A constrained kalman filter for rigid body systems with frictional contact,

    P. Varin and S. Kuindersma, “A constrained kalman filter for rigid body systems with frictional contact,” inInternational Workshop on the Algorithmic Foundations of Robotics. Springer, 2018, pp. 474– 490

    2018

  41. [41]

    Crocoddyl: An efficient and versatile framework for multi-contact optimal control,

    C. Mastalli, R. Budhiraja, W. Merkt, G. Saurel, B. Hammoud, M. Naveau, J. Carpentier, L. Righetti, S. Vijayakumar, and N. Mansard, “Crocoddyl: An efficient and versatile framework for multi-contact optimal control,” in2020 IEEE International Conference on Robotics and Automation (ICRA). IEEE, 2020, pp. 2536–2542

    2020