Pith. sign in

REVIEW 3 major objections 5 minor 52 references

Physics-Guided Biomechanical Gait Adaptation for Humanoid Locomotion on Extreme Sloped Terrains

T0 review · 3 major / 5 minor · reviewed 2026-07-10 · grok-4.5

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

Pith's one-line read A two-stage physics-guided training scheme produces a fully proprioceptive humanoid policy that walks continuous outdoor grass slopes up to 32.1° without collapsing into a crouched low-CoM gait.

desk verdict Solid engineering advance on under-served steep-slope humanoid locomotion; the outdoor 32° grass result is real, the soft-prior transfer story is the only soft link. read the letter →

arxiv 2607.07830 v1 pith:V5KEN4WC submitted 2026-07-08 cs.RO

Xuanyu Chen , Mohan Liu , Dengchen Mei , Zhihao Gu , Haitian Zhang , Kaimin Mao , Haiyue Zhu , Shijun Yan
show 1 more author
Lin Wang
This is my paper · ORCID
classification cs.RO
keywords humanoidlocomotionslopedterrainsreinforcementlearningZeroMomentPointbiomechanicalgaitadaptationproprioceptivecontrolSim-to-Realcenterofmassregulation
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

Steep continuous slopes put a constant gravitational bias on a humanoid, so ordinary reinforcement-learning rewards often settle on a slow, crouched “Groucho” gait that buys short-term balance at the cost of posture and further slope capability. This paper claims that the problem can be solved by a two-stage procedure called HumoSlope. Stage I first learns a balance prior by measuring Zero-Moment-Point deviation on the local inclined support plane rather than a world-horizontal plane. Stage II then uses a training-only five-dimensional PCA slope descriptor to gate soft biomechanical reward terms that raise CoM height and switch between hip-dominant uphill propulsion and knee-oriented downhill braking. The deployed controller never sees the terrain sensors; it runs on proprioception alone. In simulation the policy finishes compound tracks up to 36°; outdoors it continuously traverses wet grass slopes of 62.7 % grade (32.1°). A sympathetic reader cares because the same gravitational-bias problem appears on everyday ramps and hillsides, and the method shows that physics-aligned balance plus biomechanically motivated reward gates can replace both crouching and online vision.

What carries the argument

HumoSlope: a two-stage framework whose Stage-I slope-adaptive ZMP regularizer (terrain-aligned deviation from a force-weighted support anchor) supplies a balance prior, and whose Stage-II Biomechanical Slope Gait Adapter (BSGA) gates CoM-height, hip/knee, and swing-leg soft rewards from a five-dimensional PCA terrain descriptor available only at training time.

What would settle it

Deploy the identical proprioceptive actor, trained without the BSGA reward gates or without the slope-adaptive ZMP term, on the same outdoor grass slope of measured grade ≥30°; if that ablated policy still completes continuous traversal while keeping mean CoM height comparable to the full model, the claimed necessity of the two-stage physics-guided adaptation is falsified.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

Generic model-free rewards for humanoid slope locomotion converge to an undesired low-center-of-mass crouched gait. HumoSlope prevents that degeneration by first installing a slope-adaptive ZMP regularizer evaluated on the local support plane, then using a privileged macroscopic terrain descriptor to gate soft biomechanical priors that modulate CoM height and lower-limb coordination. The resulting actor remains purely proprioceptive yet achieves continuous blind traversal of outdoor grass slopes up to 32.1° and simulated compound slopes up to 36°.

Load-bearing premise

A five-number PCA summary of a privileged height-scan patch, together with soft reward gates fitted from Stage-I rollouts, is rich enough that a purely proprioceptive actor can later walk unseen outdoor grass slopes without any online terrain sensing.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • Humanoid policies trained with ordinary tracking-and-survival rewards will systematically prefer low-CoM crouches on continuous inclines unless the balance metric is evaluated on the local support plane.
  • Training-time macroscopic slope descriptors can encode uphill/downhill joint-work asymmetry without requiring the deployed controller to carry cameras or depth sensors.
  • Compound uphill–downhill tracks with friction tiers normalized to tan(θ) become a stricter and more informative benchmark than isolated constant ramps.
  • Once the Stage-I balance prior exists, soft biomechanical gates alone are enough to convert a crouched warm-start into a faster, more upright slope gait.

Reading between the lines

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

  • The same local-plane ZMP construction may transfer to other persistent gravitational biases such as walking under constant external force or on banked curves.
  • If the PCA descriptor can be replaced by a short history of proprioceptive accelerations, the entire pipeline could become fully unsupervised with respect to height maps.
  • Abrupt slope transitions will remain a failure mode until some form of look-ahead cue is added, exactly as the paper’s own limitations section anticipates.
  • Peak knee-torque diagnostics from the ablations suggest that uncontrolled crouching is not merely aesthetic; it is a measurable overload that limits maximum grade.
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

3 major / 5 minor

Summary. The paper presents HumoSlope, a two-stage physics-guided RL framework for blind humanoid locomotion on continuous steep slopes. Stage I trains a proprioceptive actor–critic with a slope-adaptive ZMP regularizer that evaluates balance deviation on the local inclined support plane rather than a world-horizontal reference, producing a terrain-consistent balance prior. Stage II warm-starts from that actor and introduces the Biomechanical Slope Gait Adapter (BSGA), which uses a training-only five-dimensional PCA terrain descriptor (Eq. 1) extracted from height-scan patches to gate soft reward priors for slope-conditioned CoM height (Eq. 3), uphill/downhill lower-limb asymmetry (Eq. 4), and swing-hip guidance fitted from Stage-I rollouts (Eq. 5). The deployed actor remains purely proprioceptive. On held-out compound slope-track benchmarks the method reaches 77.1% success at 30° and a max grade of 36°, outperforming proprioceptive and one exteroceptive baseline; outdoor Unitree G1 demos show continuous traversal of grass slopes up to 32.1° with qualitative posture adaptation.

Significance. Continuous steep slopes are a distinct and under-studied regime for humanoid RL: they impose a persistent gravitational bias rather than discrete foothold selection, and generic rewards readily induce low-CoM “Groucho” gaits. The combination of a terrain-aligned ZMP prior with biomechanically motivated, descriptor-gated soft rewards is a concrete and transferable design pattern. Strengths include a held-out compound-track protocol with friction-tier normalization, three-checkpoint averaging, a full ablation suite (Table 2), biomechanical diagnostics (Fig. 5), and real outdoor video evidence on deformable grass. If the claimed transfer holds, the work supplies both a practical recipe for extreme-slope humanoid locomotion and a clear demonstration that physics- and biomechanics-informed reward shaping can mitigate posture degeneration without online exteroception.

major comments (3)
  1. [§4.2 Real-world experiments / Abstract] The headline outdoor claim (continuous blind traversal of grass slopes up to 32.1°) rests on qualitative figures (Figs. 1, 6) and narrative description. Unlike the simulation protocol (Table 1: three checkpoints × three friction tiers, SR/MXD/T_trav), the real-world section supplies no repeated-trial success rates, distance statistics, failure modes, or wetness/friction conditions. Because the load-bearing transfer argument is that Stage-II soft priors (Eqs. 3–5) remain informative once the privileged PCA descriptor is removed and the surface becomes deformable grass, quantitative outdoor metrics (or at least a clear statement of trial counts and observed failure modes) are needed to support the central claim at the strength asserted in the abstract.
  2. [§3.2 Eqs. (3)–(5); Table 2; Fig. 6] Table 2 shows that removing BSGA collapses SR to 0% at 20°, while Stage I alone retains 100% SR but with markedly lower CoM height and longer traversal time. This establishes necessity of BSGA in simulation, yet leaves open whether the fitted swing-hip trend (Eq. 5) and asymmetric CoM offsets (Eq. 3) are tuned to rigid sim geometry. A sensitivity or re-fit experiment (e.g., perturbing β0, β1 or b_up/b_down and re-evaluating both sim and real posture) would strengthen the causal link between the claimed physics-guided mechanism and the outdoor posture adaptation shown in Fig. 6.
  3. [§3.1 Slope-Adaptive ZMP Regularization] The slope-adaptive ZMP regularizer (Sec. 3.1) is a point-mass apparent-force surrogate with a contact-force-weighted support anchor. The paper correctly notes that a full ZMP/ZML formulation is noisy in massively parallel RL, but does not quantify how often the terrain-aligned intersection falls outside the actual support polygon or how sensitive r_ta_zmp is to the smoothing constant ε and scale σ_zmp. A short diagnostic (distribution of d_ta_zmp on steep segments, or ablation of the force-weighted anchor versus a simple mid-foot anchor) would make the Stage-I contribution more transparent and reproducible.
minor comments (5)
  1. [§3.2 / Implementation] Reward weights (w_com, w_bio, w_swing), ascent/descent offsets, and the PCA clip threshold θ_clip are free parameters listed only conceptually; a table or appendix of numerical values (and any tuning protocol) would aid reproducibility.
  2. [Fig. 5] Fig. 5 panels lack error bands or trial counts; given the three-checkpoint averaging used in Table 1, the same protocol should be stated for the biomechanical diagnostics.
  3. [§4.1 / Table 1] The friction-tier definition µ = tan(|θ|) + ∆ is clear, but the text should note whether the same tiers were used for the Max Grade sweep column of Table 1.
  4. [Eq. (1) and Eq. (4)] Minor notation: 1_up / 1_down appear both as indicators and as gating factors; a single sentence clarifying that they are binary regime flags would avoid ambiguity.
  5. [§2 Dynamic Balance] Related-work discussion of multi-contact ZMP/ZML (Caron et al., Brecelj & Petrič) is appropriate; a brief remark on why those geometric formulations were not used as hard constraints (rather than soft rewards) would help readers unfamiliar with the RL setting.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 0.0 of 10

No significant circularity: empirical two-stage RL method whose success metrics are external held-out tracks and real-world demos, not quantities forced by the Stage-I fits or soft priors.

full rationale

HumoSlope is an engineering RL pipeline (PPO actor-critic with asymmetric observations). Stage I adds a terrain-aligned ZMP deviation reward (point-mass surrogate on the local support plane estimated from stance foot); Stage II gates soft, low-weight biomechanical priors (CoM height target, hip/knee directional biases, swing hip-pitch reference) using a training-only 5-D PCA descriptor of the privileged height scan. The swing coefficients (Eq. 5) are fitted from Stage-I rollouts and used only as a soft training prior, not as a claimed first-principles prediction of an external observable. Performance claims (SR/MXD/Ttrav on held-out compound slope tracks up to 36°, real outdoor grass up to 32.1°) are measured against external environments and ablations that remove components; they are not recovered by construction from the fitted priors or the PCA definition. Biomechanical motivation cites independent human-locomotion literature. Minor co-author citations exist on unrelated topics and are not load-bearing for the slope claims. No self-definitional loop, no fitted quantity re-labeled as prediction, no uniqueness theorem imported from the authors, and no renaming of a known result. The derivation chain is therefore self-contained against external benchmarks.

Assumptions & free parameters 4 free parameters · 4 assumptions · 3 invented entities

The central claim rests on classical ZMP geometry, human biomechanics literature, and a set of hand-chosen reward gates and PCA descriptors introduced by the authors. No new physical constants are fitted; the free parameters are the usual RL reward weights and the linear fit for swing-hip targets. Invented entities are the named modules (HumoSlope, BSGA, slope-adaptive ZMP regularizer) whose only evidence is the performance tables themselves.

free parameters (4)
  • BSGA reward weights (w_com, w_bio, w_swing) and ascent/descent offsets (b_up, b_down)
    Hand-tuned soft priors that gate CoM height and joint preferences; values are not derived from first principles and directly affect posture metrics in Table 2.
  • Linear coefficients β0, β1 for swing-hip target (Eq. 5)
    Fitted from Stage-I rollouts; the swing reward tracks this fitted curve.
  • ZMP deviation scale σ_zmp and support-anchor smoothing ε
    Shape the dense Stage-I reward; chosen for training stability rather than measured.
  • PCA clip threshold θ_clip and normalized slope intensity ρ_slope
    Ad-hoc normalizations that control when biomechanical gates activate.
assumptions (4)
  • domain assumption Evaluating ZMP deviation on the local inclined support plane (rather than a world-horizontal plane) yields a terrain-consistent balance prior useful for RL.
    Stated in Sec. 3.1 and Fig. 3; classical ZMP theory is adapted but not re-proved for the point-mass surrogate used in massively parallel simulation.
  • domain assumption Human uphill/downhill joint-work asymmetries (hip propulsion, knee braking) transfer as useful soft priors for a bipedal humanoid of different morphology.
    Invoked via citations [16,18] and encoded in r_bio (Eq. 4); no independent validation that the same redistribution is optimal for the Unitree G1.
  • ad hoc to paper A five-dimensional PCA descriptor of a height-scan patch is a sufficient macroscopic slope cue for gating rewards and for the privileged critic.
    Defined in Eq. 1; introduced specifically for BSGA and not shown to be optimal among possible terrain summaries.
  • standard math PPO with asymmetric actor-critic and domain randomization is a valid optimization procedure for the claimed sim-to-real transfer.
    Standard in the cited locomotion literature; used without modification.
invented entities (3)
  • HumoSlope two-stage framework
    purpose: Organize the slope-adaptive ZMP warm-start and subsequent BSGA adaptation into a single training pipeline.
    Named contribution of the paper; evidence is the performance tables and real-world demos.
  • Biomechanical Slope Gait Adapter (BSGA)
    purpose: Gate CoM-height, hip/knee, and swing-leg soft rewards from a training-only PCA descriptor.
    Core Stage-II module; no external falsifiable prediction beyond the reported success rates.
  • Slope-adaptive ZMP regularizer (terrain-aligned d_zmp^ta)
    purpose: Provide a dense balance reward evaluated on the local support plane rather than a horizontal reference.
    Defined via the point-mass ray-plane intersection in Sec. 3.1; utility shown only by ablation.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Physics-Guided Biomechanical Gait Adaptation for Humanoid Locomotion on Extreme Sloped Terrains." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/V5KEN4WC

@misc{pith2026260707830,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Physics-Guided Biomechanical Gait Adaptation for Humanoid Locomotion on Extreme Sloped Terrains},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/V5KEN4WC}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2607.07830}
}
abstract

Model-free reinforcement learning has enabled impressive humanoid locomotion; however, control on steep slopes remains largely unexplored. Unlike flat or discrete terrains, sloped terrains impose a persistent gravitational bias that demands simultaneous stability and posture control. Consequently, under generic reward formulations, policies can converge to slow, conservative low-center-of-mass (CoM) crouched gaits. In this work, we propose a novel two-stage physics-guided framework, dubbed HumoSlope, dedicated to robust humanoid locomotion on diverse sloped terrains. Specifically, Stage I establishes a terrain-consistent balance prior by introducing a slope-adaptive Zero Moment Point (ZMP) regularizer evaluated directly on the local inclined support plane rather than a world-horizontal reference. To prevent the resulting policy from defaulting to a crouched posture, Stage II introduces the Biomechanical Slope Gait Adapter (BSGA). Utilizing extracted macroscopic terrain descriptors as privileged, training-only signals, BSGA dynamically gates soft reward priors to modulate CoM height and lower-limb coordination based on the estimated slope geometry -- encouraging hip-dominant uphill propulsion and knee-oriented downhill braking. Crucially, the deployed actor remains entirely proprioceptive, requiring no online exteroceptive sensing. Extensive Sim-to-Real experiments demonstrate that our framework effectively mitigates posture degeneration and enables blind, continuous traversal of outdoor grass slopes up to 62.7% ($32.1^\circ$), validating a physics-guided approach to challenging slope terrain adaptation.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2607.07830 by the authors.

Figure 1
Figure 1. Real-world locomotion on sloped terrains. Our robot traverses grassy slopes up to 62.7% (32.1 ◦ ) grade and generalizes to slippery surfaces, grass, wavy terrains, and level walkways. Abstract: Model-free reinforcement learning has enabled impressive humanoid locomotion; however, control on steep slopes remains largely unexplored. Un￾like flat or discrete terrains, sloped terrains impose a persistent gravitational b… view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. Overview of the proposed two-stage blind slope-locomotion framework. The actor uses [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p004_2.png] view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. On slope, the horizontal￾reference deviation dhoriz can differ from the terrain-aligned deviation d ta zmp. Approximation scope and support anchor. A strict ZMP/ZML reward would require estimating centroidal angular-momentum rates and a reliable contact-wrench support region, which are noisy and contact-solver depen￾dent in massively parallel RL. We thus use a point-mass apparent-force surrogate and avoid brittle co… view at source ↗
Figures from the paper (3 more)
Figure 4
Figure 4. Figure 4: Held-out compound slope-track benchmark and representative policy behaviors. (a) Our [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p006_4.png]
Figure 5
Figure 5. Figure 5: Biomechanical diagnostics. HumoSlope maintains a higher CoM height with mild slope [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p007_5.png]
Figure 6
Figure 6. Figure 6: Real-world posture on grass terrain [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p007_6.png]

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

52 extracted references · 52 canonical work pages

  1. [1]

    Rudin, D

    N. Rudin, D. Hoeller, P. Reist, and M. Hutter. Learning to walk in minutes using massively parallel deep reinforcement learning. InConference on robot learning, pages 91–100. PMLR, 2022

    work page 2022

  2. [2]

    Hwangbo, J

    J. Hwangbo, J. Lee, A. Dosovitskiy, D. Bellicoso, V . Tsounis, V . Koltun, and M. Hutter. Learn- ing agile and dynamic motor skills for legged robots.Science robotics, 4(26):eaau5872, 2019

    work page 2019

  3. [3]

    Radosavovic, T

    I. Radosavovic, T. Xiao, B. Zhang, T. Darrell, J. Malik, and K. Sreenath. Real-world humanoid locomotion with reinforcement learning.Science Robotics, 9(89):eadi9579, 2024

    work page 2024

  4. [4]

    Blind Bipedal Stair Traversal via Sim-to-Real Reinforcement Learning

    J. Siekmann, K. Green, J. Warila, A. Fern, and J. Hurst. Blind bipedal stair traversal via sim- to-real reinforcement learning.arXiv preprint arXiv:2105.08328, 2021

    work page Pith review arXiv 2021

  5. [5]

    H. Wang, Z. Wang, J. Ren, Q. Ben, T. Huang, W. Zhang, and J. Pang. Beamdojo: Learning agile humanoid locomotion on sparse footholds.arXiv preprint arXiv:2502.10363, 2025

    work page Pith review arXiv 2025

  6. [6]

    Humanoid Parkour Learning

    Z. Zhuang, S. Yao, and H. Zhao. Humanoid parkour learning.arXiv preprint arXiv:2406.10759, 2024

    work page Pith review arXiv 2024

  7. [7]

    Learning Humanoid Locomotion over Challenging Terrain

    I. Radosavovic, S. Kamat, T. Darrell, and J. Malik. Learning humanoid locomotion over chal- lenging terrain.arXiv preprint arXiv:2410.03654, 2024

    work page Pith review arXiv 2024

  8. [8]

    Advancing Humanoid Locomotion: Mastering Challenging Terrains with Denoising World Model Learning

    X. Gu, Y .-J. Wang, X. Zhu, C. Shi, Y . Guo, Y . Liu, and J. Chen. Advancing humanoid loco- motion: Mastering challenging terrains with denoising world model learning.arXiv preprint arXiv:2408.14472, 2024

    work page Pith review arXiv 2024

Show all 52 references
  1. [9]

    H. Song, H. Zhu, T. Yu, Y . Liu, M. Yuan, W. Zhou, H. Chen, and H. Li. Gait-adaptive per- ceptive humanoid locomotion with real-time under-base terrain reconstruction.IEEE Robotics and Automation Letters, 2026

    2026

  2. [10]

    Suliman, E

    W. Suliman, E. Davydenko, E. Chaikovskaia, and R. Gorbachev. Reinforcement learning- based footstep control for humanoid robots on complex terrain.IEEE Access, 2025

    2025

  3. [11]

    Unitree RL lab: Reinforcement learning implementation for unitree robots, based on IsaacLab, 2024

    Unitree Robotics. Unitree RL lab: Reinforcement learning implementation for unitree robots, based on IsaacLab, 2024. URLhttps://github.com/unitreerobotics/unitree_rl_ lab

    2024

  4. [12]

    T. A. McMahon, G. Valiant, and E. C. Frederick. Groucho running.Journal of applied physi- ology, 62(6):2326–2337, 1987

    1987

  5. [13]

    X. B. Peng, G. Berseth, K. Yin, and M. Van De Panne. Deeploco: Dynamic locomotion skills using hierarchical deep reinforcement learning.Acm transactions on graphics (tog), 36(4): 1–13, 2017

    2017

  6. [14]

    Vukobratovi ´c and J

    M. Vukobratovi ´c and J. Stepanenko. On the stability of anthropomorphic systems.Mathemat- ical biosciences, 15(1-2):1–37, 1972

    1972

  7. [15]

    W. Xie, C. Bai, J. Shi, J. Yang, Y . Ge, W. Zhang, and X. Li. Humanoid whole-body loco- motion on narrow terrain via dynamic balance and reinforcement learning. In2025 IEEE/RSJ International Conference on Intelligent Robots and Systems (IROS), pages 4751–4758. IEEE, 2025

    2025

  8. [16]

    Vernillo, M

    G. Vernillo, M. Giandolini, W. B. Edwards, J.-B. Morin, P. Samozino, N. Horvais, and G. Y . Millet. Biomechanics and physiology of uphill and downhill running.Sports Medicine, 47(4): 615–629, 2017

    2017

  9. [17]

    T. J. Roberts and R. A. Belliveau. Sources of mechanical power for uphill running in humans. Journal of Experimental Biology, 208(10):1963–1970, 2005. 9

    1963

  10. [18]

    A. E. Minetti, C. Moia, G. S. Roi, D. Susta, and G. Ferretti. Energy cost of walking and running at extreme uphill and downhill slopes.Journal of applied physiology, 2002

    2002

  11. [19]

    K. Pearson. Liii. on lines and planes of closest fit to systems of points in space.The London, Edinburgh, and Dublin philosophical magazine and journal of science, 2(11):559–572, 1901

    1901

  12. [20]

    Z. Xie, P. Clary, J. Dao, P. Morais, J. Hurst, and M. Panne. Learning locomotion skills for cassie: Iterative design and sim-to-real. InConference on Robot Learning, pages 317–329. PMLR, 2020

    2020

  13. [21]

    Z. Li, X. B. Peng, P. Abbeel, S. Levine, G. Berseth, and K. Sreenath. Reinforcement learning for versatile, dynamic, and robust bipedal locomotion control.The International Journal of Robotics Research, 44(5):840–888, 2025

    2025

  14. [22]

    Q. Ben, B. Xu, K. Li, F. Jia, W. Zhang, J. Wang, J. Wang, D. Lin, and J. Pang. Gallant: V oxel grid-based humanoid locomotion and local-navigation across 3d constrained terrains.arXiv preprint arXiv:2511.14625, 2025

    2025

  15. [23]

    J. He, C. Zhang, F. Jenelten, R. Grandia, M. B ¨acher, and M. Hutter. Attention-based map encoding for learning generalized legged locomotion.Science Robotics, 10(105):eadv3604, 2025

    2025

  16. [24]

    Agarwal, A

    A. Agarwal, A. Kumar, J. Malik, and D. Pathak. Legged locomotion in challenging terrains using egocentric vision. InConference on robot learning, pages 403–415. PMLR, 2023

    2023

  17. [25]

    J. Long, J. Ren, M. Shi, Z. Wang, T. Huang, P. Luo, and J. Pang. Learning humanoid locomo- tion with perceptive internal model. In2025 IEEE International Conference on Robotics and Automation (ICRA), pages 9997–10003. IEEE, 2025

    2025

  18. [26]

    W. Sun, L. Chen, Y . Su, B. Cao, Y . Liu, and Z. Xie. Learning humanoid locomotion with world model reconstruction.arXiv preprint arXiv:2502.16230, 2025

    2025 arXiv

  19. [27]

    Kumar, Z

    A. Kumar, Z. Fu, D. Pathak, and J. Malik. Rma: Rapid motor adaptation for legged robots. arXiv preprint arXiv:2107.04034, 2021

    2021 arXiv

  20. [28]

    Zhang, Y

    Y . Zhang, Y . Seo, J. Chen, Y . Yuan, K. Sreenath, P. Abbeel, C. Sferrazza, K. Liu, R. Duan, and G. Shi. Rpl: Learning robust humanoid perceptive locomotion on challenging terrains.arXiv preprint arXiv:2602.03002, 2026

    2026

  21. [29]

    Z. Gu, M. Yang, D. Zou, and D. Xu. Learning diffusion policy from primitive skills for robot manipulation.arXiv preprint arXiv:2601.01948, 2026

    2026

  22. [30]

    Gu and L

    Z. Gu and L. Wang. Limode: Rethinking lifelong robot manipulation from a mixture-of- dynamic-experts perspective.arXiv preprint arXiv:2606.26183, 2026

    2026 arXiv

  23. [31]

    Sardain and G

    P. Sardain and G. Bessonnet. Forces acting on a biped robot. center of pressure-zero moment point.IEEE Transactions on Systems, Man, and Cybernetics-Part A: Systems and Humans, 34 (5):630–637, 2004

    2004

  24. [32]

    Z. Gu, J. Li, W. Shen, W. Yu, Z. Xie, S. McCrory, X. Cheng, A. Shamsah, R. Griffin, C. K. Liu, et al. Humanoid locomotion and manipulation: Current progress and challenges in control, planning, and learning.IEEE/ASME Transactions on Mechatronics, 31(2):2300–2330, 2026

    2026

  25. [33]

    Kim, I.-W

    J.-Y . Kim, I.-W. Park, and J.-H. Oh. Walking control algorithm of biped humanoid robot on uneven and inclined floor.Journal of intelligent and robotic systems, 48(4):457–484, 2007

    2007

  26. [34]

    Seven, T

    U. Seven, T. Akbas, K. C. Fidan, M. Yilmaz, and K. Erbatur. Humanoid robot walking control on inclined planes. In2011 IEEE International Conference on Mechatronics, pages 875–880. IEEE, 2011. 10

    2011

  27. [35]

    Caron, Q.-C

    S. Caron, Q.-C. Pham, and Y . Nakamura. Zmp support areas for multicontact mobility under frictional constraints.IEEE Transactions on Robotics, 33(1):67–80, 2016

    2016

  28. [36]

    Brecelj and T

    T. Brecelj and T. Petri ˇc. Zero moment line—universal stability parameter for multi-contact systems in three dimensions.Sensors, 22(15):5656, 2022

    2022

  29. [37]

    R. C. Sheehan and J. S. Gottschall. At similar angles, slope walking has a greater fall risk than stair walking.Applied ergonomics, 43(3):473–478, 2012

    2012

  30. [38]

    N. T. Pickle, A. M. Grabowski, A. G. Auyang, and A. K. Silverman. The functional roles of muscles during sloped walking.Journal of biomechanics, 49(14):3244–3251, 2016

    2016

  31. [39]

    A. H. Dewolf, Y . Ivanenko, K. E. Zelik, F. Lacquaniti, and P. A. Willems. Kinematic patterns while walking on a slope at different speeds.Journal of Applied Physiology, 125(2):642–653, 2018

    2018

  32. [40]

    R. W. Nuckols, K. Z. Takahashi, D. J. Farris, S. Mizrachi, R. Riemer, and G. S. Sawicki. Mechanics of walking and running up and downhill: A joint-level perspective to guide design of lower-limb exoskeletons.PloS one, 15(8):e0231996, 2020

    2020

  33. [41]

    Papachatzis and K

    N. Papachatzis and K. Z. Takahashi. Mechanics of the human foot during walking on different slopes.PLoS One, 18(9):e0286521, 2023

    2023

  34. [42]

    X. B. Peng, P. Abbeel, S. Levine, and M. Van de Panne. Deepmimic: Example-guided deep re- inforcement learning of physics-based character skills.ACM Transactions On Graphics (TOG), 37(4):1–14, 2018

    2018

  35. [43]

    C. Yao, C. Liu, L. Xia, M. Liu, and Q. Chen. Humanoid adaptive locomotion control through a bioinspired cpg-based controller.Robotica, 40(3):762–779, 2022

    2022

  36. [44]

    J. Fang, Y . Jin, B. Wang, K. Zhou, M. Wang, and Z. Liu. Bio-inspired central pattern generator for adaptive gait generation and stability in humanoid robots on sloped surfaces.Biomimetics, 10(9):637, 2025

    2025

  37. [45]

    Liang, Y

    Y . Liang, Y . Zhao, and W. Yan. Terrain-adaptive bipedal locomotion via reinforcement learning with human-inspired stepping strategy. InInternational Conference on Intelligent Robotics and Applications, pages 624–636. Springer, 2025

    2025

  38. [46]

    F. Jin, Y . Wang, P. Ma, G. Yang, P. Zhao, E. Li, and Z. Zhang. Teacher motion priors: Enhanc- ing robot locomotion over challenging terrain. In2025 IEEE/RSJ International Conference on Intelligent Robots and Systems (IROS), pages 1100–1107. IEEE, 2025

    2025

  39. [47]

    Padulo, D

    J. Padulo, D. Powell, R. Milia, and L. P. Ardig `o. A paradigm of uphill running.PloS one, 8 (7):e69006, 2013

    2013

  40. [48]

    L. P. Kaelbling, M. L. Littman, and A. R. Cassandra. Planning and acting in partially ob- servable stochastic domains.Artificial Intelligence, 101(1):99–134, 1998. ISSN 0004-3702. doi:https://doi.org/10.1016/S0004-3702(98)00023-X. URLhttps://www.sciencedirect. com/science/arti...

    1998 doi

  41. [49]

    ˚Astr¨om

    K. ˚Astr¨om. Optimal control of markov processes with incomplete state information.Jour- nal of Mathematical Analysis and Applications, 10(1):174–205, 1965. ISSN 0022-247X. doi:https://doi.org/10.1016/0022-247X(65)90154-X. URLhttps://www.sciencedirect. com/science/article/pii/...

    1965 doi

  42. [50]

    Schulman, F

    J. Schulman, F. Wolski, P. Dhariwal, A. Radford, and O. Klimov. Proximal policy optimization algorithms, 2017. URLhttps://arxiv.org/abs/1707.06347. 11

    2017 arXiv

  43. [51]

    Mittal, P

    M. Mittal, P. Roth, J. Tigue, A. Richard, O. Zhang, P. Du, A. Serrano-Mu ˜noz, X. Yao, R. Zurbr ¨ugg, N. Rudin, L. Wawrzyniak, M. Rakhsha, A. Denzler, E. Heiden, A. Borovicka, O. Ahmed, I. Akinola, A. Anwar, M. T. Carlson, J. Y . Feng, A. Garg, R. Gasoto, L. Gulich, Y . Guo, M...

    2025 arXiv

  44. [52]

    Y . Seo, C. Sferrazza, H. Geng, M. Nauman, Z.-H. Yin, and P. Abbeel. Fasttd3: Simple, fast, and capable reinforcement learning for humanoid control.arXiv preprint arXiv:2505.22642, 2025. 12

    2025 arXiv

Pith tools

Reviewed July 10, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.