{'fraction_non_alphanumeric': 0.017978620019436346, 'fraction_numerical': 0.001943634596695821, 'mean_word_length': 5.620578778135048, 'pattern_counts': {'":': 0, '<': 0, '<?xml version=': 0, '>': 0, 'https://': 0, 'lorem ipsum': 0, 'www.': 0, 'xml': 0}, 'pii_count': 0, 'substrings_counts': 0, 'word_list_counts': {'cursed_substrings.json': 0, 'profanity_word_list.json': 0, 'sexual_word_list.json': 0, 'zh_pornsignals.json': 0}}
Benchmarking Dynamic Balancing Controllers for Humanoid Robots

This paper presents a comparison study of three control design approaches for humanoid balancing based on the Center of Mass (CoM) stabilization and body posture adjustment. The comparison was carried out under controlled circumstances allowing other researchers to replicate and compare our results with their own. The feedback control from state space design is based on simple models and provides sufficient robustness to control complex and high Degrees of Freedom (DoFs) systems, such as humanoids. The implemented strategies allow compliant behavior of the robot in reaction to impulsive or periodical disturbances, resulting in a smooth and human-like response while considering constraints. In this respect, we implemented two balancing strategies to compensate for the CoM deviation. The first one uses the robot’s capture point as a stability principle and the second one uses the Force/Torque sensors at the ankles to define a CoM reference that stabilizes the robot. In addition, was implemented a third strategy based on upper body orientation to absorb external disturbances and counterbalance them. Even though the balancing strategies are implemented independently, they can be merged to further increase balancing performance. The proposed strategies were previously applied on different humanoid bipedal platforms, however, their performance could not be properly benchmarked before. With this concern, this paper focuses on benchmarking in controlled scenarios to help the community in comparing different balance techniques. The key performance indicators (KPIs) used in our comparison are the CoM deviation, the settling time, the maximum measured orientation, passive gait measure, measured ankles torques, and reconstructed Center of Pressure (CoP). The benchmarking experiments were carried out in simulations and using the facility at Istituto Italiano di Tecnologia on the REEM-C humanoid robot provided by PAL robotics inside the EU H2020 project EUROBENCH framework.