Pith. sign in

REVIEW 3 major objections 5 minor 26 references

One Net to Rule Them All: Domain Randomization in Quadcopter Racing Across Different Platforms

T0 review · 3 major / 5 minor · reviewed 2026-08-16 · deepseek-v4-flash

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

Pith's one-line read A single neural network trained with domain randomization can race both a 3-inch and a 5-inch quadcopter through a real figure-eight gate course, while per-drone policies trained with no randomization fail to transfer from simulation to…

desk verdict A solid two-drone existence proof for cross-platform DR racing, but the 'any platform' rhetoric outsells the data: both tested drones sit inside the randomization box. read the letter →

arxiv 2504.21586 v1 pith:Z7IXJNYD submitted 2025-04-30 cs.RO cs.AIcs.SYeess.SY

Robin Ferede , Till Blaha , Erin Lucassen , Christophe De Wagter , Guido C.H.E. de Croon This is my paper · ORCID
classification cs.ROcs.AIcs.SYeess.SY
keywords droneracingreinforcementlearningdomainrandomizationsim-to-realtransferrealitygapquadcoptercontrolneuralnetworkcontrollercross-platformgeneralization
verification ladder T0 review T1 audit T2 compute T3 formal

The pith

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

The reading

This paper claims that one neural-network controller can race two physically different quadcopters—a 3-inch and a 5-inch racer—by training in a simulator whose drone parameters are randomized and then deploying the same network unchanged on both real aircraft. The controller reads only the current state and information about the current and next gate, and it outputs four motor commands directly, with no per-platform tuning. Real flights reached roughly 10 m/s and completed the gate course on both platforms, while separately fine-tuned policies trained with zero randomization failed to transfer to the real drones. The finding matters because, if it holds, platform-specific controller identification and training can be replaced by one randomized policy, at the cost of a modest speed penalty.

What carries the argument

The load-bearing object is the parametric quadcopter model of Section II-A: a first-order motor model with force and moment coefficients estimated from manual flight data and normalized by maximum motor speed, so the same equations describe both airframes. The paper adds a domain-randomization layer: training samples each coefficient from uniform distributions whose ranges cover both the 3-inch and 5-inch parameter sets, so the policy cannot memorize one platform. The 20-dimensional observation—state expressed in the current gate frame plus the next gate's position and orientation—is what lets the same network perform guidance and control end-to-end.

What would settle it

Take the trained general network and fly it on a third quadcopter whose identified parameters fall inside the randomization ranges, such as a 4-inch racer, under the same track and measurement setup; if it passes substantially fewer gates or crashes within the same 12-second episodes, the claimed cross-platform generalization is refuted. In simulation, the equivalent test is to evaluate the general policy on parameter sets drawn from the same distributions but held out from training; if the crash rate rises far above the reported 1.2–5.4%, the policy has memorized the randomization ranges rather than generalizing.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

The central claim is that domain randomization suffices to bridge the sim-to-real gap for high-speed racing across distinct quadcopters. The general policy was trained with proximal policy optimization on a randomized parametric model in which motor limits, thrust and torque coefficients, and time constants are sampled from uniform ranges spanning both aircraft; the resulting three-layer, 64-unit ReLU network takes a 20-dimensional observation and directly outputs normalized motor commands. In three 12-second real flights per aircraft, this one network navigated the seven-gate figure-eight on both the 3-inch drone (31 gates passed, mean speed 6.31–6.38 m/s, max about 10.4–10.6 m/s) and the 5-inch drone (46 gates, mean speed about 7.8 m/s, max about 9.8 m/s). Fine-tuned policies trained on each airframe's identified parameters with 0% randomization flew only 5–13 gates in reality despite strong simulation scores, while 10–30% randomization transferred and flew faster than the general policy; the paper reads this as a robustness–speed trade-off controlled by randomization strength.

Load-bearing premise

The load-bearing premise is that the parametric simulator, with all platform coefficients estimated from manual flight data and gyroscopic effects ignored, captures the dynamics that matter at racing speeds; if effects such as motor saturation, blade flapping, or asymmetric inertia become significant at 10 m/s and beyond, the trained policies would not transfer to new platforms.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • A single network can be deployed on multiple physically distinct race quadcopters without retraining or per-platform parameter identification.
  • With zero randomization, otherwise strong simulation policies fail in reality, so some randomization is necessary for sim-to-real transfer in this racing task.
  • More randomization buys transferability but costs top speed: the 10% and 20% fine-tuned policies outran the general policy, while 30% randomization ran slower.
  • The general policy's real-world episode rewards were close to but below the fine-tuned 10% and 20% policies, suggesting the price of one-net-fits-all is moderate rather than prohibitive.

Reading between the lines

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

  • A testable extension the paper does not run: within the sampled parameter envelope, the same general policy should transfer to a third airframe such as a 4-inch racer without retraining; comparing its gate counts to the 3-inch and 5-inch results would directly test the breadth of the generalization.
  • Because the paper found that adding action history or parameter inputs did not improve reward, the policy likely learns a control law that is insensitive to the randomized parameters rather than an explicit parameter estimate; this suggests future work could investigate what invariant the network encodes.
  • The time-optimal comparison suggests the main remaining gap to optimal lap times is the reward function, not the generalization mechanism; combining domain randomization with a reward that encourages flying closer to gate edges could plausibly recover speed without losing transferability.
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 proposes a single PPO-trained neural network policy for quadcopter racing that maps the vehicle state and gate information directly to motor commands. The policy is trained in a parametric simulator with domain randomization over dynamic parameters, and the authors compare it with fine-tuned policies trained on identified 3-inch and 5-inch drone models at 0-30% randomization. The main empirical claims are that the general network flies both real drones through a figure-eight gate track at up to about 10 m/s, that 0% randomization fails to transfer while increasing randomization improves robustness but lowers speed, and that the general policy is slightly slower than the best fine-tuned policies but transfers across platforms. The paper reports 1000-rollout simulation evaluations, real flights with three trials per condition, and an optimal-control lap-time comparison.

Significance. If the results hold, the paper provides a useful demonstration that a single end-to-end racing policy can transfer across two substantially different quadcopter sizes, with an important negative control (0% randomization) and an openly available implementation. The novelty relative to earlier domain-randomization quadrotor work (e.g., Molchanov et al. [16]) is the extension to high-speed racing and the systematic ablation of randomization level. However, the central generalization claim is demonstrated only as interpolation: both test drones lie inside the randomization ranges that were designed from their identified parameters. The evidence base is small, and the model omits effects that matter at high speed, so the broad 'any platform' claim requires a holdout platform or a more cautious wording.

major comments (3)
  1. [Sec. II-C.1 / Abstract / Conclusion] The generalization claim goes beyond what the experiments establish. Table II and the text state that the uniform randomization ranges were 'designed to encompass parameters from both sizes'; both test quadcopters therefore lie inside the support of the training distribution. The real-world successes on the 3-inch and 5-inch drones demonstrate robust interpolation inside a hand-picked parameter box, not extrapolation to 'various types' of quadcopters or 'any platform' as claimed in the abstract and conclusion. To support the headline contribution, the authors should either add a holdout platform whose identified parameters fall outside the training ranges, or substantially reword the generalization claims.
  2. [Sec. II-A and Sec. IV-C] The sim-to-real transfer rests on a parametric model that the paper itself acknowledges is simplified: gyroscopic effects are ignored, the moment of inertia is estimated indirectly, and motor saturation, blade flapping, and other high-speed aerodynamic effects are absent. With only three 12-second real flights per condition and no reported statistical analysis, the quantitative claims -- for example, that reward increases as randomization decreases from 30% to 10%, or that 0% randomization fails -- are vulnerable to run-to-run noise. The paper should report confidence intervals or additional trials for the real flights, and should temper claims about the model's adequacy for platforms other than the two tested.
  3. [Sec. IV-C, Tables IV and V] The statement that 'at 0% randomization, the drone no longer passes through the gates' is internally inconsistent with the data in the same tables: the 0% policy passes 5, 5, and 7 gates on the 3-inch drone and 8, 13, and 8 gates on the 5-inch drone in real flight. The correct observation is that the episode reward collapses relative to simulation and the flights do not complete the intended track. This matters because the 0% condition is the central negative control for the domain-randomization argument; the paper should state precisely what failure criterion defines 'fails to transfer'.
minor comments (5)
  1. [Sec. II-A, footnote 1] The footnote contains typos: 'inderectly' should be 'indirectly' and 'throught' should be 'through'.
  2. [Sec. II-D, Eq. (3)] The notation pgi, vgi, λgi, and the superscripts on pgi+1 and ψgi+1 should be defined in the text; the reference-frame notation is not explained before use.
  3. [Tables IV and V] The abbreviation 'ep rew' is not defined; define it as 'episode reward' in the captions to improve readability.
  4. [Sec. II-C.2] The cap on kl during fine-tuning is described only in prose; the fine-tuning description and Table II should state the cap explicitly so that the procedure is fully reproducible.
  5. [Sec. IV-D] The optimal-control comparison omits drag terms, as the authors note, and the claim that the RL path is 'relatively far away from the edges of the gates' is not quantified; a trajectory-overlay figure or a distance metric would support this point.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 1.0 of 10

No circularity; the sim-to-real claim rests on external real-world flights, with only a generalization-scope caveat.

full rationale

The paper's central claim is an empirical demonstration: a single network trained with domain randomization controls two physically distinct drones in real flight. These real-world flights are external benchmarks whose outcomes are not determined by any fitted equation or by the training objective, so the result does not reduce to its inputs by construction. The model parameters in Table I are identified from manual flight data via linear regression, and the randomization ranges in Table II are broad uniform intervals explicitly designed to encompass both drones. Both test platforms therefore lie inside the support of the training distribution, which means the demonstrated success is robust interpolation within a hand-chosen parameter box rather than extrapolation to a held-out platform type. This is a legitimate scope limitation of the generalization claim, but it is not circularity. The paper itself flags related weaknesses: gyroscopic effects are ignored in Section II-A, each real flight condition is repeated only three times for twelve seconds, and attempted online adaptation 'did not achieve the desired improvements' in Section V. These caveats weaken confidence in broad claims about 'any platform,' but they do not make the derivation equivalent to its inputs. Self-citations to the authors' prior work provide the parametric modeling and control conventions, yet no load-bearing step reduces to an unverified self-citation: the policy is trained in a randomized simulator and then evaluated against real drone trajectories, which is independent evidence. I found no fitted parameter renamed as a prediction, no self-definitional loop, and no imported 'uniqueness theorem' forcing the choice of architecture. The main unverified inference is from two successful drones to 'various types of quadcopters' and 'any platform,' which is an over-generalization concern, not a circularity concern. Score 1 reflects a minor scope overreach while acknowledging that the core empirical result is self-contained against external real-world benchmarks.

Assumptions & free parameters 6 free parameters · 4 assumptions · 0 invented entities

The central claim rests on a parametric simulation model whose parameters are fitted to flight data, plus hand-chosen randomization distributions and training hyperparameters. The model parameters (Table I) are fitted values, and the DR ranges (Table II) are hand-selected to span the two drones; these are the main free choices that determine whether the general policy works. The method also assumes that the simplified dynamics and the DR framework are sufficient for sim-to-real transfer, which is validated only for the two tested platforms.

free parameters (6)
  • Domain randomization ranges for general policy = U intervals in Table II; e.g., kω~U(10,30), ωmax~U(3000,5000)
    Hand-chosen in Table II to span both drones' identified parameters; determines the training distribution.
  • Fine-tuning randomization percentages = 0%, 10%, 20%, 30%
    chosen by hand in Sec. II-C.2 to probe the robustness-speed trade-off.
  • Reward rate-penalty coefficient c = 0.001
    set in Sec. II-B; influences aggressiveness.
  • Network architecture (layers x neurons) = 3 x 64
    selected in Sec. IV-A by mean episode reward over three runs.
  • 3-inch identified model parameters = see Table I (e.g., kω=14.3, ωmax=4887.57 rad/s)
    fitted via linear regression from manual flight data (Sec. II-A).
  • 5-inch identified model parameters = see Table I (e.g., kω=27.1, ωmax=3295.5 rad/s)
    fitted via linear regression from manual flight data (Sec. II-A).
assumptions (4)
  • domain assumption The parametric quadcopter model in Eqs. (1)-(2), including first-order motor dynamics, linear drag, and no gyroscopic effects, is an adequate representation of real quadcopter dynamics for sim-to-real transfer.
    Sec. II-A states gyroscopic effects are ignored and moment of inertia is only indirectly estimated through the k constants. Real-flight success supports this, but the model is a simplification and could miss dynamics at higher speeds.
  • domain assumption Domain randomization over the model parameters produces a policy that transfers to any real quadcopter whose parameters lie within the randomized ranges.
    This is the core premise of the method. It is validated only for the 3-inch and 5-inch drones tested, not for the full ranges in Table II.
  • domain assumption The reward function in Sec. II-B, based on progress through gates with a rate penalty and collision penalty, is a suitable proxy for time-optimal racing.
    Sec. IV-D explicitly notes that the 10% randomized network achieves higher reward but fewer gates than the 20% variant, indicating the reward does not perfectly align with lap-time optimality.
  • domain assumption The model parameters identified via linear regression for each drone (Table I) are accurate enough to serve as ground truth for fine-tuned training and for simulator evaluation.
    Sec. II-A describes the identification but provides no error analysis; the fine-tuned policies' real-world performance is the only indirect validation.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of One Net to Rule Them All: Domain Randomization in Quadcopter Racing Across Different Platforms." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/Z7IXJNYD

@misc{pith2026250421586,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: One Net to Rule Them All: Domain Randomization in Quadcopter Racing Across Different Platforms},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/Z7IXJNYD}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2504.21586}
}
read the original abstract

In high-speed quadcopter racing, finding a single controller that works well across different platforms remains challenging. This work presents the first neural network controller for drone racing that generalizes across physically distinct quadcopters. We demonstrate that a single network, trained with domain randomization, can robustly control various types of quadcopters. The network relies solely on the current state to directly compute motor commands. The effectiveness of this generalized controller is validated through real-world tests on two substantially different crafts (3-inch and 5-inch race quadcopters). We further compare the performance of this generalized controller with controllers specifically trained for the 3-inch and 5-inch drone, using their identified model parameters with varying levels of domain randomization (0%, 10%, 20%, 30%). While the generalized controller shows slightly slower speeds compared to the fine-tuned models, it excels in adaptability across different platforms. Our results show that no randomization fails sim-to-real transfer while increasing randomization improves robustness but reduces speed. Despite this trade-off, our findings highlight the potential of domain randomization for generalizing controllers, paving the way for universal AI controllers that can adapt to any platform.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2504.21586 by the authors.

Figure 1
Figure 1. We train a single neural network to control physically distinct [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p001_1.png] view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. This picture shows the drone used for testing. Instead of bolts, four [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p003_2.png] view at source ↗
Figure 4
Figure 4. Comparison of training performance with various input modifica [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p004_4.png] view at source ↗
Figures from the paper (3 more)
Figure 5
Figure 5. Figure 5: Comparison of real-world and simulated flight trajectories for 3-inch and 5-inch quadcopters, using the general policy (for both platforms) and [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p005_5.png]
Figure 6
Figure 6. Figure 6: Domain randomization enables the same network to fly different [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p006_6.png]
Figure 7
Figure 7. Figure 7: The optimal control solution through the race track for the 5inch [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p006_7.png]

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

26 extracted references · 12 canonical work pages

  1. [24]

    Modelling and development of a vibration-based electromagnetic energy harvester for industrial centrifugal pump application,

    S. F. ul Haq Gilani, M. H. bin Mohd Khir, R. Ibrahim, E. ul Hassan Kirmani, and S. I. ul Haq Gilani, “Modelling and development of a vibration-based electromagnetic energy harvester for industrial centrifugal pump application,”Microelectronics Journal, vol. 66, pp. 103–111, 2017. [Online]. Available: https: //www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S002...

    work page 2017

  2. [16]

    Sim-to-(multi)-real: Transfer of low-level robust control policies to multiple quadrotors,

    A. Molchanov, T. Chen, W. H ¨onig, J. A. Preiss, N. Ayanian, and G. S. Sukhatme, “Sim-to-(multi)-real: Transfer of low-level robust control policies to multiple quadrotors,” in 2019 IEEE/RSJ International Conference on Intelligent Robots and Systems (IROS) . IEEE, 2019, pp. 59–66

    work page 2019

  3. [1]

    Classifications, applications, and design challenges of drones: A review,

    M. Hassanalian and A. Abdelkefi, “Classifications, applications, and design challenges of drones: A review,” Progress in Aerospace Sci- ences, vol. 91, pp. 99–131, 2017

    work page 2017

  4. [2]

    Autonomous Drone Racing: A Survey,

    D. Hanover, A. Loquercio, L. Bauersfeld, A. Romero, R. Penicka, Y . Song, G. Cioffi, E. Kaufmann, and D. Scaramuzza, “Autonomous Drone Racing: A Survey,” IEEE Transactions on Robotics , vol. 40, pp. 3044–3067, Jan. 2024

    work page 2024

  5. [3]

    Au- tonomous drone racing with deep reinforcement learning,

    Y . Song, M. Steinweg, E. Kaufmann, and D. Scaramuzza, “Au- tonomous drone racing with deep reinforcement learning,” in 2021 IEEE/RSJ International Conference on Intelligent Robots and Systems (IROS). IEEE, 2021, pp. 1205–1212

    work page 2021

  6. [4]

    Learning minimum-time flight in cluttered environments,

    R. Penicka, Y . Song, E. Kaufmann, and D. Scaramuzza, “Learning minimum-time flight in cluttered environments,” IEEE Robotics and Automation Letters, vol. 7, no. 3, pp. 7209–7216, 2022

    2022

  7. [5]

    Reaching the limit in autonomous racing: Optimal control versus reinforcement learning,

    Y . Song, A. Romero, M. M ¨uller, V . Koltun, and D. Scaramuzza, “Reaching the limit in autonomous racing: Optimal control versus reinforcement learning,” Science Robotics, vol. 8, no. 82, p. eadg1462,

  8. [6]

    Champion-level drone racing using deep reinforcement learning,

    E. Kaufmann, L. Bauersfeld, A. Loquercio, M. M ¨uller, V . Koltun, and D. Scaramuzza, “Champion-level drone racing using deep reinforcement learning,” Nature, vol. 620, no. 7976, pp. 982–987, Aug 2023. [Online]. Available: https://doi.org/10.1038/s41586-023-06419-4

    doi:10.1038/s41586-023-06419-4 2023

Show all 26 references
  1. [7]

    Learning to Fly in Sec- onds,

    J. Eschmann, D. Albani, and G. Loianno, “Learning to Fly in Sec- onds,” Nov. 2023, arXiv:2311.13081

    2023 arXiv

  2. [8]

    Analysis of randomization effects on sim2real transfer in reinforcement learning for robotic manipulation tasks,

    J. Josifovski, M. Malmir, N. Klarmann, B. L. ˇZagar, N. Navarro- Guerrero, and A. Knoll, “Analysis of randomization effects on sim2real transfer in reinforcement learning for robotic manipulation tasks,” in 2022 IEEE/RSJ International Conference on Intelligent Robots and Syste...

    2022

  3. [9]

    Learning dexterous in-hand manipulation,

    O. M. Andrychowicz, B. Baker, M. Chociej, R. Jozefowicz, B. Mc- Grew, J. Pachocki, A. Petron, M. Plappert, G. Powell, A. Ray et al., “Learning dexterous in-hand manipulation,” The International Journal of Robotics Research , vol. 39, no. 1, pp. 3–20, 2020

    2020

  4. [10]

    Deep drone racing: From simulation to reality with domain randomization,

    A. Loquercio, E. Kaufmann, R. Ranftl, A. Dosovitskiy, V . Koltun, and D. Scaramuzza, “Deep drone racing: From simulation to reality with domain randomization,” IEEE Transactions on Robotics, vol. 36, no. 1, pp. 1–14, 2019

    2019

  5. [11]

    Domain randomization for transferring deep neural networks from simulation to the real world,

    J. Tobin, R. Fong, A. Ray, J. Schneider, W. Zaremba, and P. Abbeel, “Domain randomization for transferring deep neural networks from simulation to the real world,” in 2017 IEEE/RSJ international con- ference on intelligent robots and systems (IROS) . IEEE, 2017, pp. 23–30

    2017

  6. [12]

    End-to-end neural network based optimal quadcopter control,

    R. Ferede, G. de Croon, C. De Wagter, and D. Izzo, “End-to-end neural network based optimal quadcopter control,” Robotics and Autonomous Systems, vol. 172, p. 104588, 2024

    2024

  7. [13]

    Guidance & control networks for time-optimal quadcopter flight,

    S. Origer, C. De Wagter, R. Ferede, G. C. de Croon, and D. Izzo, “Guidance & control networks for time-optimal quadcopter flight,” arXiv preprint arXiv:2305.02705 , 2023

    2023 arXiv

  8. [14]

    End-to-end reinforcement learning for time-optimal quadcopter flight,

    R. Ferede, C. De Wagter, D. Izzo, and G. C. De Croon, “End-to-end reinforcement learning for time-optimal quadcopter flight,” in 2024 IEEE International Conference on Robotics and Automation (ICRA) . IEEE, 2024, pp. 6172–6177

    2024

  9. [15]

    Domain randomization via entropy maximization,

    G. Tiboni, P. Klink, J. Peters, T. Tommasi, C. D’Eramo, and G. Chal- vatzaki, “Domain randomization via entropy maximization,” arXiv preprint arXiv:2311.01885, 2023

    2023 arXiv

  10. [17]

    Control of Unknown Quadrotors from a Single Throw,

    T. Blaha, E. Smeur, and B. Remes, “Control of Unknown Quadrotors from a Single Throw,” arXiv, vol. arXiv:2406.11723, 2024

    2024 arXiv

  11. [18]

    Adaptive Incremental Nonlinear Dynamic Inversion for Attitude Control of Micro Air Vehicles,

    E. J. J. Smeur, Q. Chu, and G. C. H. E. de Croon, “Adaptive Incremental Nonlinear Dynamic Inversion for Attitude Control of Micro Air Vehicles,” Journal of Guidance, Control, and Dynamics , vol. 39, no. 3, pp. 450–461, Mar. 2016

    2016

  12. [19]

    Learning a Single Near-hover Position Controller for Vastly Different Quadcopters,

    D. Zhang, A. Loquercio, X. Wu, A. Kumar, J. Malik, and M. W. Mueller, “Learning a Single Near-hover Position Controller for Vastly Different Quadcopters,” May 2023

    2023

  13. [20]

    Proximal policy optimization algorithms,

    J. Schulman, F. Wolski, P. Dhariwal, A. Radford, and O. Klimov, “Proximal policy optimization algorithms,” arXiv preprint arXiv:1707.06347, 2017

    2017 arXiv

  14. [21]

    Stable-baselines3: Reliable reinforcement learning implementations,

    A. Raffin, A. Hill, A. Gleave, A. Kanervisto, M. Ernestus, and N. Dormann, “Stable-baselines3: Reliable reinforcement learning implementations,” Journal of Machine Learning Research , vol. 22, no. 268, pp. 1–8, 2021. [Online]. Available: http://jmlr.org/papers/ v22/20-1364.html

    2021

  15. [22]

    Demonstrating agile flight from pixels without state estimation,

    I. Geles, L. Bauersfeld, A. Romero, J. Xing, and D. Scaramuzza, “Demonstrating agile flight from pixels without state estimation,” arXiv preprint arXiv:2406.12505 , 2024

    2024 arXiv

  16. [23]

    Moongel damper pads,

    RTOM Corporation, “Moongel damper pads,” https://rtom.com/ moongel-damper-pad/, accessed: August 20, 2024

    2024

  17. [25]

    OptimalControl.jl: a Julia package to model and solve optimal control problems with ODE’s

    J.-B. Caillau, O. Cots, J. Gergaud, P. Martinon, and S. Sed, “OptimalControl.jl: a Julia package to model and solve optimal control problems with ODE’s.” [Online]. Available: https://control-toolbox. org/OptimalControl.jl

  18. [2023]

    Available: https://www.science.org/doi/abs/10.1126/ scirobotics.adg1462

    [Online]. Available: https://www.science.org/doi/abs/10.1126/ scirobotics.adg1462

Pith tools

Reviewed August 16, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.