Open Efficiency Benchmarks Will Unlock the Next Wave of Humanoids

The fastest‑moving story in legged robotics right now isn’t a viral demo—it’s a data gap. Today’s most visible humanoids run on electric brushless motors with compact transmissions and, in many cases, series elasticity. Yet joint‑resolved efficiency maps, standardized cost of transport, and regeneration fractions remain absent from public materials for the sector’s marquee platforms. That silence is more than a marketing choice; it obscures the single most important determinant of mobility range, thermal reliability, and real‑world task performance.

Here’s the thesis: open, comparable efficiency benchmarks are now the critical path to unlocking humanoids that are longer‑lasting, safer, and more capable. This article lays out a concrete, innovation‑oriented playbook—from standardized task suites and regeneration‑aware control to SEA co‑design, thermal intelligence, and power electronics choices—plus a five‑year roadmap the community can rally around. Expect a blueprint for what to measure, how to report it, and where new research will have outsized impact.

From marketing claims to comparable evidence: why openness matters

Humanoid platforms have converged on electric actuation—PMSM/BLDC motors married to harmonic, cycloidal, planetary, or belt transmissions—with some joints adopting direct drive (DD) or quasi‑direct drive (QDD) to prioritize transparency and backdrivability. This architectural convergence hides major differences in how efficiently each joint converts electrical input into mechanical output across real duty cycles. Without joint‑level efficiency maps and standardized cost of transport (COT), cross‑platform comparisons devolve into incompatible anecdotes.

Openness matters because efficiency is not a single number. It’s a map—η_joint(τ, ω, T)—defined over torque, speed, and temperature. It is shaped by reflected inertia, friction, winding selection, inverter losses, lubrication, ambient conditions, and the planner’s control decisions. Publish the map, and integrators can predict how a robot behaves on level ground at 1.0 m/s versus uneven floors, or how it derates during quasi‑static tasks like squatting with payloads. Keep it private, and customers cannot compare robots on anything more rigorous than a showreel.

The current state of public documentation confirms the gap: capability‑focused pages rarely include joint efficiency maps, standardized COT across speeds and payloads, regeneration fractions for downhill and deceleration events, or thermal derating curves. That omission is exactly what a sector‑wide benchmark can fix—if stakeholders agree on common tasks, environmental controls, and reporting formats.

Standardized task suites as a foundation for progress

Comparable results start with comparable work. A task suite should stress locomotion modes that expose both positive and negative work, steady state and transients, and dynamic and quasi‑static regimes. A practical baseline includes:

• Level walking at 0.5, 1.0, and 1.5 m/s over ≥200 m, with separate start and stop segments to isolate transients.
• Running at 2.5 m/s where supported.
• Stair or 10° slope ascent/descent for three cycles to probe sustained positive/negative work and regeneration.
• EUROBENCH‑style uneven floors and compliant mats at 1.0 m/s.
• Push recovery during 1.0 m/s walking and in‑place stance using standardized impulses.
• Squats: 10 repetitions to a prescribed depth/cadence, plus static holds at 50% and 80% of rated continuous knee torque for 30 s.
• Repeat 1.0 m/s walking and stairs with 10 kg and 20 kg chest‑mounted payloads.

Environmental controls lock down temperature and humidity: ambient 20 ± 2 °C, RH 40–60%, with specified airflow and footwear. Normalization removes excuses. Publish gross energy and COT (total electrical energy divided by mass × gravity × distance), and state when payload mass is included. Provide the planner/controller settings used for each run so that others can reproduce the results.

Why these tasks? They map directly onto efficiency‑critical phenomena: low‑speed friction and hysteresis penalties, dynamic reversal efficiency, regeneration during negative work, disturbance rejection, and thermal headroom under continuous torque. They also align with established benchmarking modules and measurement philosophies, which accelerates adoption and comparability.

Emerging research: regeneration‑aware control and battery acceptance policies

Regeneration is the unclaimed dividend in humanoid energetics. Heel‑strike, downhill walking, stair descent, and braking all offer negative work that can flow back to the DC bus—if drivetrain friction is low, inverter policies permit reverse energy, and the battery accepts charge within safe voltage and current limits.

Two ingredients determine whether that potential becomes real:

• Low‑loss actuation. DD and low‑ratio QDD preserve backdrivability and minimize friction, allowing energy to flow backward through the drivetrain. High‑ratio harmonic and some multi‑stage gear trains raise friction and hysteresis, reducing low‑speed energy recovery.
• Controller‑plus‑power‑stage policy. Regeneration must be explicitly enabled. Publish DC‑bus voltage thresholds, current limits, and braking strategies, and report regeneration fractions as both energy on the DC bus and net battery‑side reduction in draw during negative work phases.

A regeneration‑aware controller also needs accurate joint torque–speed histograms for each task, mapped against the measured η_joint(τ, ω, T). Those histograms reveal where the robot actually lives in its efficiency map, illuminating opportunities for planner adjustments (e.g., timing ankle push‑off or modulating knee damping) that increase net energy returned without destabilizing gait. Without these disclosures, claims of “energy‑efficient locomotion” are impossible to verify.

SEA co‑design and impedance shaping for cyclic locomotion

Series Elastic Actuators (SEA) add a tunable spring in series with the transmission. Done well, this reduces apparent impedance, absorbs shocks, and stores/returns energy in cyclic tasks. The payoff is task‑dependent:

• In running or brisk walking, well‑tuned SEA can shift electrical demand from the inverter to elastic energy storage and release, improving reversal efficiency and reducing peak currents.
• In contact‑rich or uneven terrain, SEA mitigates impact loads and can mask transmission friction, improving force control and disturbance rejection.

But softness is not a cure‑all. Overly compliant elements sap bandwidth and may increase energy consumption or instability if the control policy isn’t co‑designed with the spring. The community needs published stiffness values, placement details, and controller parameters alongside efficiency and COT results so others can reproduce and iterate on SEA gains. Impedance shaping belongs in the benchmark, not the marketing deck.

Thermal‑aware planning, predictive models, and active cooling strategies

Thermal reality decides whether a robot holds torque or derates and stumbles. High friction transmissions heat rapidly under low‑speed, high‑torque tasks, while DD and low‑ratio QDD demand robust motor cooling when continuous power is high. Benchmarking must therefore include:

• Torque–temperature curves and time‑to‑limit plots at specified ambients, plus controller‑imposed protections.
• Duty‑cycle limits that reflect real workloads, not idealized specs.
• Thermal time constants and heat‑sinking details that explain continuous ratings.

On the control side, predictive thermal management—anticipating when a sequence of tasks will saturate a joint—lets planners redistribute work across limbs, adjust gait parameters, or insert micro‑pauses without breaking task execution. For hardware, transparent disclosures of cooling methods (passive conduction paths, airflow assumptions) and continuous torque definitions prevent confusion between brief demos and sustained operation. “Can do once” is not the same as “can do all day.”

Materials, motors, and inverters: GaN today, SiC and new windings tomorrow

Power electronics choices disproportionately shape partial‑load efficiency and torque smoothness—the regime humanoids inhabit most of the time. At typical 48–100 V DC bus voltages, GaN‑based inverters lower switching losses and enable higher PWM frequencies, improving electrical efficiency and torque quality across all actuator architectures. At higher voltages and larger power levels, SiC devices dominate, but that operating domain is uncommon in current 48 V humanoid stacks.

At the module level, motor magnets and windings, transmission type and ratio, lubrication class, and thermal paths all influence the efficiency map. Disclosing these bill‑of‑materials details enables apples‑to‑apples comparisons and clearer research directions, including exploration of winding selections tailored for the torque–speed regimes exposed by standardized tasks. The near‑term expectation: broader adoption of GaN drives in 48–100 V systems, careful pairing of QDD/SEA at the lower limbs to maximize regeneration and reversal efficiency, and more transparent reporting of transmission efficiency under real loads.

Data commons and reproducibility: logs, maps, and uncertainty budgets

If the sector wants credible comparisons, it needs open data and quantified uncertainty. That means:

• Publishing time‑synchronized logs in open formats (e.g., ROS bag/HDF5), including DC‑bus voltage/current, per‑joint phase currents/voltages, encoder positions/speeds, in‑line or calibrated torque, temperatures (windings, transmission housings, inverters), ambient conditions, IMU data, and ground contact forces.
• Releasing per‑joint η_joint(τ, ω, T) maps from dyno‑style tests, validated in situ with task logs.
• Reporting COT per task with start/steady/stop breakdowns; regeneration fractions both at the DC bus and battery side.
• Providing backdrivability, friction parameters (Coulomb and viscous), and reflected inertia; acoustic spectra during representative tasks; and explicit controller settings (position/torque/impedance, gain ranges, bandwidths, SEA parameters, and regen enablement thresholds).
• Including uncertainty budgets for electrical power, torque, speed, temperature, and SPL so third parties can compute confidence bounds.

Alignment with established benchmarking infrastructure and test‑method documentation will speed uptake. Use existing terrain modules and measurement frameworks, adapt for biped specifics, and document procedures with the rigor expected in standard test methods. The result is not just transparency—it’s reproducibility.

A five‑year community roadmap: challenges and milestones 🧭

The industry can turn openness into acceleration by sequencing the work. A pragmatic 2026–2031 roadmap:

• 2026: Publish per‑joint efficiency maps and standardized COT for level walking (0.5/1.0/1.5 m/s), stairs/slope, and uneven terrain at 20 ± 2 °C. Include regeneration fractions for stair descent and deceleration events, plus controller/regeneration policies. Release raw logs and processing scripts with uncertainty budgets.
• 2027: Add running (2.5 m/s where supported), push‑recovery impulses, and payload trials (10/20 kg). Introduce joint torque–velocity histograms per task and thermal derating curves including a 30 °C ambient series. Begin cross‑lab round‑robin tests to validate repeatability.
• 2028: Standardize SEA disclosures (spring stiffness/placement, impedance policies) and report SEA‑specific gains where applicable. Expand to acoustic spectra, maintenance intervals, and backdrive torque benchmarks at low speeds. Encourage GaN inverter disclosures and partial‑load efficiency characterization.
• 2029: Integrate regeneration‑aware planning benchmarks, quantifying net battery‑side energy reductions for downhill and deceleration across architectures. Add uneven/compliant terrain sequences that stress shock tolerance and impedance control, with cycloidal and harmonic implementations directly comparable.
• 2030–2031: Migrate to inter‑operable dataset “recipes” and automated scoring pipelines; consider higher‑voltage variants and SiC‑based stacks where relevant. Establish a public leaderboard with uncertainty‑aware rankings and comprehensive task coverage. Close the loop by correlating benchmark scores with field reliability and maintenance observations.

Challenges remain—confidential BOM details, safety around high‑energy regen, and the effort required to calibrate sensing at high fidelity. But the milestones are achievable, and the payoffs are compounding: better planners informed by real maps, more efficient and reliable joints, and a research ecosystem that rewards genuine progress instead of hype.

Conclusion

Humanoid development has reached the stage where incremental advances in joint actuation efficiency yield outsized gains in range, reliability, and capability. The path forward is not mysterious: define common tasks, instrument rigorously, publish per‑joint maps and COT with uncertainties, and disclose control and regeneration policies. Architectural choices—from QDD and SEA to harmonic or cycloidal transmissions and GaN‑based inverters—imprint distinct signatures on efficiency, regeneration, and thermal behavior. Making those signatures public will accelerate learning across the community.

Key takeaways:

• Efficiency is a map, not a number; publish η_joint(τ, ω, T), not just peak specs.
• Standardized task suites and environmental controls enable apples‑to‑apples COT and regeneration comparisons.
• Regeneration‑aware control and explicit battery/inverter policies turn negative work into usable energy.
• SEA co‑design and impedance shaping can cut energy and improve robustness—if disclosed and tuned.
• Thermal intelligence—predictive management and clear derating curves—separates demos from dependable work.

Next steps for teams: adopt the task suite and logging practices, release uncertainty‑quantified datasets, and tie claims to reproducible metrics. For buyers and integrators: demand joint maps, standardized COT, and regeneration fractions as part of evaluations. For researchers: target control policies and hardware pairings that move real points on the map, especially under partial load and thermal constraints. Do this, and the field trades sizzle for substance—unlocking the next wave of capable, efficient humanoids. ⚡

Sources & References