IEEE Spectrum
Video Friday is your weekly selection of awesome robotics videos, collected by your friends at IEEE Spectrum robotics. We also post a weekly calendar of upcoming robotics events for the next few months. Please send us your events for inclusion.RSS 2026: 13–17 July 2026, SYDNEYSummer School on Multi-Robot Systems: 29 July–4 August 2026, PRAGUEActuate 2026: 18–19 August 2026, SAN FRANCISCOIROS 2026: 27 September–1 October 2026, PITTSBURGHHumanoids Summit Seoul: 22–23 September 2026, SEOULEnjoy today’s videos! For the first time, two full teams of humanoid robots played an 11-vs-11 soccer match on hardware, bringing one of robotics’ most ambitious long-term visions closer to reality. Never before have two full-sized humanoid robot teams played a soccer game against each other.[ RoboCup ]Engineers at MIT and EPFL in Lausanne, Switzerland, have designed a robot that can swim underwater, and flap out of the water to continue flying through air, much like a diving bird. The robot can help scientists study the mechanics that enable these actions in aquatic aviators and may help launch a new class of aerial-aquatic drones and vehicles.[ MIT ]We’re excited to announce our breakthrough robotic hands for the NEO platform: hands that match or exceed human-level dexterity, strength, safety, and reliability. Designed from the ground up, these 25-DoF hands combine 25 fully actuated degrees of freedom with a tendon-driven system, rich tactile sensing, and built-in compliance. The result is a hand capable of true in-hand manipulation, precision tool use, and delicate interaction.[ 1X ]This match, Tech United played against IRIS at the mid size league at RoboCup 2026 in Incheon South-Korea.[ Tech United ]Atlas arrived pitchside at NYNJ Stadium in front of 80,000 people gathered to see Brazil vs Norway. After performing some of the sport’s most memorable player celebrations, Atlas helped kick-off the second half by delivering the match ball![ Boston Dynamics ]Navigating discrete terrain such as stepping stones remains a major challenge for legged robots. Conventional approaches often rely on dense environment reconstruction from cameras or LiDAR, which can be affected by latency, occlusions, and significant computational overhead. We show that proximity sensors integrated into the bottom of a quadruped’s feet enable safe, terrain-seeking autonomous locomotion.[ Paper ]On this holiday, Digit is on grill duty. It turns out precise force control is good for more than payload handling. Happy 4th of July from all of us at Agility.[ Agility ]We’ve created GEN-1, our latest milestone in scaling robot learning. We believe it to be the first general-purpose AI model that crosses a new performance threshold: mastery of simple physical tasks. It improves average success rates to 99% on tasks where previous models achieve 64%, completes tasks roughly 3x faster than state of the art, and requires only 1 hour of robot data for each of these results. GEN-1 unlocks commercial viability across a broad range of applications—and while it cannot solve all tasks today, it is a significant step towards our mission of creating generalist intelligence for the physical world.[ Generalist ]4 years at Figure.[ Figure ]Reachy Mini is becoming your real AI companion. The Conversation App makes it able to talk fluently with you, help you with your to-do list, remind you of important tasks, and even chat about music. Long-term memory, voice interaction, always ready to help.[ Reachy Mini ]Is this sort of thing now a real job for humanoid robots, then?[ Unitree ]Quite a story, but is it a real job?[ EngineAI ]If you have a cute animal logo for your research I will always share it.[ BIEVR-LIO ]This is very delicate work, although the real challenge would be picking those nuts out of a jumbled bin full of randomly sized nuts, which is how most of us live our lives.[ Sanctuary ]Not for me, thank you, although I’m not saying that most of the other humanoid robots out there are any better looking, fundamentally.[ UBTECH ]Robotics professor, Dr. Christian Hubicki, judges robot soccer skills while knowing very little about soccer himself.[ ORL ]In this presentation, Brendan Schulman, Vice President of Policy at Boston Dynamics, outlines the critical role of government engagement in driving the success of the humanoid robotics industry. He demonstrates how legged robots like the Spot quadruped and Atlas humanoid are moving beyond factory settings to deliver real-world value in infrastructure inspection, industrial manufacturing, and public safety. Schulman highlights the intersection of AI and robotics, showcasing how large behavioral models and reinforcement learning enable robots to navigate slippery floors and autonomously avoid workplace hazards. Ultimately, he calls for a proactive national robotics strategy focused on workforce training, safety standards, and ethical frameworks to support supply chain resilience and global competitiveness.[ Humanoids Summit ]
IEEE Spectrum
Borys Drozhak has a vision: a frontline almost free of humans, patrolled by flying drones and ground robots, and continuously monitored by AI-controlled sensor networks. And it’s not a pipe dream. Ukrainian roboticists have made major strides in that direction over the past four years. Remotely controlled ground vehicles fitted with machine guns and grenade launchers now patrol the no-man’s land straddling the front, part of a robotic legion that has stymied Russia’s territorial ambitions so far this year.Drozhak is a co-founder and CEO of RoverTech, which manufactures the Zmyi, one of Ukraine’s most successful ground robots. Zmyi, Ukrainian for snake, is an 800-kilogram (1,700-pound) rover, 2.15 by 1.5 meters in size, with 75-centimeter diameter wheels. The Zmyi comes in various configurations—for demining, logistics, fighting fires, firing a machine gun, or launching grenades. According to Drozhak, the UGV is a record-breaker among Ukrainian ground robots. It’s engineered to be nearly noiseless and emit as little heat as possible, helping it to elude Russia’s intelligence, surveillance, and reconnaissance (ISR) drones. As a result, a Zmyi rover completes on average 57 missions across the kill zone before being destroyed. The kill zone is the roughly 35-kilometer-wide swath of land that straddles the front line; its width is variable and determined mainly by the growing range of the drones.“Usually, a UGV [uncrewed ground vehicle] on the battlefield lasts about seven missions,” Drozhak says. “The Zmyi is quite a bit bigger and stronger” in comparison with most other UGVs, “and can make it back even if two of its wheels get destroyed.”Drozhak is a software engineer turned roboticist whose story is echoed everywhere in the Ukrainian defense establishment. Before the Russian invasion, he was living a quiet life in Ireland, working for an international software development firm. He returned home shortly after the war began to help defend his homeland. Together with his friend, Vasyl Korenovskyi, who had been a mining engineer, he founded RoverTech with the goal of building robots to perform some of the most dangerous tasks in the war zone. In 2023, they rolled out their first product–the Zmyi de-miner. Earlier this year, one of RoverTech’s assault UGVs was part of a widely reported operation that forced a group of Russian soldiers to surrender without the presence of any Ukrainian troops. Such feats, Drozhak insists, are not rare on Ukrainian battlefields these days.UGVs are the latest chapter in the mil-tech race spurred by the war in Ukraine. Scores of Ukrainian start-ups have developed dozens of different small ground robots, each with typically multiple variants, over the past three years. They’re mostly replacing human-driven tanks and other military vehicles that used to criss-cross the war zone. These remotely controlled robotic vehicles cost a few tens of thousands of dollars apiece compared to millions for a traditional tank, and they can be tweaked and modified in front-line workshops to serve the most urgent needs. Zelenskyy Orders Up 50,000 More UGVsIn April, Ukraine’s President Volodymyr Zelenskyy signed an order for the government to procure 50,000 UGVs for Ukraine’s military forces by the end of 2026. That’s more than three times as many as the government purchased in 2025, and a massive increase from the 2,000 procured in 2024, according to defense analyst Marc C Lange.The rise of UGVs, Lange explains, is a direct response to the war-fighting revolution ushered in by the speedy evolution of unmanned aerial vehicles that came to define the war in Ukraine.As the number of drones zooming above the frontline rose and their range increased, the battle field became completely transparent. Today, anything that enters the kill zone gets hit by a first-person-view (FPV) kamikaze drone within minutes.“Any armored formation, any resupply and logistics vehicle, and any manned formation anywhere near the edge of the battle area has between seconds to a low amount of minutes before it gets turned to dust,” says Lange. “The Ukrainians were losing drivers. Traditional methods of evacuating injured soldiers became impossible. That space is basically unsurvivable.”Ukraine, suffering from a shortage of infantry, has taken that problem more seriously than Russia, which has a larger pool of fresh recruits to draw from. UGVs began ferrying supplies to troops at frontline positions in 2024. Gradually, they took over the complex and risky evacuations of the wounded, using special enclosures to protect the soldier being transported. But this year, Lange says, is “the year of the assault UGV.”Emerging Ukrainian tactics combine UGVs with real-time reconnaissance and surveillance from aerial drones, which discover enemy troops, often under cover of night. The reconnaissance data are then used by remote operators who guide UGVs as they stalk, corner, and shoot to kill. Oleg Fedoryshyn, the head of research and design at DevDroid, another prominent Ukrainian UGV developer, said the ground robots can be controlled from as far as 100 kilometers away using Starlink connectivity, LTE networks, or mesh-networked military radio systems. The UGVs can also carry strike UAVs, serve as communication relays for drones, or carry and launch communication relay drones that further extend the range of the attack vehicles. The UGV can lurk in position for up to one week without needing a battery charge, Fedoroshyn said, and wait for the enemy to move closer.“It’s better than to put people there,” he notes. “A guy with a machine gun is always the first target for the enemy.” The Droid TW 12.7, by DevDroid, is shown here outfitted with a .50-caliber M2 Browning machine gun that can be aimed and fired by a remote operator using a tablet and an encrypted communications link.DevDroidFedoroshyn estimates that UGVs could eventually help cut the number of soldiers needed along the frontline by 30 to 40 percent. Drozhak is even more ambitious. He envisions a future front line that’s entirely automated, relying on sensors and other systems that are only occasionally serviced by humans.A guy with a machine gun is always the first target for the enemy.“Right now, we need a lot of UGVs because there are people on the front line and we need to deliver supplies to them,” he says. “But we can substitute many of them with sensor systems, servicing robots, and UGVs, and then we will not need that many for logistics. At some point, we could have only robots in the kill zone.”Ukraine, with a pre-war population of around 41 million, has lost over 150,000 fighters in the war since 2022, according to estimates by the Center for Strategic and International Studies and others. Hundreds of others have been mutilated or permanently disabled. Even those who return without physical injuries suffer lasting psychological trauma. Drozhak dreams that a future robot army would put an end to the ability of autocratic regimes worldwide to brutalize their neighbors. “There will be no need to push people on the battlefield anymore,” says Drozhak, the RoverTech CEO. “Once we achieve that in Ukraine, any country with a decent economy would be able to defend themselves just with technology.”RoverTech’s Tarantula active-protection system, which uses acoustic and visual sensors combined with AI algorithms to detect approaching killer drones, is the first step in that direction, he declares.“The future battlefield will rely on networks of robotic sensors and autonomous systems that can continuously monitor dangerous areas, provide early warning, and reduce the need for soldiers to expose themselves to direct threats,” he says. “Human operators will remain responsible for critical decisions, but increasingly advanced sensing technologies will help move people away from the most dangerous positions on the battlefield.”Why UGVs Are VulnerableMilitaries around the world were looking at UGVs prior to Russia’s 2022 invasion of Ukraine. But those were quite different, explains Samuel Bendett, a defense analyst at the consultancy CNA. They were larger, more complex, and conceived to operate in smaller numbers. The more compact forms now seen in Ukraine are the result of an evolution that paralleled that of the first-person-view (FPV) attack drones. Both needed to be cheap as they don’t last long and small to be less conspicuous. Now, the West is trying to understand the overall role of UGVs in future warfare. So far, in Bendett’s view, the impact of UGVs on warfare isn’t as profound as that of the FPVs and other aerial drones.“Not every terrain would be applicable to using a UGV,” Bendett explains. “So far, a lot fewer countries are seeking to integrate them into their combat operations than UAVs, which very much democratized the way of enabling short-range to mid-range strikes against adversaries.”UGVs, he points out, are much more susceptible to communication disruptions than UAVs, while being less suitable for autonomous operations and swarming due to the complexity of ground terrain.“With UAVs, communication is much easier,” according to Bendett. “There are no interferences between the ground station and the UAV save the distance, Earth’s curvature and the radio horizon. But on Earth, there’s lots of different obstacles that interfere with radio signals.”Most UGVs rely on Starlink as the first choice for operator control, but even that comes with problems. Starlink signals are easily disrupted by trees and buildings. And Russia, having been cut off from Starlink, is working hard to find ways to jam the system.On top of that, says Lange, as UAV autonomy progresses, UGVs could be left behind. The reason is that UGVs are likely to remain dependent on operator communication links for some time yet, and will therefore be vulnerable to enemy UAVs that can’t be stopped by jamming systems that still provide some protection today.“The low production cost of strike drones will mean that UGVs will have to endure a barrage of strikes,” Lange says, “That might be too much. The question is whether you can make UGVs more survivable on the frontline both in terms of command and control and the actual survivability of that many strikes.”Still, he thinks there’s “no path back from UGVs.” The idea of distributing a whole range of tasks in the past performed by a single large and expensive tank to a fleet of small, cheap UGVs provides more resilience against the omnipresent drones. Moreover, although many international commentators now say that Russia appears to be losing, the war grinds on—and so does the cat-and-mouse game of lethal innovation.
IEEE Spectrum
Toshio Fukuda has been blazing trails for most of his career. He is considered to be one of the most prolific scholars in robotics, writing more than 2,000 research papers and authoring several books on the field. He’s an influential figure thanks to his pioneering work developing biomedical robotic systems, industrial robots, micro-nano robotics, mechatronics, and AI-driven automation.Fukuda launched one of the first robotics conferences, the IEEE/RSJ International Conference on Intelligent Robots and Systems (IROS). It is still popular almost 40 years later.Toshio FukudaEmployerEgypt-Japan University of Science and Technology, in Alexandria
TitleProfessor and vice president of research
Member gradeLife Fellow
Alma matersWaseda University, in Tokyo; University of Tokyo An IEEE Life Fellow, he is a professor emeritus in the department of micro-nano systems engineering and a visiting professor at Nagoya University, in Japan, where he taught for nearly 25 years. Currently, he is a vice president of research at the Egypt-Japan University of Science and Technology, in Alexandria, Egypt.Within IEEE, Fukuda has held top volunteer positions including the organization’s highest office: He served as IEEE president in 2020, becoming the first person of Asian descent to hold the role.He’s a former program director of Japan’s Moonshot program, which by 2050 intends to develop advanced AI robots.Born in Japan, Fukuda has been recognized by the country for his contributions to science with two of its highest awards: the Medal of Honor with a purple ribbon in 2015 and the Order of the Sacred Treasure in 2022.IEEE honored him with this year’s Richard M. Emberson Award for “distinguished service advancing the technical objectives of IEEE, especially in the area of robotics.” The IEEE Board-level award is sponsored by the IEEE Technical Activities Board. Fukuda received the award on 24 April at a ceremony in New York City.As a former IEEE president who has served as a master of ceremonies at several of the organization’s major award events, Fukuda noted that he is more accustomed to bestowing awards than receiving them.“It’s very interesting to be on the receiving end,” he says.The journey into robotics researchAs a teenager, Fukuda spent his summer breaks teaching himself how to build things including transistor radios and steam engines.“It was very nice to have a hands-on hobby and make these kinds of things myself,” he says. His experimentation led him to study engineering.He earned a bachelor’s degree in engineering in 1971 from Waseda University, in Tokyo. He says one of his professors there—Ichiro Kato, regarded as the father of Japanese robotics research—was a good mentor who made a positive impact.Fukuda’s research interests were robotics and mechatronics, a field that combines robotics, electronics, computer science, and control systems.He went on to earn a master’s degree and a doctorate in science from the University of Tokyo, in 1971 and 1977. During those years, he also attended Yale, where he conducted research on advanced control theory in 1973.He reflects fondly on his time at Yale: “It was a very nice environment and a kind of free-thinking atmosphere. It motivated me to study more.”“IEEE doesn’t care who you are, what you do, what country you are from, or whether you are male or female. IEEE accepts people who have energy and passion.”While at Yale, Fukuda served as an assistant to his advisor—which led him to consider a career in academia, he says, because he enjoyed the freedom that research work afforded him.But he realized that such freedom comes with a price. University researchers are expected to raise the money that funds their work. He compares researchers to small-business owners who have to bring in money to keep their enterprise afloat.That realization led him to select robotics as his field because he intended to develop technologies useful to industry, he says.After earning his doctorate, he returned to Japan in 1977 to work as a research scientist at the government’s Mechanical Engineering Laboratory, later renamed the National Institute of Advanced Industrial Science and Technology, in Tsukuba.“There was a lot of research going on at the lab, including practical robotics and theory,” he says.He left Japan in 1979 to become a visiting research fellow at the University of Stuttgart, in Germany. During his year there, he studied systems, software problems, and related topics.He returned to Japan and was hired as an associate professor of mechanical engineering at the Tokyo University of Science. He conducted research into practical uses for robots by visiting industrial plants. He decided to develop robots that inspect industrial equipment such as those used in assembly plants, oil refineries, and power stations—places that “can be hostile environments for humans,” he says.His work drew interest from chemical, oil, and utility companies.“I got a lot of money from them for this very practical application, which funded my research,” he says, laughing.Developing popular robotic systemsFukuda grew tired of making those robots, he says, so he switched to creating ones for scientific applications. He developed many techniques, but he probably is best known for his modular, cellular robotic systems (CEBOTs), which he introduced in 1985.He has described how CEBOTs work in numerous papers published in the IEEE Xplore Digital Library.The CEBOT system is composed of a number of autonomous robotic cells that stick together like interlocking Lego plastic bricks, he says.Each cell is a fundamental modular unit that has a function. When a simple task is given, the system can analyze it and generate the structure of the cellular manipulator. The cells connect to and detach from each other through connection mechanisms and cooperate mutually, creating complex structures and configurations.“You start developing from the component-wise to the cell-wise to a small functional unit—and then you come up with clusters that make bigger systems. We can make a society of robot beings like that,” he explained in his oral history published on the Engineering and Technology History Wiki. “It’s a distributed robotic system, a self-organized robotic system, and also an evolutionary robotic system.“It’s also a fault-tolerant robot system because if something is wrong, you just remove those things and make a new one. You keep the system working. That’s a great thing.”Today CEBOTs are used for a variety of tasks such as delivering medication in hospitals, assisting with planting crops, and transporting products in distribution centers. Check out IEEE Spectrum’s Robots Guide for news from the world of robotics.In 1989 Fukuda joined Nagoya University as a professor of mechanical engineering and micro-nano systems engineering. During his 24-year career there, he was director of the university’s Center for Micro-Nano Mechatronics. He developed a long list of technologies at the university, including many for medical applications. He also conducted groundbreaking research into intelligent robotic systems and micro- and nano-robotics.Another technology he is known for is brachiation robots, which he helped develop in 1988. He calls them monkey robots because they’re based on the pendulum-like movement of monkeys swinging from tree to tree. The gravity-based locomotion enables continuous movement.Brachiation robots now are inspecting high-voltage transmission towers and bridges, searching damaged buildings for survivors, and performing maintenance on pipelines and cables.Fukuda retired from the university in 2013 and was named professor emeritus.He didn’t stay retired for long, though. He next held a teaching appointment at Meijo University, in Nagoya, until he left in 2022 to join the Egypt-Japan University.A prominent volunteerHe joined IEEE in 1980 at the encouragement of one of his research advisors, Professor Fumio Harashima, now an IEEE Life Fellow. After attending conferences and reading the organization’s publications, Fukuda says, he looked forward to becoming more involved.“I wanted to know how to organize a conference and how to edit a paper for one of its Transactions,” he says. “I wanted to know what was going on from inside the organization, not just the outside.”In 1988 he was the founding chair and organizer of IROS, in Tokyo. The conference had 330 attendees that year, and was supported by Harashima. Today it is one of the largest and most prestigious conferences on the topic, attracting more than 9,000 people annually. Out of 120,000 conferences, it was the only conference in the Nature Index database for this year, Fukuda says.In 1996 he and other members launched IEEE Transactions on Mechatronics.He was the founding president of the IEEE Nanotechnology Council, which was established in 2002. He is considered a pioneer in nanotechnology research, particularly regarding how it relates to robotics.Over the years, he has held numerous volunteer positions on IEEE editorial boards and committees.He was the 1998–1999 president of the IEEE Robotics and Automation Society, becoming the first non-U.S. member to hold the title.He was director of IEEE Division X (2001–2002 and 2017–2018), which covers intelligent systems, biological engineering, robotics, control systems, and photonic technologies. He served as the 2013–2014 director of IEEE Region 10 (Asia-Pacific).As the 2020 IEEE president, Fukuda saw the organization through the early part of the COVID-19 pandemic. Because of travel restrictions, he realized IEEE should change how it offered its in-person services, specifically educational programs. He encouraged IEEE Educational Activities to develop an online learning platform. The IEEE Learning Network started with just three courses and now offers nearly 2,000 courses, webinars, and learning materials.An award-winning memberThe Emberson Award joins a slew of other recognitions Fukuda has received from IEEE. They include several from the IEEE Robotics and Automation Society: a 2004 Pioneer Award, a 2009 Saridis Leadership Award, and the 2011 Harashima Award for Innovative Technologies. He is also a recipient of the Board-level 2010 IEEE Robotics and Automation Technical Field Award.He says he feels strongly that IEEE should be a diverse organization that is welcoming to all. As IEEE president, he led efforts to devise a diversity, equity, and inclusion program. Several policies, procedures, and bylaws were revised to give members a safe, inclusive place for discourse.“It’s important for IEEE to make everyone feel comfortable,” he says. “DEI programs are important. All people should be equal. IEEE doesn’t care who you are, what you do, what country you are from, or whether you are male or female. IEEE accepts people who have energy and passion.“It accepted me, from the Far East. That’s why I like it.”You can learn more about Fukuda and his career from the oral history conducted by the IEEE History Center.
IEEE Spectrum
“In the future, the relationship between humans and robots will deepen, and the distinction between them will probably disappear.” This prediction, from one of the attendees at the recent Humanoids Summit in Tokyo, might have been unremarkable had it not come directly from an android that was first introduced to the world 20 years ago. Geminoid HI-6 is the sixth-generation of a robot originally designed in 2006. The mechanical twin of Osaka University professor Hiroshi Ishiguro, Geminoid HI-6 is now equipped with a large language model trained on Ishiguro’s own writings and interviews. It has advanced conversational skills and can even have a chat with its creator, an eerie spectacle. But at the Humanoids Summit, Geminoid was one of the few humanoid robots from Japan, the country that pioneered the form factor.While the event in Tokyo only had about 40 robots on display, Chinese systems outnumbered Japanese by roughly three to one. Some Japanese robotics firms were even using Chinese robots in their own technology demonstrations, something that would have been unthinkable in the recent past—one Japanese engineer described the situation as “sad.” The conference was a stark reminder of how Japan has ceded its early lead in humanoid robot development to overseas competitors, and the challenge it now faces to secure a place in an ecosystem increasingly dominated by general-purpose robots powered by AI. Twenty-five years ago, Japan was turning out groundbreaking humanoids that were showstopping in their abilities, but they were not commercialized as practical machines in any meaningful way. Heavily influenced by science fiction and lacking practical applications, they were mostly expensive technology demonstrations that were eventually mothballed. What Japan retains, however, is robotics design and know-how, which it must leverage to be a key player in the rapidly evolving humanoid ecosystem. Learning to Walk—Then Standing StillTo anyone who has seen recent videos of Chinese humanoids doing kung-fu and synchronized acrobatics, as well as half-marathon races, China’s remarkable progress in the field is nothing new. At the Humanoids Summit, Toyota showed a video of its latest basketball-playing robot, and Honda exhibited its latest robot hand, but the full-scale humanoids on the floor were mostly Chinese–the kid-size K1 machines from Booster Robotics of Beijing were dancing to Michael Jackson tunes. The full-scale G1 humanoid from Unitree Robotics of Hangzhou was also doing demos. “You cannot sell these bipedal systems in Japan for safety and compliance reasons,” says Shuichi Nagao, a frequent visitor to China as CTO of Omakase Robotics, a division of Zeals, a Japanese humanoid robot developer. Omakase was exhibiting a G1 modified with an external PC controller, a dextrous hand, a suction-cup manipulator and a sensor “hat” with an extra speaker, mic and camera. “In China, the government is pushing humanoid development. They didn’t have an industry 20 years ago. The people pushing it are young, in their 20s and 30s. It’s a really different mentality out there,” says Nagao. “Big players in Japan are still looking for use cases for humanoids. In China, they’re already doing mass production and reducing the cost, so other countries can’t compete with them anymore.”Another Japanese company showing off G1 bots was summit sponsor GMO AI & Robotics, a subsidiary of Japanese internet company GMO. It’s using the robots in partnership with Japan Airlines to load and unload cargo containers at Tokyo’s Haneda airport. The cargo project is a trial—like many other humanoid experiments—but the fact that Chinese machines have penetrated so far into Japan’s ecosystem upends a long history. In 1973, scientists at Waseda University in Tokyo built WABOT-1, considered the first full-scale humanoid robot and capable of slow bipedal locomotion, grasping objects and simple communication. It inspired Honda’s groundbreaking Asimo humanoid, but it was never commercialized. Asimo was eventually retired in 2022, the year ChatGPT was released. Two years later, Unitree’s G1 went on sale for US $16,000. China’s High Torque Technology Co. showed off its Mini Pi biped, customized with an anime-inspired head, at Humanoids Summit in Tokyo. The regular version is priced at $3,500. Tim HornyakSupply and DemandJapan’s development of humanoids happened before practical applications or widespread demand were in place, but bad timing is only part of the story—Japan also has a history of developing technologies that might appeal to domestic consumers but not necessarily those overseas. For example, decades after they first appeared, its highly engineered, multifunction toilets have only recently found a following abroad. Japan’s humanoid prowess was partly built on the back of its legendary industrial automation, yet even that stronghold has eroded. Ani Kelkar, a partner from McKinsey & Company in Boston who produces analytical reports about the robotics industry, told the summit audience that while Japan occupied the top spot in the world in manufacturing robot density (the number of multipurpose industrial robots in operation per 10,000 employees) from at least 1994 to 2009, it then slipped to second in 2014, third in 2019 and fifth in 2024. In that year, South Korea was at the top of the leaderboard with a robot density of 1,220 compared to Japan’s 446. The International Federation of Robotics estimates China now has the most operational industrial robots in the world, with around 2 million total units, approximately 4.5 times more than Japan. “The annual installation numbers are impressive too: 54 percent of all robots installed worldwide in 2024 were deployed in China,” the IFR said in a release in April 2026. “I think the loss of Japanese leadership is more to do with the rise of China as a manufacturing powerhouse including for sectors that Japan had high export levels,” Kelkar said in an email interview. “The recovery has not yet happened as Japan ‘missed’ the rapid acceleration in AI for robotics and is now playing catchup.”How Japan Can Adapt Kelkar believes Japan has a US $100 billion opportunity in general-purpose robotics, which are machines that can perform a wide variety of tasks, and it cannot rely on the slower-growing industrial robot market, which is centered on factory machines that do one simple and predictable task like welding car parts. He points to a McKinsey white paper suggesting that while Japan has much of the hardware and technology experience needed to support general purpose robot development, it must change its strategy to capture more share in AI, software, data collection and robotics platforms.Tetsuya Ogata is a professor of engineering and director of the Institute for AI and Robotics at Waseda University, the birthplace of humanoids in Japan. He briefed the summit on how a nonprofit he chairs, the AI Robot Association (AIRoA), is working with Toyota and other members to develop foundational technologies for collaborative use. For instance, AIRoA has collected some 80,000 hours of data on remote operation of mobile manipulators, and Ogata believes it’s the largest dataset of its kind. Using the data, it built and verified Vision-Language-Action (VLA) models, and it has also started data collection for dual-arm mobile manipulation. In an interview, Ogata acknowledged Japan’s struggle to find its place in the changing landscape. “The world of AI is inherently a game of scale,” says Ogata. “Therefore, Japan’s absolute prerequisite is to secure a competitive baseline of scale—in data, computing resources, and talent. Beyond that, what I consider most critical is a mindset shift: rather than trying to hoard scale within a single nation or company, we must grow stronger by collaborating with a diverse ecosystem of domestic and international players.” Specifically, this means creating a ‘collaborative domain’ to address data—the single biggest bottleneck—through industry-wide cooperation rather than data-siloing. By collectively nurturing a pre-competitive, shared data infrastructure and foundation model, individual companies can then compete on top of it with their own applications. “By offering this open ‘data ecosystem’ to the world, we can engage global players and establish a ‘third pole’ alongside the US and China,” says Ogata. “I believe this is how Japan can reclaim its global presence.”In 1999, Japan introduced the world’s first mobile internet services platform. But being first didn’t turn Japan into a smartphone manufacturing or design center—it’s now merely a supplier of parts to other countries who are leading the smartphone industry. If Japan can avoid a repeat of that experience and successfully deregulate, diversity, and commercialize its original humanoid dreams, it stands a better chance of influencing the direction of the industry and reaping billions in value. As automobiles and electronics were pillars of Japan’s industrial strategy in the last century, Japan could make humanoid robots one of its key value generators in the 21st century, an approach that would not only deliver economic benefits but give Japan greater clout in how the industry will evolve. Just like Japanese cars, electronics, and even toilets, Japanese humanoids could stand for craftsmanship and reliability. It’s a legacy that Japan can’t afford to give up.
IEEE Spectrum
Video Friday is your weekly selection of awesome robotics videos, collected by your friends at IEEE Spectrum robotics. We also post a weekly calendar of upcoming robotics events for the next few months. Please send us your events for inclusion.RSS 2026: 13–17 July 2026, SYDNEYSummer School on Multi-Robot Systems: 29 July–4 August 2026, PRAGUEActuate 2026: 18–19 August 2026, SAN FRANCISCOIROS 2026: 27 September–1 October 2026, PITTSBURGHEnjoy today’s videos! NASA is considering a mission concept for an advanced, nuclear-powered rover to be deployed to the Moon’s South Pole as part of the agency’s Moon Base plans. The PROMISE (Polar Rover for Observation, Mapping, and In-Situ Exploration) mission concept relies on the Curiosity Mars rover mission’s testbed rover. Some elements of the Perseverance Mars testbed rover shown in this video could be used as well. As exact duplicates of Curiosity and Perseverance, the testbed rovers are equipped with flight-proven engineering systems capable of carrying technology as well as science instruments that would advance Moon Base efforts.A Mars rover for the Moon? That’s some OPTIMISM right there.[ JPL ]This is the absolute best thing since Festo’s AirPenguin.The project explores soft, lightweight robots that can gently float around people in indoor environments and invite playful, affectionate, and everyday interactions. Unlike conventional drones, our robot is designed to be quiet, soft, touch-safe, and socially approachable. Through this work, we ask what future indoor companion robots might feel like if they were not rigid machines, but gentle floating beings that share space with us.[ Paper ]Thanks, Mingyang!Today, we’re launching our home robot, Isaac 1. Deliveries will begin this fall.US $500 per month, with some basic task autonomy plus teleoperation.[ Weave Robotics ]A couple things from this new Figure video—thing one is that the cart pulling is a good illustration of how clumsy humanoid robots still are at basic tasks relative to humans. Thing two is that there are absolutey no humans anywhere near these robots. You can see one guy at 0:19, which I can only assume is an accident, because these robots are not safe to be around from an industrial safety perspective.[ Figure ]Our very own Kohava Mendelsohn met some robots at ICRA in Vienna, and only one of them was murderous.[ ICRA 2026 ]Welcome to Robot Park, where we’re building the future with Apollo 2. Robot Park is where Apollo learns today, getting the experience needed to make a difference tomorrow. Today we’re announcing Robot Park, our nearly 90,000-square-foot facility where Apollo 2 is collecting real-world training data needed to advance autonomous humanoid robots. [ Apptronik ]UBTech Robotics, the world’s first publicly traded humanoid robot-maker, has launched a humanlike robot that features lifelike silicone skin and “emotional AI”, as Chinese tech firms increasingly transition robots from the factory floor to the family living room.[ SCMP ]Spherephones are redefining how we experience sound. Created at Georgia Tech, this wearable uses spatial audio to alert users to movement from every direction—including behind and below. Built for safer human-robot collaboration, the technology is expanding into gaming and accessibility applications. See how music is becoming a new language for awareness and interaction.[ Georgia Tech ]Humanoid robots are meant to carry out long-horizon autonomous missions in a world built for humans. This is hard. These missions consist of many steps, each of which requires them to perceive, navigate, and interact with the environment. This is exactly Flexion’s goal: building the general-purpose intelligence that turns any robot into a useful helper.[ Flexion ]We’re introducing KinetIQ Ascend — our reinforcement learning approach designed to reach 99.9% manipulation reliability at human speed and beyond.[ Humanoid ]Dr. Sebastian “Basti” Scherer has worked in field robotics since the first DARPA Grand Challenge in 2004. He runs the AirLab at Carnegie Mellon’s Robotics Institute and is the Director of Safe Embodied AI at FieldAI. While much of the industry is focused on local skills like tabletop manipulation, Dr. Scherer sees the greatest value in solving dirty, dull, and dangerous tasks that require operating in uncertain environments where the robot needs to “just work.” When robots “just work” they become less like robots and more like tools. “That’s the big challenge that we have to overcome,” he says, “and that’s the challenge that FieldAI is really primed to solve.”[ Field AI ]Look, I really appreciate how valuable robots like ElliQ can be, and robots that do good work and offer a financial benefit are incredibly important, especially in the context of family care. But in my opinion, you really shouldn’t suggest that a robot with FaceTime or whatever is an equal replacement for in-person human companionship, nor should you suggest that AI can replace a human wellness coach. If you can’t afford those things, then sure, ElliQ can offer some of those capabilities in a very limited way, but that’s all.[ ElliQ ]Very cool moves! Now get a job![ DEEP Robotics ]Drawing inspiration from restaurant waiters in Morocco and Turkey, among other places, we equip a robot with a hanging tray to transport objects from one location to another without dropping them or spilling their contents. We incorporate this approach into an interactive robot waiter demonstration, which uses computer vision and visual servoing to steer toward a person with a raised hand to serve them.[ Paper ]If you’re going to make robots wear skirts or shorts or pants, you have to give them butts, or it’s just not going to work. That is all.[ TechShare ] via [ Kazumichi Moriyama ]It’s Los Alamos, so of course we have robots. Some work inside gloveboxes, while others probe unexploded ordnance in the field and aid with repetitive lifting, Doc Ock–style. Legend has it there’s a fro-yo robot in the cafeteria.[ LANL ]Here are a couple of talks from the recent Humanoids Summit in Japan, from Ali Agha of Field AI as well as Hiroshi Ishiguro. [ Humanoids Summit ]
IEEE Spectrum
Video Friday is your weekly selection of awesome robotics videos, collected by your friends at IEEE Spectrum robotics. We also post a weekly calendar of upcoming robotics events for the next few months. Please send us your events for inclusion.RSS 2026: 13–17 July 2026, SYDNEYSummer School on Multi-Robot Systems: 29 July–4 August 2026, PRAGUEActuate 2026: 18–19 August 2026, SAN FRANCISCOIROS 2026: 27 September–1 October 2026, PITTSBURGHEnjoy today’s videos! The best way of introducing a new robot hand is to have a disembodied one crawling across a table.[ Tangent Robotics ]MIT CSAIL’s Improbable AI Lab Director Pulkit Agrawal explains his “SoftMimic” approach to making robots safer around humans.[ SoftMimic ]I now have absolutely no interest in a humanoid robot for my home unless it can do this.[ PNDbotics ]The DARPA Lift Challenge is open to the public Aug. 6-9, 2026, at the National Museum of the US Air Force.[ DARPA ]Getting Digit to step and shuffle around an obstacle on the floor is a real test of reactive footstep planning. Digit has to spot something small and moving, recalculate where to place each foot, and keep working—all without breaking stride or losing balance. That’s the same dynamic footwork Digit uses to navigate clutter and foot traffic on a real warehouse floor.[ Agility Robotics ]This is the most aggressive firefighting robot I’ve ever seen.[ DEEP Robotics ]Wait a sec, Dusty can print things on floors besides construction layouts? How is this not in every city, making sidewalks exciting and fun everywhere?![ Dusty ]I am the first to admit that for US$4,900, the performance of the Unitree R1 is very impressive. But what is it going to do out in the world such that it will give you some sort of return on that investment?[ Unitree R1 ]Event cameras are extraordinarily powerful because they can see motion, but what if everything is moving because your camera is moving? Oh no![ University of Zurich Robotics & Perception Group ]Can we understand whale behavior and language? Harvard SEAS Professor Stephanie Gil explains the possibility of understanding animal language and behavior using AI-driven robots and machine learning. With ongoing whale research and advancements in artificial intelligence, the potential for animal communication with whales could become a tangible reality.[ Harvard SEAS ]Rodney Brooks, founder and chief technology officer of Robust.AI, sits down with Forbes Assistant Managing Editor Kerry Dolan to discuss how he came up with the idea of the Roomba vacuum cleaner and the future of robotics.[ LinkedIn ]Here are a couple of interesting presentations from UIST 2025, including everyday objects that move around your home with a mind of their own and a project featuring teamwork between helium balloons and ground robots called Buoyancé. [ UIST 2025 ]
IEEE Spectrum
Video Friday is your weekly selection of awesome robotics videos, collected by your friends at IEEE Spectrum robotics. We also post a weekly calendar of upcoming robotics events for the next few months. Please send us your events for inclusion.RSS 2026: 13–17 July 2026, SYDNEYSummer School on Multi-Robot Systems: 29 July–4 August 2026, PRAGUEActuate 2026: 18–19 August 2026, SAN FRANCISCOIROS 2026: 27 September–1 October 2026, PITTSBURGHEnjoy today’s videos! Eno is our first agentic robot: an AI agent and a general-purpose robot working as one system. It reasons, plans, and acts in the real world. Human in capability, not in form. Every detail with a purpose, reduced to what matters. Designed not to resemble us, but to extend us. Eno is built end to end at Genesis.[ Genesis ]Engineers from NASA’s Jet Propulsion Laboratory are field-testing advanced capabilities for potential future Moon and Mars rovers. In the Colorado Desert near Plaster City, California, teams used a prototype rover called ERNEST (Exploration Rover for Navigating Extreme Sloped Terrain) to test software for a potential future long-range lunar mission. The software enables the rover, developed at JPL, to operate autonomously and travel extreme distances with minimal intervention from human operators. ERNEST is a lot more capable than it may look; here’s some recent research showing the kinds of terrain it can handle: [ NASA's Jet Propulsion Lab ]Table tennis can produce moments that are difficult even for experienced players to anticipate… like when the ball clips the net and suddenly changes direction. For the Ace research project at Sony AI, these events were a key test of the system’s ability to operate reliably in unpredictable real-world conditions. Ace addresses this uncertainty by simulating counterfactual ball trajectories in real time. In the video, the green overlays show these alternative paths the system considers while planning its response.And check out some of these rallies that the robot has with Miyuu Khiara. [ Sony AI ]This video of an ANYmal deployment in a concrete plant is worth watching because it makes explicit how quadrupeds make money in inspection contexts: Among other things, “a cracked crusher foundation [was] caught before a week-long shutdown, avoiding roughly $630,000 in lost production.” That pays for a lot of robots.[ ANYbotics ]A lot of interesting footage here from GITAI’s prep for a robotic satellite servicing demo mission. The thruster test firing isn’t a robot, exactly, but it may be the coolest part.[ GITAI ]Anyone who’s tried to take a half decent photo underwater knows that it’s basically impossible, so let’s try and teach robots to cope.[ Bi-AQUA ]Thanks, Masato!Handling delicate, irregular or unpredictable objects is one of the hardest problems left in automation, and one of the most important. It’s what’s holding back the next wave of robots from doing more in the real world. That’s why we’re working with PSYONIC on a new approach. Their Ability Hand, worn by hundreds of people every day, captures real-world data on touch, pressure and grip. Our GoFa cobot brings the industrial-grade accuracy and repeatability to turn that human data into reliable robotic performance.[ ABB Robotics ]Sanctuary AI has achieved world-class performance on a complex wire plugging production task with a global Tier 1 automotive supplier. In this demonstration, Sanctuary AI’s Physical AI successfully performs a high-speed wire plug insertion task, achieving a validated task success rate of over 99.5% with a cycle time of just 2.54 seconds, meeting live production benchmarks established by the customer.WHY IS THIS STRESSING ME OUT SO MUCH?[ Sanctuary ]This video is quite obviously fake, but I suppose maybe there’s a market for extra beefy quadrupeds? Maybe?[ Kepler ]I cannot overstate how much I do not want any robot to look at what I’m wearing and then attempt to sell me things based on what it thinks it can guess about my personality or interests.[ MagicLab ]I am here for fed up robots learning how to move boxes by just kicking them.[ ATARI Lab ]Ah yes, very useful and very important robots that make me very uncomfortable.[ Paper ]I built GrowBot ( a ~6”, two-servo bipedal robot) that runs entirely on a $15 Raspberry Pi Zero 2 W, ~$100 in parts. An LLM drives it directly: it reads the raw IMU stream with no translation layer and narrates its own motion (“rocked side to side like a baby”), riding on a 50 Hz reinforcement-learning walk policy trained in sim and transferred to the real body.The idea here is to build an open course around this project, Brit says, “so everyone can experience physical AI right now in a low risk way.”[ GrowBot ]Thanks, Brit!
IEEE Spectrum
In 2018, Amazon brought me in as the lead UX Sound Designer for Astro, their first consumer home robot. Astro used cameras and other sensors to map and navigate your home and workplace, and could proactively patrol, check up on loved ones, and transport small items using its built-in cargo bin. While there was a well-defined feature set and form factor, initially there was no character direction. In fact, even before Astro had a name, there were two main questions—was it simply Alexa on wheels, or was it a robot with its own character?The Astro team was divided. One option was to focus on Alexa, and treat the mobile robot simply as an added utility. I argued for Astro to not focus on Alexa, along with the majority of the UX team. Our belief was that a thing that moves through your home and turns toward you with intent can never be just an appliance. People would ascribe character to whether we wanted them to or not, and so the only question was whether we shaped that character or let it happen by accident.Ultimately, Astro became Astro rather than Alexa, and user testing backed up our decision. People didn’t see the robot as Alexa. They saw it as its own character, and that’s what they wanted it to be. Alexa on the device felt somewhat strange and creepy, but building Astro its own voice was too slow and expensive in 2018. So, we settled on Alexa as a supporting character that handled any actual talking, while Astro was the main character, communicating as much as it could without words, through sound, motion, and facial expressions.I had been brought on to the Astro team to define the robot’s sound design language and voice. But there was no one to flesh out the robot’s actual character. You cannot make a single real decision about a character without defining it first. Every choice about how Astro moved, sounded, paused, or reacted was a character choice, and those choices required all disciplines working together. As Sound Lead, I was weaving together sound, motion, and character, and how they played together inside each story moment. The animators, who programmed Astro’s motion and facial expressions, were extraordinary at what they did, but the emotional arc they were animating came from the sound (and therefore character) work first. So I stepped into that role, which is where my real work started. What I learned about building character for robots applies to nearly everything being built in embodied AI right now.Character Is a Design SystemDeveloping a character for Astro meant answering questions that had never been asked about a product at Amazon: What is the emotional range of this robot’s baseline state? How does this robot communicate uncertainty without eroding trust? Where is the line between being expressive and annoying? What are the vulnerabilities of this device’s character?These are design questions. They have real answers, and every team working on the product has to build from them. For example, Astro’s emotional range was designed to be relatively small at first. We never wanted Astro to get too sad or too angry. It could play sad, but would snap out of it quickly and end the reaction on a high note to keep things positive. Character leaks out of every seam and can create a disjointed experience if not defined correctly. Even if it’s just animation timing that’s slightly off, or a response that’s technically correct but contextually tone-deaf, users feel every one of these inconsistencies, even if they can’t name them. Watch what happens at the beginning and end of this Sing sequence: Astro goes from nothing, into the emotional moment, and then lands back on nothing. No build up, no cool down, no sense that the feeling came from somewhere or had anywhere to go. I pushed hard for better character stitching, the transitions in and out of expressive moments that make a performance feel continuous rather than assembled, but it never got implemented. The moment itself works. But without the stitching, it reads as a clip playing on a robot rather than coming from within the robot character itself.Story and Sound at the BeginningWe had decided that Astro would have no spoken dialogue, but it had something that functioned the same way: a vocabulary of sounds, tones, and rhythms that acted as its voice. This vocabulary became the leading output of the character’s personality. The robot’s motion and facial expressions were built around it.Astro’s wake-up sequence is a great example. Waking wasn’t just a boot animation on the screen; it was an entire performance. Slow and humble at first, the robot oriented itself quietly, then stretched its screen, checked its wheels, and finally, with an upward gesture toward its telescoping mast, it popped it up slightly, and did a little dance of joy. Sound, motion, and eyes hit every beat together in full choreography. The character’s output in that sequence was first written as a story. Astro is waking up in its new home for the first time. Its main aspiration is to be part of a family, so this is the moment it has been waiting for, this is its purpose. Being the responsible character that it is, it wants to make sure everything is good to go before it introduces itself and starts learning its new home.This narrative came first because it drove every other decision that we made. After the story was written, sound gave that story a metaphorical voice: the excited tones, the pacing as it checked its wheels, and the bright melodic phrase as Astro looked up at its new family for the first time and introduced itself. Once the sound was laid down, animation did their thing with motion and facial expressions, taking cues from the emotional arc the sound had established. Motion didn’t lead—it followed the feeling of the story and the sounds, the same way an animator follows a recorded vocal take.That wake up sequence became one of the most-discussed moments in early user testing. People described it as “alive.” What they were responding to wasn’t any single element. It was all three channels (sound, motion, and facial expressions) expressing the same defined character in harmony.Context Is Where Character Becomes RealThe most compelling characters are defined not by a fixed disposition but by how they respond to their environments and the people in them. They’re still recognizably themselves even as they adapt. This is what I call contextual character. A robot living in a home doesn’t occupy a single emotional state. It moves through rooms with different energy, encounters people in different moods, operates at different times of day, and responds to an endless range of social situations it was never explicitly designed for.We got close to a contextual character output with Astro’s sound. When a specific piece of environmental context was fed in, the system adapted beautifully, and Astro felt completely alive. But every state like this was still a prediction we made by hand—a situation we had to imagine in advance and design a response for. A random home throws more situations at a robot than anyone can possibly predict, so there was always a longer tail of moments the system was never prepared for.The difference between a product people describe as “smart” and one they describe as “aware” often comes down to this. Smartness is capability. Awareness is context. Presence is character. And character is always in reaction to the people around it, to its environment, to its own evolving state. That’s what makes it feel like something is emotionally present with you.This is where AI changes the game for character design in ways that go well beyond what was possible with Astro. AI-driven adaptation doesn’t require the contextual predictions that we relied on. It learns the specific rhythms, preferences, and emotional context of the people it lives and works with. The character doesn’t just respond to context. It grows into it.What Industry Is MissingThe character and soul of the impending wave of embodied AI products appears to almost always be an afterthought. And character defined late is character defined by default. It becomes the sum of a thousand small decisions made by different people thinking about anything but character. People project character onto devices whether you plan for it or not, especially if those devices move—a robot that moves is already a character. If nobody has designed this character, the result will be products that feel like nothing, or worse, feel confusing and not trustworthy. Technically impressive, but lifeless.We did not get this fully right with Astro. So many things were moving in parallel that character was rarely treated as a utility, and it made sense why. When you are building a first-of-its-kind product, the things that are the loudest are the ones that break, the deadlines, the costs, the features a customer can point to on a box. Character is quieter than all of that. It’s easy to assume it can come later. On a team as large as the Amazon Astro team, it’s lucky to get any idea onto the roadmap when it is competing with a hundred others that all feel more urgent in the moment. None of this came from people not caring. It came from character being the kind of thing that is hard to prioritize until you see what its absence costs you.My Asks to Product LeadersIf you are building a product that will share physical or conversational space with people, three things are worth considering:Define character before you define interactions. You need a defensible character with enough emotional logic to answer hard questions consistently. Find answers to character questions early, and have every discipline build from the same foundation.Build story and sound into the character pipeline, not the production pipeline. Story and sound developed alongside character definition has the chance to inform motion, expression, and interaction logic. This requires a different kind of collaboration, and a different kind of hire.Design for adaptation, not just consistency. A consistent character is necessary, but the products that will matter most in people’s lives are the ones that deepen through use. The infrastructure to support that is more and more accessible, but the design thinking to take advantage of it is still rare.An unabridged version of this story can be read on Medium.
IEEE Spectrum
On April 19, 2026, the Honor Lightning humanoid robot ran a half-marathon in 50 minutes and 26 seconds, beating the human world record by 7 minutes and the best robot time from 2025 by almost two hours.How did they do it? Is there some magical technology or technique that unlocked this performance? How did they beat the significantly better-known Unitree (who reportedly had to supply an ice backpack to try and complete the race without overheating)? My doctoral thesis involved building and controlling hopping and running robots, and since then I’ve tried to design and build efficient commercial legged robots, giving me a decent idea of the constraints involved. In this article, we take a look at the fundamental underlying constraints to try and answer these questions.The Physics of RunningRunning consists of alternating phases of a leg pushing against the ground (“stance phase”) and the body flying through the air (“aerial phase”). In the aerial phase, the body falls due to gravity, losing vertical momentum. The leg in stance phase pushes against the ground to redirect the vertical momentum upward, while the other leg swings forward to reposition for the next foothold.Electric motors use energy to produce torque- the higher the torque, the more energy lost as heat. Adding a geartrain after the motor amplifies its torque and reduces its speed. A large reduction helps with torque production, but since the rotor of the motor itself has to spin faster, it becomes very sluggish at accelerating its output. This is obviously bad for the swing phase described above. These competing effects mean that for a particular motor, there is usually a sweet spot for the gear ratio: The power consumed by a robot leg is minimized at an optimal gear ratio (30:1 in this example).Avik De/DatawrapperHow Honor Did ItWhile the Lightning’s motor specifications are not published, the hip and knee motors roughly have a 110-150mm outer diameter. For an approximate set of motor parameters, I looked to the ILM115x25 motor due to its relevant size and detailed specifications.We can use a simple physics model to estimate the power consumption for running at 7 m/s (the Lightning’s average half marathon speed) as gear ratio varies: The light blue curve shows how to pick the optimal gearing (45:1). The dark blue curve shows how much heat will be produced in the knee motor, ~150W for the optimal gearing.Avik De/DatawrapperWe see that the drivetrain is not magical: with a gear ratio chosen for this task (we’ll return to this below), the approximate robot power consumption would be a very reasonable 400W.However, the dissipated knee power ( typically the main thermal limiting factor) is ~150W. This is almost an unavoidable consequence — running at human speeds with a humanoid-sized robot will inevitably generate this amount of heat! Over a prolonged period, keeping the motor from overheating would be a challenge, but the Lightning has a trick up its sleeve:According to Honor, the liquid - cooling pipes penetrate deep into the motors like capillaries. The high - power liquid pump has a heat - exchange flow rate of more than 4 liters per minute. Each of the four drive motors in the lower limbs is equipped with an independent liquid - cooling circuit.Liquid cooling is not new, but it’s definitely not a commodity. It has shown up in research periodically, and on the commercial side Apptronik tried it for a few of their prototypes but (to my knowledge) does not use it on their main Apollo platform. Basic air convection-based cooling would not continuously be able to extract 150W out of the knee motor, and so the cooling technology is a key enabler of this type of performance.Why Others Couldn’t CompeteWhy did Honor’s competitors, including more established and widely-shipped humanoids such as from Unitree or Agibot, not compete as well?We can use the same model to generate an equivalent energetics plot for walking at 1.5 m/s, a much more modest but potentially more common activity for a commercial humanoid robot: The solid and dashed light blue lines show a running-optimized design, while green lines show a walking-optimized design. The optimal ratio for walking is much lower (30:1 vs 45:1). However, the power dissipated in the knee motor while running (dark blue) is much higher at 30:1 vs 45:1—the price to pay for running with a walking-optimized design.Avik De/DatawrapperThe plot adds a new green curve for the walking power, and the optimal gearing is significantly different!Let’s say you design your robot to excel at the normal walking task and choose the green design with 30:1 gearing. The knee motor power to run a half marathon is over 300W (red arrow), more than 2x what we had with the running-optimized design. It wouldn’t be so surprising to need ice packs!Conversely, visually following the green curve shows that the running-optimized robot wastes more power for walking. Using larger motors sized for running increases the weight of the robot and wastes power when it is standing or walking. The larger motors also pose practical issues like bumping into objects while operating in homes or factories.Closing ThoughtsHonor’s half marathon performance was an impressive engineering effort and result. It didn’t need any magical leaps in technology, but the deployment of the capillary motor cooling solution is a notable advance without which this running pace would have been unsustainable. The cooling, weight optimization, and robustness advances may well be useful for more practical purposes like carrying heavy payloads down the line. The Honor Lighting robot [right] has much larger motors driving its legs than the Unitree H1 robot [left], making it a more efficient runner but a less efficient walker.Left: Wei Zhiyang/Zhejiang Daily Press Group/VCG/Getty Images; Right: VCG/Getty ImagesHowever, the Lightning is not as well-suited to other tasks as a robot designed for greater versatility. Engineering is always characterized by tradeoffs, and making the correct ones separates good products from great ones. With consistently improving AI language models, this very human skill is becoming the most valuable one an engineer can have.The news coverage seemed to overly focus on the fact that the human half-marathon record had been broken by a robot. Machines and humans have very different capabilities and constraints, so why should we ever have expected the half marathon time for a robot and human to be related? As in Deep Blue’s 1997 defeat of Garry Kasparov in chess, where it couldn’t physically move the pieces, the Honor robot’s capabilities are much narrower than a human running elbow-to-elbow with other runners while visually navigating the course without GPS. Comparing the robot runner to a human runner is just an apples-to-oranges comparison, and only risks diminishing Honor’s engineering achievement on one hand, and human athletic achievement on the other.
IEEE Spectrum
This article is part of our exclusive IEEE Journal Watch series in partnership with IEEE Xplore.
As robots advance in terms of dexterity and other physical capabilities, it becomes more likely that humans may find themselves working alongside them. If that happens, how will robots’ emotional capabilities need to advance for them to successfully work with people?In a recent study, researchers trained collaborative robots to read human emotions by not only accounting for facial expressions, but also contextual factors in the interactions as well. Through experiments with 40 volunteers, the researchers then evaluated how a robot’s ability to read human emotions and adjust its behaviour in turn impacted a human’s perception of the robot and its capabilities as the two collaborated on tasks. The results—which show that the emotional capabilities of robots only go so far with humans—were published 18 May in IEEE Robotics and Automation Letters.Seung Chan Hong led the study as part of his undergraduate thesis while studying at the University of Melbourne, in Australia. He notes that, while there has been a lot of hype in the advancing physical abilities of robots, this is only one piece of the puzzle. “We need to also innovate when it comes to them actually interacting with humans, not just their physical capabilities,” he says.This prompted him to dig deeper into the emotional aspects of human-robot interactions. First, Hong and his co-authors decided to train a robot to read human emotions using a vision language model (VLM), which is similar to large language models such as ChatGPT, but which can also take visual inputs.Training VLMs for Human Emotion RecognitionTo train their VLM, the researchers had volunteers watch videos of robots handing over objects to humans—with varying degrees of success—and describe the emotions the humans were expressing. Importantly, the volunteers labeling these videos were able to take into account more context in these interactions, rather than reporting solely on the facial expressions of the humans in the video. For example, a person pausing to think with a furrowed brow may simply be concentrating on their task at hand, and not necessarily be angry. Contextual factors such as drumming their fingers, pursing their lips, or other behaviors can point to the real cause of a person’s furrowed brow.The researchers then compared their VLM to a conventional AI system which relies on standard facial analysis and object tracking that is used in human-robot interactions. They found that the VLM outperformed the traditional approach. On a scale from 0 (no similarity in meaning to the emotion identified by the human volunteers) to 1 (a perfect match in meaning), the conventional AI system achieved a score of 0.77. In comparison, the VLM achieved a score of 0.86.Hong says, “I think [the VLM] was able to align with what human observers were seeing a lot better, because it wasn’t just looking at the person’s face for a brief amount of time, but seeing the whole scene—where the person was and what they were doing, and how they were interacting with the robot.”In a second experiment, the research team asked 40 volunteers to interact with a robot using their VLM—but purposefully programmed the robot to make an error. The robot then had to offer either an emotionally adaptive apology that accounted for the human’s perceived response to the mistake, or a pre-scripted spoken apology.Participants overwhelmingly preferred the emotionally adaptive response, with 31 out of 40 people favouring this approach over a boilerplate apology.However, their survey responses underscored how this emotional adaptivity was far less important than the robot’s functionality. After collaborating with a robot that failed in its task, many participants ranked their trust in the robot as lower, regardless of how it apologized for its mistake. “A personalized apology acts as a social lubricant, but it cannot repair the trust lost by the robot failing its physical task,” Hong says.Interestingly, the VLM classified the emotions of its human partners similarly to human volunteers who observed an interaction from a third-party perspective. But when the VLM’s assessments were measured against humans’ self-reported emotions during the second experiment—the most accurate descriptions of their true emotions—its ability to accurately predict emotions dropped significantly.“While the VLM is a good observer of outward social cues, it isn’t a mind reader,” says Hong. “It matched third-person human observers well, but it didn’t always align with the user’s internal, self-reported feelings.”Together, these results show that robots are not perfect at reading human emotions. So while people might appreciate their efforts, they still ultimately will want competent co-workers.