Hybrid aerial--ground robots can use thrust to cross obstacles that impede wheel-driven motion, but deciding how much thrust to apply during contact remains challenging. We present an energy-aware reinforcement learning framework that jointly commands wheels, tilt servos and propellers through a single continuous policy, without prescribing locomotion modes. Hardware-calibrated power models penalise estimated electrical energy, while a terrain curriculum and a terminal reward for upright, settled arrivals support learning of thrust-assisted climbing. In simulation, continuous thrust allocation improves single-step clearance over fixed-thrust and mode-switching baselines as steps become taller. At the wheel-radius step height, it draws approximately 27 percent less mean power than the best fixed allocation. An energy-weight ablation shows the accompanying trade-off between efficiency and reliability. On a physical DoubleBee prototype, the unchanged network with a deployment interface clears two 6 centimetre steps in 8 of 10 trials. Additional hardware tests show both the potential for transfer to different terrain geometries and the remaining limitations in heading control, contact robustness and recovery.
Figures & tables
Fig. 1: Thrust-assisted climbing on DoubleBee. Four exposures show the robot approaching and traversing two 6cm steps spaced 40cm apart. The wheels provide forward travel while thrust assists passage over each edge, and the robot covers 1.3m in 2.9s before settling upright on the top step.
Fig. 2: DoubleBee and its actuators. The policy uses a shared propeller command, a shared servo command, and common and differential wheel commands. This four-dimensional action is mapped to the six low-level channels ( Section III-B ).
Fig. 3: Training terrain and the policy’s view of it. Each 10×10m tile is a procedurally generated inverted-pyramid staircase with a 0.40m tread and step heights from 0.03m0.08m , instantiated at five difficulty levels with five tiles each. Episodes start on a flat patch at the base of the staircase, with the goal (red) sampled 1.5m3.2m ahead and 0.03m0.20m above it. Inset: the height scan (cyan), a 4×4 grid of rays at 0.07m spacing over a 0.21m square centred on the base and aligned with its heading.
Signal
Dim.
Information
ωw
2
Wheel angular velocities
σ
2
Servo tilt angles
ωp
2
Propeller spin rates
vB
3
Body-frame linear velocity
ωB
3
Body-frame angular velocity
g^
3
Projected gravity (attitude)
TABLE I: Policy observation. Paired actuator quantities contain one value per left/right unit.
Component
Weight
Task progress
Goal progress, height gain, forward progress, settled climb
2 each
Per-step reward within 60∘ of upright
0.5
Propeller engagement
Vertical thrust while leaning, increasing with lean
1.5
Keeping thrust vertical, upward thrust at a step
2 each
TABLE II: Principal reward components and weights. Group names correspond to ( 6 ). Terminal weights multiply a base value of 100 for the goal reward and −10 for each failure.
TABLE III: Randomisation and delay settings. Physical parameters are resampled at every reset, except actuator stiffness and damping, which are sampled once at startup.
Fig. 4: Fixed-thrust comparison. Top: single-step clearance against step height for the learned policy and four fixed allocations. Bottom: clearance of a 6cm step against mean power. Wheels and servos remain learned in all variants. Each point is 2000 episodes and the bars denote one standard error across ten checkpoints. The line joins the fixed-allocation points.
Fig. 5: Thrust and posture through one simulated two-step climb, where shaded bands mark the step crossings. Forward speed ( a ) falls as each wheel loads against a step face and recovers between them. Height ( b ) rises in two stages. The body leans back to −31\SIUnitSymbolDegree on the approach and forward to 33\SIUnitSymbolDegree through the crossings ( c ). Thrust ( d ) settles near 7N while driving, rises towards the simulated ceiling as each step is crossed, and falls away afterwards.
Learned
Switch 0.31
Switch 0.46
Fixed 0.55
3 cm
67.3±5.6
70.7±4.7
62.6±6.5
60.9±7.3
4 cm
60.1±6.1
60.4±7.0
54.1±6.9
54.9±7.7
5 cm
52.6±4.8
39.8±5.6
42.6±3.7
37.7±6.7
6 cm
39.8±2.5
28.8±5.0
25.6±3.7
22.5±6.2
7 cm
28.1±2.4
15.9±3.8
13.1±2.5
8.9±5.9
Power (W)
286
264
321
391
TABLE IV: Learned thrust against mode switching. Clearance is in percent, power is measured at 6cm , and values after ± are one standard error across checkpoints.
Metric
Measurement
Both steps cleared
8/10 trials
Distance travelled
1.26m1.40m
Duration
2.95±64s
Mean electrical power
275±21W
Integrated electrical energy
823±229J
TABLE V: Primary hardware experiment. Distance, duration, power and energy refer to the eight completed climbs, and values after ± are standard deviations across trials.
Fig. 6: Additional hardware terrains. Top: representative traversals on ( α ) closely spaced unequal steps, ( β ) a ramp crest and ( γ ) taller steps with a foam upper surface. Bottom: asymmetric wheel contact, departure from the ramp edge and chassis jamming. Geometry and trial outcomes in Table VI .
Terrain
Observed outcome
α Narrow
Steps of 6, 7, 8 cm with 20 cm spacing
Third step reached 4/5 Upright on top 3/5
β Ramp
Two 12.9∘ ramps meeting at a crest
Crest crossed and far side descended 4/5
γ Foam
Steps of 8 and 9 cm with second of foam
First step cleared 5/5 Upright on second 2/5
TABLE VI: Additional terrain tests, five trials each. Outcome definitions differ by configuration and are stated explicitly.
Although aerial-legged robots offer combined agility and efficiency, controlling high-speed hopping under complex hybrid dynamics is challenging. Reinforcement Learning (RL) is promising but prone to energy-inefficient "reward hacking". We propose a Dynamics-Informed RL framework for a monopedal hopping quadcopter. By embedding a target Specific Energy into the reward, we constrain the optimization to a physically viable energy manifold, ensuring stable hopping behaviour. By rewarding the phase-consistent behavior, it can encourage bio-inspired stance-phase impulse. Furthermore, penalizing the electro-mechanical power waste induces the motors generate an efficient impulse. This enables the policy to inject energy strictly during spring restitution without heuristic state machines. MuJoCo simulations validate robust height regulation and forward velocity tracking up to 2.0 m/s despite severe attitude-contact coupling. Ultimately, our approach yields a highly agile hopping gait, reducing energy consumption by 82% and 73% compared to hovering baselines and inefficiency baseline, respectively.
Ruigang Chen, Qi Zhang, Zhicheng Zhong +3
Department of Mechanical Engineering and Robotics, Guangdong Technion - Israel Institute of Technology, Shantou, 515063, Guangdong, China. · Department of Mechanical Engineering, Technion-Israel Institute of Technology, Haifa, 3200003, Israel.
While energy efficiency is a critical objective for legged-robot locomotion control, achieving low energy consumption while maintaining robust performance across different velocity ranges and terrain conditions remains a key challenge. This is particularly true for end-to-end RL policies, where gait generation, motion execution, and energy optimization are tightly coupled, leading to high sensitivity to reward design. In this work, we propose a hierarchical reinforcement learning (HRL) framework that separates a high-frequency policy for stable and robust joint-level motion execution from low-frequency gait adaptation that explicitly minimizes the cost of transport (CoT). The three-stage Isaac-based training procedure enables zero-shot sim-to-real transfer with improved tracking accuracy, robustness, and energy efficiency. The learned hierarchy exhibits automatic speed-dependent gait adaptation, transitioning from pacing at low speeds to trotting at higher speeds. We validate the proposed approach in simulation against representative single-policy and hierarchical locomotion baselines, demonstrating reduced CoT over a broad range of commanded velocities, while maintaining robust locomotion across flat, uneven rough, and inclined terrains. We further demonstrate its practical feasibility through zero-shot deployment on a physical Unitree AlienGo quadruped.
Ammar Issa, Anubhav Singh, Anton Tsaritsin +1
Faculty of Control Systems and Robotics, ITMO University, and the Biomechatronics and Energy-Efficient Robotics Lab (BE2R), St. Petersburg, Russia
Learning-based quadrupedal locomotion typically relies on complex reward formulations that entangle task specification, operational limits, gait preference, and terrain adaptation within a single optimization objective. We instead treat these functions through distinct mechanisms: rewards for task specification, constraints for operational limits, energy minimization for gait preference, and exteroceptive perception for adapting energy use to terrain difficulty. We show that these components jointly enable efficient, terrain-adaptive locomotion, and that removing each component exposes a distinct failure mode. Our formulation removes explicit gait priors (including air-time, contact-count, and foot-clearance targets) in favor of emergent behavior. Compared to a conventional complex-reward baseline, our formulation achieves comparable terrain traversal while reducing cost of transport by 56% and operational-limit violations by 96%. The resulting policies transfer zero-shot to a physical Unitree Go2 using LiDAR-based elevation mapping. Project website with videos: https://tinyurl.com/locomposition.
Loukas Kordos, Leonard T. Franz, Simon Rappenecker +4
Technical University of Munich. · University of Tübingen. · Hertie Institute for Clinical Brain Research & Center for Integrative Neuroscience. +1