\section{Introduction}

One of the most studied phenomenological windows on Quantum Gravity (QG) is the possibility that spacetime acquires a `fuzzy' or `grainy' quality at small scales~\cite{Wheeler1955,Hawking1978,Nick_foam1,Nick_lightcone}. This is believed to have an effect on the propagation of particles through vacuum -  spacetime itself is supposed to behave like a dispersive medium. Such conjectured effects, although expected to be minuscule,\footnote{The expectation is that the scale controlling these effects is the Planck length, $L_p \sim 10^{-35} m$, or  the associated energy $E_p \sim 10^{28} eV$.} could accumulate over cosmic distances to such an extent that they may become observable. In fact, it turns out that the magnitudes of the quantities at our disposal combine in a fortunate way for a particular kind of astrophysical sources: Gamma Ray Bursts (GRBs). These sources can be as far as several billion light years, and emit particles which can reach energies of hundreds of GeVs.
Suppose that an effect controlled by the Planck length follows a law of the kind (in $\hbar = c =1$ units)
\begin{equation}\label{planckeffect}
\Delta t = L_p \, E \, L \,,
\end{equation}
where $E$ is the energy of the particle, $L$ is the distance of the GRB and $\Delta t$ is the time scale of the conjectured effect. Replacing the numbers   $E \sim 1 ~ TeV$ and $L = 10^9 ~ ly$, we get $\Delta t \sim 2 ~ s$, which is quite macroscopic.
This coincidence of relevant scales is an invitation to use GRB to constrain new physics whose characteristic scale is $E_p$, and which might have a quantum-gravitational origin.

The most studied proposals conjecture that, due to the fuzziness of the background spacetime, the relativistic kinematics of particles of very high energy departs from what predicted by Special (or General) Relativity.
Their dispersion relation is modified by corrections controlled by the Planck scale~\cite{21,MagueijoSmolin2002,MagueijoSmolin2003,GiovanniLRR,Nick_string_refractive,MagueijoSmolin_string_dsr}. These effects may be \emph{systematic,} \emph{i.e.} for a massless particle:
\begin{equation}
 v = 1 + k \, L_p \, E  +  \mathcal O (L_p^2) \,, \label{SystematicDispRel}
\end{equation}
so each particle of energy $E$ goes faster (or slower) than light by a quantity $|k| \, L_p \, E$
where $k \in \mathbbm{R}$. Another possibility is that the effects are  \emph{statistical,} in the sense that the average speed of massless particles is still $1$, but there are fluctuations which give a variance:
\begin{equation}
\Delta v =  |k| \, L_p \, E  +  \mathcal O (L_p^2) \,. \label{StatisticDispRel}
\end{equation}
This implies that particles originated at a point-source and propagating through vacuum will arrive with a time spread [the $\Delta t$  of Eq.~\eqref{planckeffect}]  of order $|k| \, L_p \, E$.

In any case, one can hope to put experimental constraints on the effects formalized by relations like~(\ref{SystematicDispRel}) and (\ref{StatisticDispRel}) with GRB observations  (see for example references \cite{21} and \cite{Vasileiou2015}, which provide bounds on formulas of such kind), precisely because of the coincidence in the relevant scales we observed above. GRBs are not pointlike sources (neither in space nor in time), but at the source they are known to be of reasonably short duration. In particular, about 30\% of the GRBs are classified as `short', with a duration of less than 2 seconds, and with recognizable features (`pulses') in their light curve that last a fraction of a second~\cite{Fermi2009Nature,Nick_GRB_finesse_analysis}. This allows to put a limit to $|k|$ in Eqs.(\ref{StatisticDispRel}) and~(\ref{SystematicDispRel}): for photon energies in the range  $0 - 100 ~ GeV$, simultaneous detection implies $|k|\lesssim 100$. GRB photons are not the only possible way to test these effects: they are now being tested~\cite{Amelino-Camelia2017}  with very high-energy ($\sim 100 ~ TeV$) neutrino detections of the IceCube telescope~\cite{Aartsen2013,Aartsen2014}, with gravitational waves~\cite{Nick_gravity_waves}, and with cosmological observations~\cite{Amelino-Camelia2013a}.
The analyses that put constraints on effects like~(\ref{SystematicDispRel}) and (\ref{StatisticDispRel}) have now reached a high degree of sophistication, constraining $k$ down to $\mathcal O (1)$~\cite{Nick_GRB_finesse_analysis,Fermi2009Nature,Xu2016,Xu2016a,Amelino-Camelia2017}.

On the theoretical side, however, most studies did not go much further than conjecturing more or less arbitrarily a relation of the kind~(\ref{SystematicDispRel}) or (\ref{StatisticDispRel}) -- not without making heavy compromises on the rigor.
For example, it is widely expected that certain models of quantum geometry  called \emph{noncommutative spacetimes} predict in-vacuo dispersion of the form~(\ref{SystematicDispRel}) or~(\ref{StatisticDispRel}). These theories model the `fuzzy' nature of spacetime at the Planck scale as some  commutation relations for the coordinates (which are promoted to quantum operators $\hat x^\mu$): $[\hat x^\mu, \hat x^\nu] = i \, \Theta^{\mu\nu}(\hat x)$, for some given function $\Theta^{\mu\nu}(\hat x)$~\cite{doplicher1995,NikitaNekrasov}. The uncertainty relations that follow
from such commutators $\Delta x^\mu \Delta x^\nu \geq  \frac 1 2 \langle \Theta^{\mu\nu}(\hat x) \rangle$ impose limits to the simultaneous measurability of multiple coordinates~\cite{doplicher1995}. Part of the reasons why noncommutative spacetimes are interesting is that, in 2+1 dimensions they arise as the low-energy limit of QG~\cite{Matschull,freidel}.

Perhaps the best-known example of noncommutative spacetime is \emph{$\kappa$-Minkowski}\footnote{Apart from being a popular model of noncommutative geometry, $\kappa$-Minkowski and its symmetry algebra are (almost) the only choices in 4 spacetime dimensions~\cite{noi2}.}~\cite{lukkkk,mr,Benedetti2009}. In this model, the  Poincar\'e algebra is deformed into a \emph{Hopf algebra}~\cite{compact,104,Landi:1997sh}, such that the commutation relations become nonlinear functions of the generators.\footnote{Something that is not allowed in Lie algebras.}
The $\kappa$-Poincar\'e Casimir is not a quadratic function of momentum anymore. In an expansion in powers of $L_p$:
\begin{equation} \label{DefCasimir_naive}
\mathcal C' = - E^2 + |\vec{p}|^2 + k \, L_p \, E^3 + \mathcal O(L_P^2) \,,
\end{equation}
Then, it is argued, the group velocity of a wave respecting $\mathcal C' = 0$,  will  be $v = \frac{\partial E}{\partial p} =  1  + k \, L_p \,  E$, precisely as in Eq.~(\ref{SystematicDispRel})~\cite{amelinowaves}.

This simple argument, however, is rather naive: the form~(\ref{DefCasimir_naive}) of the Casimir depends on the choice of basis of the $\kappa$-Poincar\'e algebra, and any nonlinear redefinition of basis is allowed in a Hopf algebra. By deducing a dispersion relation from the Casimir of $\kappa$-Poincar\'e, one ends up with a \textit{different} physical prediction for each choice of basis.

A more rigorous strategy  is to use Quantum Field Theory (QFT) on $\kappa$-Minkowski. Reference~\cite{Brasiliani} is highly significant in this context: by analyzing the retarded and advanced Green functions the authors are able to study their causality properties. Their conclusions are diametrically opposite to those of the advocates of~(\ref{SystematicDispRel}) or~(\ref{StatisticDispRel}): the light-cone is blurred over a region of Planckian size, independently of the  distance from the origin. This conclusion would make the microcausality properties of $\kappa$-Minkowski hopelessly untestable, because the departures from commutative Minkowski spacetime manifest themselves only at Planckian scales.
This conflicts with the intuition provided by the commutation relations of $\kappa$-Minkowski shown below in~(\ref{k-Minkowski_algebra}), which imply uncertainty relations of the form $\Delta z^1 \Delta z^0 \geq {\frac 1 2} L_p \langle z^1 \rangle$. If the spatial coordinate $z^1$ and the temporal one $z^0$ have uncertainties of the same order of magnitude, they will be of the order of $\sqrt{L_p \langle z^1 \rangle}$.\footnote{This was first observed in~\cite{Giovanni-kappa-LimitsMeasurability}.} For macroscopic distances, this is a colossal boost in the size of the effect, with respect to what was proposed in~\cite{Brasiliani}.

The analysis of~\cite{Brasiliani} is definitely a step further from arbitrarily postulating a relation of the kind~(\ref{SystematicDispRel}) or (\ref{StatisticDispRel}), but it  relies on an inadequate assumption: the deformed Casimir of $\kappa$-Minkowski is simply promoted to a nonlinear wave operator on a space of \emph{commutative} functions, and its Green functions are calculated by inverting classical partial differential equations.
Again, this approach will yield different results in different Hopf-algebra bases.

In~\cite{Mercati2018} we  developed a framework that allows to discuss causality issues in a more realistic setting: a free Klein--Gordon field theory on $\kappa$-Minkowski. Our construction is Hopf-algebra-basis independent. The commutation relations between fields at different spacetime points were defined through an appropriate generalization of the Pauli--Jordan function, which is covariant under the action of the $\kappa$-Poincar\'e Hopf algebra. In commutative spacetimes the Pauli--Jordan function is zero outside of the light-cone, and  represents a useful field-theoretical definition of the causal structure.
In the following analysis we retain the interpretation of the Pauli--Jordan function as a the commutator between fields at different spacetime points, establishing thereby the causal structure of spacetime. Even though we believe this is a reasonable assumption we stress that it should only be considered as such, and that our proposal should be further explored and supported by different calculations and examples.

In this Letter we extract the causal structure of $\kappa$-Minkowski from our noncommutative Pauli--Jordan function. We have multiple goals, the completion of which has a significant impact over a large literature in QG-phenomenology and noncommutative QFT:
\begin{enumerate}
\item Putting under scrutiny the claim of Ref.~\cite{Brasiliani} that the lightcone of $\kappa$-Minkowski is blurred over a region of invariably Planckian size. An improvement like what is suggested by the  $\kappa$-Minkowski uncertainty relations would be extremely significant, making the nonlocal effect potentially measurable.

\item Updating the discussion of superluminal propagation in  $\kappa$-Minkowski. If in-vacuo dispersion relations of the form~(\ref{SystematicDispRel}) or (\ref{StatisticDispRel}) is indeed predicted by QFT on $\kappa$-Minkowski, as appears to be commonly accepted in the literature~\cite{amelinowaves,Aloisio:2004yz}, then we already have bounds of Planckian magnitude on the relevant models~\cite{Nick_GRB,Fermi2009Nature,Xu2016,Xu2016a,Amelino-Camelia2017}. On the other hand, if the light-cone turned out to be blurred over a region of the same size as $\sqrt{L_p \langle z^1 \rangle}$ or less, then we couldn't talk about in-vacuo dispersion, because it would be forbidden by microcausality relations. GRBs would not put constraints on $\kappa$-Minkowski models.
\end{enumerate}

\section{QFT on $\kappa$-Minkowski}

The algebra of functions on $\kappa$-Minkowski in $n$ spatial dimensions $\mathcal{A}$ is generated by the $n+1$ coordinates $\hat z^\mu$:
\begin{equation}\label{k-Minkowski_algebra}
[\hat z^0 , \hat z^i] = \frac{i}{\kappa} \hat z^i \,,~~
[\hat z^i , \hat z^j] =0 \,, \qquad \hat z^\mu \in \mathcal A \,,
\end{equation}
The eponymous energy constant $\kappa$ is supposed to be related to the Planck scale.
In~\cite{Mercati2018} we introduced the Pauli--Jordan function for a complex scalar as an element of $\mathcal A \otimes \mathcal A$: the algebra of functions of two variables, generated by the operators $\hat x^\mu =\hat z^\mu \otimes 1$ and $\hat y^\mu = 1 \otimes\hat z^\mu$. The commutator between a quantum scalar field $\hat \phi(\hat x)$ and its conjugate $\hat \phi^\dagger (\hat y)$  at different spacetime points was defined as $[ \hat \phi(\hat x) , \hat \phi^\dagger (\hat y) ] =
i \hat{\Delta}_\text{PJ}(\hat x,\hat y) $, where:
\begin{equation}\label{Noncommutative_Pauli-Jordan_3D}
\begin{aligned}
&i \hat{\Delta}_\text{PJ}
= -
\int_{\mathbbm{R}^n} \!\!\!\!\!  \diff^n p \frac{e^{3 \frac{\omega^-  }\kappa}  e^{i {\vec p} \cdot \hat{\vec x}} e^{- i  e^{\frac{\omega^-  }\kappa} {\vec p} \cdot \hat{\vec y}}  e^{i \omega^-  (\hat{x}^0 - \hat{y}^0)}
}{ 2 \sqrt{ \left(m^2+| \vec p |^2\right)}} +
\\
&\int_{\mathbbm{R}^n} \!\!\!\!\!  \diff^n p
 \frac{
\text{sign}(\kappa-|\vec p|) e^{3 \frac{\omega^+  }\kappa}  e^{i {\vec p} \cdot \hat{\vec x} - i e^{\frac{\omega^+  }\kappa} {\vec p} \cdot \hat{\vec y}  }  e^{i \omega^+  (\hat{x}^0 - \hat{y}^0) } }{ 2 \sqrt{ \left(m^2+| \vec p |^2\right)}}
\,.
\end{aligned}
\end{equation}
where
\begin{equation} \textstyle
\omega^\pm   = - \frac{\kappa}{2} \log \left[ 1 + \frac{2 m^2 + | \vec p |^2}{\kappa^2} \mp \frac{  \sqrt{\left(\kappa ^2+m^2\right) \left(m^2+| \vec p |^2\right)}}{\kappa^2} \right]\,,
\end{equation}
are the \emph{frequencies}, which, for $m \ll \kappa $, tend to the usual  $\pm\sqrt{\vec{p}^2+m^2}$ in the low-momentum limit $| \vec p | \ll \kappa $ .

 \begin{figure*}[t!]
\begin{center}
\raisebox{-1pt}{\includegraphics[height=0.195\textheight]{PauliJordanContourPlots.pdf}}
\end{center}\caption{Expectation value of the noncommutative Pauli--Jordan function calculated on a semiclassical state centred on the points $\bar x^\mu$,  $\bar y^\mu$. The function is represented as a contour plot on the plane $(\bar x^1 -\bar y^1)$-vs.-$(\bar x^0 -\bar y^0)$. All coordinates are expressed in Planck units. The diagram on the left is zoomed in at the origin, and shows a region of $20\times20$ Planck units $\kappa^{-1}$. The central diagram shows $200\times200$ Planck units, while the one on the left shows $2000\times2000$. It is apparent how, zooming out up to macroscopic distances form the origin, the noncommutative Pauli--Jordan function is indistinguishable from the commutative one, which is $\pi$ in the absolute future, $-\pi$ in the absolute past and $0$ in the absolute present. Compare these figures with the one shown in~\cite{Brasiliani}, where the `blurry' region has the same thickness everywhere.
An animated version of the diagram above is available at~\cite{Weblink}.
}\label{LightCone2D_1}
\end{figure*}

\section{Noncommutative light-cone}

Our present goal is to extract a commutative function of two variables from the much richer structure of the noncommutative function~\eqref{Noncommutative_Pauli-Jordan_3D}. To do so we take the expectation value of $\hat{\Delta}_\text{PJ}(\hat x,\hat y)$ on a \emph{state} on the
algebra generated by $\hat x$, $\hat y$. In fact, having promoted spacetime coordinates to noncommuting operators, we can interpreted them as operators acting on a Hilbert space. The latter is a space of wavefunctions of the coordinates, which encode the probability of finding a certain value for the spacetime coordinates, and will respect uncertainty relations that prevent the points to be sharply localized. Now, $\kappa$-deformed quantum field theory is an effective theory, supposedly valid in the low-energy regime of a more fundamental quantum theory of gravity. Therefore it cannot be expected to predict these wavefunctions: the state of the quantum geometry can only be determined by the underlying - and yet unknown - QG theory. Therefore we have to make do with what we have and make assumptions about the kind of states that could be generated by a reasonable QG theory. The uncertainty relations of $\kappa$-Minkowski, $\Delta \hat z^0 \Delta \hat z^i \geq  \frac \kappa 2 \langle \hat z^i \rangle$, allow for states with arbitrarily small spatial or temporal uncertainty, but unless the spatial coordinate $\hat z^i$ is centred on the origin ($\langle \hat z^i \rangle = 0$), this comes at the cost of a correspondingly large uncertainty in the other coordinate. We assume that a `reasonable' QG theory won't predict states with a macroscopically large uncertainty in any of the coordinates. Instead, it is expected to predict a quantum geometry that is well approximated by the commutative Minkowski space. This means that we should be looking for states in which the squared sum of uncertainties of all coordinates, $(\Delta \hat z^0)^2 + \sum_i(\Delta \hat z^i)^2$ is near its minimum $\frac \kappa 2 \langle \hat z^i \rangle$. We call these states `semiclassical'.
As we remarked, without knowing the details of the underlying QG theory we have no way of predicting the details of the wavefunction, but we expect the essential features of the expectation value of the Pauli--Jordan function to be independent of these details, as long as the state satisfies the semiclassicality condition. To test this hypothesis we calculate $\langle \hat{\Delta}_\text{PJ}(\hat x,\hat y)\rangle $ on four different wavefunctions satisfying the semiclassicality condition, and verify that the results are indistinguishable from one another.

To define our Hilbert space $\mathcal H$ of `geometric' states we introduce a representation of the algebra~\eqref{k-Minkowski_algebra}. $\hat z^i$ will act as multiplicative operators on a space of complex functions $\psi(\vec q)$ on $\mathbbm{R}^n$ (where $n$ is the number of spatial dimensions), while $\hat z^0$ is represented as a differential operator
\begin{equation}\label{kappa-Representation}
\hat z^i  \psi(\vec q) = \frac{\vec q}{\kappa} \psi(\vec q) \,, ~ \hat z^0   \psi(\vec q) = - i \vec q \cdot \frac{\partial \psi(\vec q)}{\partial \vec q} - i \frac{n}{2}  \psi(\vec q) \,.
\end{equation}
We then define an inner product on $\mathcal H$ as $
\langle \varphi  | \psi \rangle = \int_{\mathbbm{R}^n} d^n q ~ \bar \varphi(\vec q) \psi(\vec q) \,.
$
These definitions give a faithful representation of the algebra~\eqref{k-Minkowski_algebra}.

From now on, for simplicity, we will work in 1+1 dimensions ($n=1$). Consider a Gaussian:
\begin{equation}\label{GaussianWavepacket}
\gamma(q ; \bar z^0,\bar z^1) = \left( \frac 2 {\sigma \sqrt{\pi}} \right)^{\frac 1 2} e^{- \frac{(q-\kappa \bar  z^1 )^2}{\sigma^2}} e^{i \frac{\bar  z^0}{\bar  z^1} q } \,.
\end{equation}
The above wavefunction has $\langle \gamma | \hat z^\mu | \gamma \rangle =\bar  z^\mu$, and the squared sum of uncertainties $(\Delta \hat z^0)^2+(\Delta \hat z^1)^2$ is minimized\footnote{The minimum is $\frac 1 2 \kappa^{-2}+ \kappa^{-1}\sqrt{(\bar z^0)^2 + (\bar z^1)^2}$.} if we fix the parameter $\sigma$ to the value $\sigma = 2 \kappa^{\frac 1 2} \bar  z^1 [(\bar z^0)^2 + (\bar z^1)^2]^{-\frac 1 4}$. We now want to work with two points, and therefore we generalize the representation~\eqref{kappa-Representation} to the  tensor-product algebra $\mathcal A \otimes \mathcal A$: $\hat x^1 = \frac{q_x}{\kappa}$, $\hat x^0  =- i  q_x \partial_{q_x} - \frac{i}{2}$, $\hat y^1 = \frac{q_y}{\kappa}$, $\hat y^0  = - i q_y \partial_{q_y} - \frac{i}{2} $.

We can then define a semiclassical state of the two coordinates $\hat x$ and $\hat y$ as $\psi(q_x,q_y) = \gamma(q_x,\bar x^0,\bar x^1)\gamma(q_y,\bar y^0,\bar y^1)$, which has expectation values $\langle \psi | \hat x^\mu | \psi \rangle =\bar  x^\mu$,  $\langle \psi | \hat y^\mu | \psi \rangle =\bar  y^\mu$, and minimal squared sums of uncertainties for both points. To calculate the expectation value of the Pauli--Jordan function $\langle \hat{\Delta}_\text{PJ} \rangle$ on this state it is then sufficient to observe that the exponentials in~\eqref{Noncommutative_Pauli-Jordan_3D} act on our wavefunction as:
\begin{equation}
\begin{aligned}
e^{i p_1  \hat x^1 - i e^{\frac{\omega^\pm }\kappa} p_1  \hat y^1  }  e^{i \omega^\pm (\hat x^0 - \hat y^0)}  \psi(q_x,q_y)
=
\\
e^{i \frac{p_1 q_x^1}{\kappa} - i e^{\frac{\omega^\pm }\kappa} \frac{p_1 q_y^1}{\kappa}  }   \psi(e^{-\omega^\pm}q_x,e^{+\omega^\pm}q_y) \,,
\end{aligned}
\end{equation}
and sandwich the expression above with $\bar \psi(q_x,q_y ; \bar  x^\mu,\bar  y^\mu)$, integrating in $\diff q_x \diff q_y$ over all of $\mathbbm{R}^2$:
\begin{equation}\label{Noncommutative_Pauli-Jordan_1D}
\begin{aligned}
\langle \hat{\Delta}_\text{PJ} \rangle
&= \int_{\mathbbm{R}} \!\!\! \diff p_1
 \frac{
\text{sign}(\kappa-|\vec p|)}{ 2 \sqrt{ \left(m^2+| \vec p |^2\right)}}
\int_{\mathbbm{R}^2} \!\!\! \diff q_x \diff q_y ~ F(\omega^+)
\\
&-
\int_{\mathbbm{R}}\!\!\!  \diff p_1 \frac{1}{ 2 \sqrt{ \left(m^2+| \vec p |^2\right)}}  \int_{\mathbbm{R}^2}   \!\!\! \diff q_x \diff q_y ~ F(\omega^-)
\,,
\end{aligned}
\end{equation}
where
\begin{equation}
F(\omega) =
e^{i \frac{p_1 q_x^1 - i e^{\frac{\omega  }\kappa} p_1 q_y^1}{\kappa}  }
\bar \psi(q_x,q_y)  \psi(e^{-\omega }q_x,e^{+\omega }q_y) \,.
\end{equation}
The integral in $\diff q_x \diff q_y$ of $F(\omega)$ can be easily performed analytically, and the result inserted into expression~\eqref{Noncommutative_Pauli-Jordan_3D} gives an expression that can be integrated in $\diff p_1$ numerically. The result is an ordinary, commutative function $\langle \hat{\Delta}_\text{PJ} \rangle =\Delta^\kappa_\text{PJ}(\bar x,\bar y) $ of only the (numerical) expectation values of the coordinates, $\bar x^\mu$ and $\bar y^\mu$.

\begin{figure}[t!]\center
\includegraphics[width=0.48\textwidth]{PJ_plot.pdf}
\caption{Cross-section of $\Delta^\kappa_\text{PJ}(\bar x,\bar y)$ near the light-cone (in red, black dots represent numerical sampling points), vs. its commutative counterpart. We fixed the time interval $\delta \bar x^0$ and plotted  $\Delta^\kappa_\text{PJ}(\bar x,\bar y)$ for an interval of values of $\delta \bar x^1 $. Rescaling the horizontal axis by $\sqrt{\kappa^{-1} \delta x^0}$, the form of the cross-section does not depend on $\delta \bar x^0$.
}
\label{Pauli-Jordan_fig}
\end{figure}

\begin{figure}[t!]\center
\includegraphics[width=0.48\textwidth]{TestFunctions.pdf}
\caption{Absolute value of the four test-wavefunctions in the vicinity of the light-cone $\kappa \bar z^0 = \kappa \bar z^1$. The horizontal axis has been rescaled  by $\sqrt{\kappa \bar z^1}$, and the vertical axis by $(\kappa \bar z^1)^1/4$. This makes the waveforms independent of the choice of $\bar z^1$.
It is apparent here that the results shown in Fiq.~\ref{Pauli-Jordan_fig} do not depend on the details of the wavefunction, as long as it is `semiclassical', \emph{i.e.} localized in a region whose size makes both the space and the time uncertainties of the same order of  magnitude.}
\label{Test_Functions_fig}
\end{figure}

$\Delta^\kappa_\text{PJ}$ is indistinguishable from the commutative Pauli--Jordan function everywhere except close to the classical light-cone $\delta \bar x^0 = \delta \bar x^1$ (where $\delta \bar x^\mu = \bar x^\mu - \bar y^\mu$). In that region, instead of abruptly jumping from the value $\pi \, \text{sign} (\delta \bar x^0)$ for $\delta  \bar x^0 > \delta \bar x^1$ to the value $0$ when $\delta \bar x^0 < \delta \bar x^1$, our function smoothly interpolates between these two values over a region of size $\mathcal{O}[\sqrt{\kappa^{-1}\delta \bar x^0}]$ (the geometric mean between the Planck length $\kappa^{-1}$ and the distance from the origin). The form of the interpolating function is exactly the same at any distance $\delta \bar x^0$ from the origin, if we express the spatial interval $\delta  \bar x^1$ in units of $\sqrt{\kappa^{-1} \delta \bar x^0 }$ (see Fig.~\ref{Pauli-Jordan_fig}). In other words, the function shows an \emph{anisotropic scale invariance} under the transformation $\delta \bar x^1 \to \alpha \delta \bar x^1$, $\delta \bar x^0 \to \alpha^2 \delta \bar x^0$ [as do the $\kappa$-Minkowski commutation relations~\eqref{k-Minkowski_algebra}].

 We checked this over an interval of values of $\delta \bar x^0$ between $10^3$ and $10^9$ Planck times, as large as our numerical accuracy allowed us. Realistic values for the parameters ($\delta \bar x^0 \sim 10^9 ly$ and $\kappa^{-1} \sim 10^{-44} s$) would yield a value of $10^{59}$ Planck times, far beyond what can be explicitly checked at the calculator; however the anisotropic scaling property we showed in the interval $10^3-10^9$ Planck times provides sufficient evidence that the form of the function is the same also at realistic scales.

In~\cite{Weblink}, available online, we produced an animation showing $\Delta^\kappa_\text{PJ}$  in the plane $\delta \bar x^1 - \delta \bar x^0$, zooming away from the origin. Figure~\ref{LightCone2D_1} shows three stills from the animation. This shows how $\Delta^\kappa_\text{PJ}$  becomes indistinguishable from the commutative Pauli--Jordan function at large scales. Moreover, compare our animation with the Figures of~\cite{Brasiliani}, where the `blurry' region has the same thickness everywhere; the boost in the size of our nonlocal effect is apparent.

Finally, we studied the dependence of the above results from the details of the wavefunction $\psi$, choosing a few sufficiently-varied examples among the `semiclassical' wavefunctions. We chose three examples that have the good property of being analytically integrable (except for the last step of the integral in  $\diff p_1$). One is the sum of two Gaussian wavepackets peaked at $q = \kappa \bar z^1 \pm \frac a 2  \sqrt{\kappa \bar z^1}$, with variance $\sigma = \sqrt{\kappa \bar z^1}$, both multiplied by the same phase $\exp( i \frac{\bar x^0}{\bar x^1} q)$ (and of course normalized together). If $a$ is an $\mathcal{O}(1)$ number the squared sum of the variances $(\Delta \hat z^0)^2 + (\Delta \hat z^1)^2$ is still near its minimum, and the two wavepackets can be clearly distinguished, producing a `double-peaked' waveform (see Fig.~\ref{Test_Functions_fig}). Yet, the dependence of the expectation value $\langle \hat{\Delta}_\text{PJ}  \rangle$  on $\bar x^\mu$ and $\bar y^\mu$ is indistinguishable from the one shown in Fig.~\eqref{Pauli-Jordan_fig}.
The second example we checked was to modify the Gaussian~\eqref{GaussianWavepacket} by multiplying it by an imaginary-variance Gaussian term $e^{i (c \, q^2 + d \, q)}$, and adjusting the parameters to satisfy the semiclassicality requirement. The third example was to use a quadratic spline forming a twice-differentiable (necessary to calculate the variances) symmetric bell-shaped curve, with a compact support. The normalization condition leaves only one free parameter for such a function, which is then fixed by the semiclassicality condition. None of those examples gives rise to an appreciable modification to the Pauli--Jordan expectation value.

\section{Conclusions}

We studied the Pauli--Jordan function for a scalar QFT on $\kappa$-Minkowski spacetime. This defines the commutator of fields at different points, and consequently their causality relations. The standard formulation of microcausality in quantum field theory is that all observables should commute at spacelike-separated points.

We listed two objectives in the introduction, which our analysis fulfilled completely:
\begin{enumerate}
\item  The claim of Ref.~\cite{Brasiliani} about the size of the nonlocal effects in $\kappa$-Minkowski is rejected by our analysis. Rather than an in-principle untestable Planckian fuzzyness,
our $\kappa$-deformed Pauli--Jordan function is nonzero outside of the light-cone over a region of size $\sim \sqrt{L_p~L}$, \emph{i.e.}, the geometric average of the Planck length and the distance from the origin. For cosmological distances ($\sim 10^9 ly$) this amounts to an effect \emph{30 orders of magnitude larger}.

\item Our analysis, we believe, casts serious doubts on the possibility of superluminal propagation in $\kappa$-Minkowski. We emphasize again that our work relies on a few plausible, but yet unproven, assumptions. In particular we assume that only the `semiclassical' states on the $\kappa$-Minkowski algebra which we defined above are relevant to our discussion. Another key assumption was that the Pauli--Jordan function still entails the causal structure of fields on a noncommutative spacetime.

Our $\kappa$-deformed Pauli--Jordan function is  nonzero outside of the light-cone, but only over a region of size $\sim \sqrt{L_p~L}$. This kind of nonlocality is compatible with the uncertainty relations predicted by~\eqref{k-Minkowski_algebra} and can therefore be attributed to the intrinsic fuzzyness of spacetime points.
This result effectively excludes the possibility of constraining our models with GRBs. In fact, the present sensitivities are somewhere $14$ orders of magnitude worse than what would be needed to measure the kind of superluminal propagation we predict.

\end{enumerate}

We stress that, in principle, the lightcone we found allows signals from distant sources to be detected with a spacetime spread  much larger than the Planck scale. Our calculation allows us to make an educated guess for what regards the size of the expected effect: a pointlike source placed at a distance $L$ from the detector will be detected with a spread in space and time of order $\sim\sqrt{L_p~L}$. For a distant GRB $L \sim 10^9 ly$, and therefore $\sqrt{L_p~L} \sim 10^{-14} s$. This would be measurable with present-day technology if we had at our disposal an ultrashort-duration source, \emph{e.g.} a femtosecond laser, placed 1 billion light years away from Earth. Unfortunately we presently have no knowledge of such ultra-localized sources in our universe.

It is interesting also to compare our result with past work on the implications of Quantum Gravity for the light cone. In particular, refs.~\cite{Ford0, Ford1} describe some simple models in which a (linearized) graviton background induces quantum fluctuations of the lightcone. The results depend on the assumed state of the graviton background, and there is a particular choice which reproduces the distance-dependence of our result. Namely, when the gravitons are thermal and their typical wavelengths are much smaller than the distance at which the signal is detected.
In this case, the fuzzyness in time is proportional to the square root of the distance from the source of the signal, times a quasi-constant logarithmic correction: $\Delta t \sim\frac{L_p}{c} \sqrt{\frac 3 {180\pi}  L \, T \left[ \log \left( L \, T \right) + c_1 \right]}$, where $c_1$ is a constant of order unity. The proportionality factor is
 $\sqrt{L_p \, T\,  \log (LT) / 180}$, which, for temperatures $T$ comparable to that of the CMB, gives a suppressing factor of the order of $10^{-16}$ with respect to the effect we predicted. To get an effect of similar magnitude the thermal bath should have Planckian temperature.

\section*{Acknowledgements}

F.M. was funded by the European Union and the Istituto Italiano di Alta Matematica under a  Marie Curie COFUND action.

\providecommand{\href}[2]{#2}\begingroup\raggedright


\subsection{Sample-efficient Gait Optimisation}

Perceiving the environment is only the first step to interacting with it. An essential skill for
humanoid robots is walking. The gait of the NimbRo\protect\nobreakdash-OP2X\xspace is based on an
open-loop pattern generator that calculates joint states based on a gait phase angle,
whose rate is proportional to the desired step frequency~\cite{Behnke2006}.
The phase angle is responsible for generating arm and leg movements such as lifting and swinging.
We have built around this approach and incorporated corrective actions based on fused angle feedback~\cite{Missura2013a, Allgeuer2015, Allgeuer2016a}.

One of the drawbacks of this method, is having to tune the gait for each and every robot, as they
can differ not only in structure but have slight mechanical differences between theoretically identical robots.
We remedy this by using optimisation to find proper values for the Fused Feedback
controller used by the gait. To minimise hardware wear-off, this optimisation does
not only take place in the real world, but highly exploits information gained
through the included Gazebo simulator. This approach has been previously applied
by Rodriguez et al.~\cite{Rodriguez2018Combining} and is now utilised on the NimbRo\protect\nobreakdash-OP2X\xspace robot.

Since we pursue the goal of optimising a given parameter set in a
sample-efficient manner, the proposed method uses \textit{Bayesian
Optimisation}. This allows to efficiently trade off exploration and
exploitation. It requires to specify a
\textit{Kernel function}~$K$ and a parametrisation of a \textit{Gaussian
Process}~(GP). Both of these are responsible for encoding essential information about the optimisation environment.
We use a kernel that is comprised of two terms. The first one relates to the simulation performance $k_{sim}$, while the other is an
error term $k_\epsilon$ depicting the difference between simulations and the
real world. This results in:
\begin{equation}\label{eq:compositeKernel}
k(\mathbf{a_i},\mathbf{a_j})=k_{sim}(\mathbf{x_i},\mathbf{x_j}
)+k_\delta(\delta_i,\delta_j)k_{\epsilon}(\mathbf{x_i}, \mathbf{x_j})\,
\end{equation}
for an augmented parameter vector $\mathbf{a_i}=(\mathbf{x_i},\delta_i)$, where
$\delta$ signals whether the evaluation has been performed in simulation or
on the real system. An indication if both experiments were in the
real world is $k_\delta$, which returns a higher correlation in that case. This way, it is
possible to address potentially complex, non-linear transformations between the
simulated sequences and the real-world performance. To perform the optimisation
process in a data-efficient manner, the approach utilises \textit{Entropy} as a way of
measuring the information content. The next evaluation point is chosen with respect to
the maximal achievable change in Entropy~\cite{hennig2012}, biased by
weight factors trading off simulation and real-robot experiments (see Fig.
\ref{fig:bayesteaser}).

For both kernels, we select the Rational-Quadratic Kernel, since it has proven to
be suitable in our previous work~\cite{Rodriguez2018Combining}.

The proposed cost function is based on the proportional Fused
Feedback $e_{P}$, which employs the Fused Angle deviations and thus can be
considered a stability measure~\cite{Rodriguez2018Combining}. Furthermore, to
reduce the impact of noise, we examine the cost of the sagittal($\alpha$) and
lateral($\beta$) planes separately. Since higher gain values lead to higher
torques, we also penalise the magnitude of the parameter using a logistic
function $\nu$. This results in the cost functions:
\begin{equation}\label{eq:finala}
J_{\alpha}(\mathbf{x}) = \int_0^T{\Vert e_{P\alpha}(\mathbf{x})\Vert_1}dt +
\nu(\mathbf{x})
\end{equation}
\begin{equation}\label{eq:finalb}
J_{\beta}(\mathbf{x}) = \int_0^T{\Vert e_{P\beta}(\mathbf{x})\Vert_1}dt +
\nu(\mathbf{x})\,,
\end{equation}
where $e_P$ is seen as a function of the used gait parameters $\mathbf{x}$.

\begin{figure}[!t]
  \footnotesize
  \centering

  \includegraphics[width=\linewidth]{bayesopt_teaser}
  \caption[]{At each iteration the algorithm trades off performing a simulation
or a real-world experiment. This decision is led by the expected change of
Entropy, making the algorithm particularly sample-efficient.}
\label{fig:bayesteaser}
\end{figure}

\begin{figure}[!b]
	%
	\footnotesize
	\centering

	  \resizebox{\width}{0.92\height}{\includegraphics[width=0.8\linewidth]{GP_post_alt_restr_smallfont}}
	\caption[]{The GP posterior of the Arm Angle optimisation is
depicted. The blue dots resemble evaluations in simulation, while real
experiments are shown in red. A black dot indicates the estimated minimum. The
mean cost estimate is displayed (teal mesh), together with its standard
deviation (grey mesh). To increase visibility, the upper standard deviation is
not shown.}
	%
 \label{fig:gppost}
\end{figure}

An evaluation of the cost function is done through a complex test sequence consisting of the same, pre-defined
combination of forward, backward and sideways gait commands. %
To receive more reproducible results in simulations, we average the cost of $N=4$ simulated runs.

In the described example, we optimise the Arm Angle corrective actions in the sagittal
direction. More precisely, we restrict our search to the P and D gains.
The method can be similarly applied to other controllers. To
preserve the robot's hardware, we restrict the permitted number of real-world
evaluations to 15, which is comparable to the time it takes an expert to
hand-tune the parameters. These 15 runs were accomplished after a total of 161
iterations, thus including 146 simulated gait sequence evaluations. To assess
the resulting parameters, the deviations of the new parameters were compared to
the old parameters in 5 evaluation sequences each. The results of the optimisation not only
produces a qualitatively more convincing walk, but also leads to a reduction of the
Fused Angle deviation by approximately \SI{18}{\%}.

The GP posterior of the optimisation is depicted in Fig.~\ref{fig:gppost}. Although
it might seem that the simulations only had a small influence on the result,
they were of utmost importance in early iterations~\cite{Rodriguez2018Combining}.
This is underlined especially by the fact, that the robot did not fall a single
time during real-world evaluations, which proves that the GP model is able to
utilise simulation data to rule out inferior parameters. This stems from the high
costs associated with unstable simulated runs.

Altogether, our approach has proven to be beneficial with the NimbRo\protect\nobreakdash-OP2X\xspace, and
yielded successful parameterisations for the used gait. Thus, it allows for
easy operation even for an inexperienced user. It can be a feasible alternative
to the time-consuming hand-tuning performed by an expert, which wears off the
robot's hardware.

\section{Conclusions}

In this paper, we have described the newly developed hardware and software aspects of the NimbRo\protect\nobreakdash-OP2X\xspace.
The technical specifications and provided features make it a powerful middle-ground for the research community
between smaller, inexpensive robots and larger cost-prohibitive platforms.
Not only is NimbRo\protect\nobreakdash-OP2X\xspace large enough to interact with a human environment, its relatively light weight
makes it easy and safe to operate. The minimalistic 3D printed design allows for easy maintenance as well as user
modifications and improvements. By demonstrating efficient use of its hardware
and new deep-learning capabilities, the robot was able to outperform its competition at RoboCup 2018.
We plan on releasing the 3D-printable hardware components with a Bill of Materials, as well as updating our open-source software~\cite{IguhopSoftware} by October 2018.
\section{Evaluation}

An evaluation of the NimbRo\protect\nobreakdash-OP2X\xspace was performed during the RoboCup 2018 competition in Montr\'eal, Canada.
In the RoboCup Humanoid League AdultSize class, robots autonomously compete in one vs. one soccer games, two vs. two drop-in games, and four technical challenges that test specific abilities in isolation.
The soccer games are performed on a $6\times9$\,\SI{}{m} artificial grass field, which makes walking challenging.
Perceiving the environment and localisation are also challenging, due to the ever changing lighting conditions.
In the competition, the NimbRo\protect\nobreakdash-OP2X\xspace performed outstandingly by winning all out of the four possible awards, including the Best Humanoid Award.  %

In the main tournament, our robot played a total of six games, including the quarter-finals, semi-finals and finals (see \figref{soccer}).
An additional five drop-in games were played, where two vs. two mixed teams were formed and collaborated during the game.
This resulted in 220 minutes of official play time, during which 66 goals were scored and only 5 were conceded.

The optimised gait was not only fast~(approx. \SI{0.5}{m/s}) but also robust, as NimbRo\protect\nobreakdash-OP2X\xspace never fell during
walking in free space or while dribbling the ball. Very strong collisions with much heavier robots made the robot fall over four times.

One of the biggest contributions to the success, was our vision system utilising deep learning.
The ball detections were robust up to a distance of \SI{7}{m}, where the perceived ball was only a few pixels in size.
Robot detections allowed for efficient fights for the ball, which often resulted in the ball being dribbled around the opponent.
This was a decisive factor during the final, where the NimbRo\protect\nobreakdash-OP2X\xspace won 2:0 against Sweaty from Hochschule Offenburg, Germany.
The opponent played very defensively and was efficient at dribbling and handling the ball.

\begin{figure}[b]
\centering
\includegraphics[width=0.99\linewidth]{pushrecovery}\vspace*{-1ex}
  %
  \caption{Push Recovery trial at RoboCup 2018. Optimised corrective arm action in response to expected angle deviation in the sagittal plane.}
  \figlabel{push_graph}\vspace{-2ex}
\end{figure}

Performance of the vision and gait was also tested during the technical challenges.
In the Push Recovery challenge, the goal is to withstand pushes from the back and from the front.
The disturbance is applied by a \SI{3}{kg} heavy pendulum swinging on a \SI{1.5}{m} long string.
The weight hits the robot at the height of the center of mass.
In order to perform the push, the weight is retracted from the robot by a distance $d$ and then released freely.
NimbRo\protect\nobreakdash-OP2X\xspace was able to successfully withstand both frontal and backward pushes with $d = 0.8$\,m.
The optimised arm swing corrective action helped substantially---its effect can be seen in \figref{push_recovery} and \figref{push_graph}.
A different challenge required the robot to score a goal from a moving ball which is passed by a
human player from the corner of the field. Our fast image processing and capable hardware allowed
the robot to score a goal in approximately 3 seconds, counting from when the ball was passed.

\begin{figure}[b]
\centering
\includegraphics[height=0.73\linewidth]{robocup2}\hspace{1px}
\includegraphics[height=0.73\linewidth]{robocup1}\vspace*{-1ex}
  %
  \caption{NimbRo\protect\nobreakdash-OP2X\xspace during RoboCup 2018. Left: Performing a kick. Right: Competing for the ball.}
  \figlabel{soccer}\vspace{-2ex}
\end{figure}

\section{Hardware Design}
\seclabel{hardware_design}

\begin{table}
\renewcommand{\arraystretch}{1.2}
\caption{NimbRo\protect\nobreakdash-OP2X\xspace specifications.}
\tablabel{OP2X_specs}
\centering
\footnotesize
\begin{tabular}{c c c}
\hline
\textbf{Type} & \textbf{Specification} & \textbf{Value}\\
\hline
\multirow{4}{*}{\textbf{General}} & Height \& Weight & \SI{135}{cm}, \SI{19}{kg}\\
& Battery & 4-cell LiPo (\SI{14.8}{V}, \SI{8.0}{Ah})\\
& Battery life & \SI{20}{}--\SI{40}{\minute}\\
& Material & Polyamide 12 (PA12)\\
\hline
\multirow{6}{*}{\textbf{PC}}
& Mainboard & Z370 Chipset, Mini-ITX\\
& CPU & Intel Core i7-8700T, \SI{2.7}{}--\SI{4.0}{GHz}\\
& GPU & GTX 1050 Ti, 768 CUDA Cores\\
& Memory & \SI{4}{GB} DDR4 RAM, \SI{120}{GB} SSD\\
& Network & Ethernet, Wi-Fi, Bluetooth\\
& Other & 8$\,\times\,$USB 3.1, 2$\,\times\,$HDMI, DisplayPort\\
\hline
\multirow{4}{*}{\textbf{Actuators}}
& Total & 34$\,\times\,$Robotis XM-540-W270-R\\
& Stall torque & \SI{12.9}{Nm} \\
& No load speed & \SI{37}{rpm} \\
& Control mode & Torque, Velocity, Position, Multi-turn\\
\hline
\multirow{6}{*}{\textbf{Sensors}} & Encoders & 12\,bit/rev\\
& Joint torque & 12\,bit\\
& Gyroscope & 3-axis (L3G4200D chip)\\
& Accelerometer & 3-axis (LIS331DLH chip)\\
& Camera & Logitech C905 (720p)\\
& Camera lens & Wide-angle lens with 150$\degreem$\xspace\!FOV\\
\hline
\end{tabular}
\end{table}

The NimbRo\protect\nobreakdash-OP2X\xspace builds on the ideas of providing an open-source, larger-sized humanoid robot to the research community
at a fraction of the cost of similarly sized platforms. At a height of \SI{135}{cm} and approximately \SI{19}{kg} of weight,
it aims to provide a powerful middle-ground between smaller low-cost robots, and larger cost-prohibitive platforms.
To achieve this, we utilise a combination of 3D printing, commercially available actuators, parallel kinematics and external
gearing. Not only does this reduce cost, but also complexity and production time. The total time consumed to produce a
working robot~(including the design stage and software adaptation) was only three months. Apart from screws, nuts, bearings, actuators, and electronics, the
entirety of the robot is 3D printed using Selective Laser Sintering (SLS). To support the weight of the robot with inexpensive
actuators, parallel kinematics~(in the leg pitch joints) and gear transmissions~(in the leg roll and yaw joints) have been used.
In total, the robot uses 34 actuators for 18 joints in a similar kinematic structure as the NimbRo\protect\nobreakdash-OP2\xspace, which was a starting point for our work.
With the NimbRo\protect\nobreakdash-OP2X\xspace, not only have we increased the capabilities, but the presented design improvements contributed to an estimate cost
reduction of \SI{17}{\%}. Price for the NimbRo\protect\nobreakdash-OP2X\xspace parts is in a similar range to that of the popular stationary dual-arm research platform Baxter.
A summary of the main technical specifications can be found in \tabref{OP2X_specs}.

\subsection{Intelligent Actuators}

Although the appearance of the robot may resemble that of the NimbRo\protect\nobreakdash-OP2\xspace~\cite{ficht2017nop2}, it is in fact
a complete redesign that incorporates several upgrades. This redesign was dictated by the choice to use a new
series of intelligent actuators---the Robotis Dynamixel XM-540. Some of the more notable physical improvements include a \SI{29}{\%}
increase in output torque, metal casing which provides better heat dissipation and higher durability in combination
with a redesigned gearbox. What truly separates the two robots in terms of actuation, are the new
features provided. We have modified our open-source software and firmware to take full advantage of the new hardware.
By redesigning our joint control strategy to a more abstract representation, it is now feasible to utilise the
new possibilities, such as joint torque sensing and control.
An added feature is the ability to effortlessly
connect sensors onto the Dynamixel bus, without having to develop additional electronics or software. Up to three analog or digital devices
can be connected to a single actuator and operated using the standard protocol. Paired with the 3D printed nature of the design,
the platform can be adapted to many applications.

\begin{figure}[!t]
\parbox{\linewidth}{\centering
\includegraphics[width=0.4\linewidth]{hipJointCAD4}\hspace{0.1\linewidth}
\includegraphics[width=0.4\linewidth]{hipJointReal}}
\caption{Redesigned hip joint utilising 3D printed double helical gears. CAD model (left) in comparison to the real joint (right).}
\figlabel{gear_joint}
\vspace{-1ex}
\end{figure}

\subsection{Parallel Computing}

The current trend in computing is shifting towards machine learning techniques, which have been successfully applied to some of the hardest
tasks in selected research areas with high efficiency. The most prominent examples include computer vision and
control systems---both of which strongly relate to humanoid robotics. The NimbRo\protect\nobreakdash-OP2\xspace already provided substantial computing power, however
the limited space in the trunk did not allow for easy GPU integration without redesign. We have increased the available space and fitted
a Mini-ITX form-factor mainboard with a standard GPU inserted into the available PCIe slot. Combining the newest Intel Core
i7-8700T~(6~cores with 12~threads) processor and the Nvidia GTX 1050 Ti~(768~CUDA cores) GPU allowed us to achieve significant performance at a low TDP of \SI{105}{W}.
Power is supplied to the computer through a wide-input industrial \SI{250}{W} M4-ATX on-board power supply.
Future upgrades of the computing unit pose no problem and can be done at the component level, as every part is standardised.
This improvement reflects our design goal of providing a highly capable and customisable platform.

\subsection{Design Optimisations}

Minimising the effort required to produce and assemble a large, customisable humanoid robot has been our goal ever since
our collaboration with igus GmbH on their Humanoid Open Platform~\cite{Allgeuer2015b}. The NimbRo\protect\nobreakdash-OP2\xspace was a considerable advancement in this regard, however there were
some issues that were left unaddressed. Despite 3D printing the whole structure of the robot in PA12 nylon, external gearing
required to support the robot weight in selected joints still had to be milled from brass. The production of these custom gears
was costly and time consuming, which made it a bottleneck in the whole production process. With the advancement of 3D printing
materials and technology, it was possible to design gears that are in every way superior to their brass counterparts.

We decided to use double helical gears over spur gears, due to their higher torque density and smoother operation. Subtractive manufacturing of
such gears from metal would be very expensive, as they cannot be cut with simple gear hobs. This is not a limitation when 3D printing.
When designing a helical gear, one needs to select a helix angle $\psi$, as it is not standardised. Typical values start at
\SI{15}{$\degreem$\xspace} and do not exceed \SI{45}{$\degreem$\xspace}---the most common ones being \SI{15}{}, \SI{23}{}, \SI{30}{}, and \SI{45}{$\degreem$\xspace}~\cite{gopinath2010gears}.
Higher values provide smoother operation at the cost of higher axial load. The helix angle also influences the gear diameter $d$---which
in standard spur gears is the product of the module $m$ and the number of teeth $z$. In helical gears, this equation is divided by $\cos\psi$.
We decided to use a $\psi$ of \SI{41.4096}{$\degreem$\xspace}, with a module $m$ of \SI{1.5}{}. With this combination, the diameter
is always double the teeth number, as $\cos\psi = 0.75$. Not only does this provide smooth operation, but allows to design the transmission
to be compatible with spur gears in standard modules of 1 and 2. As the two halves of a double helical gear
produce counteracting axial forces, the axial load factor is mitigated. The gears have been printed using SLS technology from
the igus I6 material, which was designed specifically for gears. Gears made from it have a low friction coefficient and do not require lubrication.
Thickness has been selected to be \SI{14}{mm}~(\SI{7}{mm} for each helical half) to increase tooth overlap. Despite increasing the thickness
almost threefold~(from \SI{5}{mm} in the NimbRo\protect\nobreakdash-OP2\xspace), the plastic gears are on average only \SI{54}{\%} of the brass gear weight. The achieved end-result is an elegant, smooth, light and
inexpensive transmission that is fast to produce. An example of the gear used in the hip joint can be seen in \figref{gear_joint}.

Optimising the design was one of the greater challenges with this platform. New features provided by the actuators and
computing unit came at a cost of increased weight. The additional \SI{1.4}{kg} meant a hypothetical increase of \SI{8}{\%} in robot weight.
We were able to redesign the leg parts to be lighter by almost \SI{0.5}{kg}, while making them structurally stronger at the same time.
NimbRo\protect\nobreakdash-OP2\xspace utilised quite simple shapes and flat surfaces. This decreased weight, but made the legs prone to slight bending.
Legs in the NimbRo\protect\nobreakdash-OP2X\xspace are rounder, slightly narrower and have dedicated cable pathways---all of which contribute to the
overall durability and torsional resistance of the structure. Offsetting the weight increase enabled us to take full advantage
of the torque benefits provided by the new actuators.

\section{Introduction}

Using humanoid robots in daily life scenarios has been the motivation for
many research and development efforts. More than 40 years ago, the Waseda robot~\cite{wabot}
started the quest for building humanoid robots that could coexist in our environment.
Since then, much work has been done in this direction, but we still do not have any humanoid robot
capable of coping with the uncertainty and complexity of real-life scenarios. From a technical point of view, the
difficulties arise not only from the lack of actuation capacity for the generation of dexterous movements to interact with the environment,
but also from deficits on the cognitive level to understand the surrounding and plan tasks accordingly.

Humanoid robotics has recently seen progress in terms of hardware, with the introduction of multiple new and capable platforms.
The technological advancements made by these platforms however, are met with drawbacks. The precision technology used and their complex design, both require
that the robot is operated by an experienced user with safety equipment such as gantries to minimise possible risk.
Many of these advanced platforms are not sold to other researchers. If they were offered, their price tag would be stiff.
Due to the closed-source nature of such projects, only a selected few have
access to these platforms. This forces other research groups to work with smaller robots in scaled-down environments.
Due to the scale difference, the results may not always translate into real-world applications.
Another option is to use simulations, which may lack faithful reproduction of real-world effects.

In this paper, we introduce NimbRo\protect\nobreakdash-OP2X\xspace, which is a \SI{135}{cm} tall, humanoid robot with a completely 3D printed structure and
deep learning capabilities. NimbRo\protect\nobreakdash-OP2X\xspace is a substantial improvement over our previous NimbRo\protect\nobreakdash-OP\xspace and NimbRo\protect\nobreakdash-OP2\xspace robots.
By incorporating new intelligent actuators and a GPU-enabled computing unit into the design, we make  NimbRo\protect\nobreakdash-OP2X\xspace
applicable in more general use cases.
In contrast to similarly sized platforms~(\figref{fig_teaser}), NimbRo\protect\nobreakdash-OP2X\xspace is very light and easy to operate, while having considerable
torque output to efficiently walk and perform full-body motions.
By using widely available manufacturing techniques
and open sourcing both, the hardware and software, we aim to foster accelerated humanoid research in real-world applications.
\begin{figure}[!t]
\includegraphics[width=1\linewidth]{teaser}
\caption{NimbRo\protect\nobreakdash-OP2X\xspace in comparison to other platforms, in terms of height and weight. From left to right: Honda Asimo, NimbRo\protect\nobreakdash-OP2X\xspace, Toyota T-HR3, Boston Dynamics Atlas, DLR-TORO.
Out of these platforms, only the NimbRo\protect\nobreakdash-OP2X\xspace is openly available to any research group.}
\figlabel{fig_teaser}\vspace{-3ex}
\end{figure}

\section{Acknowledgements}
\footnotesize
This work was partially funded by grant BE 2556/13 of the German Research Foundation (DFG).

\bibliographystyle{IEEEtran}
\balance

\section{Related Work}

For several years, research on motion generation for humanoid robots was carried out mainly by a few companies or universities
because of the large costs associated with platform development. The most prominent examples include the HRP2~\cite{hrp2} and Honda's Asimo~\cite{asimo}.
The situation did not change only until recently, when the rising interest in humanoid robotics led to the emergence of new human-sized platforms.
Robots such as Petman~\cite{nelson2012petman}, DLR-TORO~\cite{englsberger2014overview}, NASA Valkyrie~\cite{radford2015valkyrie} or the
recently introduced Toyota T-HR3~\cite{thr3} are still very expensive or, more importantly, these robots  \textit{cannot} be purchased by other research groups.
In 2017, we introduced a larger open-source robot~\cite{ficht2017nop2}, that in comparison with other platforms
could be considered as low-cost thanks to its 3D-printed structure and commercial off-the-shelf actuators.
The robot proved to be capable enough to win the RoboCup 2017 soccer tournament in its debut~\cite{Ficht2018Grown}.

Shortcutting the limiting factor of hardware availability, advancing the state of the art can be done by means of simulation~\cite{farchy}.
However, simulators still have several challenges to face until they will provide comparable results to reality.
On the other hand, simulations can be performed without any cost, risk, and---most importantly---fast.
In our recent work~\cite{Rodriguez2018Combining}, simulation and real-robot experiments were combined for gait optimisation of smaller robots.
In this paper, we extend this work to our new larger robot, with more complex gait sequences, to achieve
a self-tuned gait that is able to withstand strong impacts.

Deep learning currently plays a key role in enhancing the cognitive abilities of robots. It has made its way to other research areas in robotics such as: speech recognition~\cite{hinton2012deep}, motion planning~\cite{finn2017deep},
learning dynamics~\cite{mnih2015human}, and others. Semantic segmentation addresses most of the perception needs for autonomous robots. Due to heavy computational requirements, many deep learning based approaches for semantic segmentation are not suitable for robotics applications. Romera at al.~\cite{romera2018erfnet} recently proposed "ERFNet" which is ideal for lightweight computers like Jetson TX1. ERFNet is an encoder-decoder architecture for real-time semantic segmentation tasks. We hope that open-sourcing an AdultSize low-cost humanoid platform,
equipped with a lightweight GPU for parallel computing, will foster research not only limited to motion planning but deep learning as well.

\section{Software Design}
\seclabel{software_design}

\begin{figure}[!t]
\hspace{-2ex}
\parbox{\linewidth}{\centering
\includegraphics[width=0.8\linewidth]{software_architecture}}
\caption{Architecture of our open-source ROS framework.}
\figlabel{software_architecture}
\vspace{-2ex}
\end{figure}

\begin{figure}[!t]
\hspace{-2ex}
\parbox{\linewidth}{\centering
\includegraphics[width=0.95\linewidth]{net.pdf}}
\caption{Visual perception network architecture. Like original ResNet architecture, each convBlock is consist of two convolutional layers followed by batch-norm and ReLU activation layers. Note that residual connections in ResNet are not depicted here.}
\figlabel{net}
\vspace{-2ex}
\end{figure}

Capable hardware is essential for reliable performance, although it is the software that truly defines the capabilities of the robot.
The software of the NimbRo\protect\nobreakdash-OP2X\xspace is heavily based on ROS~\cite{Quigley2009}. It is the result of our continued efforts
aimed at providing the research community with an easy to use, and modular framework. Five years since its creation in 2013~\cite{Schwarz2013},
it still continues to expand on functionality. Some of the more notable features include: a Gazebo simulator,
complete vision pipeline for robot soccer, tunable gait as well as a motion designer and player. A simplified schematic of the framework can be seen in \figref{software_architecture}.
The source code is accessible online~\cite{IguhopSoftware}. With the NimbRo\protect\nobreakdash-OP2X\xspace, we focused
on developing robust vision software with deep learning methods and optimising the tunable gait parameters. Previously developed
features along with an in-depth description of the framework's inner workings can be found in~\cite{Allgeuer2013a, ficht2017nop2}.

\subsection{Visual Perception}
NimbRo\protect\nobreakdash-OP2X\xspace perceives the environment using a Logitech C905 camera which
is equipped with a wide-angle lens and an infrared cut-off filter.
With the introduced ability to utilise parallel computing, we are able to supersede
our previous approach to vision \cite{farazi2015}, by using a deep neural network
in conjunction with some post-processing. We highlight the parallel computing
capabilities of the new platform in the context of our demonstration scenario of robot
soccer. The presented vision system can work with different viewing angles,
brightnesses, and lens distortions.

\begin{figure*}[!t]
\parbox{\linewidth}{\centering
\includegraphics[width=0.95\linewidth]{vision_output}}
\caption{Object detection. Left column: A captured image from the robot in the test set. Middle column: The output of the network with balls (cyan), goal posts (magenta), and robots (yellow) annotated. Right column: Ground truth.}
\figlabel{vision_output}
\vspace{-2ex}
\end{figure*}

Our visual perception architecture is illustrated in \figref{net}. We follow the encoder-decoder approach of recently proposed segmentation
models like SegNet \cite{badrinarayanan2015segnet}, V-Net \cite{milletari2016v},
and U-Net \cite{ronneberger2015u}. To achieve real-time computation and to minimize the
number of parameters in the network, we designed the decoder part to be shorter
than the encoder part. This design choice has the drawback that the output of the
network has less spatial information than the full resolution input. We mitigate
this effect by using a subpixel centroid-finding method in the post-processing
step. In order to minimize the training time, we lower the number of samples in the
dataset, and leverage big datasets like ImageNet, we used a pre-trained ResNet-18
model for our encoder part. As shown in \figref{net}, we removed the last fully
connected and GAP layers in the ResNet-18 model. Similar to the U-Net model, we also have lateral
connections between encoder and decoder parts to directly provide high-resolution details
to the decoder. In total, we have 23 convolutional layers
and four convolution-transpose layers.

The network is trained on the following object classes: ball, goal post, and
robots. Instead of using the full segmentation loss, similar to SweatyNet \cite{schnekenburger2017detection},
we use a Gaussian blob around the center of the ball and the bottom-middle
point of the goal post and robots. As center point detection is enough for objects mentioned earlier, instead of full semantic segmentation loss, mean squared error is used as the loss function.
To find a good learning rate, we followed the approach presented by Smith
\cite{smith2017cyclical}. We have also tested the recently proposed AMSGrad optimizer
\cite{2018on}, but did not see any benefit in our application, over the employed Adam.
To train the network as fast as possible, we first downsample the training
images and train for 50 epochs while freezing the weights on the encoder part. Freezing the encoder part during the first epochs quickly adjusts the randomly initialized weights in the decoder part, that is inspired by the work of Brock et al.~\cite{brock2017freezeout} and by the paper from Yosinski et al.~\cite{yosinski2014transferable}. During the next
50 epochs, all parts of the models rae trained. Finally, full-sized images
are used to train the model for 50 more epochs. For the pre-trained model, a lower learning
rate is used. In total, the whole training process with around 3000 samples takes less than 40
minutes on a single Titan Black GPU with 6\,GB memory.  Some of the training
samples were taken from the ImageTagger library \cite{imagetagger2018} which
have annotated samples from different angles, cameras, and brightness.
Although the network produced very few false-positives (around \SI{1}{\%} for the ball),
we were able to reduce this value by utilising inference time augmentation.
Two samples of the testset are depicted in \figref{vision_output}.
Extracting object coordinates is done with minor post-processing, since the output of the network is blob-shaped.
After thresholding each output channel, we apply morphological erosion and dilation to eliminate negligible
responses. Finally, we compute the object center coordinates from the achieved contours.

After detecting game-related objects, we filter them and project each object location into egocentric world coordinates.
These coordinates then are further processed in the behaviour node of our ROS-based
open-source software for decision making. To alleviate projection errors due to the
slight differences between the CAD model and real hardware, we calibrate the camera
frame offsets, using the Nelder-Mead~\cite{nelder1965simplex} Simplex method.

Through the improvements made on our vision system, we were able to perceive a FIFA size 5 ball
up to \SI{7}{m} with an accuracy of 99\% and less than 1\% of false detections. Goal
posts can be detected up to 8 meters with 98\% precision and with 3\% false
detection rate. Robots are detected up to 7 meters with a success rate of 90\%
and a false detection rate of 8\%. For line and field detections, we are using non-deep learning approaches \cite{farazi2015},
but are working on adding two more channels to the network output and use a single network
for all detections. The complete vision pipeline including a forward-pass of the network takes
approximately 20\,ms on the robots hardware.

\input{bayesopt.tex}