Do robots outperform humans in human-centered domains?

The incessant progress of robotic technology and rationalization of human manpower induces high expectations in society, but also resentment and even fear. In this paper, we present a quantitative normalized comparison of performance, to shine a light onto the pressing question, "How close is the current state of humanoid robotics to outperforming humans in their typical functions (e.g., locomotion, manipulation), and their underlying structures (e.g., actuators/muscles) in human-centered domains?" This is the most comprehensive comparison of the literature so far. Most state-of-the-art robotic structures required for visual, tactile, or vestibular perception outperform human structures at the cost of slightly higher mass and volume. Electromagnetic and fluidic actuation outperform human muscles w.r.t. speed, endurance, force density, and power density, excluding components for energy storage and conversion. Artificial joints and links can compete with the human skeleton. In contrast, the comparison of locomotion functions shows that robots are trailing behind in energy efficiency, operational time, and transportation costs. Robots are capable of obstacle negotiation, object manipulation, swimming, playing soccer, or vehicle operation. Despite the impressive advances of humanoid robots in the last two decades, current robots are not yet reaching the dexterity and versatility to cope with more complex manipulation and locomotion tasks (e.g., in confined spaces). We conclude that state-of-the-art humanoid robotics is far from matching the dexterity and versatility of human beings. Despite the outperforming technical structures, robot functions are inferior to human ones, even with tethered robots that could place heavy auxiliary components off-board. The persistent advances in robotics let us anticipate the diminishing of the gap.