What sensor would meaningfully reduce false positives in obstacle detection?

IMUs, force/torque sensors, depth cameras, LiDAR, tactile skin, SLAM, and state estimation.
deborah59
Posts: 227
Joined: Mon Nov 18, 2024 9:37 am

Re: What sensor would meaningfully reduce false positives in obstacle detection?

Post by deborah59 »

@young58 I dealt with almost this exact situation. Proprioception (the robot's sense of its own joint angles, velocities, and forces) tends to get less attention than flashy vision systems, even though a lot of balance and manipulation failures trace back to proprioceptive noise or miscalibration rather than a vision problem. Force/torque sensors near the ankle give a direct read on ground reaction forces, which is valuable for balance control, but they add cost, a failure point, and routing complexity right at a joint that already takes the most mechanical abuse.
Ex-automotive, now full-time robots.
williams84
Posts: 237
Joined: Sat Sep 28, 2024 8:50 am

Re: What sensor would meaningfully reduce false positives in obstacle detection?

Post by williams84 »

@deborah59 Ran into exactly this myself. SLAM in a working warehouse is harder than in a controlled lab mainly because the map keeps changing - pallets move, people walk through, lighting shifts near dock doors - so a lot of production systems lean on semi-static maps refreshed periodically rather than pure continuous SLAM.
"The best actuator is the one that doesn't overheat."
lbianchi
Posts: 81
Joined: Mon Sep 15, 2025 6:56 pm

Re: What sensor would meaningfully reduce false positives in obstacle detection?

Post by lbianchi »

One nitpick - Depth sensing range and reliability both degrade outdoors in direct sunlight for most structured-light and active stereo cameras, since the ambient IR washes out the projected pattern - it's a real limitation for humanoids intended for anything beyond indoor, controlled environments.
betty.king
Posts: 87
Joined: Sun Sep 14, 2025 8:37 am

Re: What sensor would meaningfully reduce false positives in obstacle detection?

Post by betty.king »

@lbianchi I'd push back on this a bit. SLAM in a working warehouse is harder than in a controlled lab mainly because the map keeps changing - pallets move, people walk through, lighting shifts near dock doors - so a lot of production systems lean on semi-static maps refreshed periodically rather than pure continuous SLAM. Unitree's Dex3-1 dexterous hand packs around 33 pressure/tactile sensors per hand across the fingers and palm, capable of sensing pressure roughly in the 10g-2500g range - a useful reference point for what 'production tactile sensing' looks like right now.
Watching this space closely since 2019.
deborah59
Posts: 227
Joined: Mon Nov 18, 2024 9:37 am

Re: What sensor would meaningfully reduce false positives in obstacle detection?

Post by deborah59 »

@betty.king Pretty much this. One thing to add: Estimating joint torque from motor current draw is cheap and requires no extra sensor, but it's less accurate than a dedicated torque sensor because it doesn't capture friction losses through the gearbox - good enough for coarse control, not always for precise force-controlled tasks. Latency between a perceived event (like a slip) and a corrective control response matters enormously for balance - even 50-100ms of extra perception latency can be the difference between a smooth recovery and a fall, which is part of why a lot of balance-critical sensing is proprioceptive rather than vision-based.
Ex-automotive, now full-time robots.
yuki71
Posts: 163
Joined: Mon Jan 06, 2025 1:05 pm

Re: What sensor would meaningfully reduce false positives in obstacle detection?

Post by yuki71 »

@deborah59 Speaking from personal experience here, SLAM in a working warehouse is harder than in a controlled lab mainly because the map keeps changing - pallets move, people walk through, lighting shifts near dock doors - so a lot of production systems lean on semi-static maps refreshed periodically rather than pure continuous SLAM.
he/him | robotics hobbyist since the DARPA Grand Challenge days
gary.tanaka2
Posts: 86
Joined: Fri Nov 07, 2025 2:35 pm

Re: What sensor would meaningfully reduce false positives in obstacle detection?

Post by gary.tanaka2 »

Speaking from personal experience here, Multi-camera calibration drifts over time from thermal expansion, vibration, and mechanical wear, which is why production systems typically run periodic recalibration routines rather than assuming a one-time factory calibration holds forever.
nicole57
Posts: 208
Joined: Wed Dec 04, 2024 1:29 am

Re: What sensor would meaningfully reduce false positives in obstacle detection?

Post by nicole57 »

@gary.tanaka2 This lines up with my experience. A minimum viable sensing suite for safe bipedal walking generally includes joint encoders, an IMU for orientation/angular velocity, and either force/torque sensing or accurate current-based torque estimation at the ankles - everything else (vision, tactile, LiDAR) adds capability rather than being strictly required just to stay upright.
she/her | grad student, biped locomotion
erik_novi
Posts: 192
Joined: Sun Oct 13, 2024 6:23 am

Re: What sensor would meaningfully reduce false positives in obstacle detection?

Post by erik_novi »

Pretty much this. One thing to add: Force/torque sensors near the ankle give a direct read on ground reaction forces, which is valuable for balance control, but they add cost, a failure point, and routing complexity right at a joint that already takes the most mechanical abuse.
she/her
carol.robinson
Posts: 153
Joined: Sun Mar 16, 2025 11:36 am

Re: What sensor would meaningfully reduce false positives in obstacle detection?

Post by carol.robinson »

@erik_novi I'd frame this differently. Sensor fusion mostly earns its keep by covering for each individual sensor's weaknesses - vision struggles with occlusion and lighting, IMUs drift, force/torque sensors are noisy at low loads - fusing them gives a more robust estimate than any one source alone, independent of raw compute. Event cameras (which report per-pixel brightness changes rather than full frames) are still more of a research curiosity than a production sensor for humanoids, mainly because the software ecosystem and processing pipelines around them are far less mature than for standard frame-based cameras.
they/them
Post Reply