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