What sensor fusion architecture do you actually trust for balance control?

IMUs, force/torque sensors, depth cameras, LiDAR, tactile skin, SLAM, and state estimation.
scott.andersson5
Posts: 172
Joined: Sat Nov 02, 2024 8:39 pm

Re: What sensor fusion architecture do you actually trust for balance control?

Post by scott.andersson5 »

I can speak to this a bit. 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.
matthew43
Posts: 199
Joined: Wed Nov 06, 2024 9:18 am

Re: What sensor fusion architecture do you actually trust for balance control?

Post by matthew43 »

Slightly off-topic, but related: 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.
he/him | robotics hobbyist since the DARPA Grand Challenge days
scott21
Posts: 256
Joined: Fri Oct 11, 2024 9:57 am

Re: What sensor fusion architecture do you actually trust for balance control?

Post by scott21 »

I dealt with almost this exact situation. Vibration is one of the most underrated sources of noisy IMU and tactile readings - mounting matters as much as sensor quality, and a poorly isolated mount can add more noise than the sensor's own datasheet specs would suggest.
she/her
matthew43
Posts: 199
Joined: Wed Nov 06, 2024 9:18 am

Re: What sensor fusion architecture do you actually trust for balance control?

Post by matthew43 »

@scott21 Pretty much this. One thing to add: 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.
he/him | robotics hobbyist since the DARPA Grand Challenge days
williams84
Posts: 237
Joined: Sat Sep 28, 2024 8:50 am

Re: What sensor fusion architecture do you actually trust for balance control?

Post by williams84 »

Ran into exactly this myself. 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. 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.
"The best actuator is the one that doesn't overheat."
mohammed64
Posts: 99
Joined: Mon Jul 28, 2025 9:56 am

Re: What sensor fusion architecture do you actually trust for balance control?

Post by mohammed64 »

I see it a little differently. 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.
he/him | robotics hobbyist since the DARPA Grand Challenge days
zoeanderson
Posts: 243
Joined: Sat Oct 26, 2024 2:39 am

Re: What sensor fusion architecture do you actually trust for balance control?

Post by zoeanderson »

@mohammed64 Tangent, but worth mentioning: 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. 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.
emilyperez
Posts: 246
Joined: Mon Oct 28, 2024 8:03 pm

Re: What sensor fusion architecture do you actually trust for balance control?

Post by emilyperez »

Thanks for laying this out, genuinely useful. Vibration is one of the most underrated sources of noisy IMU and tactile readings - mounting matters as much as sensor quality, and a poorly isolated mount can add more noise than the sensor's own datasheet specs would suggest.
scott.andersson5
Posts: 172
Joined: Sat Nov 02, 2024 8:39 pm

Re: What sensor fusion architecture do you actually trust for balance control?

Post by scott.andersson5 »

@emilyperez From hands-on experience, 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.
richard36
Posts: 96
Joined: Tue Jul 29, 2025 9:43 am

Re: What sensor fusion architecture do you actually trust for balance control?

Post by richard36 »

Still learning the space, so correct me if wrong - 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. This whole thread is a good reminder how young this field still is.
"The best actuator is the one that doesn't overheat."
Post Reply