Page 1 of 2

Compliant control vs pure position control for insertion tasks - preferences?

Posted: Sat Jul 18, 2026 6:51 am
by samuel.adams
Ran into this exact question at work this week and wanted a sanity check. Payload-to-hand-weight ratio varies a lot across current dexterous hands, and it's a meaningful tradeoff - more DoF and finer sensing generally means more actuators and mass in the hand itself, which eats into the arm's usable payload budget. Cable routing through a wrist joint with multiple degrees of freedom is a genuinely tricky mechanical design problem - tendons and wiring both need enough slack to avoid binding through the full range of motion without tangling or fraying over thousands of cycles. Tendon-driven fingers let you move the heavier actuators back into the palm or forearm, keeping the fingers themselves light and fast, but they introduce cable routing, tensioning, and long-term wear problems that direct-actuated fingers don't have. Interested in both agreement and pushback here.

Re: Compliant control vs pure position control for insertion tasks - preferences?

Posted: Sat Jul 18, 2026 11:28 am
by rossi30
@samuel.adams Just to be precise about one thing: Underactuated hands (fewer actuators than joints, using mechanical coupling to shape the grasp) are a reasonable engineering compromise for robust power grasps on a budget, but they generally can't do fine in-hand manipulation the way a fully actuated hand can. Grasp planning for deformable or non-rigid objects (bags, cables, cloth) remains one of the genuinely unsolved problems in manipulation - rigid-body grasp models simply don't capture how the object will behave once contact starts.

Re: Compliant control vs pure position control for insertion tasks - preferences?

Posted: Sat Jul 18, 2026 4:30 pm
by hill23
@rossi30 This matches what I've seen too. Palm sensing gets less attention than fingertip sensing, but a lot of power grasps (holding a box, a tool handle) rely more on palm and lateral finger contact than fingertip contact, so under-sensing the palm can leave a real blind spot in grasp confidence.

Re: Compliant control vs pure position control for insertion tasks - preferences?

Posted: Sat Jul 18, 2026 9:20 pm
by kim37
@hill23 Minor factual note: In-hand reorientation (repositioning a grasped object without setting it down) is one of the more advanced manipulation skills, requiring either a highly dexterous hand with enough DoF or clever use of gravity and controlled slipping - it's an active research area rather than a solved problem.

Re: Compliant control vs pure position control for insertion tasks - preferences?

Posted: Sun Jul 19, 2026 2:03 am
by barbara50
Pretty much this. One thing to add: A lot of the manipulation shown in production demos still leans heavily on teleoperation, particularly for anything involving fine force control or novel objects - autonomous grasp success rates on genuinely unstructured, previously-unseen clutter are still well below what teleoperation can achieve.

Re: Compliant control vs pure position control for insertion tasks - preferences?

Posted: Mon Jul 20, 2026 6:47 pm
by carol.robinson
@barbara50 I can speak to this a bit. Figure's fourth-generation Dexterous Hand (on Figure 02/03) reportedly offers 16 degrees of freedom per hand with sensors integrated into each finger, aimed at fine force control tasks like handling small electronic components without crushing them.

Re: Compliant control vs pure position control for insertion tasks - preferences?

Posted: Thu Jul 23, 2026 12:07 pm
by joseph.robinson
@carol.robinson This is exactly the kind of context I was looking for. Object occlusion by the robot's own hand during the final approach to a grasp is a common and annoying perception problem - the closer the hand gets to a good grasp position, the more it blocks the camera's view of exactly what it's about to grab.

Re: Compliant control vs pure position control for insertion tasks - preferences?

Posted: Sat Jul 25, 2026 9:27 pm
by deborahperez
Still learning the space, so correct me if wrong - Wet, oily, or otherwise low-friction objects are still a genuine edge case for most current hands, since tactile sensing and grasp-force controllers are typically tuned and validated on dry, higher-friction test objects.

Re: Compliant control vs pure position control for insertion tasks - preferences?

Posted: Sat Jul 25, 2026 10:51 pm
by park44
@deborahperez Follow-up question though - Compliant wrists that absorb impact during a bad approach or misjudged contact reduce mechanical stress on the whole arm, which matters a lot for long-term reliability even though it's a less visible feature than the hand itself.

Re: Compliant control vs pure position control for insertion tasks - preferences?

Posted: Mon Jul 27, 2026 5:17 pm
by niklas29
@park44 Genuinely curious - Imitation learning from human demonstration video (without robot teleoperation data) is an appealing way to scale up training data cheaply, but it runs into the embodiment gap - human hand kinematics and force profiles don't map directly onto a robot hand's very different mechanism. Vision-based grasp confidence estimation (predicting success before attempting a grasp) and tactile-based confirmation (confirming after contact) are complementary rather than competing - vision helps you choose a grasp, tactile tells you if it actually worked.