Pith. sign in

REVIEW 4 major objections 5 minor 26 references

Precision Harvesting in Cluttered Environments: Integrating End Effector Design with Dual Camera Perception

T0 review · 4 major / 5 minor · reviewed 2026-08-09 · deepseek-v4-flash

Challenge this review Re-run · record.json Download PDF Read on arXiv ↗ Review JSON

Pith's one-line read A two-camera harvesting robot reaches 85.0% of cherry tomatoes in high tunnels in about 11 seconds.

desk verdict A credible compact harvester with a camera-in-gripper design and real field data, but table inconsistencies and a reach-not-pick metric keep it from being benchmark-grade yet. read the letter →

arxiv 2501.19395 v1 pith:D7OR3A4I submitted 2025-01-31 cs.RO

Kendall Koe , Poojan Kalpeshbhai Shah , Benjamin Walt , Jordan Westphal , Samhita Marri , Shivani Kamtikar , James Seungbum Nam , Naveen Kumar Uppalapati
show 2 more authors
Girish Krishnan Girish Chowdhary
This is my paper · ORCID
classification cs.RO
keywords cherrytomatoharvestinghightunnelvisualservoingeye-in-handcameraRGB-DperceptiongripperdesignYOLOv7mobilemanipulation
verification ladder T0 review T1 audit T2 compute T3 formal

The pith

A machine-rendered reading of the paper's core claim, the machinery that carries it, and where it could break.

The reading

High-tunnel tomato harvesting requires robots that fit in narrow rows and work in dense foliage. This paper proposes a codesigned compact system: a global RGB-D camera on the mobile base locates fruit and computes an approach pose, and a tiny RGB camera mounted between the gripper fingers provides closed-loop visual feedback for the final reach. The central claim is that this two-camera Detect2Grasp pipeline reaches 85.0% of cherry tomatoes in an outdoor high tunnel in 10.98 seconds on average, and that the collocated gripper camera succeeds where a distal depth camera fails in cluttered under-canopy settings.

What carries the argument

The load-bearing mechanism is the Detect2Grasp state machine: YOLOv7 detects berries in RGB images; depth from the base camera is overlaid to estimate the 3D position; an initial pose is computed from a plane through the camera-to-berry vector and the vertical axis, with approach angles interpolated from a workspace boundary calibration; local rotations and offsets search for the berry if it is not in the tip camera's view; and a PID controller with a dead band centers the berry and drives the end effector forward until the berry's image size indicates it is between the grippers. The hardware counterpart is the gripper itself: a compact four-bar pneumatic gripper with a camera collocated on its central axis, a slender distal link, and a 90-degree bend to avoid singularities.

What would settle it

Clamp a leafy stem across the approach plane used for a berry that remains visible to the depth camera, then run the pipeline: if the arm collides with the stem, the obstacle-free plane assumption is the cause; if it adapts, re-planning is more robust than the paper's failure analysis suggests.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

Using only global localization and open-loop reaching is infeasible: base-camera-only trials had an average gripper-to-berry error of 6.8 cm. The paper's discovery is that a low-cost RGB camera placed exactly between the gripper fingers, combined with a visual servoing loop that centers the fruit and stops when the fruit fills the image, can close that gap without a high-fidelity depth sensor at the end effector. In the authors' comparison, this collocated design reached 87.5% of artificial fruit in the lab and 85.0% of real fruit outdoors, while a distal depth camera baseline reached only 60% overall and 77.8% on peripheral berries, failing under the canopy due to its larger profile and collisions.

Load-bearing premise

The approach assumes the plane from the base camera to the berry is free of stems and leaves; if foliage occupies that plane, the arm collides and the reach fails.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • A compact harvester can rely on a global RGB-D camera for coarse localization and a tiny gripper camera for the fine reach, eliminating the need for a distal depth sensor.
  • The visual servoing loop absorbs large depth errors, including corrupted measurements of nearly 20 cm, so the base camera only needs to put the target in the tip camera's view.
  • The collocated camera's advantage is strongest under the canopy: the distal depth camera baseline falls to 60% overall and 77.8% on peripheral berries, while the collocated design keeps 85 to 87.5% success.
  • The pipeline transfers across lab, hanging-vine, and outdoor high-tunnel settings, with success degrading only mildly under 13x and 20x light intensity (80% in both cases).
  • The image-size stopping heuristic provides a direct way to know the fruit is between the grippers, which supports downstream plucking without additional force sensing.

Reading between the lines

Editorial extensions of the paper, not claims the author makes directly.

  • The paper's failure analysis implies that building an occupancy grid of the canopy, listed as future work, would remove the most frequent collision cause; this is an editorial extension because the paper does not test it.
  • The 6.8 cm open-loop error suggests the method is not tied to a specific depth sensor's accuracy, so cheaper or lower-power global sensors could be substituted as long as the berry stays within the tip camera's field of view.
  • The same architecture is likely transferable to other small, roughly uniform fruits by recalibrating the image-size threshold and changing the gripper fingers, though the paper only demonstrates cherry tomatoes.
Share X Bluesky LinkedIn Reddit HN

Signed reviews

No signed human review yet.

Editorial analysis

A structured set of objections, weighed in public.

Desk editor's note, referee report, and a circularity audit.

Referee Report

4 major / 5 minor

Summary. The paper presents a robotic harvesting system for cherry tomatoes in high-tunnel environments, combining a mobile base with a 6-DOF arm, a global RGB-D camera, and a small RGB camera collocated between the fingers of a custom pneumatic gripper. The proposed Detect2Grasp pipeline detects fruit with YOLOv7, computes an initial approach pose from the base depth camera, and then uses closed-loop visual servoing with the gripper camera to center and approach the fruit. Experiments in a lab and in an outdoor high tunnel report an average of 85.0% success in reaching fruit (17/20 trials) in 10.98s on average, along with ablations on corrupted depth, lighting intensity, a hanging-vine environment, and a distal depth camera baseline. The paper claims that the collocated RGB camera is more effective for reaching under-canopy fruit than a distal depth camera.

Significance. If the reported results hold, the work is a useful step toward compact, low-cost harvesting robots for cluttered high-tunnel environments. The paper's strengths include direct field experiments, a realistic comparison setup, and ablations that test robustness to sensor noise and lighting changes. The central claim of 85% reach success is a direct measurement and the paper provides a reasonable failure-mode analysis. However, the significance is tempered by the fact that success is defined as reaching rather than plucking the fruit, by small sample sizes without confidence intervals, by unresolved inconsistencies in the reported numbers, and by an unverified planning assumption that the paper itself identifies as a main failure source. The comparison against the distal depth camera also conflates camera placement with differences in planning heuristics, so the claim that the collocated design is more effective needs sharper experimental control.

major comments (4)
  1. [Section III-B and Section V] The obstacle-free assumption for the approach plane is load-bearing and unjustified. Section III-B states that 'a portion of this plane is assumed to be obstacle-free, as the depth camera has already detected the berry within it,' but depth detection along a single ray does not certify that the surrounding plane is free of stems, leaves, or other plant material. This matters because Section V reports that the most frequent failure was collision of the manipulator link with the environment, occurring when re-planning was needed after corrupted depth measurements, and that re-planning is performed 'without the knowledge of plant occupancy in space.' Since the headline 85.0% and 87.5% success rates could shift with even a few additional collisions, the paper should either provide a controlled occlusion test that specifically varies whether the approach plane contains obstacles, or implement and evaluate an occupancy-aware planning step, before the 'cluttered environment' claim is treated as robust.
  2. [Table I and Sections IV-B, IV-C] The reported success rates are internally inconsistent. Table I lists 46.7% for 'Base VS on Artificial Plant + Corrupted Depth' while Section IV-B states 'Our system achieved a 73.3% success rate over 15 trials.' Similarly, Table I lists 60.0% for '+ 13x Light Intensity' while Section IV-C states 'The average reaching time with 13x light intensity was 8.84s with 80% success.' These discrepancies are not cosmetic: they affect the interpretation of the ablation results and the robustness claims. The authors must correct the numbers and explain the source of the mismatch (e.g., which trials were included, whether the table or text is the final result) before the quantitative claims can be trusted.
  3. [Sections I and IV-E] The success metric is 'reaching' the fruit, not harvesting or plucking it. The abstract says the system 'can reach an average of 85.0% of cherry tomato fruit,' and Section IV-E calls this 'successful reaching of real fruit.' However, the paper title and introduction frame the contribution as 'harvesting.' Since the gripper stops when the berry 'significantly fills the image' and the paper explicitly notes that foliage between the gripper fingers is counted as a failure only because it 'would inhibited the downstream harvesting process,' the current experiments do not demonstrate that the system can harvest. The claims should be consistently phrased as reach success, or additional end-to-end harvesting trials should be reported.
  4. [Section IV-F and Table I] The comparison between the collocated RGB camera and the distal depth camera is not sufficiently controlled. In the distal depth camera baseline, the visual servoing stage is replaced by a purely geometric trajectory that passes through a point 4 cm offset from the berry, and the stopping criterion differs from the collocated-camera version. Thus the observed difference (60% vs. 85-87.5%) could be due to the different planning and control heuristics, not solely to camera placement. Please either implement the same visual servoing logic with the distal depth camera or explicitly identify and isolate the effect of camera placement from the effect of the control strategy.
minor comments (5)
  1. [Section V] There is a typo in 'limited manipulator workpsace' that should read 'workspace.'
  2. [Table I] Success rates are reported without confidence intervals or statistical significance tests. With N=15-20, a 60% vs. 85% difference is not self-evidently significant; please include exact binomial confidence intervals or a suitable test.
  3. [Section III-A] The detector was fine-tuned on only 126 images all collected from the tip camera in a lab setting, but the same detector is used on the base camera and in outdoor conditions. The paper states that the model transfers well, but a brief quantitative statement about detection recall in the field would strengthen the claim.
  4. [Figure 8] The failure-mode breakdown in Figure 8 is important, but the figure is not described in enough detail in the text. Please clarify whether the percentages are computed per environment or globally, and define the color coding explicitly in the caption.
  5. [Section IV-B] The phrase 'This lower reaching time and variance is due to the highly noisy poses resulting in failure' is confusing: it seems to say that failures reduce the measured time, but a stopped or aborted trial may not be a valid time measurement. Please clarify which trials are included in the average time.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 0.0 of 10

No significant circularity; the reported success rates are measured outcomes, not consequences of fitted definitions or self-citations.

full rationale

This is an empirical systems paper rather than a derivation from first principles. The central claim is the measured reach success of 85.0% in outdoor high tunnels and 87.5% in the lab baseline. These numbers are reported from independent trials and are not forced by construction: the fruit detector is trained on a 126-image indoor dataset, but reach success is evaluated on separate test scenarios, including outdoor real fruit, so the evaluation is not merely re-reading the training signal. The planning step in Section III-B contains the assumption that a portion of the camera-to-berry plane is obstacle-free because the berry was detected, but this is an engineering assumption about the environment, not a definitional equivalence with the reported outcome. The paper explicitly identifies collisions from re-planning without an occupancy map as the most frequent failure mode, which shows that the success metric is not guaranteed by the assumption. The distal depth camera comparison is an ablation of sensor placement, and the cited prior works are external comparisons, not self-citations carrying load-bearing uniqueness proofs. Table I has internal inconsistencies between prose and tabulated values, but those are correctness or reporting concerns, not circularity. No equation is shown to reduce to an input, no fitted parameter is renamed as a prediction, and no uniqueness theorem is imported from the authors' own prior work. The finding is therefore no significant circularity.

Assumptions & free parameters 5 free parameters · 4 assumptions · 0 invented entities

The central claim rests on no formal derivation, but on the physical system behaving as described. The most important untested premises are the obstacle-free approach plane and the transfer of an indoor-trained detector to outdoor fruit. Several control and search constants are hand-tuned. No new physical entities are introduced.

free parameters (5)
  • YOLOv7 fine-tuned weights = Not released
    Trained on 126 indoor images of artificial fruit; detection performance in the field depends on these weights and augmentations, and the weights are not provided.
  • Stopping threshold (berry size in image space) = Not specified
    Determines when the arm stops and declares a successful reach; chosen heuristically and would need recalibration for different fruit sizes (Section III-C).
  • Image-center dead band = Not specified
    Set to prevent oscillations in the centering loop; influences final alignment accuracy (Section III-C).
  • Initial approach offset and search increments = Not specified
    Offset from the berry for the initial pose and increments for local search affect whether the tip camera sees the target (Section III-B).
  • PID gains for visual servoing = Not specified
    Controller gains and anti-windup settings are implementation-dependent and not reported, though they affect centering performance.
assumptions (4)
  • domain assumption The plane containing the camera-to-berry vector and the vertical axis is assumed obstacle-free because the berry was detected in it.
    Section III-B; this replaces an occupancy map and is the main cause of collisions during re-planning (Section V).
  • domain assumption Fruit sizes are assumed similar, with thresholds calibrated for cherry tomatoes.
    Section III-C; the visual servoing stopping criterion depends on the berry appearing to fill a fixed fraction of the image.
  • domain assumption A YOLOv7 model trained only on indoor artificial fruit transfers to real outdoor tomatoes.
    Section III-A; the authors state this was observed, and outdoor lighting settings were tuned to make it work.
  • domain assumption Centering the berry in the tip camera image is a valid proxy for centering it between the gripper fingers.
    Section III-C; the collocated camera is used to align the gripper, but no force or tactile verification is reported.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Precision Harvesting in Cluttered Environments: Integrating End Effector Design with Dual Camera Perception." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/D7OR3A4I

@misc{pith2026250119395,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Precision Harvesting in Cluttered Environments: Integrating End Effector Design with Dual Camera Perception},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/D7OR3A4I}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2501.19395}
}
read the original abstract

Due to labor shortages in specialty crop industries, a need for robotic automation to increase agricultural efficiency and productivity has arisen. Previous manipulation systems perform well in harvesting in uncluttered and structured environments. High tunnel environments are more compact and cluttered in nature, requiring a rethinking of the large form factor systems and grippers. We propose a novel codesigned framework incorporating a global detection camera and a local eye-in-hand camera that demonstrates precise localization of small fruits via closed-loop visual feedback and reliable error handling. Field experiments in high tunnels show our system can reach an average of 85.0\% of cherry tomato fruit in 10.98s on average.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2501.19395 by the authors.

Figure 1
Figure 1. Robot picking cherry tomatoes with our Detect2Grasp [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p001_1.png] view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. Our custom pneumatic gripper with a camera collo [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p002_2.png] view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. Flow diagram of our Detect2Grasp algorithm that includes berry detection, initial pose calculation, and visual servoing [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p003_3.png] view at source ↗
Figures from the paper (4 more)
Figure 4
Figure 4. Figure 4: The berries on (a) the periphery and (b) under the [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p004_4.png]
Figure 5
Figure 5. Figure 5: Experimental Setups. (a) Base Setup (b) 13x Lighting (c) 20x Lighting (d) Hanging Vine (e) Outdoor High Tunnel [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p005_5.png]
Figure 7
Figure 7. Figure 7: The images during visual servoing from the tip [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p005_7.png]
Figure 8
Figure 8. Figure 8: The failure cases that occurred throughout testing. [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p006_8.png]

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

26 extracted references · 22 canonical work pages

  1. [1]

    The use of high tunnels to produce fruit and vegetable crops in north america,

    R. R. Janke, M. E. Altamimi, and M. Khan, “The use of high tunnels to produce fruit and vegetable crops in north america,” Agricultural Sciences, vol. 08, pp. 692–715, 2017

    work page 2017

  2. [2]

    Overview of the use of high tunnels worldwide,

    W. J. Lamont, “Overview of the use of high tunnels worldwide,” HortTechnology, vol. 19, pp. 25–29, 1 2009

    work page 2009

  3. [3]

    Small fruit production in high tunnels,

    K. Demchak, “Small fruit production in high tunnels,” HortTechnol- ogy, vol. 19, no. 1, pp. 44–49, 2009

    work page 2009

  4. [4]

    Selective harvesting robotics: current research, trends, and future directions,

    G. Kootstra, X. Wang, P. M. Blok, J. Hemming, and E. Van Henten, “Selective harvesting robotics: current research, trends, and future directions,” Current Robotics Reports , vol. 2, pp. 95–104, 2021

    work page 2021

  5. [5]

    Farmers’ perspectives on challenges and opportunities associated with using high tunnels for specialty crops,

    A. B. Bruce, E. T. Maynard, and J. R. Farmer, “Farmers’ perspectives on challenges and opportunities associated with using high tunnels for specialty crops,” HortTechnology, vol. 29, no. 3, pp. 290–299, 2019

    work page 2019

  6. [6]

    Planting in a high tunnel,

    U. NRCS, “Planting in a high tunnel,” Washington DC, 2014

    work page 2014

  7. [7]

    An autonomous strawberry-harvesting robot: Design, development, integration, and field evaluation,

    Y . Xiong, Y . Ge, L. Grimstad, and P. J. From, “An autonomous strawberry-harvesting robot: Design, development, integration, and field evaluation,” Journal of Field Robotics , vol. 37, no. 2, pp. 202– 224, 2020

    2020

  8. [8]

    Hybrid visual servo control of a robotic manipulator for cherry tomato harvesting,

    Y .-R. Li, W.-Y . Lien, Z.-H. Huang, and C.-T. Chen, “Hybrid visual servo control of a robotic manipulator for cherry tomato harvesting,” in Actuators, vol. 12, no. 6. MDPI, 2023, p. 253

    work page 2023

Show all 26 references
  1. [9]

    Hybrid uncalibrated visual servoing control of harvesting robots with rgb-d cameras,

    T. Li, J. Yu, Q. Qiu, and C. Zhao, “Hybrid uncalibrated visual servoing control of harvesting robots with rgb-d cameras,” IEEE Transactions on Industrial Electronics , vol. 70, no. 3, pp. 2729–2738, 2022

    2022

  2. [10]

    Performance evaluation of a harvesting robot for sweet pepper,

    C. W. Bac, J. Hemming, B. Van Tuijl, R. Barth, E. Wais, and E. J. van Henten, “Performance evaluation of a harvesting robot for sweet pepper,” Journal of Field Robotics , vol. 34, no. 6, pp. 1123–1139, 2017

    2017

  3. [11]

    Development of a tomato harvesting robot used in greenhouse,

    W. Lili, Z. Bo, F. Jinwei, H. Xiaoan, W. Shu, L. Yashuo, Q. Zhou, and W. Chongfeng, “Development of a tomato harvesting robot used in greenhouse,” International Journal of Agricultural and Biological Engineering, vol. 10, no. 4, pp. 140–149, 2017

    2017

  4. [12]

    Design and test of robotic harvesting system for cherry tomato,

    Q. Feng, W. Zou, P. Fan, C. Zhang, and X. Wang, “Design and test of robotic harvesting system for cherry tomato,” International Journal of Agricultural and Biological Engineering , vol. 11, no. 1, pp. 96–100, 2018

    2018

  5. [13]

    Algorithm design and integration for a robotic apple harvesting system,

    K. Zhang, K. Lammers, P. Chu, N. Dickinson, Z. Li, and R. Lu, “Algorithm design and integration for a robotic apple harvesting system,” in 2022 IEEE/RSJ International Conference on Intelligent Robots and Systems (IROS) . IEEE, 2022, pp. 9217–9224

    2022

  6. [14]

    A sweet pepper har- vesting robot for protected cropping environments,

    C. Lehnert, C. McCool, I. Sa, and T. Perez, “A sweet pepper har- vesting robot for protected cropping environments,” arXiv preprint arXiv:1810.11920, 2018

    2018 arXiv

  7. [15]

    Development and evaluation of a pneumatic finger-like end-effector for cherry tomato harvesting robot in greenhouse,

    J. Gao, F. Zhang, J. Zhang, T. Yuan, J. Yin, H. Guo, and C. Yang, “Development and evaluation of a pneumatic finger-like end-effector for cherry tomato harvesting robot in greenhouse,” Computers and Electronics in Agriculture , vol. 197, p. 106879, 2022

    2022

  8. [16]

    Efficient and accurate transformer-based 3d shape completion and reconstruction of fruits for agricultural robots,

    F. Magistri, R. Marcuzzi, E. Marks, M. Sodano, J. Behley, and C. Stachniss, “Efficient and accurate transformer-based 3d shape completion and reconstruction of fruits for agricultural robots,” in2024 IEEE International Conference on Robotics and Automation (ICRA) . IEEE, 2024,...

    2024

  9. [17]

    Active vision and surface reconstruction for 3d plant shoot modelling,

    J. A. Gibbs, M. P. Pound, A. P. French, D. M. Wells, E. H. Murchie, and T. P. Pridmore, “Active vision and surface reconstruction for 3d plant shoot modelling,” IEEE/ACM transactions on computational biology and bioinformatics , vol. 17, no. 6, pp. 1907–1917, 2019

    1907

  10. [18]

    Develop- ment of a dual-arm rapid grape-harvesting robot for horizontal trellis cultivation,

    Y . Jiang, J. Liu, J. Wang, W. Li, Y . Peng, and H. Shan, “Develop- ment of a dual-arm rapid grape-harvesting robot for horizontal trellis cultivation,” Frontiers in Plant Science , vol. 13, p. 881904, 2022

    2022

  11. [19]

    Recognition and positioning of strawberries based on improved yolov7 and rgb-d sensing,

    Y . Li, W. Wang, X. Guo, X. Wang, Y . Liu, and D. Wang, “Recognition and positioning of strawberries based on improved yolov7 and rgb-d sensing,” Agriculture, vol. 14, no. 4, p. 624, 2024

    2024

  12. [20]

    Hortibot: An adaptive multi-arm system for robotic horticulture of sweet peppers,

    C. Lenz, R. Menon, M. Schreiber, M. P. Jacob, S. Behnke, and M. Bennewitz, “Hortibot: An adaptive multi-arm system for robotic horticulture of sweet peppers,” arXiv preprint arXiv:2403.15306, 2024

    2024 arXiv

  13. [21]

    Biman- ual crop manipulation for human-inspired robotic harvesting,

    S. Stavridis, D. Papageorgiou, L. Droukas, and Z. Doulgeri, “Biman- ual crop manipulation for human-inspired robotic harvesting,” arXiv preprint arXiv:2209.06074, 2022

    2022 arXiv

  14. [22]

    Development of an autonomous tomato harvesting robot with rotational plucking gripper,

    H. Yaguchi, K. Nagahama, T. Hasegawa, and M. Inaba, “Development of an autonomous tomato harvesting robot with rotational plucking gripper,” in 2016 IEEE/RSJ international conference on intelligent robots and systems (IROS) . IEEE, 2016, pp. 652–657

    2016

  15. [23]

    Fin Ray® Effect Inspired Soft Robotic Gripper: From the RoboSoft Grand Challenge toward Optimization,

    W. Crooks, G. Vukasin, M. O’Sullivan, W. Messner, and C. Rogers, “Fin Ray® Effect Inspired Soft Robotic Gripper: From the RoboSoft Grand Challenge toward Optimization,” Frontiers in Robotics and AI , vol. 3, 11 2016

    2016

  16. [24]

    Yolov7: Trainable bag-of-freebies sets new state-of-the-art for real-time object detectors,

    C.-Y . Wang, A. Bochkovskiy, and H.-Y . M. Liao, “Yolov7: Trainable bag-of-freebies sets new state-of-the-art for real-time object detectors,” in Proceedings of the IEEE/CVF conference on computer vision and pattern recognition, 2023, pp. 7464–7475

    2023

  17. [25]

    Development of an end-effector for a tomato cluster harvesting robot,

    N. Kondo, K. Yata, M. Iida, T. Shiigi, M. Monta, M. Kurita, and H. Omori, “Development of an end-effector for a tomato cluster harvesting robot,” Engineering in Agriculture, Environment and F ood, vol. 3, no. 1, pp. 20–24, 2010

    2010

  18. [26]

    Estimating tactile models of heterogeneous de- formable objects in real time,

    S. Yao and K. Hauser, “Estimating tactile models of heterogeneous de- formable objects in real time,” in 2023 IEEE International Conference on Robotics and Automation (ICRA) . IEEE, 2023, pp. 12 583–12 589

    2023

Pith tools

Reviewed August 9, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.