Pith. sign in

REVIEW 4 major objections 5 minor 31 references

Robust Embodied Self-Identification of Morphology in Damaged Multi-Legged Robots

T0 review · 4 major / 5 minor · reviewed 2026-08-06 · deepseek-v4-flash

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

Pith's one-line read A hexapod can identify which legs it lost using only one body-mounted IMU, by evolving candidate models until simulated body tilt matches measured roll, pitch, and yaw.

desk verdict A genuinely IMU-only damage identification pipeline with real hardware tests, but the 89% headline accuracy is softer than it looks: single-leg identification is 50% and link-level accuracy is much lower. read the letter →

arxiv 2506.19984 v1 pith:TRWIBCOH submitted 2025-06-24 cs.RO

Sahand Farghdani , Mili Patel , Robin Chhabra This is my paper · ORCID
classification cs.RO
keywords multi-leggedrobotsdamageidentificationself-modelinggeneticalgorithmFFTfilterIMUmorphologyvectorhexapod
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

The paper claims that a six-legged robot can discover which legs or leg links it has lost using only the readings of one low-cost IMU on its body, while walking its normal gait. The robot does this by running a genetic algorithm over binary morphology vectors, simulating each candidate's body orientation with a fast modular dynamics model, and keeping the candidate whose simulated roll, pitch, and yaw best match the measured signals. An FFT-based filter is introduced so the comparison ignores sensor noise, time delays, sampling-rate jitter, and terrain disturbances, which otherwise can make the wrong morphology look better than the right one. Across 18 physical tests on eight damage scenarios the method reached the correct damaged legs in 16 cases, with an average convergence time of about 10 minutes. The paper's claim is that this makes embodied self-identification practical enough to feed an updated model into the robot's controller without external sensors.

What carries the argument

The search variable is the morphology vector X, a binary list in which x_ij is 1 if link j of leg i is present and 0 if it is absent; a link-logic refinement enforces physical feasibility by zeroing every distal link that follows an absent link. A genetic algorithm with population size 10, 20 generations, crossover rate 0.9, and mutation rate 0.33 evolves these vectors, with mutation probabilities biased toward preserving proximal links. The load-bearing comparison tool is the FFT-based filter: it converts both simulated and experimental Euler-angle signals to power spectra, cuts frequencies above 10 Hz, keeps only peaks above a power threshold of 0.1, and reconstructs both signals on a shared time vector with common initial conditions. This preprocessing is what makes the cost function F_k reliable, and the fast modular simulator from the paper's companion modeling work is what makes 20 generations of full-body dynamics feasible within about 10 minutes.

What would settle it

Give the robot a single-leg damage in which the damaged leg's remaining links never touch the ground and the other two legs of its tripod group still complete the support phase; if, over repeated trials, the algorithm reports a healthy-leg false positive more often than the 89% baseline, the claim that orientation-only IMU data identifies single-leg damage is weakened. A sharper test is to remove only the last, lightweight link of a leg in a way that guarantees no ground contact and check whether the algorithm ever detects it.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

The central discovery is that whole-body orientation data, captured by a single low-cost IMU and compared in the frequency domain, carry enough information to localize leg damage in a 24-degree-of-freedom hexapod. For each candidate morphology vector X_k, the modular simulator produces roll, pitch, and yaw trajectories; the cost function F_k sums the absolute orientation error against the experimental signal, and the genetic algorithm returns the morphology that minimizes it. The paper reports 89% overall accuracy, an average convergence time of about 10 minutes, and higher success rates for double-leg damage than for single-leg damage. In an unmodeled harsh environment with a slope, sand, and rocks, the algorithm still flags the correct damaged legs, but the predicted link-level morphology does not match ground truth: it reports Leg 1's first link missing and Leg 4's last two links missing, while both legs were actually completely missing. The authors attribute this gap to locked-but-not-detached joints and unmodeled terrain, and still treat the result as sufficient to initialize recovery.

Load-bearing premise

The whole method depends on the simulator being faithful: a candidate morphology is judged correct only if its simulated body tilt is close to the measured tilt, so any sim-to-real gap, such as locked-but-not-detached joints or unmodeled terrain, directly degrades the identification.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • A damaged hexapod can update its controller's model using only its existing IMU and nominal gait, with the corrected model emerging as a by-product of the search.
  • The tripod gait's group structure means single-leg damage can be misattributed to a healthy leg in the same group; the algorithm is conservative, sacrificing exact leg-level accuracy to avoid missing damaged groups.
  • Because the method reads only body orientation, translational motion and distal links that never touch the ground are essentially invisible, so link-level detail is unreliable when missing links do not make ground contact.
  • The roughly 10-minute convergence fits within a single mission pause and avoids random system excitation, reducing the risk of further damaging an already compromised robot.
  • In harsh, unmodeled terrain the algorithm still converges to a morphology consistent with the damaged side of the robot, which the authors argue is enough to start a recovery process.

Reading between the lines

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

  • Editorial inference: The FFT filter keeps only the dominant spectral peaks of the gait, so the method should transfer to quadrupeds or octopods whose walking frequencies fall below the cutoff; this is a testable extension of the paper's claim.
  • Editorial inference: The reported 89% accuracy is tied to the cost landscape of the tripod gait; adding a cheap magnetometer or wheel odometry would likely resolve the within-group ambiguity that currently causes conservative false positives.
  • Editorial inference: A natural next experiment is to measure how the identification confidence changes with the length of the recorded IMU window, since the method's success depends on whether damaged morphologies are separated in orientation-signal space within that window.
  • Editorial inference: Because the physical failures were locked joints rather than fully detached links, an explicit locked-joint model, alongside the existing absent-link model, could close the harsh-terrain gap between predicted and ground-truth morphologies.
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 proposes an embodied self-identification algorithm for multi-legged robots that uses only a single body-mounted IMU to detect and localize leg/link damage. A genetic algorithm searches over a binary morphology vector, and a modular whole-body dynamics simulator predicts the body orientation for each candidate; an FFT-based preprocessing filter is introduced to align simulated and measured roll, pitch, and yaw signals. Experiments on a physical six-legged robot are reported for eight damage scenarios (18 trials total) plus one harsh-terrain scenario, with the paper claiming an average convergence time of about 10 minutes and an overall accuracy of 89%.

Significance. If the central claim were fully supported, the contribution would be valuable: damage identification from a single low-cost IMU, with no external sensors, and tested on real hardware including uneven terrain, is a practically relevant capability that goes beyond many prior model-based diagnostics. The use of a fast modular simulator and the explicit computation of damaged-robot dynamics are also strengths. However, the paper's headline accuracy figure is not currently interpretable because the notion of a 'correct' result is never defined, and the reported data show that exact morphology recovery is rare, particularly in single-leg and harsh-environment cases. The evidence base is too thin and the success metric too lenient to support the abstract's claim of accurate damaged-leg identification.

major comments (4)
  1. [Section IV-C, Tables II and III] The criterion counted as 'correct' in Table III is never defined, and the 89% overall accuracy conflates exact-morphology success with leg-level success. In Table II, most of the rows counted as correct in Table III are not exact matches: for example, 'Legs 1 & 4 missed' is predicted as [1 1 0] and [1 0 0] rather than [0 0 0] and [0 0 0], and 'Legs 4 & 5 missed' is predicted as [1 0 0] and [1 0 0]. The authors must state separate link-level, leg-level, and group-level correctness definitions, and report per-run outcomes, because the currently reported 16/18 does not mean that the morphology was correctly identified.
  2. [Section IV-C, single-leg rows] The central claim that the algorithm reliably identifies damaged legs is not supported by the single-leg experiments. Only two trials are reported for 'Leg 3 missed' and two for 'Leg 5 missed', with one success each, i.e., 50% per scenario; with n=2 per scenario this evidence is statistically very weak. The paper itself concedes that in some tests damage was predicted in a healthy leg from the same tripod group. Since the overall 89% is dominated by the 14 double-leg trials, the authors should provide per-category accuracy with confidence intervals, a per-run confusion matrix, and a clear statement of whether the claim is leg-level or group-level identification.
  3. [Section IV-D, Figs. 7-9] The harsh-environment result is described as detecting the damage correctly, but the ground truth is that Legs 1 and 4 are completely missing, whereas the algorithm consistently converges to Leg 1 missing only its first link and Leg 4 missing its last two links. Under the paper's own morphology definition, this is not a correct identification at link level or at leg-completeness level; it is at best a group-level or partial-leg indication. The claim in Section IV-D that this outcome is 'sufficiently accurate' needs to be justified with a quantified recovery-oriented metric, and the abstract's wording should be qualified accordingly.
  4. [Section III-A.2 and Section IV-C] The mapping from a small cost function value to behavioral similarity is a load-bearing assumption, but it is not tested independently of the authors' own simulator. The paper acknowledges a concrete sim-to-real gap: experimental links were locked but not detached, while the simulator removes links entirely, which changes the mass and contact properties. To support the identifiability claim, the authors should provide a sensitivity or validation analysis showing, for example, that the cost landscape separates correct and incorrect leg-level hypotheses, and that the FFT-filter parameters (Fc, Pc) and GA parameters are not tuned to the particular scenarios reported.
minor comments (5)
  1. [Eq. (4)] In the definition of Fk, the term Θk_Sim(t) is missing the time-sample subscript q; it should be Θk_Sim(tq) for consistency with the other terms.
  2. [Section IV-C, Fig. 5] The text says the identification was repeated 10 times per scenario and that the most frequently identified morphology is reported, but Table III reports only aggregate trial counts and no distribution of outcomes; clarify how the 10 runs map to the 'Tests Conducted' column and to the single predicted morphology shown in Table II.
  3. [Section IV-C, Table II] The table reports only one predicted morphology per scenario, but the text states that the 10 repeated runs produced several different morphologies; without per-run data the reader cannot assess the variability or the reliability of the reported predictions.
  4. [References] References [9] and [28] are duplicates of the same Johnson, Haynes, and Koditschek conference paper and should be merged.
  5. [Section IV-B] The damage-detection threshold and sliding-window parameters are described as experimentally determined, but no analysis of the detector's sensitivity to these choices is provided; a short robustness discussion would strengthen the claim that the detector is reliable.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 0.0 of 10

No significant circularity: the identification pipeline is an estimation procedure validated against physical ground-truth damage; self-citations to the simulator are inputs, not reductions.

full rationale

The paper's claimed derivation chain is: collect IMU orientation from a physically damaged robot; preprocess with an FFT filter; evaluate candidate morphology vectors by simulating each candidate in the authors' modular dynamics engine [20,24]; select the candidate minimizing Fk. None of these steps reduces to its own output. Xdam is defined as the minimizer of Fk (Eq. 4), which is a standard estimator definition, not a self-fulfilling prediction. The assertion that 'a small value of Fk corresponds to a candidate MLR that behaves similarly to the damaged robot' is an explicit modeling assumption about simulator fidelity, not an equation-level identity; it could fail (and the authors acknowledge it does in the harsh-environment and link-count cases), which shows it is empirical rather than definitional. The simulation engine and controller from [20,24] are self-citations, but the central claim (identification of damaged legs) is not justified solely by that citation: the algorithm is tested against known physical damage on a real hexapod, providing an external benchmark. The ambiguous definition of 'correct' and the low single-leg success counts are legitimate correctness/reporting concerns, but they do not constitute circularity because no fitted parameter is renamed as a prediction and no result is assumed into its own derivation. Overall, the derivation chain is self-contained in the sense required by the circularity check; score 0.

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

The central claim rests on the simulator's fidelity and on the FFT filter retaining discriminative information. Free parameters are the filter thresholds and GA mutation probabilities, all hand-tuned. No new physical entities are introduced. The most consequential unproven premise is the sim-to-real transfer of the damage model, which the paper's own harsh environment test shows to be imperfect.

free parameters (5)
  • FFT cutoff frequency Fc = 10 Hz
    Chosen to retain low-frequency gait content and attenuate noise; set in Table I without a systematic selection procedure.
  • FFT power threshold Pc = 0.1
    Used to keep only dominant spectral peaks in roll, pitch, and yaw; hand-set in Table I.
  • Mutation probabilities Pij = Pi1=0.9, Pi2=0.7, Pi3=0.7
    Set via 'estimation and experimental validation' (Section III-A.4) to favor proximal links; tuned on the evaluation scenarios.
  • Damage detection threshold = 5 degrees for 2 seconds
    The sliding window detector flags damage if roll/pitch fluctuation exceeds 5 degrees for 2 seconds; described as 'experimentally determined' (Section IV-B).
  • GA population and generation sizes = Ps=10, Gs=20
    Algorithmic choices that affect convergence; not justified against the 4096-candidate search space.
assumptions (5)
  • domain assumption The damaged robot walks with the nominal gait and its IMU measurements are available (Assumption 1).
    The identification method assumes access to IMU data recorded while the damaged robot walks with the healthy gait; stated as Assumption 1 in Section II.
  • domain assumption The modular simulation engine from [20], [24] faithfully maps morphology to body orientation for the real robot.
    The cost function Fk compares simulated and experimental orientation; if the simulator is inaccurate, the GA will select the wrong morphology. Invoked in Section III-A.2: 'We claim that a small value of Fk corresponds to a candidate MLR that behaves similarly to the damaged robot.'
  • domain assumption The FFT-based filter removes noise and delays without removing discriminative morphology information.
    The filter is applied to both signals before comparison (Section III-B); no ablation is provided to show that the filtered signals retain the information needed to distinguish damage scenarios.
  • ad hoc to paper A small value of the cost function implies behavioral similarity between simulation and reality.
    Explicitly stated in Section III-A.2 as a claim, not proven; the harsh environment result in Section IV-D suggests the converse can fail (small cost, wrong morphology).
  • standard math Euler angle representation suffices for body orientation comparison.
    The cost function sums absolute errors in roll, pitch, and yaw extracted from rotation matrices (Section III-A.2). Euler angle singularities are not addressed.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Robust Embodied Self-Identification of Morphology in Damaged Multi-Legged Robots." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/TRWIBCOH

@misc{pith2026250619984,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Robust Embodied Self-Identification of Morphology in Damaged Multi-Legged Robots},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/TRWIBCOH}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2506.19984}
}
read the original abstract

Multi-legged robots (MLRs) are vulnerable to leg damage during complex missions, which can impair their performance. This paper presents a self-modeling and damage identification algorithm that enables autonomous adaptation to partial or complete leg loss using only data from a low-cost IMU. A novel FFT-based filter is introduced to address time-inconsistent signals, improving damage detection by comparing body orientation between the robot and its model. The proposed method identifies damaged legs and updates the robot's model for integration into its control system. Experiments on uneven terrain validate its robustness and computational efficiency.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2506.19984 by the authors.

Figure 1
Figure 1. Schematic diagram of the proposed method [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p002_1.png] view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. Outline of the algorithm and experimental setup [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p005_3.png] view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. Damage identification algorithm flowchart [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p005_2.png] view at source ↗
Figures from the paper (5 more)
Figure 4
Figure 4. Figure 4: Damage detection algorithm output from the robot main [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p006_4.png]
Figure 6
Figure 6. Figure 6: Harsh environment test setup [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p007_6.png]
Figure 7
Figure 7. Figure 7: Robot main body orientation experimental data: (a), [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p007_7.png]
Figure 8
Figure 8. Figure 8: Robot main body orientation for identified morphology [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p007_8.png]
Figure 9
Figure 9. Figure 9: The best objective function value per generation for [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p008_9.png]

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

31 extracted references · 31 canonical work pages

  1. [20]

    Fast and Modular Whole-Body Lagrangian Dynamics of Legged Robots with Changing Morphology

    S. Farghdani, O. Abdelrahman, and R. Chhabra, “Fast and modular whole-body lagrangian dynamics of legged robots with changing morphology,” 2025. [Online]. Available: https://arxiv.org/abs/2504.16383

    work page Pith review arXiv 2025

  2. [24]

    Singularity-free whole-body dynamical equations of legged robots for damage simulation,

    S. Farghdani and R. Chhabra, “Singularity-free whole-body dynamical equations of legged robots for damage simulation,” in AIAA SCITECH 2024 Forum, 2024, p. 1017

    work page 2024

  3. [1]

    Scientific exploration of chal- lenging planetary analog environments with a team of legged robots,

    P. Arm, G. Waibel, J. Preisig, T. Tuna, R. Zhou, V . Bickel, G. Ligeza, T. Miki, F. Kehl, H. Kolvenbach et al., “Scientific exploration of chal- lenging planetary analog environments with a team of legged robots,” Science robotics, vol. 8, no. 80, p. eade9548, 2023

    work page 2023

  4. [2]

    Legged robots for object manipulation: A review,

    Y . Gong, G. Sun, A. Nair, A. Bidwai, R. CS, J. Grezmak, G. Sartoretti, and K. A. Daltorio, “Legged robots for object manipulation: A review,” Frontiers in Mechanical Engineering , vol. 9, p. 1142421, 2023

    work page 2023

  5. [3]

    Spot® Boston Dynamics,

    Boston Dynamics, “Spot® Boston Dynamics,” https://www.bostondynamics.com/spot, 2015, [Accessed: November, 2022]

    work page 2015

  6. [4]

    ANYmal X by ANYbotics,

    ANYbotics, “ANYmal X by ANYbotics,” https://www.anybotics.com/anymal-ex-proof-inspection-robot/, 2022, [Accessed: November, 2022]

    work page 2022

  7. [5]

    Snapbot: A reconfigurable legged robot,

    J. Kim, A. Alspach, and K. Yamane, “Snapbot: A reconfigurable legged robot,” in 2017 IEEE/RSJ International Conference on Intelligent Robots and Systems (IROS) . IEEE, 2017, pp. 5861–5867

    work page 2017

  8. [6]

    Snapbot v2: a reconfigurable legged robot with a camera for self configuration recognition,

    K. Gim and J. Kim, “Snapbot v2: a reconfigurable legged robot with a camera for self configuration recognition,” in 2020 IEEE/RSJ Inter- national Conference on Intelligent Robots and Systems (IROS) . IEEE, 2020, pp. 4026–4031

    work page 2020

Show all 31 references
  1. [7]

    Self-reconfigurable multilegged robot swarms collectively accomplish challenging terradynamic tasks,

    Y . Ozkan-Aydin and D. I. Goldman, “Self-reconfigurable multilegged robot swarms collectively accomplish challenging terradynamic tasks,” Science Robotics, vol. 6, no. 56, p. eabf1628, 2021

    2021

  2. [8]

    Self identification and control of four-leg robot based on biological evolutionary mechanisms,

    J. Liang and C. Xue, “Self identification and control of four-leg robot based on biological evolutionary mechanisms,” in 2010 5th IEEE Conference on Industrial Electronics and Applications . IEEE, 2010, pp. 958–961

    2010

  3. [9]

    Disturbance detection, identification, and recovery by gait transition in legged robots,

    A. Johnson, G. Haynes, and D. Koditschek, “Disturbance detection, identification, and recovery by gait transition in legged robots,” in 2010 IEEE/RSJ International Conference on Intelligent Robots and Systems . IEEE, 2010, pp. 5347–5353

    2010

  4. [10]

    Resilient machines through continuous self-modeling,

    J. Bongard, V . Zykov, and H. Lipson, “Resilient machines through continuous self-modeling,” Science, vol. 314, no. 5802, pp. 1118–1121, 2006

    2006

  5. [11]

    Self-recovery strategy for multi-legged robot with damaged legs,

    S. Chattunyakit, “Self-recovery strategy for multi-legged robot with damaged legs,” Ph.D. dissertation, Graduate School of Engineering, Hokkaido University, 2019

    2019

  6. [12]

    Bio-inspired structure and behavior of self-recovery quadruped robot with a limited number of functional legs,

    S. Chattunyakit, Y . Kobayashi, T. Emaru, and A. Ravankar, “Bio-inspired structure and behavior of self-recovery quadruped robot with a limited number of functional legs,” Applied Sciences, vol. 9, no. 4, p. 799, 2019

    2019

  7. [13]

    Pso-based leg-loss identification method for legged robots,

    S. Chattunyakit, Y . Kobayashi, and T. Emaru, “Pso-based leg-loss identification method for legged robots,” Transactions of the TSME , vol. 4, no. 57, pp. 46–57, 2016

    2016

  8. [14]

    Autonomous robot failure recognition design using multi- objective genetic programming,

    Y . Zhang, “Autonomous robot failure recognition design using multi- objective genetic programming,” in 2006 International Conference on Machine Learning and Cybernetics , 2006, pp. 4563–4568

    2006

  9. [15]

    Fault diagnosis of rolling bearing based on probability box theory and ga-svm,

    H. Tang, Z. Yuan, H. Dai, and Y . Du, “Fault diagnosis of rolling bearing based on probability box theory and ga-svm,” IEEE Access, vol. 8, pp. 170 872–170 882, 2020

    2020

  10. [16]

    An adaptive genetic algorithm method for damage detection in structural elements,

    S. Sahu and B. Nayak, “An adaptive genetic algorithm method for damage detection in structural elements,” Materials Today: Proceedings, vol. 26, pp. 581–585, 2020

    2020

  11. [17]

    Structural damage identification based on variable-length elements and an improved genetic algorithm for railway bridges,

    H. Yang, W. Zhang, A. Zhang, N. Wu, and Z. Liu, “Structural damage identification based on variable-length elements and an improved genetic algorithm for railway bridges,”Applied Sciences, vol. 12, no. 11, p. 5706, 2022

    2022

  12. [18]

    An optimized and chaotic intelligent system for a 3dof rehabilitation robot for lower limbs based on neural network and genetic algorithm,

    W. Azar and P. Nazar, “An optimized and chaotic intelligent system for a 3dof rehabilitation robot for lower limbs based on neural network and genetic algorithm,” Biomedical Signal Processing and Control , vol. 69, p. 102864, 2021

    2021

  13. [19]

    Gait generation for damaged hexapods using a genetic algorithm,

    J. Kon and F. Sahin, “Gait generation for damaged hexapods using a genetic algorithm,” in 2020 IEEE 15th International Conference of System of Systems Engineering (SoSE) . IEEE, 2020, pp. 451–456

    2020

  14. [21]

    Adaptive gait generation for hexapod robot using genetic algorithm,

    A. Manglik, K. Gupta, and S. Bhanot, “Adaptive gait generation for hexapod robot using genetic algorithm,” in 2016 IEEE 1st International Conference on Power Electronics, Intelligent Control and Energy Sys- tems (ICPEICES). IEEE, 2016, pp. 1–6

    2016

  15. [22]

    Optimization of the hexapod robot walking by genetic algorithm,

    Z. Pap, I. Kecsk ´es, E. Burkus, F. Bazs ´o, and P. Odry, “Optimization of the hexapod robot walking by genetic algorithm,” in IEEE 8th International Symposium on Intelligent Systems and Informatics. IEEE, 2010, pp. 121–126

    2010

  16. [23]

    The automated fault-recovery for four-legged robots using parallel genetic algorithm,

    H. Park and K. Kim, “The automated fault-recovery for four-legged robots using parallel genetic algorithm,” in 17th Asia Pacific Symposium on Intelligent and Evolutionary Systems , vol. 24, 2013, pp. 158–166

    2013

  17. [25]

    Fftw: An adaptive software architecture for the fft,

    M. Frigo and S. G. Johnson, “Fftw: An adaptive software architecture for the fft,” in Proceedings of the 1998 IEEE International Conference on Acoustics, Speech and Signal Processing, ICASSP’98 (Cat. No. 98CH36181), vol. 3. IEEE, 1998, pp. 1381–1384

    1998

  18. [26]

    Available online at: https://www.hiwonder.com/products/jethexa (Accessed March, 2024)

    Hiwonder JetHexa ROS Hexapod Robot Kit Powered by Jetson Nano Boston Dynamics.; 2022. Available online at: https://www.hiwonder.com/products/jethexa (Accessed March, 2024)

    2022

  19. [27]

    Automated damage diagnosis and recovery for remote robotics,

    J. Bongard and H. Lipson, “Automated damage diagnosis and recovery for remote robotics,” in IEEE International Conference on Robotics and Automation, 2004. Proceedings. ICRA ’04. 2004, vol. 4, 2004, pp. 3545– 3550 V ol.4

    2004

  20. [28]

    Disturbance de- tection, identification, and recovery by gait transition in legged robots,

    A. M. Johnson, G. C. Haynes, and D. E. Koditschek, “Disturbance de- tection, identification, and recovery by gait transition in legged robots,” in 2010 IEEE/RSJ International Conference on Intelligent Robots and Systems, 2010, pp. 5347–5353

    2010

  21. [29]

    Fault detection algorithm for legged walking robot,

    F. Seljanko, “Fault detection algorithm for legged walking robot,” in 2013 IEEE International Conference on Mechatronics and Automation , 2013, pp. 1211–1216

    2013

  22. [30]

    A review of current approaches to configuration detection in modular legged robots,

    T. Buettner, O. Schwertfeger, A. Roennau, and R. Dillmann, “A review of current approaches to configuration detection in modular legged robots,” in Climbing and Walking Robots Conference . Springer, 2022, pp. 167–180

    2022

  23. [31]

    Sensor fault detection for wheel- legged robot with sliding window detector,

    H. Hou, L. Han, H. Liu, and J. Xie, “Sensor fault detection for wheel- legged robot with sliding window detector,” in 2023 5th International Conference on Robotics, Intelligent Control and Artificial Intelligence (RICAI), 2023, pp. 652–656

    2023

Pith tools

Reviewed August 6, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.