pith. sign in

arxiv: 2605.20392 · v1 · pith:42TP7WWNnew · submitted 2026-05-19 · 💻 cs.RO

VBT-MPC: Vision-Based Tactile MPC for Contour Following

Edison Velasco-Sanchez , Luis F. Recalde , Guanrui Li , Pablo Gil This is my paper

Pith reviewed 2026-05-21 07:09 UTC · model grok-4.3

classification 💻 cs.RO
keywords vision-based tactile sensingmodel predictive controlcontour followingrobotic manipulationtactile feedbackeye-in-hand configurationsurface tracking
0
0 comments X

The pith

A model predictive controller tracks object contours by operating directly on tactile sensor features instead of estimated poses.

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

The paper develops a Vision-Based Tactile Model Predictive Control framework for contour following with a tactile sensor mounted on the robot hand. The controller optimizes its actions straight from contour features extracted in the sensor images rather than first computing object poses or adding separate force loops. Tests cover objects of different shapes and materials, run in both simulation and on physical hardware, and include comparisons to tactile-adapted visual servoing. A reader would care because the approach could make contact-rich tasks like surface inspection simpler to implement by cutting out intermediate estimation steps.

Core claim

The proposed VBT-MPC controller operates directly in contour features space, thereby avoiding the need for separate pose-estimation modules or complex force-control architectures. The framework is compared to visual-servoing strategies adapted to tactile features and evaluated on objects with diverse geometries and materials in both simulation and real-world experiments.

What carries the argument

The MPC optimizer that works directly in the space of contour features extracted from vision-based tactile sensor images.

If this is right

  • The controller maintains contact and tracks contours across objects with varied geometries and materials.
  • Performance is evaluated against visual-servoing baselines adapted to the same tactile features.
  • The method functions in both simulated environments and real robot trials with an eye-in-hand sensor mount.
  • The overall system architecture is simplified by removing dedicated pose estimation and force control modules.

Where Pith is reading between the lines

These are editorial extensions of the paper, not claims the author makes directly.

  • The same feature-space formulation might transfer to related contact tasks such as edge polishing or weld seam tracking.
  • Lower dependence on explicit pose estimation could reduce the need for multi-sensor fusion in other manipulation pipelines.
  • Further experiments on highly reflective or deformable surfaces would test the practical limits of the current feature stability.

Load-bearing premise

Contour features extracted from the vision-based tactile sensor images remain stable and informative enough for the MPC optimizer to maintain contact and track the contour across changes in object geometry, material, and lighting without requiring additional real-time calibration or filtering steps.

What would settle it

A physical experiment in which the robot loses sustained contact or deviates from the contour when the object material or ambient lighting changes abruptly would show the central claim does not hold.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2605.20392 by Edison Velasco-Sanchez, Guanrui Li, Luis F. Recalde, Pablo Gil.

Figure 1
Figure 1. Figure 1: Proposed VBT-MPC for contour following by touch. [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p001_1.png] view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. Figure 2: Coordinate frames and geometric features used in our [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p002_2.png] view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. Figure 3: Qualitative results of the approaches evaluated for [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p005_3.png] view at source ↗
Figure 4
Figure 4. Figure 4: Statistical study of position (left) and orientation error [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p006_4.png] view at source ↗
Figure 5
Figure 5. Figure 5: Comparison of tactile feature errors and control [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p006_5.png] view at source ↗
Figure 6
Figure 6. Figure 6: Comparison between the decoupled controller and VBT-MPC during real-robot tracking of a 3D-printed S-shaped [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p007_6.png] view at source ↗
Figure 7
Figure 7. Figure 7: Hexagonal contour-following comparison. Paths for [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p007_7.png] view at source ↗
Figure 8
Figure 8. Figure 8: Tactile contour-following experiments using the VBT-MPC method. (up) Show reconstructed trajectories; (bottom) [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p008_8.png] view at source ↗
read the original abstract

Tactile sensing plays a key role in robotic manipulation, particularly in tasks like surface inspection. Successful execution requires maintaining contact while accurately tracking object contours. In this work, we propose a Vision-Based Tactile Model Predictive Control (VBT-MPC) framework for robotic contour following using a Vision-Based Tactile Sensor (VBTS) mounted in an eye-in-hand configuration. The proposed controller operates directly in contour features space, thereby avoiding the need for separate pose-estimation modules or complex force-control architectures. We further compare our VBT-MPC with visual-servoing strategies adapted to tactile features, and evaluate contour tracking on objects with diverse geometries and materials in both simulation and real-world experiments.

Editorial analysis

A structured set of objections, weighed in public.

Desk editor's note, referee report, simulated authors' rebuttal, and a circularity audit. Tearing a paper down is the easy half of reading it; the pith above is the substance, this is the friction.

Referee Report

2 major / 2 minor

Summary. The manuscript proposes a Vision-Based Tactile Model Predictive Control (VBT-MPC) framework for robotic contour following. A vision-based tactile sensor (VBTS) is mounted in an eye-in-hand configuration, and the controller is designed to operate directly in contour feature space. This is claimed to eliminate separate pose-estimation modules and complex force-control architectures. The approach is compared to visual-servoing strategies adapted to tactile features and evaluated on objects with diverse geometries and materials via both simulation and real-world experiments.

Significance. If the central claim holds with supporting quantitative evidence, the work could simplify tactile contour tracking by removing intermediate pose estimation, offering a more direct and potentially robust alternative for manipulation and inspection tasks. The dual simulation-plus-real-world evaluation on varied objects is a constructive element that would strengthen applicability if accompanied by detailed metrics.

major comments (2)
  1. [Abstract] Abstract: The architectural claim that the controller operates directly in contour feature space (thereby avoiding pose estimation) is presented without any equations, feature definitions, cost functions, or quantitative tracking error results. This absence prevents verification of whether the reported experiments actually support the avoidance of separate modules.
  2. [§4 (Experiments) and §3 (Method)] §4 (Experiments) and §3 (Method): The evaluation on objects with diverse geometries and materials does not report measures of contour feature stability (e.g., under specular highlights on metal or deformation on soft materials). This stability is a load-bearing precondition for the MPC optimizer to maintain contact and track contours without additional real-time calibration or filtering, yet no such analysis or failure-case results are provided.
minor comments (2)
  1. [§3 (Method)] Clarify the exact definition of the contour features extracted from VBTS images and how they are fed into the MPC cost function.
  2. Add error bars or statistical summaries to any tracking performance plots to improve interpretability of the simulation versus real-world comparison.

Simulated Author's Rebuttal

2 responses · 0 unresolved

We thank the referee for the constructive comments, which highlight opportunities to strengthen the presentation of our core claims and supporting analyses. We address each major comment below and have revised the manuscript to improve clarity and completeness.

read point-by-point responses

  1. Referee: [Abstract] Abstract: The architectural claim that the controller operates directly in contour feature space (thereby avoiding pose estimation) is presented without any equations, feature definitions, cost functions, or quantitative tracking error results. This absence prevents verification of whether the reported experiments actually support the avoidance of separate modules.

    Authors: The abstract is intentionally concise, as is standard. The full mathematical details—including the definition of contour features extracted from the VBTS, the MPC formulation that optimizes directly over these features, the cost function terms for contour tracking and contact maintenance, and the absence of any explicit pose-estimation step—are provided in Section 3. Section 4 reports quantitative tracking errors (position and orientation deviations) across all tested objects, which were achieved without pose estimation or separate force controllers. To address the concern, we have expanded the abstract to reference the direct feature-space optimization and key quantitative results. revision: yes

  2. Referee: [§4 (Experiments) and §3 (Method)] §4 (Experiments) and §3 (Method): The evaluation on objects with diverse geometries and materials does not report measures of contour feature stability (e.g., under specular highlights on metal or deformation on soft materials). This stability is a load-bearing precondition for the MPC optimizer to maintain contact and track contours without additional real-time calibration or filtering, yet no such analysis or failure-case results are provided.

    Authors: We agree that explicit stability analysis would strengthen the claims. Our experiments already include metal objects with specular surfaces and soft deformable materials; successful contour tracking without real-time calibration or filtering is demonstrated by the low tracking errors and sustained contact reported in Section 4. To provide the requested evidence, we have added a new analysis subsection that quantifies contour feature stability (e.g., variance and detection consistency under specular highlights and material deformation) using data from the existing trials, along with discussion of observed failure modes and recovery behavior. revision: yes

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged

VBT-MPC is a direct feature-space controller proposal with no reduction to fitted inputs or self-citations

full rationale

The paper introduces VBT-MPC as an MPC architecture that operates directly on contour features extracted from VBTS images in an eye-in-hand setup. The central claim (avoiding separate pose estimation and force control) is realized by the controller design itself rather than by fitting parameters to the target performance or by importing uniqueness results from prior self-work. No equations or derivations in the provided text reduce the claimed prediction or result to its own inputs by construction. External comparisons to visual-servoing and evaluations on varied objects serve as independent validation rather than circular reinforcement.

Axiom & Free-Parameter Ledger

0 free parameters · 0 axioms · 0 invented entities

Only the abstract is available; no explicit free parameters, axioms, or invented entities are stated. The approach implicitly assumes standard MPC stability conditions and reliable real-time feature extraction from the VBTS, but these are not enumerated.

pith-pipeline@v0.9.0 · 5651 in / 1191 out tokens · 46029 ms · 2026-05-21T07:09:03.917077+00:00 · methodology

discussion (0)

Sign in with ORCID, Apple, or X to comment. Anyone can read and Pith papers without signing in.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

29 extracted references · 29 canonical work pages

  1. [1]

    Tactile sensing in dexterous robot hands-review,

    Z. Kappassov, J. Corrales, and P. Veronique, “Tactile sensing in dexterous robot hands-review,”Robotics and Autonomous Systems, vol. 74, pp. 195–220, 2015. doi: 10.1016/j.robot.2015.07.015

    work page doi:10.1016/j.robot.2015.07.015 2015

  2. [2]

    Tactile robotics: Past and future,

    N. F. Lepora, “Tactile robotics: Past and future,”The Int. J. of Robotics Research, 2026. doi: 10.1177/02783649261421615

    work page doi:10.1177/02783649261421615 2026

  3. [3]

    Hardware technology of vision-based tactile sensor: A review,

    S. Zhang, Z. Chen, Y . Gao, W. Wan, J. Shan, H. Xue, F. Sun, Y . Yang, and B. Fang, “Hardware technology of vision-based tactile sensor: A review,”IEEE Sensors Journal, vol. 22, no. 22, pp. 21 410–21 427,

    work page

  4. [4]

    doi: 10.1109/JSEN.2022.3210210

    work page doi:10.1109/jsen.2022.3210210 2022

  5. [5]

    A survey of vision-based tactile sensors: Hardware, al- gorithm, application, and future direction,

    K. He, “A survey of vision-based tactile sensors: Hardware, al- gorithm, application, and future direction,”IEEE Trans. on In- strumentation and Measurement, vol. 74, pp. 1–21, 2025. doi: 10.1109/TIM.2025.3604922

    work page doi:10.1109/tim.2025.3604922 2025

  6. [6]

    Classification of vision-based tactile sensors: A review,

    H. Li, Y . Lin, C. Lu, M. Yang, E. Psomopoulou, and N. F. Lep- ora, “Classification of vision-based tactile sensors: A review,”IEEE Sensors Journal, vol. 25, no. 29, pp. 35 672–35 686, 2025. doi: 10.1109/JSEN.2025.3599236

    work page doi:10.1109/jsen.2025.3599236 2025

  7. [7]

    Tactile robotics: An outlook,

    S. Luo, N. F. Lepora, W. Yuan, K. Althoefer, G. Cheng, and R. Dahiya, “Tactile robotics: An outlook,”IEEE Trans. on Robotics, vol. 41, pp. 5564–5583, 2025. doi: 10.1109/TRO.2025.3608686

    work page doi:10.1109/tro.2025.3608686 2025

  8. [8]

    Pose-based tactile servoing: Controlled soft touch using deep learning,

    N. F. Lepora and J. Lloyd, “Pose-based tactile servoing: Controlled soft touch using deep learning,”IEEE Robotics & Automation Magazine, vol. 28, no. 4, pp. 43–55, 2021. doi: 10.1109/MRA.2021.3096141

    work page doi:10.1109/mra.2021.3096141 2021

  9. [9]

    Pose-and-shear-based tactile servoing,

    J. Lloyd and N. F. Lepora, “Pose-and-shear-based tactile servoing,” The Int. J. of Robotics Research, vol. 43, no. 7, pp. 1024–1055, 2024. doi: 10.1177/02783649231225811

    work page doi:10.1177/02783649231225811 2024

  10. [10]

    Tactile servo: Control of touch- driven robot motion,

    P. Sikka, H. Zhang, and S. Sutphen, “Tactile servo: Control of touch- driven robot motion,” inExperimental Robotics III: Lecture Notes in Control and Information Sciences, vol. 200. Springer, 1994, pp. 219–

    work page 1994

  11. [11]

    doi: 10.1007/BFb0027597

    work page doi:10.1007/bfb0027597

  12. [12]

    Touch driven con- troller and tactile features for physical interactions,

    Z. Kappassov, J. Corrales, and V . Perdereau, “Touch driven con- troller and tactile features for physical interactions,”Robotics and Autonomous Systems, vol. 123, p. 103332, 2020. doi: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.robot.2019.103332

    work page doi:10.1016/j.robot.2019.103332 2020

  13. [13]

    A control framework for tactile servoing,

    Q. Li, C. Sch ¨urmann, R. Haschke, and H. J. Ritter, “A control framework for tactile servoing,” inRobotics: Science and Systems (RSS), 2013. doi: 10.15607/RSS.2013.IX.045

    work page doi:10.15607/rss.2013.ix.045 2013

  14. [14]

    A visuo-tactile control framework for manipulation and exploration of unknown objects,

    Q. Li, R. Haschke, and H. Ritter, “A visuo-tactile control framework for manipulation and exploration of unknown objects,” inIEEE-RAS 15th Int. Conf. on Humanoid Robots (Humanoids), 2015, pp. 610–615. doi: 10.1109/HUMANOIDS.2015.7363434

    work page doi:10.1109/humanoids.2015.7363434 2015

  15. [15]

    Tactile-based task definition through edge contact formation setpoints for object ex- ploration and manipulation,

    Z. Kappassov, J. A. Corrales, and V . Perdereau, “Tactile-based task definition through edge contact formation setpoints for object ex- ploration and manipulation,”IEEE Robotics and Automation Letters, vol. 7, no. 2, pp. 5007–5014, 2022. doi: 10.1109/LRA.2022.3154478

    work page doi:10.1109/lra.2022.3154478 2022

  16. [16]

    From pixels to percepts: Highly robust edge perception and contour following using deep learning and an optical biomimetic tactile sensor,

    N. F. Lepora, A. Church, C. de Kerckhove, R. Hadsell, and J. Lloyd, “From pixels to percepts: Highly robust edge perception and contour following using deep learning and an optical biomimetic tactile sensor,”IEEE Robotics and Automation Letters, vol. 4, no. 2, pp. 2101–2107, 2019. doi: 10.1109/LRA.2019.2899192

    work page doi:10.1109/lra.2019.2899192 2019

  17. [17]

    Tactile control for object tracking and dynamic contour following,

    K. Aquilina, D. A. Barton, and N. F. Lepora, “Tactile control for object tracking and dynamic contour following,”Robotics and Autonomous Systems, vol. 178, p. 104710, 2024. doi: 10.1016/j.robot.2024.104710

    work page doi:10.1016/j.robot.2024.104710 2024

  18. [18]

    Gelsight: High-resolution robot tactile sensors for estimating geometry and force,

    W. Yuan, S. Dong, and E. H. Adelson, “Gelsight: High-resolution robot tactile sensors for estimating geometry and force,”Sensors, vol. 17, no. 12, 2017. doi: 10.3390/s17122762

    work page doi:10.3390/s17122762 2017

  19. [19]

    Lee, Matthew Tan, Yuke Zhu, and Jeannette Bohg

    S. Wang, Y . She, B. Romero, and E. Adelson, “Gelsight wedge: Measuring high-resolution 3d contact geometry with a compact robot finger,” inIEEE Int. Conf. on Robotics and Automation (ICRA), 2021, pp. 6468–6475. doi: 10.1109/ICRA48506.2021.9560783

    work page doi:10.1109/icra48506.2021.9560783 2021

  20. [20]

    Unet++: A nested u-net architecture for medical image segmenta- tion,

    Z. Zhou, M. M. Rahman Siddiquee, N. Tajbakhsh, and J. Liang, “Unet++: A nested u-net architecture for medical image segmenta- tion,” inDeep Learning in Medical Image Analysis and Multimodal Learning for Clinical Decision Support. Cham: Springer International Publishing, 2018, pp. 3–11. doi: 10.1007/978-3-030-00889-5-1

    work page doi:10.1007/978-3-030-00889-5-1 2018

  21. [21]

    URL http://dx.doi.org/10.1109/CVPR.2016.90

    K. He, X. Zhang, S. Ren, and J. Sun, “Deep residual learning for image recognition,” inIEEE Conf. on Computer Vision and Pattern Recognition (CVPR), 2016, pp. 770–778. doi: 10.1109/CVPR.2016.90

    work page doi:10.1109/cvpr.2016.90 2016

  22. [22]

    Eye-in-hand/eye-to-hand multi-camera visual servoing,

    V . Lippiello, B. Siciliano, and L. Villani, “Eye-in-hand/eye-to-hand multi-camera visual servoing,” in44th IEEE Conf. on Decision and Control, 2005, pp. 5354–5359. doi: 10.1109/CDC.2005.1583013

    work page doi:10.1109/cdc.2005.1583013 2005

  23. [23]

    Chaumette, S

    F. Chaumette, S. Hutchinson, and P. Corke,Visual Servoing. Cham: Springer International Publishing, 2016, pp. 841–866

    work page 2016

  24. [24]

    Direct least square fitting of ellipses,

    A. Fitzgibbon, M. Pilu, and R. Fisher, “Direct least square fitting of ellipses,”IEEE Trans. on Pattern Analysis and Machine Intelligence, vol. 21, no. 5, pp. 476–480, 1999. doi: 10.1109/34.765658

    work page doi:10.1109/34.765658 1999

  25. [25]

    Good features to track,

    J. Shi and C. Tomasi, “Good features to track,” inIEEE Conf. on Computer Vision and Pattern Recognition (CVPR), 1994, pp. 593–

    work page 1994

  26. [26]

    doi: 10.1109/CVPR.1994.323794

    work page doi:10.1109/cvpr.1994.323794 1994

  27. [27]

    aca- dos—a modular open-source framework for fast embedded optimal control,

    R. Verschueren, G. Frison, D. Kouzoupis, J. Frey, N. v. Duijkeren, A. Zanelli, B. Novoselnik, T. Albin, R. Quirynen, and M. Diehl, “aca- dos—a modular open-source framework for fast embedded optimal control,”Math. Program. Comp., vol. 14, no. 1, pp. 147–183, 2022. doi: 10.1007/s12532-021-00208-8

    work page doi:10.1007/s12532-021-00208-8 2022

  28. [28]

    CasADi – A software framework for nonlinear optimization and optimal con- trol

    J. A. Andersson, J. Gillis, G. Horn, J. B. Rawlings, and M. Diehl, “Casadi: a software framework for nonlinear optimization and optimal control,”Math. Program. Comp., vol. 11, no. 1, pp. 1–36, 2019. doi: 10.1007/s12532-018-0139-4

    work page doi:10.1007/s12532-018-0139-4 2019

  29. [29]

    A new partitioned approach to image-based visual servo control,

    P. I. Corke and S. A. Hutchinson, “A new partitioned approach to image-based visual servo control,”IEEE Trans. on Robotics and Automation, vol. 17, no. 4, pp. 507–515, 2002. doi: 10.1109/70.954764

    work page doi:10.1109/70.954764 2002