pith. sign in

arxiv: 2606.25877 · v1 · pith:C6ZO5LOInew · submitted 2026-06-24 · 💻 cs.RO

TacVerse: A Multi-Sensor Dataset and Benchmark for Cross-Sensor Vision-Based Tactile Perception

Lan Wei , Gurmeher Khurana , Sirine Bhouri , Wenhao Hong , Zeyuan Xin , Qingzheng Cong , Wen Fan , Yanzheng Xiang
show 1 more author
Dandan Zhang
This is my paper

Pith reviewed 2026-06-25 20:41 UTC · model grok-4.3

classification 💻 cs.RO
keywords vision-based tactile sensingcross-sensor generalizationsensor shifttactile datasetfew-shot adaptationmasked autoencodershape classificationforce regression
0
0 comments X

The pith

Vision-based tactile sensors exhibit substantial performance degradation in cross-sensor transfer.

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

TacVerse introduces a dataset of 106800 images collected from seven distinct vision-based tactile sensors to support three tasks: shape classification, grating classification, and force regression. Experiments compare within-sensor training against zero-shot cross-sensor transfer and few-shot adaptation. Within-sensor models perform strongly on all tasks, showing that the images contain useful information, yet zero-shot transfer to unseen sensors causes large drops. Shape classification holds up better under sensor shift than the other two tasks. Few-shot adaptation on target sensors raises performance but leaves a remaining gap to within-sensor levels, while masked autoencoder pretraining delivers the most reliable gains across settings.

Core claim

The paper establishes that tactile observations from various VBTS designs are informative within each sensor but suffer from domain shift that degrades direct cross-sensor performance, especially in grating classification and force regression, while shape classification is more robust. Few-shot adaptation narrows but does not eliminate the gap to within-sensor performance, and MAE pretraining yields consistent improvements.

What carries the argument

The TacVerse multi-sensor dataset together with its three experimental settings (within-sensor, zero-shot transfer, few-shot adaptation) for evaluating perception across seven VBTS designs.

If this is right

  • Direct cross-sensor transfer leads to substantial degradation in model performance.
  • Shape classification is more robust to sensor shift than grating classification or force regression.
  • Few-shot adaptation improves results on target sensors but does not reach within-sensor performance.
  • MAE pretraining provides consistent gains across tasks and sensors.

Where Pith is reading between the lines

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

  • Developers of tactile systems may need to account for sensor-specific variations when deploying models in real-world settings with mixed hardware.
  • The results highlight the potential value of self-supervised pretraining for creating representations that are less sensitive to sensor differences.
  • The benchmark could support tests of whether standardizing particular hardware elements, such as gel properties or camera placement, would shrink the observed gaps.

Load-bearing premise

That the seven chosen sensor designs and three tasks capture the main sources of variation, so that measured performance gaps arise primarily from sensor differences rather than from inconsistencies in data collection or labeling.

What would settle it

If cross-sensor models matched within-sensor accuracy when data collection procedures and labeling rules were held exactly constant across all seven sensors, the claim of substantial sensor-induced degradation would be falsified.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2606.25877 by Dandan Zhang, Gurmeher Khurana, Lan Wei, Qingzheng Cong, Sirine Bhouri, Wen Fan, Wenhao Hong, Yanzheng Xiang, Zeyuan Xin.

Figure 1
Figure 1. Figure 1: Overview of the seven vision-based tactile sensors in TacVerse and representative tactile images captured by each [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p002_1.png] view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. Figure 2: Representative samples from the three TacVerse benchmark tasks. Top: Shape classification on ViTacTip, show [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p004_2.png] view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. Figure 3: TacVerse benchmark protocols and self-supervised pretraining setup. The figure illustrates three evaluation pro [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p006_3.png] view at source ↗
Figure 4
Figure 4. Figure 4: Heatmap of shape-classification transfer performance across source and target sensors. The diagonal entries indi [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p008_4.png] view at source ↗
Figure 5
Figure 5. Figure 5: t-SNE visualisation of shape-task features under within-sensor and cross-sensor settings. Within-sensor embed [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p009_5.png] view at source ↗
Figure 6
Figure 6. Figure 6: Grad-CAM visualisations for grating classification under within-sensor and cross-sensor evaluation using the [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p010_6.png] view at source ↗
Figure 7
Figure 7. Figure 7: Few-shot adaptation results for force regression on three target sensors. As the proportion of labelled target data [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p011_7.png] view at source ↗
read the original abstract

Vision-based tactile sensors (VBTSs) enable robots to infer contact geometry and force-related cues by imaging deformation through an internal camera, yet generalisation across sensor designs remains poorly understood. We present TacVerse, a multi-sensor dataset and benchmark for cross-sensor vision-based tactile perception. The dataset contains 106,800 tactile images from seven VBTSs and supports three downstream tasks: shape classification, grating classification, and force regression. Experiments are conducted under three settings: within-sensor training, zero-shot cross-sensor transfer, and few-shot adaptation. Strong within-sensor performance across all tasks indicates that the collected tactile observations are informative for the target objectives. Direct cross-sensor transfer, however, leads to substantial degradation. Shape classification is comparatively robust, whereas grating classification and force regression are more sensitive to sensor shift. Few-shot adaptation for force regression consistently improves performance on unseen target sensors but does not fully close the gap to within-sensor upper bounds. A representation study further shows that MAE (Masked Autoencoder) pretraining provides the most consistent gains across tasks and sensors. TacVerse provides a controlled testbed for studying sensor shift, data-efficient adaptation, and self-supervised learning in tactile perception.

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 / 0 minor

Summary. The paper introduces TacVerse, a multi-sensor dataset with 106,800 tactile images collected from seven vision-based tactile sensors (VBTSs). It supports three tasks—shape classification, grating classification, and force regression—and evaluates performance under within-sensor training, zero-shot cross-sensor transfer, and few-shot adaptation. The central claims are that within-sensor performance is strong (indicating informative observations), direct cross-sensor transfer causes substantial degradation (with shape classification more robust than the other tasks), few-shot adaptation improves results on unseen sensors without fully closing the gap, and MAE pretraining yields consistent gains.

Significance. If the data collection protocols are verifiably standardized across sensors, TacVerse would provide a valuable public benchmark and testbed for studying hardware-induced distribution shift in tactile perception, an underexplored issue that limits practical robotics applications. The dataset scale, multi-task design, and inclusion of self-supervised pretraining experiments constitute a concrete contribution that could accelerate work on data-efficient adaptation methods.

major comments (2)
  1. [Experimental protocol description (Methods/Experiments section)] Experimental protocol description (Methods/Experiments section): The manuscript provides no sensor specifications, details on matched data collection procedures (contact objects, force application, image acquisition parameters), labeling consistency, or verification that protocols were identical across the seven VBTS designs except for physical differences. This information is required to attribute the reported cross-sensor degradation primarily to sensor shift rather than procedural variations, which is load-bearing for the central claim.
  2. [Results presentation (Results section)] Results presentation (Results section): Performance trends are stated without error bars, statistical significance tests, or details on the number of runs or variance across trials. This weakens confidence in the magnitude and consistency of the degradation and adaptation effects reported for grating classification and force regression.

Simulated Author's Rebuttal

2 responses · 0 unresolved

We thank the referee for the constructive comments on our manuscript. We address each major comment below and will revise the manuscript to provide the requested details on experimental protocols and results reporting.

read point-by-point responses

  1. Referee: Experimental protocol description (Methods/Experiments section): The manuscript provides no sensor specifications, details on matched data collection procedures (contact objects, force application, image acquisition parameters), labeling consistency, or verification that protocols were identical across the seven VBTS designs except for physical differences. This information is required to attribute the reported cross-sensor degradation primarily to sensor shift rather than procedural variations, which is load-bearing for the central claim.

    Authors: We agree that additional detail on the data collection protocol is necessary to support attribution of performance differences to sensor hardware. In the revised manuscript, we will add a dedicated subsection in Methods that specifies all seven VBTS designs (including camera intrinsics, elastomer thickness and material, and LED configurations), provides a table of matched contact objects and force application parameters (indentation depths, velocities, and dwell times), lists image acquisition settings (resolution, exposure, frame rate), and describes the labeling pipeline with verification steps confirming identical procedures across sensors. revision: yes

  2. Referee: Results presentation (Results section): Performance trends are stated without error bars, statistical significance tests, or details on the number of runs or variance across trials. This weakens confidence in the magnitude and consistency of the degradation and adaptation effects reported for grating classification and force regression.

    Authors: We acknowledge the value of reporting variability and statistical support. In the revision, we will augment all performance tables and figures with error bars (standard deviation across runs), explicitly state that each experiment was repeated with five random seeds, and add statistical significance tests (paired t-tests with p-values) for the key comparisons involving grating classification and force regression under zero-shot transfer and few-shot adaptation. revision: yes

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged

No circularity: empirical dataset/benchmark with no derivations or fitted predictions

full rationale

The paper is a data-collection and benchmarking study. It reports collection of 106800 images across seven VBTS designs and evaluates three tasks under within-sensor, zero-shot cross-sensor, and few-shot settings. No equations, parameter fitting, uniqueness theorems, or self-citation chains appear in the provided text. All performance numbers are direct empirical measurements on externally collected data; none reduce by construction to inputs or prior self-citations. The central claims rest on the external validity of the data-collection protocol rather than any internal definitional loop.

Axiom & Free-Parameter Ledger

0 free parameters · 1 axioms · 0 invented entities

The paper contributes an empirical dataset and benchmark rather than a derivation; it relies on standard supervised learning assumptions for image-based classification and regression without introducing new free parameters, axioms beyond domain norms, or invented entities.

axioms (1)
  • domain assumption Standard assumptions of supervised machine learning on image data (i.i.d. samples within sensor, label consistency) apply to the collected tactile images.
    The reported within-sensor and cross-sensor results presuppose these standard ML conditions without stating deviations.

pith-pipeline@v0.9.1-grok · 5772 in / 1393 out tokens · 22625 ms · 2026-06-25T20:41:41.000472+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

22 extracted references · 2 linked inside Pith

  1. [1]

    R. Feng, J. Hu, W. Xia, T. Gao, A. Shen, Y. Sun, B. Fang, D. Hu,arXiv preprint arXiv:2502.12191 2025

    arXiv 2025

  2. [2]

    Higuera, A

    C. Higuera, A. Sharma, C. K. Bodduluri, T. Fan, P. Lancaster, M. Kalakrishnan, M. Kaess, B. Boots, M. Lambeta, T. Wu, et al.,arXiv preprint arXiv:2410.240902024

    arXiv

  3. [3]

    Gupta, Y

    H. Gupta, Y. Mo, S. Jin, W. Yuan,arXiv preprint arXiv:2502.196382025

    Pith/arXiv arXiv

  4. [4]

    W. Yuan, S. Dong, E. H. Adelson,Sensors2017,17, 12 2762

  5. [5]

    W. Fan, H. Li, Q. Cong, D. Zhang,IEEE Transactions on Automation Science and Engineering 2025,2224311

    2025

  6. [6]

    W. Fan, H. Li, D. Zhang, In2024 IEEE International Conference on Robotics and Automation (ICRA). IEEE,2024388–394

  7. [7]

    N. F. Lepora,IEEE Sensors Journal2021,21, 19 21131

  8. [8]

    S. Luo, N. F. Lepora, U. Martinez-Hernandez, J. Bimbo, H. Liu, Vitac: Integrating vision and touch for multimodal and cross-modal perception,2021

    2021

  9. [9]

    W. Fan, H. Li, W. Si, S. Luo, N. Lepora, D. Zhang, In2024 IEEE International Conference on Robotics and Automation (ICRA). IEEE,20241056–1062

  10. [10]

    Q. Cong, S. Oh, W. Fan, S. Luo, K. Althoefer, D. Zhang,Advanced Intelligent Systems2026, e202501179

  11. [11]

    Schneider, G

    T. Schneider, G. Duret, C. de Farias, R. Calandra, L. Chen, J. Peters,arXiv preprint arXiv:2506.063612025

    arXiv

  12. [12]

    Q. K. Luu, P. Zhou, Z. Xu, Z. Zhang, Q. Qiu, Y. She,arXiv preprint arXiv:2505.184722025

    arXiv

  13. [13]

    F. Yang, C. Feng, Z. Chen, H. Park, D. Wang, Y. Dou, Z. Zeng, X. Chen, R. Gangopadhyay, A. Owens, et al., InProceedings of the IEEE/CVF Conference on Computer Vision and Pattern Recognition.202426340–26353

  14. [14]

    V. Dave, F. Lygerakis, E. Rueckert, In2024 IEEE International Conference on Robotics and Au- tomation (ICRA). IEEE,20248013–8020

  15. [15]

    Rodriguez, Y

    S. Rodriguez, Y. Dou, W. van den Bogert, M. Oller, K. So, A. Owens, N. Fazeli, In2025 IEEE In- ternational Conference on Robotics and Automation (ICRA). IEEE,20255857–5863

  16. [16]

    Z. Xu, R. Uppuluri, X. Zhang, C. Fitch, P. G. Crandall, W. Shou, D. Wang, Y. She,IEEE Robotics and Automation Letters2025

  17. [17]

    Grella, A

    F. Grella, A. Albini, G. Cannata, P. Maiolino, In2025 IEEE 21st International Conference on Au- tomation Science and Engineering (CASE). IEEE,20251998–2004

    2004

  18. [18]

    Z. Chen, N. Ou, X. Zhang, Z. Wu, Y. Zhao, Y. Wang, E. S. Papastavridis, N. Lepora, L. Jamone, J. Deng, et al.,Nature Communications2026,17, 1 2101

  19. [19]

    Jianu, D

    T. Jianu, D. F. Gomes, S. Luo, In2022 International Conference on Robotics and Automation (ICRA). IEEE,20228305–8311

  20. [20]

    K. He, X. Zhang, S. Ren, J. Sun, InProceedings of the IEEE conference on computer vision and pattern recognition.2016770–778

  21. [21]

    Dosovitskiy, L

    A. Dosovitskiy, L. Beyer, A. Kolesnikov, D. Weissenborn, X. Zhai, T. Unterthiner, M. Dehghani, M. Minderer, G. Heigold, S. Gelly, et al.,arXiv preprint arXiv:2010.119292020

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2010

  22. [22]

    K. He, X. Chen, S. Xie, Y. Li, P. Doll´ ar, R. Girshick, InProceedings of the IEEE/CVF conference on computer vision and pattern recognition.202216000–16009. 13