Pith. sign in

REVIEW 4 major objections 5 minor 27 references

GeoDEx: A Unified Geometric Framework for Tactile Dexterous and Extrinsic Manipulation under Force Uncertainty

T0 review · 4 major / 5 minor · reviewed 2026-08-16 · deepseek-v4-flash

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

Pith's one-line read A geometric framework lets robots grasp and pivot objects using inaccurate tactile force readings alone.

desk verdict A coherent geometric estimation-plus-planning stack that clearly helps on hardware (wrench grasp success 20% to 80%, cylinder 0% to 60%), but the uncertainty-aware planner is never isolated or validated, so the central robustness claim outruns the evidence. read the letter →

arxiv 2505.00647 v1 pith:VDYZJQVS submitted 2025-05-01 cs.RO

Sirui Chen , Sergio Aguilera Marinovic , Soshi Iba , Rana Soltani Zarrin This is my paper · ORCID
classification cs.RO
keywords tactilesensingdexterousmanipulationforcecontrolextrinsicestimationequilibriumadmittancegeometricplanning
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

This paper argues that force-controlled dexterous manipulation does not require accurate tactile force sensors, only a correct geometric accounting of where the true contact forces must lie. GeoDEx represents all forces that can balance an object's weight as a plane, all possible normal-force readings as a cone, and the sensor's uncertain measurements as an ellipsoid, so that force estimation and planning become projections and linear feasibility problems on that plane. On hardware with noisy tactile fingertips, the framework raises wrench-grasp success from 20% to 80% and cylinder-grasp success from 0% to 60%, and keeps cube-pivot angular error under 5 degrees, while the same raw readings fail when fed directly to an admittance controller. The practical payoff is that precise force control becomes possible with cheap, noisy tactile sensors instead of embedded force-torque sensors.

What carries the argument

The load-bearing objects are the force-equilibrium plane (the hyperplane of contact-force vectors that balance gravity), the measurement cone (the set of readings consistent with normal-only force sensors at known contacts), and the trusted measurement ellipsoid (a Gaussian-variance ellipsoid in measurement space bounding where the true normal forces can lie). Propagating the ellipsoid onto the equilibrium plane converts force planning into a linear feasibility problem in FE-coordinates, and the same plane projection supplies the force estimate used by an admittance controller. The controller then moves each fingertip along the direction dictated by the error between desired and estimated forces, rather than the raw tactile readings.

What would settle it

Measure each taxel's error distribution against a force-torque reference across a grid of contact locations and force magnitudes on the same fingertip hardware. If the empirical error cloud is not zero-mean and ellipsoidal, or if errors are correlated across taxels and contacts, then the trusted ellipsoid of Definition 5 will systematically misplace the true force and the success-rate improvement should degrade. A direct control test would inject a known constant force bias into one fingertip's readings and check whether the estimator still drives the object to equilibrium.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

The central claim is that a force-equilibrium constraint turns unreliable normal-force readings into a solvable estimation and planning problem. Given contact positions and normals, every force vector that cancels gravity lies on a hyperplane, the force-equilibrium plane; projecting the observed tactile forces onto this plane yields force estimates that respect equilibrium even when individual sensor readings are biased. Planning is handled by enlarging each measurement into a trusted ellipsoid derived from assumed per-contact noise variance, projecting that ellipsoid onto the equilibrium plane, and finding a center whose entire projected ellipsoid stays inside the friction-cone and minimum-force constraints. Because the reformulated constraints are linear, the planner solves a linear feasibility problem rather than a general nonlinear or second-order cone program. The hardware experiments support the paper's assertion that this pipeline enables successful grasping and extrinsic pivoting where direct control from raw measurements fails.

Load-bearing premise

All of the guarantees and the size of the trusted force region rest on the assumption that each contact's normal-force measurement error is independent and Gaussian with a known variance; the paper's own sensor characterization lists threshold jumps, hysteresis, and contact-dependent errors that are not Gaussian, and no hardware variance values are reported.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • A hand with normal-only tactile fingertips can perform quasi-static force-controlled grasps, so fingertip force-torque sensors are not necessary for these tasks.
  • Unknown extrinsic contact forces, such as object-table contact, can be folded into the same plane-cone-ellipsoid machinery, enabling table-assisted pivoting with the same estimator and planner.
  • Because the geometric reformulation turns planning into linear feasibility, it runs about 14 times faster than a direct second-order cone program, making online re-planning practical.
  • On hardware, using estimated forces instead of raw readings raises wrench-grasp success from 20% to 80% and cylinder-grasp success from 0% to 60%.
  • The framework tracks a cube pivoting about a table edge with RMS angular error under 1 degree in simulation and under 5 degrees on hardware.

Reading between the lines

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

  • The same geometric principle should transfer to other noisy or biased contact-sensor types, as long as contact locations and normals remain accurate enough to define the equilibrium plane and measurement cone.
  • A testable trade-off follows: engineering effort could shift from making tactile force readings accurate to making contact geometry accurate, since the paper identifies contact-location and normal uncertainty as its main unmodeled limitation.
  • The noise ellipsoid parameters could be learned or adapted online from force-torque ground truth during a calibration phase, letting the planner shrink its trusted region as the sensor's actual error distribution is identified.
  • A further extension would replace the Gaussian trust model with a distributionally robust set, which would address the threshold, hysteresis, and bias errors the paper characterizes but does not model.
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 GeoDEx, a geometric framework for force estimation, robust force planning, and admittance control for tactile-based dexterous and extrinsic manipulation. The core idea is to represent force-equilibrium contact forces as a hyperplane (FE-plane), represent noisy normal-force measurements as a cone (M-Cone), and model measurement uncertainty as an ellipsoid on the FE-plane; planning then becomes a linear feasibility problem (Problems 3 and 4) that is reported to be 14x faster than SOCP. Hardware experiments on an Allegro hand with Touchlab tactile fingertips show that using the estimator improves grasp success from 20% to 80% for a wrench and from 0% to 60% for a cylinder, and keeps cube-pivot angular error under 5 degrees, compared with raw tactile readings. Simulation results show convergence of estimated forces and successful cube-turning.

Significance. If the robustness guarantee held as stated, the paper would make a useful contribution by providing a computationally cheap geometric alternative to SOCP for force planning under tactile uncertainty and by demonstrating that noisy tactile readings can be used for closed-loop force control in dexterous and extrinsic manipulation. The hardware comparisons are a genuine strength: they involve repeated trials, report success rates and force errors, and directly compare estimator-based feedback with raw measurements. The framework is not fitted to reproduce the experimental outcomes; the geometric projections and constraints are derived from stated assumptions, with only noise variances and object parameters as inputs. However, the paper does not establish that the robust-planning component is load-bearing, because no ablation isolates it, and the Gaussian ellipsoid model is not validated against the sensor characterization presented in Section IV-A. As a result, the theoretical guarantee in Problems 3 and 4 is currently a stated assumption rather than a demonstrated result.

major comments (4)
  1. [Sec. III-C, Definition 5 and Problems 3-4 vs. Sec. IV-A] The trusted-measurement ellipsoid assumes per-contact normal-force errors are independent and Gaussian with known variances, but this contradicts the paper's own sensor characterization (activation-threshold jumps of 0.1-0.5 N, hysteresis offsets of 0.0-0.2 N, partial-contact and angular errors of 0.1-0.5 N, and taxel-dependent noise), and Section V states that modeling the error 'is extremely difficult, if not impossible.' The sigma_i values used in the hardware experiments are never reported, so the ellipsoid's size and shape are unspecified and the feasibility guarantee of Problems 3 and 4 is not tested against the actual error distribution. The authors should report sigma_i, justify the Gaussian assumption, or validate robustness under distribution mismatch.
  2. [Sec. IV-B and IV-C] All experimental comparisons are between the full system (estimator plus planner plus admittance controller) and raw measurements; there is no ablation that keeps the estimator but replaces the robust planner with a nominal planner. Since the estimator is the only component that is claimed to be evaluated by the 'switching feedback' experiments, the reported success-rate improvements could be entirely due to the FE-plane projection in Sec. III-B rather than the uncertainty-aware planning that is the paper's headline contribution. An ablation with a nominal planner is needed to establish that the robust-planning formulation is load-bearing.
  3. [Sec. III-B, Eq. (7)] The objective for extrinsic force estimation is not clearly derived. The term ||B_sub f_est|| is presented as the distance to the measurement sub-space cone, but B_sub is defined as a basis of that cone, so its geometric meaning is unclear; the summation indices i and ne in the constraint f_est = P_fe * sum_i w_i f^i_sub are inconsistent; and the relationship between this QP and the 'minimum magnitude' rationale in the text is not formalized. Please provide a complete derivation and correct the notation.
  4. [Sec. IV-B and IV-A] The simulation uses a tactile sensing noise variance of 0.5 N, but the hardware characterization reports per-taxel steady-state noise of only 0.01-0.03 N and per-taxel errors of 0.1-1 N. The paper does not state how the 0.5 N value is derived from the taxel-level characterization or what sigma_i is used for the hardware experiments, so the connection between the simulated and hardware uncertainty models is missing. Please specify the mapping.
minor comments (5)
  1. [Sec. III-A, Proposition 2 heading] The heading contains a typo: 'Perservation of force equilibrium' should be 'Preservation of force equilibrium.'
  2. [Sec. III-C, Definition 5] The notation 'epsilon_i ~ N(sigma_i, 0)' is nonstandard and misleading; it should be written as a zero-mean Gaussian with a given variance, e.g., N(0, sigma_i^2), and the trusted region in Eq. (8) should be defined consistently as a 1-sigma ellipsoid in the measurement-coordinate space.
  3. [Sec. III-C, Eqs. (13)-(14)] The sign of the term inside the square root and the definitions of b_i are unclear; please check the algebra and ensure the constraint reformulation in Eqs. (13)-(14) is consistent with the original constraint in Eq. (12).
  4. [Sec. IV-B, Table II] The entry for 300 steps with the geometric method is reported as '0.97' without units; the table would be clearer if it stated that all times are in seconds and if the missing unit were added.
  5. [Sec. IV-C, wrench experiment paragraph] There is a typo in 'con sider' which should be 'consider.'

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 0.0 of 10

No significant circularity: the geometric estimator and ellipsoidal robust planner are derived from stated assumptions; the reported successes are not obtained by refitting those assumptions to the outcome data.

full rationale

The paper's derivation chain is self-contained rather than circular. The force estimator in Problem 1 and Eq. (5) is explicitly defined as projecting the observed normal-force vector onto the FE-plane of Definition 2; the projection enforces force equilibrium by construction, but this is a stated algorithm design choice, not a hidden reuse of the experimental success criterion. The paper even acknowledges the projection is not the inverse of the ideal measurement model: "Our projection allows changes to normal force magnitude and practically gives similar results" (Section III-B). The robust planner in Problem 3 and Eqs. (11)-(15) solves for the center of a 1-sigma trusted ellipsoid such that the entire ellipsoid satisfies friction-cone and minimum-force constraints. This is a robustness condition derived from Definition 5's Gaussian noise assumption; the sigma_i are user-supplied inputs and are not fitted to the reported grasp-success data. The simulation uses an assumed variance of 0.5 N, and the hardware sigma_i values are not reported, which is a validity risk, not a circular reduction. Section V's admission that modeling the error "is extremely difficult, if not impossible" and Section VI's listed limitations about contact-location noise and unmodeled impulse noise are honest caveats that should be weighed in correctness assessment, but they do not show that any prediction is equivalent to its input by construction. The hardware experiments compare estimated-force feedback against raw-measurement feedback and do not ablate the robust planner in isolation; this is an experimental-design attribution gap, not circularity. The only self-citations, [1] and [23], support general background claims ("need contact force information," "requires precise control of contact forces") and are not load-bearing; no uniqueness theorem or ansatz is imported from them. Therefore no circular step can be exhibited from the paper's own equations.

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

The central claim rests on quasi-static equilibrium, accurate contact geometry, and a Gaussian noise model whose variances are chosen by the user. The framework introduces no new physical entities; the FE-basis, M-Cone, and trusted ellipsoid are mathematical constructs used to organize the optimization.

free parameters (4)
  • tactile noise variance σ_i = 0.5 N in simulation; not reported for hardware
    Defines the trusted measurement ellipsoid in Definition 5; planning conservatism and desired forces depend on it, and the paper does not report how σ_i was chosen for hardware experiments.
  • admittance controller gain K = not specified
    The control law in Eq. (17) uses a positive-definite gain matrix K, but no value is given, so force tracking performance may not be reproducible without tuning.
  • friction cone pyramid discretization = 12-sided
    Friction constraints in Eq. (2) use a 12-sided polyhedral cone; a different discretization would change feasibility and force planning.
  • object friction coefficient and center of mass = offline parameter estimation or conservative values
    Used in force planning (Eq. 1 and constraint set); the estimation procedure is not described, and these values affect the planned forces.
assumptions (4)
  • domain assumption Quasi-static equilibrium: at every instant the object is in force equilibrium and all contact forces cancel gravity.
    Stated in Section III-A; the entire force-equilibrium plane formulation depends on this assumption.
  • domain assumption Contact locations and contact normals from tactile readings are accurate.
    Stated in Section VI Limitations; the FE-plane, M-Cone, and constraint matrix are all built from these normals.
  • domain assumption Per-taxel measurement errors are independent Gaussian with known variance.
    Definition 5 uses a Gaussian and a diagonal D, but Section IV-A characterizes real errors as threshold, hysteresis, and contact-dependent offsets that are not Gaussian.
  • domain assumption Projecting raw normal-force readings onto the FE-plane yields a force estimate close enough to the true force for control.
    Problem 1 uses orthogonal projection; the paper argues it practically gives similar results, but this is an assumption about the error structure.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of GeoDEx: A Unified Geometric Framework for Tactile Dexterous and Extrinsic Manipulation under Force Uncertainty." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/VDYZJQVS

@misc{pith2026250500647,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: GeoDEx: A Unified Geometric Framework for Tactile Dexterous and Extrinsic Manipulation under Force Uncertainty},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/VDYZJQVS}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2505.00647}
}
read the original abstract

Sense of touch that allows robots to detect contact and measure interaction forces enables them to perform challenging tasks such as grasping fragile objects or using tools. Tactile sensors in theory can equip the robots with such capabilities. However, accuracy of the measured forces is not on a par with those of the force sensors due to the potential calibration challenges and noise. This has limited the values these sensors can offer in manipulation applications that require force control. In this paper, we introduce GeoDEx, a unified estimation, planning, and control framework using geometric primitives such as plane, cone and ellipsoid, which enables dexterous as well as extrinsic manipulation in the presence of uncertain force readings. Through various experimental results, we show that while relying on direct inaccurate and noisy force readings from tactile sensors results in unstable or failed manipulation, our method enables successful grasping and extrinsic manipulation of different objects. Additionally, compared to directly running optimization using SOCP (Second Order Cone Programming), planning and force estimation using our framework achieves a 14x speed-up.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2505.00647 by the authors.

Figure 1
Figure 1. System diagram of our proposed method Our framework consists of three major components as shown in Fig.1: a force planner that generates robust plans for TABLE I: Nomenclature of the Proposed Framework Name Notation Number of extrinsic contacts ne Number of intrinsic contacts ni i th contact normal ni ∈ R3 All contact forces f ∈ R(ni+ne)×3 Gravity wrench g ∈ R6 Extrinsic contact set Cext Intrinsic contact set Cint S… view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. FE-plane, M-Cone and Constraint convex set [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p003_2.png] view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. Illustration of measurement sub-space cone [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p004_3.png] view at source ↗
Figures from the paper (10 more)
Figure 4
Figure 4. Figure 4: Block diagram of the control system. Therefore, we can solve the following linear feasibility prob￾lem of c min c 0 s.t.C˜ f ec ≤ ˜b (15) The force for each fingertip can be obtained by projecting optimal x ∗ f e back to the space of contact force. Problem 4. (Force pl…
Figure 6
Figure 6. Figure 6: Contact force comparison between ground truth (F/T sensor), hardware tactile measurement and simulated tactile measurement once contact has been established. We use these characteristics in simulating our tactile re￾sponses in MuJoCo to have an accurate representation …
Figure 5
Figure 5. Figure 5: Hardware setup including Allegro hand equipped with Touchlab fingertips, and Franka arm. The 3D-printed sphere and wrench, as well as the cylindrical can are used for dexterous grasping experiments, while the 3D-printed cube and a real screwdriver are used for extrinsi…
Figure 7
Figure 7. Figure 7: Simulation environment in MuJoCo for the wrench grasp and cube extrinsic manipulation. Simulated interaction forces at the contact points are displayed [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p007_7.png]
Figure 8
Figure 8. Figure 8: Grasping wrench comparison using the force estimation (left) and the raw measurements (right). wrench simulation, we consider the same hand joints’ PD gains and tactile sensing noise of 0.5N. Here we can show that our force planner can generate a sequence of fingertip …
Figure 9
Figure 9. Figure 9: Cube turning in simulation Method 100 steps 300 steps SOCP 4.81s 13.36s Geometric 0.31s 0.97 TABLE II: Execution time comparison between SOCP and Geomet￾ric optimization [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p007_9.png]
Figure 12
Figure 12. Figure 12: 3-Finger grasp of wrench. From t = 0s to t = 27s we control the estimated forces to the desired values for each finger. The controller converges and keeps the forces around the desired value. From t = 27s we lift the object to show a successful grasp, at t = 33s we pu…
Figure 13
Figure 13. Figure 13: 4-Finger grasp of cylinder [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p008_13.png]
Figure 14
Figure 14. Figure 14: Cube turning hardware experiment [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p009_14.png]
Figure 17
Figure 17. Figure 17: Mean (solid lines) and standard deviation (transparent areas) of angles for screwdriver turning experiments. Blue corresponds to the experiments using the force estimation, while the red correspond to experiments using raw measurements. the grasp had shifted considera…

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

27 extracted references · 20 canonical work pages

  1. [1]

    Hybrid learning-and model-based planning and control of in-hand manipulation

    Rana Soltani Zarrin, Rianna Jitosho, and Katsu Yamane. Hybrid learning-and model-based planning and control of in-hand manipulation. In 2023 IEEE/RSJ International Conference on Intelligent Robots and Systems (IROS) , pages 8720–8726. IEEE, 2023

    work page 2023

  2. [2]

    Robot synesthesia: In-hand ma- nipulation with visuotactile sensing

    Ying Yuan, Haichuan Che, Yuzhe Qin, Binghao Huang, Zhao-Heng Yin, Kang-Won Lee, Yi Wu, Soo-Chul Lim, and Xiaolong Wang. Robot synesthesia: In-hand ma- nipulation with visuotactile sensing. In 2024 IEEE International Conference on Robotics and Automation (ICRA), pages 6558–6565. IEEE, 2024

    work page 2024

  3. [3]

    General in- hand object rotation with vision and touch

    Haozhi Qi, Brent Yi, Sudharshan Suresh, Mike Lambeta, Yi Ma, Roberto Calandra, and Jitendra Malik. General in- hand object rotation with vision and touch. In Conference on Robot Learning , pages 2549–2564. PMLR, 2023

    work page 2023

  4. [4]

    Tactile sensing in dexterous robot hands - review

    Zhanat Kappasov, Juan Antonio Corrales, and V ´eronique Perdereau. Tactile sensing in dexterous robot hands - review. Robotics Auton. Syst. , 74:195–220, 2015

    work page 2015

  5. [5]

    Learning the signatures of the human grasp using a scalable tactile glove

    Subramanian Sundaram, Petr Kellnhofer, Yunzhu Li, Jun-Yan Zhu, Antonio Torralba, and Wojciech Matusik. Learning the signatures of the human grasp using a scalable tactile glove. Nat., 569(7758):698–702, 2019

    work page 2019

  6. [6]

    Neuromorphic sensorimotor loop embodied by mono- lithically integrated, low-voltage, soft e-skin

    Weichen Wang, Yuanwen Jiang, Donglai Zhong, Zhitao Zhang, Snehashis Choudhury, Jian-Cheng Lai, Huaxin Gong, Simiao Niu, Xuzhou Yan, Yu Zheng, et al. Neuromorphic sensorimotor loop embodied by mono- lithically integrated, low-voltage, soft e-skin. Science, 380(6646):735–742, 2023

    work page 2023

  7. [7]

    Robopack: Learning tactile-informed dynamics models for dense packing

    Bo Ai, Stephen Tian, Haochen Shi, Yixuan Wang, Che- ston Tan, Yunzhu Li, and Jiajun Wu. Robopack: Learning tactile-informed dynamics models for dense packing. arXiv preprint arXiv:2407.01418 , 2024

    arXiv 2024

  8. [8]

    Soft magnetic skin for super-resolution tactile sensing with force self- decoupling

    Youcan Yan, Zhe Hu, Zhengbao Yang, Wenzhen Yuan, Chaoyang Song, Jia Pan, and Yajing Shen. Soft magnetic skin for super-resolution tactile sensing with force self- decoupling. Science Robotics, 6(51):eabc8801, 2021

    work page 2021

Show all 27 references
  1. [9]

    Learning visuotactile skills with two multifingered hands

    Toru Lin, Yu Zhang, Qiyang Li, Haozhi Qi, Brent Yi, Sergey Levine, and Jitendra Malik. Learning visuotactile skills with two multifingered hands. arXiv preprint arXiv:2404.16823, 2024

    2024 arXiv

  2. [10]

    https://www.xelarobotics.com

    Xela robotics. https://www.xelarobotics.com

  3. [11]

    Action condi- tioned tactile prediction: a case study on slip prediction

    Willow Mandil, Kiyanoush Nazari, et al. Action condi- tioned tactile prediction: a case study on slip prediction. arXiv preprint arXiv:2205.09430 , 2022

    2022 arXiv

  4. [12]

    Learning to predict friction and classify contact states by tactile sensor

    Xingru Zhou, Zheng Zhang, Xiaojun Zhu, Houde Liu, and Bin Liang. Learning to predict friction and classify contact states by tactile sensor. In 2020 IEEE 16th International Conference on Automation Science and Engineering (CASE), pages 1243–1248. IEEE, 2020

    2020

  5. [13]

    https://www.touchlab.io/

    Touchlab limited. https://www.touchlab.io/

  6. [14]

    External force estimation during compliant robot manipulation

    Adria Colom ´e, Diego Pardo, Guillem Alenya, and Carme Torras. External force estimation during compliant robot manipulation. In 2013 IEEE international conference on robotics and automation, pages 3535–3540. IEEE, 2013

    2013

  7. [15]

    Estimating point of contact, force and torque in a biomimetic tactile sensor with deformable skin

    Chia-Hsien Lin, Jeremy A Fishel, and Gerald E Loeb. Estimating point of contact, force and torque in a biomimetic tactile sensor with deformable skin. Syn- Touch LLC, 2013

    2013

  8. [16]

    A predictive model for tactile force estimation using audio-tactile data

    Lo ¨ıc Niederhauser, Ahalya Prabhakar, Dominic Reber, and Aude Billard. A predictive model for tactile force estimation using audio-tactile data. IEEE Robotics and Automation Letters, 9(2):1596–1603, 2024

    2024

  9. [17]

    Visual tactile sensor based force estimation for position-force teleoperation

    Yaonan Zhu, Shukrullo Nazirjonov, Bingheng Jiang, Jacinto Colan, Tadayoshi Aoyama, Yasuhisa Hasegawa, Boris Belousov, Kay Hansel, and Jan Peters. Visual tactile sensor based force estimation for position-force teleoperation. In 2022 IEEE International Conference on Cyborg and ...

    2022

  10. [18]

    Robust learning of tactile force estimation through robot interac- tion

    Balakumar Sundaralingam, Alexander Sasha Lambert, Ankur Handa, Byron Boots, Tucker Hermans, Stan Birchfield, Nathan Ratliff, and Dieter Fox. Robust learning of tactile force estimation through robot interac- tion. In 2019 International Conference on Robotics and Automation (IC...

    2019

  11. [19]

    Force estimation and slip detec- tion/classification for grip control using a biomimetic tactile sensor

    Zhe Su, Karol Hausman, Yevgen Chebotar, Artem Molchanov, Gerald E Loeb, Gaurav S Sukhatme, and Stefan Schaal. Force estimation and slip detec- tion/classification for grip control using a biomimetic tactile sensor. In 2015 IEEE-RAS 15th International Conference on Humanoid Rob...

    2015

  12. [20]

    Distinguishing sliding from slipping during object pushing

    Martin Meier, Guillaume Walck, Robert Haschke, and Helge J Ritter. Distinguishing sliding from slipping during object pushing. In 2016 IEEE/RSJ International Conference on Intelligent Robots and Systems (IROS) , pages 5579–5584. IEEE, 2016

    2016

  13. [21]

    Grip stabilization of novel objects using slip prediction

    Filipe Veiga, Jan Peters, and Tucker Hermans. Grip stabilization of novel objects using slip prediction. IEEE transactions on haptics , 11(4):531–542, 2018

    2018

  14. [22]

    Dexterous grasping under shape uncertainty

    Miao Li, Kaiyu Hang, Danica Kragic, and Aude Billard. Dexterous grasping under shape uncertainty. Robotics and Autonomous Systems , 75:352–364, 2016

    2016

  15. [23]

    Synthesizing dexterous nonprehensile pregrasp for ungraspable ob- jects

    Sirui Chen, Albert Wu, and C Karen Liu. Synthesizing dexterous nonprehensile pregrasp for ungraspable ob- jects. In ACM SIGGRAPH 2023 Conference Proceedings, pages 1–10, 2023

    2023

  16. [24]

    Contact mode guided motion planning for quasidynamic dexterous manipulation in 3d

    Xianyi Cheng, Eric Huang, Yifan Hou, and Matthew T Mason. Contact mode guided motion planning for quasidynamic dexterous manipulation in 3d. In 2022 International Conference on Robotics and Automation (ICRA), pages 2730–2736. IEEE, 2022

    2022

  17. [25]

    R3t: Rapidly-exploring random reachable set tree for optimal kinodynamic planning of nonlinear hybrid systems

    Albert Wu, Sadra Sadraddini, and Russ Tedrake. R3t: Rapidly-exploring random reachable set tree for optimal kinodynamic planning of nonlinear hybrid systems. In 2020 IEEE International Conference on Robotics and Automation (ICRA), pages 4245–4251. IEEE, 2020

    2020

  18. [26]

    Hierarchical planning for multi-contact non- prehensile manipulation

    Gilwoo Lee, Tom ´as Lozano-P ´erez, and Leslie Pack Kaelbling. Hierarchical planning for multi-contact non- prehensile manipulation. In 2015 IEEE/RSJ International Conference on Intelligent Robots and Systems (IROS) , pages 264–271. IEEE, 2015

    2015

  19. [27]

    Tactile-driven non-prehensile object manipulation via extrinsic contact mode control

    Miquel Oller, Dmitry Berenson, and Nima Fazeli. Tactile-driven non-prehensile object manipulation via extrinsic contact mode control. arXiv preprint arXiv:2405.18214, 2024

    2024 arXiv

Pith tools

Reviewed August 16, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.