Pith. sign in

REVIEW 3 major objections 5 minor 28 references

Simultaneous Collision Detection and Force Estimation for Dynamic Quadrupedal Locomotion

T0 review · 3 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 mode-switching Kalman filter on joint-encoder data can simultaneously detect a leg collision and estimate the external contact force, and feeding those signals into a reflex, an admittance controller, and a force-adaptive MPC improves…

desk verdict Useful IMM-KF extension for proprioceptive collision detection on quadrupeds, but the stance/collision cone geometry silently imports a terrain prior that narrows the 'dynamics only' claim. read the letter →

arxiv 2504.17201 v1 pith:2XLJCLT2 submitted 2025-04-24 cs.RO

Ziyi Zhou , Stefano Di Cairano , Yebin Wang , Karl Berntorp This is my paper · ORCID
classification cs.RO
keywords quadrupedallocomotioncollisiondetectioncontactforceestimationinteractingmultiple-modelKalmanfiltermomentum-basedobserverproprioceptivesensingadmittancecontrolmodelpredictive
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 tries to establish that a quadruped can detect an unexpected leg collision and measure the impact force at the same time, using only its joint encoders and a model of its own dynamics. The estimator is an interacting multiple-model Kalman filter: one Kalman filter per contact mode, swing, stance, and collision, mixed by a Markov chain, so the result is a probability for each mode plus a combined external-force estimate. The force entering the measurement update is a pseudo-measurement computed from the dynamics, not a sensor reading, and the modes are told apart by whether that pseudo-force falls inside a vertical or horizontal friction cone. On top of this, the paper builds a reflex that lifts the colliding foot, an admittance controller that lets the leg yield to the force, and a force-adaptive model-predictive controller for balance. If the claim holds, legged robots get gait-pattern-invariant collision handling without force sensors or terrain perception.

What carries the argument

The central object is the interacting multiple-model Kalman filter (IMM-KF), a bank of Kalman filters, each matched to one contact mode, whose estimates are mixed through a Markov transition matrix and whose mode probabilities are updated from the innovation likelihoods. The load-bearing mechanism inside it is the mode-dependent measurement model: a pseudo-measurement of the external force computed from the robot dynamics and contact constraint, combined with friction-cone-shaped measurement noise that gives each mode a region of trust. That cone geometry, not a force threshold or gait timing, is what lets the filter distinguish an unexpected collision from an intentional stance. The filter outputs the blended force estimate $\hat{\mathbf{x}}_{t|t}$ and mode probabilities $\mu_t^{(k)}$ that the reflex, admittance, and MPC modules consume.

What would settle it

A concrete test is to command the swing foot to strike the top of a low step while the foot is still moving downward, so the contact force is mostly vertical. If the IMM-KF assigns that event high stance probability rather than collision probability and no reflex triggers, the central detection claim fails for that case; this can be checked with a force-sensor-instrumented foot or a simulation with ground-truth contact labels.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

The paper's central claim is that simultaneous collision detection and external-force estimation can be solved by a single mode-conditioned estimator, an interacting multiple-model Kalman filter (IMM-KF), using only joint encoders and robot dynamics. Three Kalman filters run in parallel, one per contact mode (swing, stance, collision), sharing generalized-momentum dynamics but differing in the selection matrix $\mathbf{S}^{(k)}$ that connects external force to momentum, and in the measurement noise model. In the measurement update, a pseudo-force $\mathbf{F}_{\mathrm{pse},j} = -(\mathbf{J}_{c_j}\mathbf{M}^{-1}\mathbf{J}_{c_j}^T)^{\dagger}(\mathbf{J}_{c_j}\mathbf{M}^{-1}\boldsymbol{\tau} + \dot{\mathbf{J}}_{c_j}\dot{\mathbf{q}})$ is computed from encoder data and the contact constraint; the filter trusts that pseudo-force as a measurement of the external force only when it lies inside the mode's friction cone (vertical for stance, horizontal for collision), otherwise it treats it as large noise. The IMM combination outputs a probability for each mode and a blended force estimate. The paper further demonstrates that these two outputs can drive a reflex that lifts the foot, an admittance controller that lets the leg yield, and a model-predictive controller that treats the estimated force as a disturbance, improving impulse and balance in simulation and in a hardware collision with a table leg.

Load-bearing premise

The load-bearing premise is that an unexpected collision produces a contact force pointing roughly horizontally (inside a horizontal friction cone), while an intentional stance produces a vertical force, so the filter only needs rough prior knowledge of the terrain shape to tell them apart.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • A quadruped can handle unexpected leg collisions without force sensors, tactile skins, or terrain maps; joint encoders and a dynamics model suffice.
  • The collision reflex and admittance controller shorten contact time and reduce impulse (average impulse 1.15 Ns versus 2.134 Ns in the reported comparison), and force feedback into the MPC improves balance enough to prevent a real robot from tipping.
  • Because the mode probabilities come from a Markov chain rather than a gait schedule, the estimator transfers across gait patterns; the paper demonstrates this on a trotting gait without retuning for swing timing.
  • The filter simultaneously supplies detection (mode probability) and estimation (force magnitude and direction), so downstream controllers get both signals from one estimator instead of a hierarchical thresholding pipeline.

Reading between the lines

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

  • Beyond the paper, the cone-based discrimination suggests that adding contact submodes, such as slip, rear-end collisions, or two-foot impacts, may be as simple as adding new cones and relaxing the transition matrix's zero entries for direct stance-to-collision and collision-to-stance changes.
  • Beyond the paper, using foot velocity in the transition probabilities, a direction the authors flag for future work, could cut detection delays because a downward-moving foot striking an obstacle is kinematically different from a planted stance foot.
  • Beyond the paper, the pseudo-wrench expression includes moment terms, so the point-foot, zero-moment simplification is not a limit of the method itself; robots with finite feet could use the same filter with the full six-dimensional wrench.
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

3 major / 5 minor

Summary. The paper presents an interacting multiple-model Kalman filter (IMM-KF) for simultaneous external force estimation and contact-mode detection in quadrupedal locomotion. The estimator uses generalized momentum dynamics, a mode-dependent process model, pseudo-force measurements derived from the robot dynamics, and mode-dependent measurement noise based on friction-cone orientation. Three contact modes are considered: swing, stance, and collision. The estimated mode probabilities and forces drive a reflex step-height increase, a swing-leg admittance controller, and a force-adaptive model predictive controller. Validation is performed in Gazebo against three baselines across 89 collisions and on a Unitree A1 robot in a single obstacle scenario.

Significance. If the claims hold, the proposed method offers a proprioceptive, gait-invariant alternative to vision-based collision detection for quadrupedal robots, with the practical advantage of not requiring force sensors or terrain perception at runtime. The paper contributes a principled multi-mode filtering architecture that extends momentum-based observers to simultaneous detection and force estimation, and it demonstrates the integration of these estimates into a reflex controller and an MPC. The hardware demonstration and the comparison against three baselines are valuable. However, the headline claim of using 'joint encoder information and the robot dynamics only' is partially undercut by the terrain-shape prior embedded in the friction-cone measurement model, and the comparative evaluation relies on single-run point estimates without statistical testing. With appropriate caveats and a strengthened evaluation, the method could be a useful addition to the legged-locomotion literature.

major comments (3)
  1. [Section III-B, Eq. (15) and Fig. 1] The discrimination between stance and collision relies entirely on the pre-defined orientation of the friction cones F_v and F_h. While the process model in Eq. (9)-(10) distinguishes swing from the other modes, it does not distinguish stance from collision because S(2)=S(3)=I. Thus the only separation between stance and collision is the prior assumption that collision forces are horizontal and stance forces are vertical. A collision force with a large vertical component, such as a swing foot striking the top of a low step, falls inside F_v, the stance filter is favored in the likelihood update of Eq. (17e), and the reflex, admittance, and MPC responses will not trigger. This directly contradicts the abstract's claim that the method uses 'joint encoder information and the robot dynamics only' and narrows the invariance claim to a fixed terrain-shape prior. The paper acknowledges this in the Conclusion, but the abstract and the architecture description do not carry the caveat, and the simulations and hardware experiments exercise only roughly horizontal impacts. This limitation should be stated prominently and the claims should be adjusted accordingly.
  2. [Section V-B, Table II] The benchmark reports one set of 89 collisions with no indication of the number of independent simulation runs, no variance or confidence intervals, and no statistical test. The difference between IMM-MBKO (85/89) and MBKO (84/89) is a single detection and is not shown to be meaningful. The same issue affects Table III, where all metrics (61 vs 71 collisions, 0.052 vs 0.036 s duration, 2.134 vs 1.15 Ns impulse) are single-run point estimates without any measure of spread. Without repeated trials or a statistical test, the claimed superiority over the baselines is not established.
  3. [Section V-B] The detection criterion underlying the numbers in Table II is not defined. The paper does not state the threshold on the mode probability µ(k) or the required persistence time for a collision to be counted as detected, nor how false positives and false negatives are exactly scored relative to the ground-truth contact state. This makes the benchmark results irreproducible and the comparison with the baselines difficult to interpret, especially because the baselines use a similar contact-mode logic that is described only qualitatively.
minor comments (5)
  1. [Abstract and Section I] There are minor language issues: 'ablatation studies' should be 'ablation studies', and 'independent on external sensors' should be 'independent of external sensors'.
  2. [Table II] The Swing RMSE value for PM-MBKO is printed as '.56'; it should be '0.56' for consistency and clarity.
  3. [Eq. (19)] The symbols \hat F^* and F^* in Eq. (19) are not defined. Please clarify what the asterisk denotes and whether the norm is computed per sample or averaged over the collision interval.
  4. [Fig. 1 and Eq. (15)] The cone geometry and the numerical threshold separating 'large' and 'small' measurement noise in Eq. (15) are not specified. The values v_f = 0.001/200 in Table I are ambiguous; please state how the two values map to the inside/outside of the cone.
  5. [Section V-A] The transition probability matrix sets π_2 and π_3 such that direct transitions between stance and collision have probability zero. This assumption is not justified, and it may be violated in scenarios where the robot is already in stance when a collision occurs; please comment on the sensitivity to this choice.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 2.0 of 10

No load-bearing circularity; the IMM-KF estimator is benchmarked against ground truth, with only a disclosed terrain-shape prior narrowing the encoder-only claim.

full rationale

The central force-estimation and contact-mode-estimation chain is not circular. The pseudo-measurement in Eqs. (13)-(14) is derived from the robot dynamics and the contact constraint and is used as an indirect measurement in a standard Kalman filter; the filter is then evaluated against ground-truth forces in Gazebo and against three baselines (FO-MBO, MBKO, PM-MBKO), so the force estimates are not fitted outputs. The stance-versus-collision discrimination does rely on the mode-dependent measurement-noise model in Eq. (15) and Fig. 1, which encodes a prior assumption about terrain shape; the paper discloses this in the Conclusion: 'some rough prior knowledge of terrain shape is required.' This is an acknowledged modeling assumption and a scope limitation on the 'joint encoders and dynamics only' claim, not a circular reduction. The only self-citation is Ref. [26], whose author overlaps with the present paper, but it is cited for a simplified pseudo-force expression also attributed to Ref. [10], and it is not load-bearing for the main derivation. Thus the paper is self-contained against external benchmarks, with no significant circularity.

Assumptions & free parameters 6 free parameters · 7 assumptions · 0 invented entities

The estimator relies on standard rigid-body dynamics and several domain assumptions: rigid contact, per-leg decoupling, point feet, zero joint velocity at contact, and a friction-cone prior on force direction. The main free parameters are the IMM transition probabilities, force dynamics matrix, noise covariances, and cone geometry. No new physical entities are introduced.

free parameters (6)
  • IMM transition probabilities pi_1, pi_2, pi_3 = 0.8 each
    Set in Section V-A; control mode-switching dynamics and detection delay.
  • Force dynamics matrix A_f = -0.01 (diagonal)
    Table I; small negative definite to mitigate constant force offset.
  • Process noise on momentum and force (omega_p, omega_f) = 0.0001, 10.0
    Table I; tuned Kalman filter parameters.
  • Measurement noise on pseudo-force v_f = 0.001 (swing) / 200 (contact)
    Table I; encodes whether pseudo-force lies in the mode's friction cone.
  • Friction cone geometry for stance (vertical) and collision (horizontal) = not specified numerically
    Section III-B; the cone angle and prior require terrain knowledge and are not quantified.
  • Reflex step height increase = 10 cm
    Section IV-A; fixed for all validations, adjustable in principle.
assumptions (7)
  • standard math Skew-symmetry of robot mass matrix: Mdot = C + C^T (Eq. 5).
    Used to derive the generalized momentum dynamics (Eq. 6).
  • domain assumption Rigid contact constraint J_cj qdd + Jdot_cj qd = 0 for stance and collision feet (Eq. 12).
    Underpins the pseudo-wrench formula (Eq. 13); assumes no slip at contact.
  • domain assumption During collision, the external force on one foot has negligible effect on the floating base and other legs.
    Section III; enables independent per-leg estimators. Borrowed from [16].
  • domain assumption Point feet with zero external moment; only force components are considered.
    Section III; simplifies the wrench to force-only and ignores moments.
  • domain assumption Zero joint velocity during contact for the simplified pseudo-wrench (Eq. 14).
    Section III-B; used to simplify F_pse, but may be violated at impact.
  • domain assumption Collision forces are horizontal and stance forces vertical (friction cone prior).
    Section III-B and Fig. 1; required to distinguish collision from stance, acknowledged as terrain prior in limitations.
  • domain assumption Contact modes follow a Markov chain with fixed transition probabilities.
    Section III-C; the TPM is fixed and tuned by hand.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Simultaneous Collision Detection and Force Estimation for Dynamic Quadrupedal Locomotion." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/2XLJCLT2

@misc{pith2026250417201,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Simultaneous Collision Detection and Force Estimation for Dynamic Quadrupedal Locomotion},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/2XLJCLT2}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2504.17201}
}
read the original abstract

In this paper we address the simultaneous collision detection and force estimation problem for quadrupedal locomotion using joint encoder information and the robot dynamics only. We design an interacting multiple-model Kalman filter (IMM-KF) that estimates the external force exerted on the robot and multiple possible contact modes. The method is invariant to any gait pattern design. Our approach leverages pseudo-measurement information of the external forces based on the robot dynamics and encoder information. Based on the estimated contact mode and external force, we design a reflex motion and an admittance controller for the swing leg to avoid collisions by adjusting the leg's reference motion. Additionally, we implement a force-adaptive model predictive controller to enhance balancing. Simulation ablatation studies and experiments show the efficacy of the approach.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2504.17201 by the authors.

Figure 1
Figure 1. Force measurement models for different contact modes. [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p003_1.png] view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. Gazebo simulation environment for collision tests. [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p004_2.png] view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. The likelihoods of different contact modes estimated by the IMM [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p005_3.png] view at source ↗
Figures from the paper (2 more)
Figure 5
Figure 5. Figure 5: Desired foot accelerations in the x direction for AC (red) and OSC [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p006_5.png]
Figure 6
Figure 6. Figure 6: The likelihoods of each contact mode given by IMM-MBKO, along [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p006_6.png]

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

28 extracted references · 22 canonical work pages

  1. [26]

    Simultaneous state estimation and con- tact detection for legged robots by multiple-model kalman filtering,

    M. Menner and K. Berntorp, “Simultaneous state estimation and con- tact detection for legged robots by multiple-model kalman filtering,” arXiv preprint arXiv:2404.03444 , 2024

    arXiv 2024

  2. [1]

    Dynamic locomotion in the mit cheetah 3 through convex model-predictive control,

    J. Di Carlo, P. M. Wensing, B. Katz, G. Bledt, and S. Kim, “Dynamic locomotion in the mit cheetah 3 through convex model-predictive control,” in 2018 IEEE/RSJ international conference on intelligent robots and systems (IROS) . IEEE, 2018, pp. 1–9

    2018

  3. [2]

    Highly dynamic quadruped locomotion via whole-body impulse control and model predictive control,

    D. Kim, J. Di Carlo, B. Katz, G. Bledt, and S. Kim, “Highly dynamic quadruped locomotion via whole-body impulse control and model predictive control,” arXiv preprint arXiv:1909.06586 , 2019

    arXiv 1909

  4. [3]

    Terrain-perception-free quadrupedal spinning locomotion on versatile terrains: Modeling, analysis, and experimental validation,

    H. Zhu, D. Wang, N. Boyd, Z. Zhou, L. Ruan, A. Zhang, N. Ding, Y . Zhao, and J. Luo, “Terrain-perception-free quadrupedal spinning locomotion on versatile terrains: Modeling, analysis, and experimental validation,” Frontiers in Robotics and AI , vol. 8, p. 724138, 2021

    work page 2021

  5. [4]

    Vision aided dynamic exploration of unstructured terrain with a small-scale quadruped robot,

    D. Kim, D. Carballo, J. Di Carlo, B. Katz, G. Bledt, B. Lim, and S. Kim, “Vision aided dynamic exploration of unstructured terrain with a small-scale quadruped robot,” in 2020 IEEE International Conference on Robotics and Automation (ICRA) . IEEE, 2020, pp. 2464–2470

    work page 2020

  6. [5]

    Vision-aided dynamic quadrupedal locomotion on discrete terrain using motion libraries,

    A. Agrawal, S. Chen, A. Rai, and K. Sreenath, “Vision-aided dynamic quadrupedal locomotion on discrete terrain using motion libraries,” in 2022 International Conference on Robotics and Automation (ICRA) . IEEE, 2022, pp. 4708–4714

    work page 2022

  7. [6]

    Perceptive locomotion in rough terrain–online foothold optimization,

    F. Jenelten, T. Miki, A. E. Vijayan, M. Bjelonic, and M. Hutter, “Perceptive locomotion in rough terrain–online foothold optimization,” IEEE Robotics and Automation Letters , vol. 5, no. 4, pp. 5370–5376, 2020

    work page 2020

  8. [7]

    Perceptive locomotion through nonlinear model-predictive control,

    R. Grandia, F. Jenelten, S. Yang, F. Farshidian, and M. Hutter, “Perceptive locomotion through nonlinear model-predictive control,” IEEE Transactions on Robotics , 2023

    work page 2023

Show all 28 references
  1. [8]

    A constrained kalman filter for rigid body systems with frictional contact,

    P. Varin and S. Kuindersma, “A constrained kalman filter for rigid body systems with frictional contact,” in Algorithmic Foundations of Robotics XIII: Proceedings of the 13th Workshop on the Algorithmic Foundations of Robotics 13 . Springer, 2020, pp. 474–490

    2020

  2. [9]

    Robot collisions: A survey on detection, isolation, and identification,

    S. Haddadin, A. De Luca, and A. Albu-Sch ¨affer, “Robot collisions: A survey on detection, isolation, and identification,” IEEE Transactions on Robotics, vol. 33, no. 6, pp. 1292–1312, 2017

    2017

  3. [10]

    Local reflex generation for obstacle negotiation in quadrupedal locomotion,

    M. Focchi, V . Barasuol, I. Havoutis, J. Buchli, C. Semini, and D. G. Caldwell, “Local reflex generation for obstacle negotiation in quadrupedal locomotion,” in Nature-Inspired Mobile Robotics. World Scientific, 2013, pp. 443–450

    2013

  4. [11]

    Proba- bilistic foot contact estimation by fusing information from dynamics and differential/forward kinematics,

    J. Hwangbo, C. D. Bellicoso, P. Fankhauser, and M. Hutter, “Proba- bilistic foot contact estimation by fusing information from dynamics and differential/forward kinematics,” in 2016 IEEE/RSJ International Conference on Intelligent Robots and Systems (IROS) . IEEE, 2016, pp. 3872–3878

    2016

  5. [12]

    Dynamic locomotion on slippery ground,

    F. Jenelten, J. Hwangbo, F. Tresoldi, C. D. Bellicoso, and M. Hut- ter, “Dynamic locomotion on slippery ground,” IEEE Robotics and Automation Letters, vol. 4, no. 4, pp. 4170–4176, 2019

    2019

  6. [13]

    Collision detection and safe reaction with the dlr-iii lightweight manipulator arm,

    A. De Luca, A. Albu-Schaffer, S. Haddadin, and G. Hirzinger, “Collision detection and safe reaction with the dlr-iii lightweight manipulator arm,” in 2006 IEEE/RSJ International Conference on Intelligent Robots and Systems . IEEE, 2006, pp. 1623–1630

    2006

  7. [14]

    Contact model fusion for event-based locomotion in unstructured terrains,

    G. Bledt, P. M. Wensing, S. Ingersoll, and S. Kim, “Contact model fusion for event-based locomotion in unstructured terrains,” in 2018 IEEE International Conference on Robotics and Automation (ICRA) . IEEE, 2018, pp. 4399–4406

    2018

  8. [15]

    Predefined-time external force estimation for legged robots,

    P. Cai, D. Liu, and L. Zhu, “Predefined-time external force estimation for legged robots,” in International Conference on Intelligent Robotics and Applications. Springer, 2023, pp. 542–552

    2023

  9. [16]

    Implementation of a gait phase informed sensor- less collision detector for legged robots,

    H. Cha and I. Lee, “Implementation of a gait phase informed sensor- less collision detector for legged robots,” in 2023 20th International Conference on Ubiquitous Robots (UR) . IEEE, 2023, pp. 245–249

    2023

  10. [17]

    Proprioception and reaction for walking among entanglements,

    J. K. Yim, J. Ren, D. Ologan, S. G. Gonzalez, and A. M. Johnson, “Proprioception and reaction for walking among entanglements,” in 2023 IEEE/RSJ International Conference on Intelligent Robots and Systems (IROS). IEEE, 2023, pp. 2760–2767

    2023

  11. [18]

    Collision detection and identification for a legged manipulator,

    J. Van Dam, A. Tulbure, M. V . Minniti, F. Abi-Farraj, and M. Hutter, “Collision detection and identification for a legged manipulator,” in 2022 IEEE/RSJ International Conference on Intelligent Robots and Systems (IROS). IEEE, 2022, pp. 13 602–13 609

    2022

  12. [19]

    Whole-body control with disturbance rejection through a momentum-based observer for quadruped robots,

    V . Morlando, A. Teimoorzadeh, and F. Ruggiero, “Whole-body control with disturbance rejection through a momentum-based observer for quadruped robots,” Mechanism and Machine Theory , vol. 164, p. 104412, 2021

    2021

  13. [20]

    Tamols: Terrain- aware motion optimization for legged systems,

    F. Jenelten, R. Grandia, F. Farshidian, and M. Hutter, “Tamols: Terrain- aware motion optimization for legged systems,” IEEE Transactions on Robotics, vol. 38, no. 6, pp. 3395–3413, 2022

    2022

  14. [21]

    The interacting multiple model algorithm for systems with markovian switching coefficients,

    H. A. Blom and Y . Bar-Shalom, “The interacting multiple model algorithm for systems with markovian switching coefficients,” IEEE transactions on Automatic Control, vol. 33, no. 8, pp. 780–783, 1988

    1988

  15. [22]

    Carte- sian contact force estimation for robotic manipulators using kalman filters and the generalized momentum,

    A. Wahrburg, E. Morara, G. Cesari, B. Matthias, and H. Ding, “Carte- sian contact force estimation for robotic manipulators using kalman filters and the generalized momentum,” in 2015 IEEE International Conference on Automation Science and Engineering (CASE) . IEEE, 2015, pp. ...

    2015

  16. [23]

    Auto-tuning of controller and online trajectory planner for legged robots,

    A. Schperberg, S. Di Cairano, and M. Menner, “Auto-tuning of controller and online trajectory planner for legged robots,” IEEE Robotics and Automation Letters , vol. 7, no. 3, pp. 7802–7809, 2022

    2022

  17. [24]

    An introduction to the kalman filter,

    G. Welch, G. Bishop et al. , “An introduction to the kalman filter,” 1995

    1995

  18. [25]

    Fully proprioceptive slip- velocity-aware state estimation for mobile robots via invariant kalman filtering and disturbance observer,

    X. Yu, S. Teng, T. Chakhachiro, W. Tong, T. Li, T.-Y . Lin, S. Koehler, M. Ahumada, J. M. Walls, and M. Ghaffari, “Fully proprioceptive slip- velocity-aware state estimation for mobile robots via invariant kalman filtering and disturbance observer,” in 2023 IEEE/RSJ Internatio...

    2023

  19. [27]

    Easing reliance on collision-free planning with contact-aware control,

    T. Pang and R. Tedrake, “Easing reliance on collision-free planning with contact-aware control,” in 2022 International Conference on Robotics and Automation (ICRA) . IEEE, 2022, pp. 8375–8381

    2022

  20. [28]

    The pinocchio c++ library: A fast and flexible implementation of rigid body dynamics algorithms and their analytical derivatives,

    J. Carpentier, G. Saurel, G. Buondonno, J. Mirabel, F. Lamiraux, O. Stasse, and N. Mansard, “The pinocchio c++ library: A fast and flexible implementation of rigid body dynamics algorithms and their analytical derivatives,” in 2019 IEEE/SICE International Symposium on System I...

    2019

Pith tools

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