arxiv: 2604.06382 · v1 · submitted 2026-04-07 · 💻 cs.RO

Recognition: no theorem link

Designing Privacy-Preserving Visual Perception for Robot Navigation Based on User Privacy Preferences

Delphine Reinhardt, Maren Bennewitz, Sicong Pan, Xuying Huang

Authors on Pith no claims yet

Pith reviewed 2026-05-10 18:33 UTC · model grok-4.3

classification 💻 cs.RO

keywords privacy preservationrobot navigationvisual perceptionuser preferencesdistance-to-resolution policycamera resolutionmobile service robotsvisual abstraction

0 comments

The pith

User studies show that preferred camera resolution for robot navigation depends on both desired privacy level and robot proximity.

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

The paper examines how to make robot visual navigation respect user privacy by grounding technical choices in actual human preferences rather than purely engineering criteria. Two user studies reveal that people favor visual abstractions and low-resolution capture at the moment of recording, with the specific RGB resolution they accept varying according to how close the robot comes and how much privacy they want. From these results the authors derive a configurable policy that ties distance to resolution. A sympathetic reader cares because service robots increasingly operate in homes and shared spaces where constant high-resolution cameras can feel invasive. If the findings hold, robots could adjust their sensing on the fly to reduce privacy risks while still completing navigation tasks.

Core claim

We propose a user-centered approach to designing privacy-preserving visual perception for robot navigation. To investigate how user privacy preferences can inform such design, we conducted two user studies. The results show that users prefer privacy-preserving visual abstractions and capture-time low-resolution preservation mechanisms: their preferred RGB resolution depends both on the desired privacy level and robot proximity during navigation. Based on these findings, we further derive a user-configurable distance-to-resolution privacy policy for privacy-preserving robot visual navigation.

What carries the argument

The user-configurable distance-to-resolution privacy policy that maps desired privacy level and measured robot proximity to an appropriate RGB resolution or visual abstraction.

If this is right

Robots can lower image resolution automatically as they approach users to match stated privacy preferences.
Users gain the ability to set a privacy level that the robot then applies across different distances.
Capture-time low-resolution or abstraction replaces full-resolution RGB images when the policy requires it.
The same preference data can guide policy adjustments for different environments or user groups.

Where Pith is reading between the lines

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

The policy could be combined with existing distance sensors already used for obstacle avoidance, requiring little extra hardware.
Real deployments might show that certain navigation tasks need temporary overrides when resolution drops too low.
Extending the same preference-based mapping to other modalities such as depth or audio could broaden privacy protection.
Longitudinal studies with the same users could reveal whether preferences remain stable over repeated interactions.

Load-bearing premise

The preferences measured in the two user studies accurately represent real-world user behavior and can be translated into an effective navigation-safe policy without significant loss of robot performance.

What would settle it

A controlled field deployment in which robots navigate using the derived policy while recording both user privacy satisfaction ratings and objective navigation metrics such as path completion time and collision avoidance would directly test whether the policy works in practice.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2604.06382 by Delphine Reinhardt, Maren Bennewitz, Sicong Pan, Xuying Huang.

**Figure 3.** Figure 3: Examples in Study 1 to compare two privacy-preserving [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p002_3.png] view at source ↗

**Figure 4.** Figure 4: Example (face) in Study 1 to assess RGB resolution thresh [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p002_4.png] view at source ↗

**Figure 7.** Figure 7: Responses for the third block, which examined users’ [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p003_7.png] view at source ↗

**Figure 6.** Figure 6: Responses for the second block, which assessed user privacy [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p003_6.png] view at source ↗

**Figure 8.** Figure 8: Responses for the fourth block, which examined users’ [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p004_8.png] view at source ↗

**Figure 9.** Figure 9: Overview of the adopted robot navigation pipeline. The [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p004_9.png] view at source ↗

**Figure 11.** Figure 11: Distribution of user-selected privacy-aware RGB resolution [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p005_11.png] view at source ↗

**Figure 10.** Figure 10: Example (private chat) in Study 2 to examine user privacy [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p005_10.png] view at source ↗

**Figure 12.** Figure 12: Comparison of subjective and objective, model-based [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p006_12.png] view at source ↗

read the original abstract

Visual navigation is a fundamental capability of mobile service robots, yet the onboard cameras required for such navigation can capture privacy-sensitive information and raise user privacy concerns. Existing approaches to privacy-preserving navigation-oriented visual perception have largely been driven by technical considerations, with limited grounding in user privacy preferences. In this work, we propose a user-centered approach to designing privacy-preserving visual perception for robot navigation. To investigate how user privacy preferences can inform such design, we conducted two user studies. The results show that users prefer privacy-preserving visual abstractions and capture-time low-resolution preservation mechanisms: their preferred RGB resolution depends both on the desired privacy level and robot proximity during navigation. Based on these findings, we further derive a user-configurable distance-to-resolution privacy policy for privacy-preserving robot visual navigation.

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.

Desk Editor's Note private letter to a colleague

User studies yield a distance-to-resolution policy for robot cameras, but the work does not test whether that policy preserves navigation performance.

read the letter

The core takeaway is that the authors ran two user studies to map how preferred camera resolution changes with robot distance and stated privacy level, then turned the results into a configurable policy. That moves the conversation past purely technical privacy filters toward something users might actually accept in homes or offices. The studies apparently show people favor lower RGB resolution up close and when they want more privacy, plus they like visual abstractions and capture-time downsampling over other approaches. This is the main new element: an empirically derived, user-configurable rule rather than an ad-hoc technical choice. The paper does a clean job of contrasting this with prior technical-only methods and of presenting the policy as something a robot could apply during navigation. The soft spot is the missing link to actual robot function. The stress-test note is right that the studies measure hypothetical preferences, not closed-loop outcomes like localization error, obstacle avoidance success, or path-planning reliability under the reduced-resolution policy. Without those benchmarks or ablations against a full-resolution baseline, it is hard to know whether the policy is safe to deploy. Study design details such as participant numbers, scenario realism, and statistical tests are also not visible in the abstract, which leaves the robustness of the preferences unclear. This is worth a referee for groups working on service robots where privacy acceptance matters. Readers in human-robot interaction or privacy-aware perception will find the user data and policy idea useful even if they need to add their own performance checks. I would send it to review rather than desk-reject, with the expectation that reviewers will ask for navigation validation experiments.

Referee Report

2 major / 1 minor

Summary. The paper proposes a user-centered approach to privacy-preserving visual perception for robot navigation. It reports findings from two user studies showing that users prefer privacy-preserving visual abstractions and capture-time low-resolution mechanisms, with preferred RGB resolution depending on both the desired privacy level and robot proximity during navigation. From these results, the authors derive a user-configurable distance-to-resolution privacy policy intended for privacy-preserving robot visual navigation.

Significance. If the user-study findings hold and the derived policy can be shown to preserve adequate visual information for core navigation tasks, the work would be significant for integrating empirical user preferences into the design of service-robot perception systems. It moves beyond purely technical privacy mechanisms by grounding design choices in user data and offers a configurable policy that could be adopted in real deployments. The explicit linkage of proximity, privacy level, and resolution is a concrete contribution that could inform future privacy-aware robotics research.

major comments (2)

[§3] §3 (User Studies): The abstract and results section state clear outcomes from two user studies on preferred RGB resolution, but the manuscript provides no details on study design, sample size, statistical methods, participant demographics, or validation procedures. Without this information it is impossible to determine whether the reported dependence of resolution on privacy level and proximity is supported by the data.
[§4] §4 (Policy Derivation): The central claim that a usable distance-to-resolution privacy policy can be derived from the user preferences rests on the assumption that the measured preferences translate to navigation-safe visual input. The manuscript contains no ablation studies, closed-loop experiments, or benchmarks comparing navigation success rates, collision rates, localization error, or path-planning performance under the derived policy versus a full-resolution baseline.

minor comments (1)

[Abstract] The abstract could more explicitly note that the studies measure stated preferences rather than observed behavior in a live navigation setting.

Simulated Author's Rebuttal

2 responses · 0 unresolved

We thank the referee for the constructive and detailed review. We address each major comment below and indicate planned revisions to enhance the manuscript's clarity and rigor.

read point-by-point responses

Referee: [§3] §3 (User Studies): The abstract and results section state clear outcomes from two user studies on preferred RGB resolution, but the manuscript provides no details on study design, sample size, statistical methods, participant demographics, or validation procedures. Without this information it is impossible to determine whether the reported dependence of resolution on privacy level and proximity is supported by the data.

Authors: We agree that the current manuscript lacks sufficient methodological details. In the revised version, we will expand §3 with a dedicated subsection covering study design, participant recruitment and demographics, sample sizes, statistical methods (including any tests for dependence on privacy level and proximity), and validation procedures. This will substantiate the reported user preferences for abstractions and distance-dependent low-resolution capture. revision: yes
Referee: [§4] §4 (Policy Derivation): The central claim that a usable distance-to-resolution privacy policy can be derived from the user preferences rests on the assumption that the measured preferences translate to navigation-safe visual input. The manuscript contains no ablation studies, closed-loop experiments, or benchmarks comparing navigation success rates, collision rates, localization error, or path-planning performance under the derived policy versus a full-resolution baseline.

Authors: Our work focuses on empirically deriving a configurable policy from user preferences rather than validating its effects on navigation performance metrics. The manuscript does not assert that the policy maintains equivalent navigation safety to full resolution. We will add a 'Limitations and Future Work' section acknowledging the assumption about sufficient visual information for navigation tasks and outlining the need for future closed-loop evaluations. No such ablation or benchmark experiments were conducted in this study. revision: partial

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged

No circularity: policy derived from independent user-study data

full rationale

The paper conducts two user studies measuring preferences for visual abstractions and capture-time resolutions as functions of stated privacy level and robot proximity. It then derives a configurable distance-to-resolution policy directly from those empirical observations. No step reduces the policy to a self-definition, renames a fitted parameter as a prediction, or relies on a load-bearing self-citation whose content is unverified outside the present work. The derivation chain remains open to external validation (e.g., closed-loop navigation benchmarks) and does not collapse by construction.

Axiom & Free-Parameter Ledger

0 free parameters · 1 axioms · 0 invented entities

Based solely on the abstract, the central claim rests on the assumption that the user-study findings are representative and generalizable; no free parameters or invented entities are described.

axioms (1)

domain assumption Findings from the two user studies accurately reflect broader user privacy preferences and can be directly translated into a practical robot navigation policy.
The policy derivation depends on this assumption about the validity and applicability of the study results.

pith-pipeline@v0.9.0 · 5434 in / 1276 out tokens · 35832 ms · 2026-05-10T18:33:51.895878+00:00 · methodology

discussion (0)

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

22 extracted references · 5 canonical work pages · 1 internal anchor

[1]

Do you follow? a fully automated system for adaptive robot presenters,

A. Axelsson and G. Skantze, “Do you follow? a fully automated system for adaptive robot presenters,” inIEEE Intl. Conf. on Human- Robot Interaction (HRI), 2023

2023
[2]

Visual navigation for mobile robots: A survey,

F. Bonin-Font, A. Ortiz, and G. Oliver, “Visual navigation for mobile robots: A survey,”Pattern Recognition Letters, 2008

2008
[3]

Object goal navigation using goal-oriented semantic exploration,

D. S. Chaplot, D. P. Gandhi, A. Gupta, and R. R. Salakhutdinov, “Object goal navigation using goal-oriented semantic exploration,” inProc. of the Conf. on Neural Information Processing Systems (NeurIPS), 2020

2020
[4]

arXiv preprint arXiv:2505.05519 , year=

M. Choi, Y . Yang, N. P. Bhatt, K. Gupta, S. Shah, A. Rai, D. Fridovich- Keil, U. Topcu, and S. P. Chinchali, “Real-time privacy preservation for robot visual perception,”arXiv preprint arXiv:2505.05519, 2025

work page arXiv 2025
[5]

What should a robot disclose about me? a study about privacy-appropriate behaviors for social robots,

M. Dietrich, M. Krüger, and T. H. Weisswange, “What should a robot disclose about me? a study about privacy-appropriate behaviors for social robots,”Frontiers in Robotics and AI, vol. 10, p. 1236733, 2023

2023
[6]

Robot companion: A social- force based approach with human awareness-navigation in crowded environments,

G. Ferrer, A. Garrell, and A. Sanfeliu, “Robot companion: A social- force based approach with human awareness-navigation in crowded environments,” inIn RSJ International Conference on Intelligent Robots and Systems, 2013

2013
[7]

Semnav: A semantic segmentation-driven approach to visual semantic navigation,

R. Flor-Rodríguez, C. Gutiérrez-Álvarez, F. J. Acevedo-Rodríguez, S. Lafuente-Arroyo, and R. J. López-Sastre, “Semnav: A semantic segmentation-driven approach to visual semantic navigation,”arXiv preprint arXiv:2506.01418, 2025

work page arXiv 2025
[8]

Privacy-Preserving Semantic Segmentation from Ultra-Low-Resolution RGB Inputs

X. Huang, S. Pan, O. Zatsarynna, J. Gall, and M. Bennewitz, “Im- proved semantic segmentation from ultra-low-resolution rgb images applied to privacy-preserving object-goal navigation,”arXiv preprint arXiv:2507.16034, 2025

work page internal anchor Pith review Pith/arXiv arXiv 2025
[9]

Perspectives on deepfakes for privacy: comparing perceptions of photo owners and obfuscated individuals towards deepfake versus traditional privacy-enhancing obfuscation,

M. Khamis, R. Panskus, H. Farzand, M. Mumm, S. Macdonald, and K. Marky, “Perspectives on deepfakes for privacy: comparing perceptions of photo owners and obfuscated individuals towards deepfake versus traditional privacy-enhancing obfuscation,” inProc. of international conference on Mobile and ubiquitous multimedia, 2024

2024
[10]

A picture is worth a thousand risks: Inferring privacy risks from home interior images via object-level sensitivity analysis,

L. Kqiku, E. Bark, A. Misra, and D. Reinhardt, “A picture is worth a thousand risks: Inferring privacy risks from home interior images via object-level sensitivity analysis,” inProc. of IEEE Intl. Conf. on Pervasive Computing and Communications (PerCom), 2026

2026
[11]

Mosaic: Generating consistent, privacy-preserving scenes from multiple depth views in multi-room environments,

Z. Liu, H. Zhu, R. Chen, J. Francis, S. Hwang, J. Zhang, and J. Oh, “Mosaic: Generating consistent, privacy-preserving scenes from multiple depth views in multi-room environments,” inProceedings of the IEEE/CVF International Conference on Computer Vision, 2025, pp. 27 456–27 465

2025
[12]

Segloc: Learning segmentation-based representations for privacy-preserving visual localization,

M. Pietrantoni, M. Humenberger, T. Sattler, and G. Csurka, “Segloc: Learning segmentation-based representations for privacy-preserving visual localization,” inProc. of the IEEE/CVF Conf. on Computer Vision and Pattern Recognition (CVPR), 2023

2023
[13]

Privacy-friendly mobile avatar for sick schoolchildren,

PRIV ATAR, “Privacy-friendly mobile avatar for sick schoolchildren,”
[14]

Available: https://privatar.de/en/

[Online]. Available: https://privatar.de/en/
[15]

I still need my privacy: Exploring the level of comfort and privacy preferences of german- speaking older adults in the case of mobile assistant robots,

D. Reinhardt, M. Khurana, and L. H. Acosta, “I still need my privacy: Exploring the level of comfort and privacy preferences of german- speaking older adults in the case of mobile assistant robots,”Journal of Pervasive and Mobile Computing (PMC), vol. 74, 2021

2021
[16]

Privacy in human-robot interaction: Survey and future work,

M. Rueben and W. D. Smart, “Privacy in human-robot interaction: Survey and future work,”Proceedings of the International Conference on WeRobot, 2016

2016
[17]

Framing effects on privacy concerns about a home telepresence robot,

M. Rueben, F. J. Bernieri, C. M. Grimm, and W. D. Smart, “Framing effects on privacy concerns about a home telepresence robot,” inIEEE Intl. Conf. on Human-Robot Interaction (HRI), 2017

2017
[18]

Little data, big impact: Privacy-aware visual language models via minimal tuning,

L. Samson, N. Barazani, S. Ghebreab, and Y . M. Asano, “Little data, big impact: Privacy-aware visual language models via minimal tuning,”arXiv preprint arXiv:2405.17423, 2024

work page arXiv 2024
[19]

Indoor segmen- tation and support inference from rgbd images,

N. Silberman, D. Hoiem, P. Kohli, and R. Fergus, “Indoor segmen- tation and support inference from rgbd images,” inProc. of the Europ. Conf. on Computer Vision (ECCV), 2012

2012
[20]

The need for inherently privacy-preserving vision in trustworthy autonomous systems,

A. K. Taras, N. Suenderhauf, P. Corke, and D. G. Dansereau, “The need for inherently privacy-preserving vision in trustworthy autonomous systems,”arXiv preprint arXiv:2303.16408, 2023

work page arXiv 2023
[21]

Socially aware robot navigation system in human-populated and interactive environments based on an adaptive spatial density function and space affordances,

A. Vega, L. J. Manso, D. G. Macharet, B. Pablo, and P. Núñez, “Socially aware robot navigation system in human-populated and interactive environments based on an adaptive spatial density function and space affordances,”Pattern Recognition Letters, 2019

2019
[22]

Privacy-preserved visual simultaneous localization and mapping based on a dual-component approach,

M. Yang, C. Huang, X. Huang, and S. Hou, “Privacy-preserved visual simultaneous localization and mapping based on a dual-component approach,”Applied Sciences, 2025

2025