Robots’ Sixth Sense: Fusing Data for Autonomy

Perceiving the World: The Art of Sensor Fusion in Robotics

In the rapidly evolving landscape of autonomous systems, the ability of a robot to accurately perceive its environment is not merely an advantage—it’s a fundamental requirement for safety, efficiency, and reliability. This critical capability is achieved through Sensor Fusion Techniques for Autonomous Robotics. At its core, sensor fusion is the intelligent combination of data from multiple disparate sensors to produce a more accurate, comprehensive, and robust understanding of the environment and the robot’s own state than any single sensor could provide alone.

Photo by JUNXUAN BAO on Unsplash

From self-driving cars navigating bustling city streets to industrial robots performing intricate tasks and exploration rovers mapping distant planets, autonomous systems rely on a tapestry of sensory inputs. Cameras capture visual details, LiDAR measures precise distances, radar detects objects through adverse weather, and Inertial Measurement Units (IMUs) track motion and orientation. However, each sensor possesses inherent limitations: cameras struggle in low light, LiDAR can be hampered by fog, radar has lower resolution, and IMUs drift over time. Sensor fusion techniques overcome these individual shortcomings by cross-referencing, validating, and enriching data, leading to a “sixth sense” for robots. This article will demystify the principles and practical applications of sensor fusion, offering developers a roadmap to building more resilient and intelligent autonomous robotic systems.

Image 1 Placement

Building the Perception Stack: Your First Steps

Embarking on the journey of implementing sensor fusion in autonomous robotics can seem daunting, but by breaking it down into manageable steps, developers can build a strong foundation. The initial phase involves understanding the fundamental concepts and setting up a basic development environment.

First, grasp the diversity of sensors commonly used:

• Cameras:Provide rich visual information (texture, color, semantic understanding).
• LiDAR (Light Detection and Ranging):Offers precise 3D point clouds, excellent for mapping and obstacle detection.
• Radar (Radio Detection and Ranging):Effective for long-range object detection and velocity estimation, robust to adverse weather.
• IMU (Inertial Measurement Unit):Measures angular velocity and linear acceleration, crucial for short-term motion tracking.
• GPS (Global Positioning System):Provides global position coordinates, though susceptible to signal loss in urban canyons or indoors.
• Wheel Encoders:Measure wheel rotations, offering odometry for ground robots.

The core idea is to combine these diverse data streams. For instance, an IMU provides high-frequency, noisy short-term motion data, while GPS offers low-frequency, accurate long-term position data (when available). Fusing them corrects the IMU’s drift with GPS updates, yielding a more stable and accurate pose estimate.

For beginners, a practical starting point is often to fuse odometry (from wheel encoders or visual odometry) with IMU data to get a robust estimate of a robot’s 2D or 3D pose (position and orientation). This can be achieved using a Kalman Filter (KF), which is a statistical algorithm that estimates the state of a system from a series of noisy measurements.

Here’s a simplified conceptual outline for implementing a basic Kalman Filter for IMU-Odometry fusion:

1. Define the State Vector:For a 2D mobile robot, this might include [x, y, theta, vx, vy, vtheta], representing position, orientation, and their respective velocities.
2. Define the Measurement Vector:This would come from your sensors. For odometry, it might be [x_odom, y_odom, theta_odom]; for IMU, [vx_imu, vy_imu, vtheta_imu] (derived from acceleration and angular velocity).
3. System Model (Prediction Step): This describes how your robot’s state changes over time without external measurements. Based on your robot’s dynamics, you’d predict the next state X_k+1 from X_k using control inputs (e.g., motor commands) and the IMU’s acceleration/angular velocity data. This step estimates where the robot should be.
4. Measurement Model (Update Step):When a new sensor measurement arrives (e.g., from odometry), you compare it to your predicted state. The Kalman filter then calculates a “Kalman Gain” to weigh how much to trust the prediction versus the new measurement, updating your state estimate to be more accurate.

Practical Starter Steps:

• Choose a Platform:The Robot Operating System (ROS) is almost universally adopted in robotics for its robust communication middleware, sensor drivers, and powerful tools. Starting with ROS Kinetic or Melodic (for older systems) or ROS Noetic/ROS 2 (for newer projects) is highly recommended.
• Install ROS:Follow the official installation guides for your Linux distribution (Ubuntu is standard).
• Sensor Data Acquisition:Get familiar with publishing and subscribing to ROS topics. Many sensors have existing ROS drivers. Start by getting data from a simulated robot’s IMU and wheel encoders.
• Basic Node Development:Write simple Python or C++ ROS nodes to read sensor data and print it, understanding the data formats (e.g., sensor_msgs/Imu, nav_msgs/Odometry).
• Conceptual Kalman Filter:Implement a simple 1D or 2D Kalman filter in Python or C++ to understand the predict-update cycle with simulated noisy data before moving to real robot data. This helps build intuition without the complexities of a full robot setup.

By focusing on these initial steps, developers can build a conceptual understanding and practical capability for integrating and processing sensor data, laying the groundwork for more advanced fusion techniques.

Essential Gear for Fusing Robotic Senses

Building sophisticated autonomous systems necessitates a robust toolkit. For sensor fusion in robotics, developers rely on a blend of programming languages, specialized libraries, powerful frameworks, and insightful development tools. Choosing the right instruments significantly enhances productivity and the reliability of the fusion algorithms.

Programming Languages & Frameworks

• Python:Often the go-to for rapid prototyping, data analysis, and scripting. Its rich ecosystem of scientific computing libraries makes it excellent for initial algorithm development and visualization.
  • Libraries:
    • NumPy & SciPy:Fundamental for numerical operations, linear algebra, and statistical functions, critical for implementing filters like Kalman and Extended Kalman.
    • Matplotlib:For visualizing sensor data, filter outputs, and robot trajectories.
    • Pandas:For handling and analyzing structured sensor datasets.
• C++:The performance powerhouse, essential for real-time applications where latency is critical. Most production-level robotic systems, especially those requiring high-frequency processing of LiDAR or camera data, are built with C++.
  • Libraries:
    • Eigen:A high-performance C++ template library for linear algebra (matrices, vectors, numerical solvers). It’s indispensable for implementing Kalman Filters, least squares, and other optimization techniques.
    • PCL (Point Cloud Library):A comprehensive, open-source C++ library for 2D/3D image and point cloud processing. Crucial for handling LiDAR data, including filtering, segmentation, registration (for SLAM), and feature extraction.
    • OpenCV (Open Source Computer Vision Library):A highly optimized C++ (and Python) library for computer vision tasks. Essential for camera calibration, feature detection, tracking, image processing, and visual odometry algorithms that feed into fusion.
• ROS (Robot Operating System):While not an OS in the traditional sense, ROS (or ROS 2 for newer deployments) is the de facto standard framework for robotics development. It provides services like hardware abstraction, package management, communication between processes (nodes) via topics and services, and a plethora of tools.
  • Key ROS Packages for Fusion:
    • robot_localization: A powerful, highly configurable package that implements multiple EKF (Extended Kalman Filter) and UKF (Unscented Kalman Filter) nodes. It’s an excellent starting point for fusing IMU, odometry, GPS, and other absolute pose sources. It handles complex covariances and coordinate transformations seamlessly.
    • gmapping / cartographer: For 2D/3D SLAM (Simultaneous Localization and Mapping) using LiDAR, often fused with odometry data.

Development Tools & IDEs

• VS Code (Visual Studio Code):A lightweight yet powerful code editor with extensive support for Python and C++.
  • Recommended Extensions:
    • Python:For linting, debugging, and code formatting.
    • C/C++:For IntelliSense, debugging, and code browsing.
    • ROS:Provides syntax highlighting, autocompletion for ROS messages, and integration with ROS workspaces.
    • GitLens:Enhances Git capabilities within the editor.
• Rviz (ROS Visualization):An indispensable 3D visualizer for ROS. It allows developers to visualize sensor data (point clouds, camera feeds, IMU data), robot models, map data, and the output of fusion algorithms (e.g., robot pose estimates and uncertainty ellipsoids). Essential for debugging and understanding what your fusion algorithms are “seeing.”
• Gazebo / CoppeliaSim:Robotics simulators that allow testing and development of sensor fusion algorithms without real hardware. They can simulate various sensors (LiDAR, cameras, IMUs) with configurable noise, providing a safe and repeatable environment for experimentation.

Image 2 Placement

Resources for Learning

• “Probabilistic Robotics” by Sebastian Thrun, Wolfram Burgard, and Dieter Fox:A foundational textbook covering the mathematical underpinnings of state estimation, filtering, and SLAM.
• Online Courses:Platforms like Coursera, edX, and Udacity offer specialized courses in robotics, state estimation, and self-driving car engineering, often featuring practical assignments on sensor fusion.
• ROS Wiki & Tutorials:The official ROS documentation is a goldmine for getting started with ROS packages, including robot_localization.

Mastering these tools and resources will provide developers with the capability to implement, test, and refine sophisticated sensor fusion techniques, bringing robust perception to autonomous robots.

Fusing Data in Action: Real-World Robotic Scenarios

Sensor fusion isn’t just theoretical; it underpins the reliable operation of nearly every advanced autonomous system today. Understanding its practical applications through concrete examples and best practices helps developers apply these techniques effectively.

Photo by Simon on Unsplash

Code Examples (Conceptual/Pseudo-Code)

Let’s consider a simplified conceptual example of fusing an IMU (providing acceleration and angular velocity) and Odometry (providing relative position/orientation) using an Extended Kalman Filter (EKF) for a mobile robot. The EKF is used when the system dynamics or measurement models are non-linear, which is common in robotics.

Robot State Vector (Example for 2D Mobile Robot): X = [x, y, theta, vx, vy, omega] Where:

• x, y: Position
• theta: Orientation (yaw)
• vx, vy: Linear velocities
• omega: Angular velocity (yaw rate)

1. EKF Prediction Step (using IMU and previous state):

# Assuming X_prev is the state vector at t-1, P_prev is the covariance matrix
# dt is the time step
# u_imu = [ax_imu, ay_imu, omega_imu] from IMU measurements # Predict the next state (non-linear motion model)
# X_pred = f(X_prev, u_imu, dt)
# Example (simplified kinematics for constant velocity between updates):
x_pred = X_prev[0] + X_prev[3] cos(X_prev[2]) dt
y_pred = X_prev[1] + X_prev[4] sin(X_prev[2]) dt
theta_pred = X_prev[2] + X_prev[5] dt # Apply IMU omega here, or use IMU's raw omega directly
vx_pred = X_prev[3] + u_imu[0] dt # Apply IMU linear acceleration
vy_pred = X_prev[4] + u_imu[1] dt
omega_pred = u_imu[2] # Use current IMU angular velocity X_pred = [x_pred, y_pred, theta_pred, vx_pred, vy_pred, omega_pred] # Calculate Jacobian of the system model (F_k)
# Update predicted covariance matrix: P_pred = F_k P_prev F_k.T + Q (process noise)

2. EKF Update Step (using Odometry measurement):

# z_odom = [x_odom, y_odom, theta_odom] from odometry sensor
# H_k is the Jacobian of the measurement model (maps state to measurement space)
# R_k is the measurement noise covariance # Predict measurement from current state: h(X_pred)
# Example (assuming odometry directly measures x, y, theta from state):
z_pred = [X_pred[0], X_pred[1], X_pred[2]] # Calculate innovation (measurement residual): y_k = z_odom - z_pred
# Calculate Kalman Gain: K = P_pred H_k.T inv(H_k P_pred H_k.T + R_k) # Update state: X_updated = X_pred + K y_k
# Update covariance: P_updated = (I - K H_k) P_pred

This pseudo-code demonstrates the iterative predict-update cycle, where the IMU continuously updates the predicted state, and odometry corrects it with new measurements. The covariance matrices P, Q, and R are crucial for determining the uncertainty and how much each sensor’s input is trusted.

Practical Use Cases

1. Autonomous Driving:

   • Sensors:LiDAR (3D mapping, obstacle detection), Cameras (object classification, lane detection, traffic signs), Radar (long-range detection, velocity, adverse weather), GPS (global localization), IMU (dead reckoning, orientation).
   • Fusion Goal:Create a robust, high-resolution, and accurate perception of the surroundings, track dynamic objects, localize the vehicle within a map, and predict future trajectories.
   • Techniques:EKF/UKF for localization (GPS + IMU + Wheel Odometry), Grid-based fusion for occupancy mapping (LiDAR + Radar), Deep learning for object detection and tracking (Camera + LiDAR point cloud semantic segmentation).

2. Mobile Robot Navigation (SLAM):

   • Sensors:LiDAR (range scans for mapping), Wheel Encoders (odometry), IMU (orientation, short-term motion).
   • Fusion Goal:Simultaneously build a map of an unknown environment while precisely tracking the robot’s position within that map (SLAM).
   • Techniques:Graph SLAM, Particle Filters (e.g., Monte Carlo Localization for global localization in known maps), EKF/UKF-based SLAM (for smaller environments or feature-based SLAM). Fusing LiDAR scans with odometry and IMU data significantly improves map consistency and localization accuracy, especially in feature-poor environments.

3. Drone Stability and Control:

   • Sensors:IMU (attitude, angular velocity, acceleration), GPS (position), Barometer (altitude), Magnetometer (yaw correction).
   • Fusion Goal:Achieve stable flight, accurate hovering, and precise waypoint navigation despite external disturbances (wind).
   • Techniques:Complementary Filters or Kalman Filters are commonly used to fuse IMU data with GPS and barometer readings to obtain stable estimates of attitude, velocity, and position. The fast IMU data provides quick corrections, while the slower but accurate GPS/barometer data corrects drift.

Best Practices

• Sensor Calibration:Absolutely critical. Intrinsic calibration (e.g., camera lens distortion, IMU bias) and extrinsic calibration (relative pose between sensors) must be performed meticulously. Poor calibration will lead to systematic errors that fusion cannot overcome.
• Time Synchronization:All sensor data must be time-synchronized to a common clock. Delays or asynchronous data can lead to corrupted fusion results. ROS’s tf (Transform Library) and message_filters are vital here.
• Data Validation and Outlier Rejection:Implement mechanisms to detect and reject erroneous sensor readings (outliers). Techniques like Mahalanobis distance, RANSAC (Random Sample Consensus), or simple thresholding can prevent bad data from corrupting the state estimate.
• Covariance Management:Accurately modeling sensor noise and process noise (covariance matrices R and Q in Kalman filters) is paramount. Realistic noise parameters ensure the fusion algorithm correctly weights each piece of information.
• Modular Design:Design fusion modules to be interchangeable and configurable. This allows for easier testing of different fusion algorithms or sensor configurations.

Common Patterns

• Early vs. Late Fusion:
  • Early Fusion (Low-level):Raw sensor data (e.g., LiDAR points, camera pixels) is merged at an early stage. This can lead to richer, more detailed environmental representations but is computationally intensive and susceptible to noise propagation if not handled carefully.
  • Late Fusion (High-level):Processed information (e.g., detected objects, estimated poses) from individual sensors is merged. Simpler to implement, more robust to individual sensor failures, but may lose fine-grained details present in raw data.
• Centralized vs. Decentralized Fusion:
  • Centralized:All raw sensor data is sent to a single processing unit for fusion. Offers optimal performance if all data is available reliably, but can be a single point of failure and bottleneck.
  • Decentralized:Fusion occurs at local sensor nodes, and only processed local estimates are shared and fused at a higher level. More robust, scalable, and distributed but might suffer from sub-optimality due to information loss during local processing.

By understanding these examples, practices, and patterns, developers can move beyond theoretical knowledge to implement highly effective sensor fusion systems that bring robust perception and intelligence to autonomous robots.

Beyond Single Senses: Why Fusion Outperforms

While individual sensors provide valuable insights, relying on a single sensory input for autonomous robotics is akin to navigating the world with one eye closed. It introduces significant vulnerabilities and limitations that sensor fusion is specifically designed to overcome. Understanding these contrasts highlights why fusion isn’t just an improvement, but often a necessity.

The Perils of Single-Sensor Reliance

Consider a robot operating solely with a:

• Camera:Excellent for recognizing objects and reading signs, but struggles immensely in low light, direct sunlight glare, fog, or heavy rain. It also lacks direct depth perception, requiring complex algorithms to infer 3D structure. Its perception is purely passive.
• LiDAR:Provides precise 3D geometry and excellent mapping capabilities. However, LiDAR can be severely hampered by fog, heavy rain, or snow, where laser beams scatter. It’s also typically poor at distinguishing colors or textures, making object classification challenging.
• Radar:excels at long-range detection and velocity estimation, penetrating fog and rain. Yet, it suffers from low angular resolution, meaning it struggles to precisely locate objects or distinguish between closely spaced ones. It provides sparse data compared to LiDAR or cameras.
• IMU:Provides high-frequency, responsive data about acceleration and angular velocity, crucial for immediate motion tracking. The critical drawback is drift: small errors accumulate rapidly over time, leading to significant positional inaccuracies without external corrections.
• GPS:Offers accurate global positioning in open sky. However, its signal can be easily blocked or reflected in urban canyons, tunnels, or indoors, leading to complete signal loss or severe inaccuracies (multipath errors). It also updates at a relatively low frequency.

In each scenario, a single sensor leaves the robot vulnerable to specific environmental conditions, sensor failures, or inherent data limitations. This leads to fragility, limited operational domains, and an inability to adapt to dynamic, unpredictable environments—all unacceptable for safety-critical autonomous applications.

“Brute Force” Data Processing (without Intelligent Fusion)

An alternative to sophisticated fusion might appear to be simply processing all sensor data independently and then making decisions. However, this approach often leads to:

• Inconsistent World Models:Each sensor provides its own view of the world, often with discrepancies. Without a systematic way to reconcile these, the robot’s understanding becomes fragmented and contradictory.
• Higher Error Rates:Redundancy is key. If one sensor provides a faulty reading, an independent system might act on it, whereas a fused system would likely identify it as an outlier due to conflicting information from other sources.
• Computational Inefficiency:Processing redundant or inconsistent data streams without a unifying framework can lead to wasted computational cycles and less optimized decision-making.
• Lack of Robustness:The system cannot gracefully degrade or adapt when a sensor fails or performs poorly. It lacks the redundancy and complementary strengths that fusion provides.

When to Embrace Sensor Fusion

Sensor fusion isn’t just about combining data; it’s about leveraging the complementary strengths and redundancyof different sensors to achieve a state estimate that is:

• More Accurate:By combining precise (but drift-prone) IMU data with less frequent (but absolute) GPS, a much more accurate and stable pose can be achieved.
• More Robust:If a camera is blinded by glare, LiDAR and radar can still provide obstacle detection. If GPS is lost, IMU and odometry can maintain dead reckoning for a period. This graceful degradation is crucial for safety.
• More Comprehensive: Fusing camera’s semantic information with LiDAR’s geometric data enables a robot to not just detect an object, but to understand what it is and where it is in 3D space.
• More Reliable:Conflicting readings can be identified and often resolved through statistical methods, reducing the impact of individual sensor noise or temporary malfunctions.

Practical Insights: When to use Sensor Fusion vs. Alternatives

• Use Sensor Fusion when:
  • High precision and accuracyare critical (e.g., surgical robots, precision agriculture).
  • Robustness to environmental variationsis required (e.g., autonomous vehicles operating in diverse weather).
  • Redundancy for safety-critical applicationsis paramount (e.g., self-driving cars, industrial co-bots).
  • Operating in complex, dynamic, or unstructured environments(e.g., outdoor navigation, search and rescue).
  • GPS-denied or degraded environmentsnecessitate alternative localization methods (e.g., indoor robotics, urban canyons).
  • Cost-effectivenessis important over the long term, as robust systems reduce downtime and improve performance.
• Single sensors might suffice (rarely for full autonomy) when:
  • The environment is highly controlled and static(e.g., a simple factory line with fixed sensors).
  • The task is extremely simple and specific(e.g., a line-following robot with IR sensors).
  • Cost constraints are absolute, and the performance/safety requirements are minimal.
  • Exploratory prototypingof a single sensor’s capability is the sole objective.

In essence, sensor fusion moves autonomous robotics from merely reacting to the immediate sensory input to building a coherent, reliable, and continuous model of its world, allowing for truly intelligent and safe decision-making.

The Future is Fused: Building Smarter Autonomous Systems

The journey into sensor fusion techniques for autonomous robotics reveals a field that is both technically challenging and immensely rewarding. We’ve explored how combining disparate sensor data streams – from the visual richness of cameras to the precise geometry of LiDAR, the long-range resilience of radar, and the immediate responsiveness of IMUs – creates a perception system far superior to any single sensor operating in isolation. This “sixth sense” is the bedrock upon which reliable, safe, and truly intelligent autonomous behavior is built.

For developers, understanding the principles of state estimation, mastering tools like ROS and specialized libraries, and adhering to best practices like meticulous calibration and time synchronization are not just good habits; they are essential for building the next generation of robotic systems. We’ve seen how Kalman filters, Extended Kalman filters, and more advanced probabilistic techniques allow robots to weigh noisy measurements, predict their future states, and continuously refine their understanding of a dynamic world. From navigating city streets to exploring unknown terrains, sensor fusion is the algorithmic glue that holds robotic autonomy together.

Looking ahead, the landscape of sensor fusion is poised for even greater innovation. Advances in machine learning and deep learning are increasingly being integrated into fusion pipelines, moving beyond traditional filters to data-driven approaches that can learn complex correlations and predict states with unprecedented accuracy. The emergence of new sensor modalities, coupled with ever-increasing computational power, will further enhance the robustness and capabilities of autonomous platforms. Furthermore, the development of more sophisticated, hardware-agnostic fusion frameworks will simplify the integration process, allowing developers to focus more on intelligent decision-making and less on low-level data wrangling.

To those diving into this exciting domain, the message is clear: embrace the complexity, leverage the powerful tools available, and commit to continuous learning. The ability to craft systems that perceive their world with clarity and confidence is not just a technical skill; it’s a contribution to a future where autonomous robots seamlessly integrate into our lives, performing tasks that enhance safety, efficiency, and discovery. The future of autonomous systems is undeniably fused, and developers are at the forefront of shaping that reality.

Your Sensor Fusion Questions Answered

Why is sensor fusion critical for autonomous robots?

Sensor fusion is critical because it overcomes the limitations of individual sensors. Every sensor has inherent weaknesses (e.g., cameras in low light, LiDAR in fog, IMU drift). By combining data from multiple sensors, fusion provides a more accurate, robust, and comprehensive understanding of the environment and the robot’s state, essential for safe and reliable autonomous operation.

What’s the main challenge in implementing sensor fusion?

One of the main challenges is ensuring accurate time synchronization across all sensor data streams. If sensor measurements arrive at different times and are not properly aligned, the fused output will be incorrect and unreliable. Other significant challenges include sensor calibration, managing sensor noise, and selecting the appropriate fusion algorithm for the specific application and sensor types.

Can I use machine learning for sensor fusion?

Absolutely. Machine learning (ML), particularly deep learning, is increasingly being used for sensor fusion. ML models can learn complex non-linear relationships between sensor inputs and generate highly accurate state estimates or environmental perceptions. Examples include using neural networks to fuse camera and LiDAR data for object detection and tracking, or employing recurrent neural networks for state estimation from time-series sensor data. While traditional filters like Kalman and Particle filters are still fundamental, ML offers powerful alternatives and complements.

What’s the difference between EKF and UKF?

Both Extended Kalman Filters (EKF) and Unscented Kalman Filters (UKF) are used for non-linear state estimation. The EKF linearizes the non-linear system and measurement models around the current state estimate using Jacobian matrices. This linearization can introduce errors if the models are highly non-linear. The UKF, conversely, avoids explicit linearization by using a deterministic sampling technique called the Unscented Transform. It propagates a set of carefully chosen sample points (sigma points) through the non-linear functions, capturing the true mean and covariance more accurately, especially for highly non-linear systems, generally leading to better performance at a higher computational cost than EKF.

How do I handle time synchronization in sensor fusion?

Time synchronization involves ensuring all sensor measurements are referenced to a common time base. In ROS, this is typically handled by setting the use_sim_time parameter for simulated environments or using network time protocol (NTP) for real hardware. Developers also use message_filters in ROS to synchronize messages from different topics based on their timestamps, allowing fusion algorithms to process spatially and temporally aligned data. Hardware-level solutions often involve a centralized clock or precise time-stamping at the sensor level.

Essential Technical Terms Defined:

1. Kalman Filter (KF):A recursive statistical algorithm that estimates the state of a dynamic system from a series of incomplete and noisy measurements. It predicts the next state and then updates this prediction based on actual measurements, providing an optimal estimate in the presence of Gaussian noise.
2. SLAM (Simultaneous Localization and Mapping):A computational problem for a robot or mobile agent to build a map of an unknown environment while simultaneously keeping track of its own location within that map. Sensor fusion, particularly involving LiDAR, cameras, and IMUs, is fundamental to SLAM.
3. IMU (Inertial Measurement Unit):An electronic device that measures and reports a body’s specific force, angular rate, and sometimes the magnetic field surrounding the body. It typically comprises accelerometers and gyroscopes (and often magnetometers) to track motion and orientation.
4. Odometry:The use of data from motion sensors (like wheel encoders or visual processing of camera images) to estimate the change in position and orientation of a robot over time. It provides relative pose updates but is prone to drift errors.
5. LiDAR (Light Detection and Ranging):A remote sensing method that uses pulsed laser light to measure distances to the Earth’s surface, objects, or features. It generates highly accurate 3D point clouds, crucial for mapping, obstacle detection, and localization in autonomous robotics.

Published on November 16, 2025