Cited by 24Reinforcement Learning in RoboticsRobot Manipulation and LearningMultisensory perception and integration

Detect, Reject, Correct: Crossmodal Compensation of Corrupted Sensors

Open access
Lee, Michelle A., Tan, Matthew, Zhu, Yuke, Bohg, Jeannette·2021·2021 IEEE International Conference on Robotics and Automation (ICRA)

Abstract

Using sensor data from multiple modalities presents an opportunity to encode redundant and complementary features that can be useful when one modality is corrupted or noisy. Humans do this everyday, relying on touch and proprioceptive feedback in visually-challenging environments. However, robots might not always know when their sensors are corrupted, as even broken sensors can return valid values. In this work, we introduce the Crossmodal Compensation Model (CCM), which can detect corrupted sensor modalities and compensate for them. CMM is a representation model learned with self-supervision that leverages unimodal reconstruction loss for corruption detection. CCM then discards the corrupted modality and compensates for it with information from the remaining sensors. We show that CCM learns rich state representations that can be used for manipulation policies learned with reinforcement learning, even when input modalities are corrupted during policy rollout in ways not seen during training.

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1109/icra48506.2021.9561847

Cites

39 of 39 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Claims the paper makes

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Claims other papers make about this one

Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?

  • Approaches for improving robustness modify the objective function to account for robustness to noisy or missing modalities.

    “These approaches modify the objective function to account for robustness to noisy [101] or missing [89, 111, 123] modalities.”

Self-check

Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.

The self-check needs the paper’s full text.

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

2 of the 41 references couldn’t be matched to a known paper.

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Lee, M. A., Tan, M., Zhu, Y., & Bohg, J.
Affiliations
  • Stanford University (US)
  • The University of Texas at Austin (US)
Venue
2021 IEEE International Conference on Robotics and Automation (ICRA)
Publisher
IEEE
Published
2021-05-30
Pages
909-916
ISSN
1050-4729 (ISSN-L)
OpenAlex
W3107906842
Cited by
24
References
41
Citations by year
2026: 1 · 2025: 4 · 2024: 5 · 2023: 7 · 2022: 3 · 2021: 4
FWCI
2.19
Type
conference paper
Language
en
Open access
Locations
  • Proceedings - IEEE International Conference on Robotics and Automation/Proceedings (publishedVersion)
  • arXiv (Cornell University) (submittedVersion, cc-by)
  • arXiv (Cornell University) (submittedVersion)
  • arXiv (Cornell University) (cc-by)
Funders
National Science Foundation (1955523)
Topics
  • Physical Sciences › Computer Science › Artificial Intelligence › Reinforcement Learning in Robotics
  • Physical Sciences › Engineering › Control and Systems Engineering › Robot Manipulation and Learning
  • Social Sciences › Psychology › Experimental and Cognitive Psychology › Multisensory perception and integration
Keywords
multimodal sensor fusion, self-supervised learning, robotic manipulation, robust reinforcement learning, state representation learning

About these checks

Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.

Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.

Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.

What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›

Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review