Hubbry Logo
RoboticsRoboticsMain
Open search
Robotics
Community hub
Robotics
logo
8 pages, 0 posts
0 subscribers
Be the first to start a discussion here.
Be the first to start a discussion here.
Robotics
Robotics
from Wikipedia

Roboticists with three Mars rover robots. Front and center is the flight spare for the first Mars rover, Sojourner, which landed on Mars in 1997 as part of the Mars Pathfinder Project. On the left is a Mars Exploration Rover (MER) test vehicle that is a working sibling to Spirit and Opportunity, which landed on Mars in 2004. On the right is a test rover for the Mars Science Laboratory, which landed Curiosity on Mars in 2012.

Robotics is the interdisciplinary study and practice of the design, construction, operation, and use of robots.[1]

Within mechanical engineering, robotics is the design and construction of the physical structures of robots, while in computer science, robotics focuses on robotic automation algorithms. Other disciplines contributing to robotics include electrical, control, software, information, electronic, telecommunication, computer, mechatronic, and materials engineering.

The goal of most robotics is to design machines that can help and assist humans. Many robots are built to do jobs that are hazardous to people, such as finding survivors in unstable ruins, and exploring space, mines and shipwrecks. Others replace people in jobs that are boring, repetitive, or unpleasant, such as cleaning, monitoring, transporting, and assembling. Today, robotics is a rapidly growing field, as technological advances continue; researching, designing, and building new robots serve various practical purposes.

Robotics aspects

[edit]
Mechanical aspect
Electrical aspect
Software aspect

Robotics usually combines three aspects of design work to create robot systems:

  1. Mechanical construction: a frame, form or shape designed to achieve a particular task. For example, a robot designed to travel across heavy dirt or mud might use caterpillar tracks. Origami inspired robots can sense and analyze in extreme environments.[2] The mechanical aspect of the robot is mostly the creator's solution to completing the assigned task and dealing with the physics of the environment around it. Form follows function.
  2. Electrical components that power and control the machinery. For example, the robot with caterpillar tracks would need some kind of power to move the tracker treads. That power comes in the form of electricity, which will have to travel through a wire and originate from a battery, a basic electrical circuit. Even petrol-powered machines that get their power mainly from petrol still require an electric current to start the combustion process which is why most petrol-powered machines like cars, have batteries. The electrical aspect of robots is used for movement (through motors), sensing (where electrical signals are used to measure things like heat, sound, position, and energy status), and operation (robots need some level of electrical energy supplied to their motors and sensors in order to activate and perform basic operations)
  3. Software. A program is how a robot decides when or how to do something. In the caterpillar track example, a robot that needs to move across a muddy road may have the correct mechanical construction and receive the correct amount of power from its battery, but would not be able to go anywhere without a program telling it to move. Programs are the core essence of a robot, it could have excellent mechanical and electrical construction, but if its program is poorly structured, its performance will be very poor (or it may not perform at all). There are three different types of robotic programs: remote control, artificial intelligence, and hybrid. A robot with remote control programming has a preexisting set of commands that it will only perform if and when it receives a signal from a control source, typically a human being with remote control. It is perhaps more appropriate to view devices controlled primarily by human commands as falling in the discipline of automation rather than robotics. Robots that use artificial intelligence interact with their environment on their own without a control source, and can determine reactions to objects and problems they encounter using their preexisting programming. A hybrid is a form of programming that incorporates both AI and RC functions in them.[3]


Applied robotics

[edit]

As many robots are designed for specific tasks, this method of classification becomes more relevant. For example, many robots are designed for assembly work, which may not be readily adaptable for other applications. They are termed "assembly robots". For seam welding, some suppliers provide complete welding systems with the robot i.e. the welding equipment along with other material handling facilities like turntables, etc. as an integrated unit. Such an integrated robotic system is called a "welding robot" even though its discrete manipulator unit could be adapted to a variety of tasks. Some robots are specifically designed for heavy load manipulation, and are labeled as "heavy-duty robots".[4]

Current and potential applications include:

Mechanical robotics areas

[edit]

Power source

[edit]
The InSight lander with solar panels deployed in a cleanroom

At present, mostly (lead–acid) batteries are used as a power source. Many different types of batteries can be used as a power source for robots. They range from lead–acid batteries, which are safe and have relatively long shelf lives but are rather heavy compared to silver–cadmium batteries which are much smaller in volume and are currently much more expensive. Designing a battery-powered robot needs to take into account factors such as safety, cycle lifetime, and weight. Generators, often some type of internal combustion engine, can also be used. However, such designs are often mechanically complex and need fuel, require heat dissipation, and are relatively heavy. A tether connecting the robot to a power supply would remove the power supply from the robot entirely. This has the advantage of saving weight and space by moving all power generation and storage components elsewhere. However, this design does come with the drawback of constantly having a cable connected to the robot, which can be difficult to manage.[16] Potential power sources could be:

Actuation

[edit]
A robotic leg powered by air muscles

Actuators are the "muscles" of a robot, the parts which convert stored energy into movement.[17] By far the most popular actuators are electric motors that rotate a wheel or gear, and linear actuators that control industrial robots in factories. There are some recent advances in alternative types of actuators, powered by electricity, chemicals, or compressed air.

Electric motors

[edit]

The vast majority of robots use electric motors, often brushed and brushless DC motors in portable robots or AC motors in industrial robots and CNC machines. These motors are often preferred in systems with lighter loads, and where the predominant form of motion is rotational.

Linear actuators

[edit]

Various types of linear actuators move in and out instead of by spinning, and often have quicker direction changes, particularly when very large forces are needed such as with industrial robotics. They are typically powered by compressed air (pneumatic actuator) or an oil (hydraulic actuator) Linear actuators can also be powered by electricity which usually consists of a motor and a leadscrew. Another common type is a mechanical linear actuator such as a rack and pinion on a car.

Series elastic actuators

[edit]

Series elastic actuation (SEA) relies on the idea of introducing intentional elasticity between the motor actuator and the load for robust force control. Due to the resultant lower reflected inertia, series elastic actuation improves safety when a robot interacts with the environment (e.g., humans or workpieces) or during collisions.[18] Furthermore, it also provides energy efficiency and shock absorption (mechanical filtering) while reducing excessive wear on the transmission and other mechanical components. This approach has successfully been employed in various robots, particularly advanced manufacturing robots[19] and walking humanoid robots.[20][21]

The controller design of a series elastic actuator is most often performed within the passivity framework as it ensures the safety of interaction with unstructured environments.[22] Despite its remarkable stability and robustness, this framework suffers from the stringent limitations imposed on the controller which may trade-off performance. The reader is referred to the following survey which summarizes the common controller architectures for SEA along with the corresponding sufficient passivity conditions.[23] One recent study has derived the necessary and sufficient passivity conditions for one of the most common impedance control architectures, namely velocity-sourced SEA.[24] This work is of particular importance as it drives the non-conservative passivity bounds in an SEA scheme for the first time which allows a larger selection of control gains.

Air muscles

[edit]

Pneumatic artificial muscles also known as air muscles, are special tubes that expand (typically up to 42%) when air is forced inside them. They are used in some robot applications.[25][26][27]

Wire muscles

[edit]

Muscle wire, also known as shape memory alloy, is a material that contracts (under 5%) when electricity is applied. They have been used for some small robot applications.[28][29]

Electroactive polymers

[edit]

EAPs or EPAMs are a plastic material that can contract substantially (up to 380% activation strain) from electricity, and have been used in facial muscles and arms of humanoid robots,[30] and to enable new robots to float,[31] fly, swim or walk.[32]

Piezo motors

[edit]

Recent alternatives to DC motors are piezo motors or ultrasonic motors. These work on a fundamentally different principle, whereby tiny piezoceramic elements, vibrating many thousands of times per second, cause linear or rotary motion. There are different mechanisms of operation; one type uses the vibration of the piezo elements to step the motor in a circle or a straight line.[33] Another type uses the piezo elements to cause a nut to vibrate or to drive a screw. The advantages of these motors are nanometer resolution, speed, and available force for their size.[34] These motors are already available commercially and being used on some robots.[35][36]

Elastic nanotubes

[edit]

Elastic nanotubes are a promising artificial muscle technology in early-stage experimental development. The absence of defects in carbon nanotubes enables these filaments to deform elastically by several percent, with energy storage levels of perhaps 10 J/cm3 for metal nanotubes. Human biceps could be replaced with an 8 mm diameter wire of this material. Such compact "muscle" might allow future robots to outrun and outjump humans.[37]

Sensing

[edit]

Sensors allow robots to receive information about a certain measurement of the environment, or internal components. This is essential for robots to perform their tasks, and act upon any changes in the environment to calculate the appropriate response. They are used for various forms of measurements, to give the robots warnings about safety or malfunctions, and to provide real-time information about the task it is performing.

Touch

[edit]

Current robotic and prosthetic hands receive far less tactile information than the human hand. Recent research has developed a tactile sensor array that mimics the mechanical properties and touch receptors of human fingertips.[38][39] The sensor array is constructed as a rigid core surrounded by conductive fluid contained by an elastomeric skin. Electrodes are mounted on the surface of the rigid core and are connected to an impedance-measuring device within the core. When the artificial skin touches an object the fluid path around the electrodes is deformed, producing impedance changes that map the forces received from the object. The researchers expect that an important function of such artificial fingertips will be adjusting the robotic grip on held objects.

Scientists from several European countries and Israel developed a prosthetic hand in 2009, called SmartHand, which functions like a real one —allowing patients to write with it, type on a keyboard, play piano, and perform other fine movements. The prosthesis has sensors which enable the patient to sense real feelings in its fingertips.[40]

Other

[edit]

Other common forms of sensing in robotics use lidar, radar, and sonar.[41] Lidar measures the distance to a target by illuminating the target with laser light and measuring the reflected light with a sensor. Radar uses radio waves to determine the range, angle, or velocity of objects. Sonar uses sound propagation to navigate, communicate with or detect objects on or under the surface of the water.

Mechanical grippers

[edit]

One of the most common types of end-effectors are "grippers". In its simplest manifestation, it consists of just two fingers that can open and close to pick up and let go of a range of small objects. Fingers can, for example, be made of a chain with a metal wire running through it.[42] Hands that resemble and work more like a human hand include the Shadow Hand and the Robonaut hand.[43] Hands that are of a mid-level complexity include the Delft hand.[44][45] Mechanical grippers can come in various types, including friction and encompassing jaws. Friction jaws use all the force of the gripper to hold the object in place using friction. Encompassing jaws cradle the object in place, using less friction.

Suction end-effectors

[edit]

Suction end-effectors, powered by vacuum generators, are very simple astrictive[46] devices that can hold very large loads provided the prehension surface is smooth enough to ensure suction.

Pick and place robots for electronic components and for large objects like car windscreens, often use very simple vacuum end-effectors.

Suction is a highly used type of end-effector in industry, in part because the natural compliance of soft suction end-effectors can enable a robot to be more robust in the presence of imperfect robotic perception. As an example: consider the case of a robot vision system that estimates the position of a water bottle but has 1 centimeter of error. While this may cause a rigid mechanical gripper to puncture the water bottle, the soft suction end-effector may just bend slightly and conform to the shape of the water bottle surface.

General purpose effectors

[edit]

Some advanced robots are beginning to use fully humanoid hands, like the Shadow Hand, MANUS,[47] and the Schunk hand.[48] They have powerful Robot Dexterity Intelligence (RDI), with as many as 20 degrees of freedom and hundreds of tactile sensors.[49]

Control robotics areas

[edit]
Puppet Magnus, a robot-manipulated marionette with complex control systems
Experimental planar robot arm and sensor-based, open-architecture robot controller
RuBot II can manually resolve Rubik's cubes.

The mechanical structure of a robot must be controlled to perform tasks.[50] The control of a robot involves three distinct phases – perception, processing, and action (robotic paradigms).[51] Sensors give information about the environment or the robot itself (e.g. the position of its joints or its end effector). This information is then processed to be stored or transmitted and to calculate the appropriate signals to the actuators (motors), which move the mechanical structure to achieve the required co-ordinated motion or force actions.

The processing phase can range in complexity. At a reactive level, it may translate raw sensor information directly into actuator commands (e.g. firing motor power electronic gates based directly upon encoder feedback signals to achieve the required torque/velocity of the shaft). Sensor fusion and internal models may first be used to estimate parameters of interest (e.g. the position of the robot's gripper) from noisy sensor data. An immediate task (such as moving the gripper in a certain direction until an object is detected with a proximity sensor) is sometimes inferred from these estimates. Techniques from control theory are generally used to convert the higher-level tasks into individual commands that drive the actuators, most often using kinematic and dynamic models of the mechanical structure.[50][51][52]

At longer time scales or with more sophisticated tasks, the robot may need to build and reason with a "cognitive" model. Cognitive models try to represent the robot, the world, and how the two interact. Pattern recognition and computer vision can be used to track objects.[50] Mapping techniques can be used to build maps of the world. Finally, motion planning and other artificial intelligence techniques may be used to figure out how to act. For example, a planner may figure out how to achieve a task without hitting obstacles, falling over, etc.

Modern commercial robotic control systems are highly complex, integrate multiple sensors and effectors, have many interacting degrees-of-freedom (DOF) and require operator interfaces, programming tools and real-time capabilities.[51] They are oftentimes interconnected to wider communication networks and in many cases are now both IoT-enabled and mobile.[53] Progress towards open architecture, layered, user-friendly and 'intelligent' sensor-based interconnected robots has emerged from earlier concepts related to Flexible Manufacturing Systems (FMS), and several 'open or 'hybrid' reference architectures exist which assist developers of robot control software and hardware to move beyond traditional, earlier notions of 'closed' robot control systems have been proposed.[52] Open architecture controllers are said to be better able to meet the growing requirements of a wide range of robot users, including system developers, end users and research scientists, and are better positioned to deliver the advanced robotic concepts related to Industry 4.0.[52] In addition to utilizing many established features of robot controllers, such as position, velocity and force control of end effectors, they also enable IoT interconnection and the implementation of more advanced sensor fusion and control techniques, including adaptive control, Fuzzy control and Artificial Neural Network (ANN)-based control.[52] When implemented in real-time, such techniques can potentially improve the stability and performance of robots operating in unknown or uncertain environments by enabling the control systems to learn and adapt to environmental changes.[54] There are several examples of reference architectures for robot controllers, and also examples of successful implementations of actual robot controllers developed from them. One example of a generic reference architecture and associated interconnected, open-architecture robot and controller implementation was used in a number of research and development studies, including prototype implementation of novel advanced and intelligent control and environment mapping methods in real-time.[54][55]

Manipulation

[edit]
KUKA industrial robot operating in a foundry
Puma, one of the first industrial robots
Baxter, a modern and versatile industrial robot developed by Rodney Brooks
Lefty, first checker playing robot

A definition of robotic manipulation has been provided by Matt Mason as: "manipulation refers to an agent's control of its environment through selective contact".[56]

Robots need to manipulate objects; pick up, modify, destroy, move or otherwise have an effect. Thus the functional end of a robot arm intended to make the effect (whether a hand, or tool) are often referred to as end effectors,[57] while the "arm" is referred to as a manipulator.[58] Most robot arms have replaceable end-effectors, each allowing them to perform some small range of tasks. Some have a fixed manipulator that cannot be replaced, while a few have one very general-purpose manipulator, for example, a humanoid hand.[59]

Locomotion

[edit]

Rolling robots

[edit]
Segway in the Robot museum in Nagoya

For simplicity, most mobile robots have four wheels or a number of continuous tracks. Some researchers have tried to create more complex wheeled robots with only one or two wheels. These can have certain advantages such as greater efficiency and reduced parts, as well as allowing a robot to navigate in confined places that a four-wheeled robot would not be able to.

Two-wheeled balancing robots
[edit]

Balancing robots generally use a gyroscope to detect how much a robot is falling and then drive the wheels proportionally in the same direction, to counterbalance the fall at hundreds of times per second, based on the dynamics of an inverted pendulum.[60] Many different balancing robots have been designed.[61] While the Segway is not commonly thought of as a robot, it can be thought of as a component of a robot, when used as such Segway refer to them as RMP (Robotic Mobility Platform). An example of this use has been as NASA's Robonaut that has been mounted on a Segway.[62]

One-wheeled balancing robots
[edit]

A one-wheeled balancing robot is an extension of a two-wheeled balancing robot so that it can move in any 2D direction using a round ball as its only wheel. Several one-wheeled balancing robots have been designed recently, such as Carnegie Mellon University's "Ballbot" which is the approximate height and width of a person, and Tohoku Gakuin University's "BallIP".[63] Because of the long, thin shape and ability to maneuver in tight spaces, they have the potential to function better than other robots in environments with people.[64]

Spherical orb robots
[edit]

Several attempts have been made in robots that are completely inside a spherical ball, either by spinning a weight inside the ball,[65][66] or by rotating the outer shells of the sphere.[67][68] These have also been referred to as an orb bot[69] or a ball bot.[70][71]

Six-wheeled robots
[edit]

Using six wheels instead of four wheels can give better traction or grip in outdoor terrain such as on rocky dirt or grass.

Tracked robots
[edit]

Tracks provide even more traction than a six-wheeled robot. Tracked wheels behave as if they were made of hundreds of wheels, therefore are very common for outdoor off-road robots, where the robot must drive on very rough terrain. However, they are difficult to use indoors such as on carpets and smooth floors. Examples include NASA's Urban Robot "Urbie".[72]

Walking robots

[edit]

Walking is a difficult and dynamic problem to solve. Several robots have been made which can walk reliably on two legs, however, none have yet been made which are as robust as a human. There has been much study on human-inspired walking, such as AMBER lab which was established in 2008 by the Mechanical Engineering Department at Texas A&M University.[73] Many other robots have been built that walk on more than two legs, due to these robots being significantly easier to construct.[74][75] Walking robots can be used for uneven terrains, which would provide better mobility and energy efficiency than other locomotion methods. Typically, robots on two legs can walk well on flat floors and can occasionally walk up stairs. None can walk over rocky, uneven terrain. Some of the methods which have been tried are:

ZMP technique
[edit]

The zero moment point (ZMP) is the algorithm used by robots such as Honda's ASIMO. The robot's onboard computer tries to keep the total inertial forces (the combination of Earth's gravity and the acceleration and deceleration of walking), exactly opposed by the floor reaction force (the force of the floor pushing back on the robot's foot). In this way, the two forces cancel out, leaving no moment (force causing the robot to rotate and fall over).[76] However, this is not exactly how a human walks, and the difference is obvious to human observers, some of whom have pointed out that ASIMO walks as if it needs the lavatory.[77][78][79] ASIMO's walking algorithm is not static, and some dynamic balancing is used (see below). However, it still requires a smooth surface to walk on.

Hopping
[edit]

Several robots, built in the 1980s by Marc Raibert at the MIT Leg Laboratory, successfully demonstrated very dynamic walking. Initially, a robot with only one leg, and a very small foot could stay upright simply by hopping. The movement is the same as that of a person on a pogo stick. As the robot falls to one side, it would jump slightly in that direction, in order to catch itself.[80] Soon, the algorithm was generalised to two and four legs. A bipedal robot was demonstrated running and even performing somersaults.[81] A quadruped was also demonstrated which could trot, run, pace, and bound.[82] For a full list of these robots, see the MIT Leg Lab Robots page.[83]

Dynamic balancing (controlled falling)
[edit]

A more advanced way for a robot to walk is by using a dynamic balancing algorithm, which is potentially more robust than the Zero Moment Point technique, as it constantly monitors the robot's motion, and places the feet in order to maintain stability.[84] This technique was recently demonstrated by Anybots' Dexter Robot,[85] which is so stable, it can even jump.[86] Another example is the TU Delft Flame.

Passive dynamics
[edit]

Perhaps the most promising approach uses passive dynamics where the momentum of swinging limbs is used for greater efficiency. It has been shown that totally unpowered humanoid mechanisms can walk down a gentle slope, using only gravity to propel themselves. Using this technique, a robot need only supply a small amount of motor power to walk along a flat surface or a little more to walk up a hill. This technique promises to make walking robots at least ten times more efficient than ZMP walkers, like ASIMO.[87][88]

Flying

[edit]

A modern passenger airliner is essentially a flying robot, with two humans to manage it. The autopilot can control the plane for each stage of the journey, including takeoff, normal flight, and even landing.[89] Other flying robots are uninhabited and are known as unmanned aerial vehicles (UAVs). They can be smaller and lighter without a human pilot on board, and fly into dangerous territory for military surveillance missions. Some can even fire on targets under command. UAVs are also being developed which can fire on targets automatically, without the need for a command from a human. Other flying robots include cruise missiles, the Entomopter, and the Epson micro helicopter robot. Robots such as the Air Penguin, Air Ray, and Air Jelly have lighter-than-air bodies, are propelled by paddles, and are guided by sonar.

Biomimetic flying robots (BFRs)
[edit]
A flapping wing BFR generating lift and thrust

BFRs take inspiration from flying mammals, birds, or insects. BFRs can have flapping wings, which generate the lift and thrust, or they can be propeller actuated. BFRs with flapping wings have increased stroke efficiencies, increased maneuverability, and reduced energy consumption in comparison to propeller actuated BFRs.[90] Mammal and bird inspired BFRs share similar flight characteristics and design considerations. For instance, both mammal and bird inspired BFRs minimize edge fluttering and pressure-induced wingtip curl by increasing the rigidity of the wing edge and wingtips. Mammal and insect inspired BFRs can be impact resistant, making them useful in cluttered environments.

Mammal inspired BFRs typically take inspiration from bats, but the flying squirrel has also inspired a prototype.[91] Examples of bat inspired BFRs include Bat Bot[92] and the DALER.[93] Mammal inspired BFRs can be designed to be multi-modal; therefore, they're capable of both flight and terrestrial movement. To reduce the impact of landing, shock absorbers can be implemented along the wings.[93] Alternatively, the BFR can pitch up and increase the amount of drag it experiences.[91] By increasing the drag force, the BFR will decelerate and minimize the impact upon grounding. Different land gait patterns can also be implemented.[91]

Dragonfly inspired BFR.

Bird inspired BFRs can take inspiration from raptors, gulls, and everything in-between. Bird inspired BFRs can be feathered to increase the angle of attack range over which the prototype can operate before stalling.[94] The wings of bird inspired BFRs allow for in-plane deformation, and the in-plane wing deformation can be adjusted to maximize flight efficiency depending on the flight gait.[94] An example of a raptor inspired BFR is the prototype by Savastano et al.[95] The prototype has fully deformable flapping wings and is capable of carrying a payload of up to 0.8 kg while performing a parabolic climb, steep descent, and rapid recovery. The gull inspired prototype by Grant et al. accurately mimics the elbow and wrist rotation of gulls, and they find that lift generation is maximized when the elbow and wrist deformations are opposite but equal.[96]

Insect inspired BFRs typically take inspiration from beetles or dragonflies. An example of a beetle inspired BFR is the prototype by Phan and Park,[97] and a dragonfly inspired BFR is the prototype by Hu et al.[98] The flapping frequency of insect inspired BFRs are much higher than those of other BFRs; this is because of the aerodynamics of insect flight.[99] Insect inspired BFRs are much smaller than those inspired by mammals or birds, so they are more suitable for dense environments.

Biologically-inspired flying robots
[edit]
Visualization of entomopter flying on Mars (NASA)

A class of robots that are biologically inspired, but which do not attempt to mimic biology, are creations such as the Entomopter. Funded by DARPA, NASA, the United States Air Force, and the Georgia Tech Research Institute and patented by Prof. Robert C. Michelson for covert terrestrial missions as well as flight in the lower Mars atmosphere, the Entomopter flight propulsion system uses low Reynolds number wings similar to those of the hawk moth (Manduca sexta), but flaps them in a non-traditional "opposed x-wing fashion" while "blowing" the surface to enhance lift based on the Coandă effect as well as to control vehicle attitude and direction. Waste gas from the propulsion system not only facilitates the blown wing aerodynamics, but also serves to create ultrasonic emissions like that of a Bat for obstacle avoidance. The Entomopter and other biologically-inspired robots leverage features of biological systems, but do not attempt to create mechanical analogs.

Snaking
[edit]
Two robot snakes. The left one has 64 motors (with 2 degrees of freedom per segment), the right one 10.

Several snake robots have been successfully developed. Mimicking the way real snakes move, these robots can navigate very confined spaces, meaning they may one day be used to search for people trapped in collapsed buildings.[100] The Japanese ACM-R5 snake robot[101] can even navigate both on land and in water.[102]

Skating
[edit]

A small number of skating robots have been developed, one of which is a multi-mode walking and skating device. It has four legs, with unpowered wheels, which can either step or roll.[103] Another robot, Plen, can use a miniature skateboard or roller-skates, and skate across a desktop.[104]

Capuchin, a climbing robot
Climbing
[edit]

Several different approaches have been used to develop robots that have the ability to climb vertical surfaces. One approach mimics the movements of a human climber on a wall with protrusions; adjusting the center of mass and moving each limb in turn to gain leverage. An example of this is Capuchin,[105] built by Ruixiang Zhang at Stanford University, California. Another approach uses the specialized toe pad method of wall-climbing geckoes, which can run on smooth surfaces such as vertical glass. Examples of this approach include Wallbot[106] and Stickybot.[107]

China's Technology Daily reported on 15 November 2008, that Li Hiu Yeung and his research group of New Concept Aircraft (Zhuhai) Co., Ltd. had successfully developed a bionic gecko robot named "Speedy Freelander". According to Yeung, the gecko robot could rapidly climb up and down a variety of building walls, navigate through ground and wall fissures, and walk upside-down on the ceiling. It was also able to adapt to the surfaces of smooth glass, rough, sticky or dusty walls as well as various types of metallic materials. It could also identify and circumvent obstacles automatically. Its flexibility and speed were comparable to a natural gecko. A third approach is to mimic the motion of a snake climbing a pole.[41]

Swimming (Piscine)
[edit]

It is calculated that when swimming some fish can achieve a propulsive efficiency greater than 90%.[108] Furthermore, they can accelerate and maneuver far better than any man-made boat or submarine, and produce less noise and water disturbance. Therefore, many researchers studying underwater robots would like to copy this type of locomotion.[109] Notable examples are the Robotic Fish G9,[110] and Robot Tuna built to analyze and mathematically model thunniform motion.[111] The Aqua Penguin,[112] copies the streamlined shape and propulsion by front "flippers" of penguins. The Aqua Ray and Aqua Jelly emulate the locomotion of manta ray, and jellyfish, respectively.

Robotic Fish: iSplash-II

In 2014, iSplash-II was developed as the first robotic fish capable of outperforming real carangiform fish in terms of average maximum velocity (measured in body lengths/ second) and endurance, the duration that top speed is maintained.[113] This build attained swimming speeds of 11.6BL/s (i.e. 3.7 m/s).[114] The first build, iSplash-I (2014) was the first robotic platform to apply a full-body length carangiform swimming motion which was found to increase swimming speed by 27% over the traditional approach of a posterior confined waveform.[115]

Sailing
[edit]
The autonomous sailboat robot Vaimos

Sailboat robots have also been developed in order to make measurements at the surface of the ocean. A typical sailboat robot is Vaimos.[116] Since the propulsion of sailboat robots uses the wind, the energy of the batteries is only used for the computer, for the communication and for the actuators (to tune the rudder and the sail). If the robot is equipped with solar panels, the robot could theoretically navigate forever. The two main competitions of sailboat robots are WRSC, which takes place every year in Europe, and Sailbot.

Computational robotics areas

[edit]
TOPIO, a humanoid robot, played ping pong at Tokyo IREX 2009.[117]

Control systems may also have varying levels of autonomy.

  1. Direct interaction is used for haptic or teleoperated devices, and the human has nearly complete control over the robot's motion.
  2. Operator-assist modes have the operator commanding medium-to-high-level tasks, with the robot automatically figuring out how to achieve them.[118]
  3. An autonomous robot may go without human interaction for extended periods of time . Higher levels of autonomy do not necessarily require more complex cognitive capabilities. For example, robots in assembly plants are completely autonomous but operate in a fixed pattern.

Another classification takes into account the interaction between human control and the machine motions.

  1. Teleoperation. A human controls each movement, each machine actuator change is specified by the operator.
  2. Supervisory. A human specifies general moves or position changes and the machine decides specific movements of its actuators.
  3. Task-level autonomy. The operator specifies only the task and the robot manages itself to complete it.
  4. Full autonomy. The machine will create and complete all its tasks without human interaction.

Vision

[edit]

Computer vision is the science and technology of machines that see. As a scientific discipline, computer vision is concerned with the theory behind artificial systems that extract information from images. The image data can take many forms, such as video sequences and views from cameras.

In most practical computer vision applications, the computers are pre-programmed to solve a particular task, but methods based on learning are now becoming increasingly common.

Computer vision systems rely on image sensors that detect electromagnetic radiation which is typically in the form of either visible light or infra-red light. The sensors are designed using solid-state physics. The process by which light propagates and reflects off surfaces is explained using optics. Sophisticated image sensors even require quantum mechanics to provide a complete understanding of the image formation process. Robots can also be equipped with multiple vision sensors to be better able to compute the sense of depth in the environment. Like human eyes, robots' "eyes" must also be able to focus on a particular area of interest, and also adjust to variations in light intensities.

There is a subfield within computer vision where artificial systems are designed to mimic the processing and behavior of biological system, at different levels of complexity. Also, some of the learning-based methods developed within computer vision have a background in biology.

Environmental interaction and navigation

[edit]
Radar, GPS, and lidar, are all combined to provide proper navigation and obstacle avoidance (vehicle developed for 2007 DARPA Urban Challenge).

Though a significant percentage of robots in commission today are either human controlled or operate in a static environment, there is an increasing interest in robots that can operate autonomously in a dynamic environment. These robots require some combination of navigation hardware and software in order to traverse their environment. In particular, unforeseen events (e.g. people and other obstacles that are not stationary) can cause problems or collisions. Some highly advanced robots such as ASIMO and Meinü robot have particularly good robot navigation hardware and software. Also, self-controlled cars, Ernst Dickmanns' driverless car, and the entries in the DARPA Grand Challenge, are capable of sensing the environment well and subsequently making navigational decisions based on this information, including by a swarm of autonomous robots.[119] Most of these robots employ a GPS navigation device with waypoints, along with radar, sometimes combined with other sensory data such as lidar, video cameras, and inertial guidance systems for better navigation between waypoints.

Human-robot interaction

[edit]
Kismet can produce a range of facial expressions.

The state of the art in sensory intelligence for robots will have to progress through several orders of magnitude if we want the robots working in our homes to go beyond vacuum-cleaning the floors. If robots are to work effectively in homes and other non-industrial environments, the way they are instructed to perform their jobs, and especially how they will be told to stop will be of critical importance. The people who interact with them may have little or no training in robotics, and so any interface will need to be extremely intuitive. Science fiction authors also typically assume that robots will eventually be capable of communicating with humans through speech, gestures, and facial expressions, rather than a command-line interface. Although speech would be the most natural way for the human to communicate, it is unnatural for the robot. It will probably be a long time before robots interact as naturally as the fictional C-3PO, or Data of Star Trek, Next Generation. Even though the current state of robotics cannot meet the standards of these robots from science-fiction, robotic media characters (e.g., Wall-E, R2-D2) can elicit audience sympathies that increase people's willingness to accept actual robots in the future.[120] Acceptance of social robots is also likely to increase if people can meet a social robot under appropriate conditions. Studies have shown that interacting with a robot by looking at, touching, or even imagining interacting with the robot can reduce negative feelings that some people have about robots before interacting with them.[121] However, if pre-existing negative sentiments are especially strong, interacting with a robot can increase those negative feelings towards robots.[121]

Speech recognition

[edit]

Interpreting the continuous flow of sounds coming from a human, in real time, is a difficult task for a computer, mostly because of the great variability of speech.[122] The same word, spoken by the same person may sound different depending on local acoustics, volume, the previous word, whether or not the speaker has a cold, etc.. It becomes even harder when the speaker has a different accent.[123] Nevertheless, great strides have been made in the field since Davis, Biddulph, and Balashek designed the first "voice input system" which recognized "ten digits spoken by a single user with 100% accuracy" in 1952.[124] Currently, the best systems can recognize continuous, natural speech, up to 160 words per minute, with an accuracy of 95%.[125] With the help of artificial intelligence, machines nowadays can use people's voice to identify their emotions such as satisfied or angry.[126]

Robotic voice

[edit]

Other hurdles exist when allowing the robot to use voice for interacting with humans. For social reasons, synthetic voice proves suboptimal as a communication medium,[127] making it necessary to develop the emotional component of robotic voice through various techniques.[128][129] An advantage of diphonic branching is the emotion that the robot is programmed to project, can be carried on the voice tape, or phoneme, already pre-programmed onto the voice media. One of the earliest examples is a teaching robot named Leachim developed in 1974 by Michael J. Freeman.[130][131] Leachim was able to convert digital memory to rudimentary verbal speech on pre-recorded computer discs.[132] It was programmed to teach students in The Bronx, New York.[132]

Facial expression

[edit]

Facial expressions can provide rapid feedback on the progress of a dialog between two humans, and soon may be able to do the same for humans and robots. Robotic faces have been constructed by Hanson Robotics using their elastic polymer called Frubber, allowing a large number of facial expressions due to the elasticity of the rubber facial coating and embedded subsurface motors (servos).[133] The coating and servos are built on a metal skull. A robot should know how to approach a human, judging by their facial expression and body language. Whether the person is happy, frightened, or crazy-looking affects the type of interaction expected of the robot. Likewise, robots like Kismet and the more recent addition, Nexi[134] can produce a range of facial expressions, allowing it to have meaningful social exchanges with humans.[135]

Gestures

[edit]

One can imagine, in the future, explaining to a robot chef how to make a pastry, or asking directions from a robot police officer. In both of these cases, making hand gestures would aid the verbal descriptions. In the first case, the robot would be recognizing gestures made by the human, and perhaps repeating them for confirmation. In the second case, the robot police officer would gesture to indicate "down the road, then turn right". It is likely that gestures will make up a part of the interaction between humans and robots.[136] A great many systems have been developed to recognize human hand gestures.[137]

Proxemics

[edit]

Proxemics is the study of personal space, and HRI systems may try to model and work with its concepts for human interactions.

Artificial emotions

[edit]

Artificial emotions can also be generated, composed of a sequence of facial expressions or gestures. As can be seen from the movie Final Fantasy: The Spirits Within, the programming of these artificial emotions is complex and requires a large amount of human observation. To simplify this programming in the movie, presets were created together with a special software program. This decreased the amount of time needed to make the film. These presets could possibly be transferred for use in real-life robots. An example of a robot with artificial emotions is Robin the Robot [hy] developed by an Armenian IT company Expper Technologies, which uses AI-based peer-to-peer interaction. Its main task is achieving emotional well-being, i.e. overcome stress and anxiety. Robin was trained to analyze facial expressions and use his face to display his emotions given the context. The robot has been tested by kids in US clinics, and observations show that Robin increased the appetite and cheerfulness of children after meeting and talking.[138]

Personality

[edit]

Many of the robots of science fiction have a personality, something which may or may not be desirable in the commercial robots of the future.[139] Nevertheless, researchers are trying to create robots which appear to have a personality:[140][141] i.e. they use sounds, facial expressions, and body language to try to convey an internal state, which may be joy, sadness, or fear. One commercial example is Pleo, a toy robot dinosaur, which can exhibit several apparent emotions.[142]

Research robotics

[edit]

Much of the research in robotics focuses not on specific industrial tasks, but on investigations into new types of robots, alternative ways to think about or design robots, and new ways to manufacture them. Other investigations, such as MIT's cyberflora project, are almost wholly academic.

To describe the level of advancement of a robot, the term "Generation Robots" can be used. This term is coined by Professor Hans Moravec, Principal Research Scientist at the Carnegie Mellon University Robotics Institute in describing the near future evolution of robot technology. First-generation robots, Moravec predicted in 1997, should have an intellectual capacity comparable to perhaps a lizard and should become available by 2010. Because the first generation robot would be incapable of learning, however, Moravec predicts that the second generation robot would be an improvement over the first and become available by 2020, with the intelligence maybe comparable to that of a mouse. The third generation robot should have intelligence comparable to that of a monkey. Though fourth generation robots, robots with human intelligence, professor Moravec predicts, would become possible, he does not predict this happening before around 2040 or 2050.[143]

Dynamics and kinematics

[edit]
External videos
video icon How the BB-8 Sphero Toy Works

The study of motion can be divided into kinematics and dynamics.[144] Direct kinematics or forward kinematics refers to the calculation of end effector position, orientation, velocity, and acceleration when the corresponding joint values are known. Inverse kinematics refers to the opposite case in which required joint values are calculated for given end effector values, as done in path planning. Some special aspects of kinematics include handling of redundancy (different possibilities of performing the same movement), collision avoidance, and singularity avoidance. Once all relevant positions, velocities, and accelerations have been calculated using kinematics, methods from the field of dynamics are used to study the effect of forces upon these movements. Direct dynamics refers to the calculation of accelerations in the robot once the applied forces are known. Direct dynamics is used in computer simulations of the robot. Inverse dynamics refers to the calculation of the actuator forces necessary to create a prescribed end-effector acceleration. This information can be used to improve the control algorithms of a robot.

In each area mentioned above, researchers strive to develop new concepts and strategies, improve existing ones, and improve the interaction between these areas. To do this, criteria for "optimal" performance and ways to optimize design, structure, and control of robots must be developed and implemented.

Open source robotics

[edit]

Open source robotics research seeks standards for defining, and methods for designing and building, robots so that they can easily be reproduced by anyone. Research includes legal and technical definitions; seeking out alternative tools and materials to reduce costs and simplify builds; and creating interfaces and standards for designs to work together. Human usability research also investigates how to best document builds through visual, text or video instructions.

Evolutionary robotics

[edit]

Evolutionary robots is a methodology that uses evolutionary computation to help design robots, especially the body form, or motion and behavior controllers. In a similar way to natural evolution, a large population of robots is allowed to compete in some way, or their ability to perform a task is measured using a fitness function. Those that perform worst are removed from the population and replaced by a new set, which have new behaviors based on those of the winners. Over time the population improves, and eventually a satisfactory robot may appear. This happens without any direct programming of the robots by the researchers. Researchers use this method both to create better robots,[145] and to explore the nature of evolution.[146] Because the process often requires many generations of robots to be simulated,[147] this technique may be run entirely or mostly in simulation, using a robot simulator software package, then tested on real robots once the evolved algorithms are good enough.[148] According to the International Federation of Robotics (IFR) study World Robotics 2023, there were about 4,281,585 operational industrial robots by the end of 2023[149]

Bionics and biomimetics

[edit]

Bionics and biomimetics apply the physiology and methods of locomotion of animals to the design of robots. For example, the design of BionicKangaroo was based on the way kangaroos jump.

Swarm robotics

[edit]

Swarm robotics is an approach to the coordination of multiple robots as a system which consist of large numbers of mostly simple physical robots. ″In a robot swarm, the collective behavior of the robots results from local interactions between the robots and between the robots and the environment in which they act.″* [119]

Quantum computing

[edit]

There has been some research into whether robotics algorithms can be run more quickly on quantum computers than they can be run on digital computers. This area has been referred to as quantum robotics.[150]

Other research areas

[edit]

The main venues for robotics research are the international conferences ICRA and IROS.

Human factors

[edit]

Education and training

[edit]
The SCORBOT-ER 4u educational robot

Robotics engineers design robots, maintain them, develop new applications for them, and conduct research to expand the potential of robotics.[153] Robots have become a popular educational tool in some middle and high schools, particularly in parts of the USA,[154] as well as in numerous youth summer camps, raising interest in programming, artificial intelligence, and robotics among students.

Employment

[edit]
A robot technician builds small all-terrain robots (courtesy: MobileRobots, Inc.).

Robotics is an essential component in many modern manufacturing environments. As factories increase their use of robots, the number of robotics–related jobs grow and have been observed to be steadily rising.[155] The employment of robots in industries has increased productivity and efficiency savings and is typically seen as a long-term investment for benefactors. A study found that 47 percent of US jobs are at risk to automation "over some unspecified number of years".[156] These claims have been criticized on the ground that social policy, not AI, causes unemployment.[157] In a 2016 article in The Guardian, Stephen Hawking stated "The automation of factories has already decimated jobs in traditional manufacturing, and the rise of artificial intelligence is likely to extend this job destruction deep into the middle classes, with only the most caring, creative or supervisory roles remaining".[158] The rise of robotics is thus often used as an argument for universal basic income.

According to a GlobalData September 2021 report, the robotics industry was worth $45bn in 2020, and by 2030, it will have grown at a compound annual growth rate (CAGR) of 29% to $568bn, driving jobs in robotics and related industries.[159]

Occupational safety and health implications

[edit]

A discussion paper drawn up by EU-OSHA highlights how the spread of robotics presents both opportunities and challenges for occupational safety and health (OSH).[160]

The greatest OSH benefits stemming from the wider use of robotics should be substitution for people working in unhealthy or dangerous environments. In space, defense, security, or the nuclear industry, but also in logistics, maintenance, and inspection, autonomous robots are particularly useful in replacing human workers performing dirty, dull or unsafe tasks, thus avoiding workers' exposures to hazardous agents and conditions and reducing physical, ergonomic and psychosocial risks. For example, robots are already used to perform repetitive and monotonous tasks, to handle radioactive material or to work in explosive atmospheres. In the future, many other highly repetitive, risky or unpleasant tasks will be performed by robots in a variety of sectors like agriculture, construction, transport, healthcare, firefighting or cleaning services.[161]

Moreover, there are certain skills to which humans will be better suited than machines for some time to come and the question is how to achieve the best combination of human and robot skills. The advantages of robotics include heavy-duty jobs with precision and repeatability, whereas the advantages of humans include creativity, decision-making, flexibility, and adaptability. This need to combine optimal skills has resulted in collaborative robots and humans sharing a common workspace more closely and led to the development of new approaches and standards to guarantee the safety of the "man-robot merger". Some European countries are including robotics in their national programs and trying to promote a safe and flexible cooperation between robots and operators to achieve better productivity. For example, the German Federal Institute for Occupational Safety and Health (BAuA) organises annual workshops on the topic "human-robot collaboration".

In the future, cooperation between robots and humans will be diversified, with robots increasing their autonomy and human-robot collaboration reaching completely new forms. Current approaches and technical standards[162][163] aiming to protect employees from the risk of working with collaborative robots will have to be revised.

User experience

[edit]

Great user experience predicts the needs, experiences, behaviors, language and cognitive abilities, and other factors of each user group. It then uses these insights to produce a product or solution that is ultimately useful and usable. For robots, user experience begins with an understanding of the robot's intended task and environment, while considering any possible social impact the robot may have on human operations and interactions with it.[164]

It defines that communication as the transmission of information through signals, which are elements perceived through touch, sound, smell and sight.[165] The author states that the signal connects the sender to the receiver and consists of three parts: the signal itself, what it refers to, and the interpreter. Body postures and gestures, facial expressions, hand and head movements are all part of nonverbal behavior and communication. Robots are no exception when it comes to human-robot interaction. Therefore, humans use their verbal and nonverbal behaviors to communicate their defining characteristics. Similarly, social robots need this coordination to perform human-like behaviors.

Careers

[edit]

Robotics is an interdisciplinary field, combining primarily mechanical engineering and computer science but also drawing on electronic engineering and other subjects. The usual way to build a career in robotics is to complete an undergraduate degree in one of these established subjects, followed by a graduate (masters') degree in Robotics. Graduate degrees are typically joined by students coming from all of the contributing disciplines, and include familiarization of relevant undergraduate level subject matter from each of them, followed by specialist study in pure robotics topics which build upon them. As an interdisciplinary subject, robotics graduate programmes tend to be especially reliant on students working and learning together and sharing their knowledge and skills from their home discipline first degrees.

Robotics industry careers then follow the same pattern, with most roboticists working as part of interdisciplinary teams of specialists from these home disciplines followed by the robotics graduate degrees which enable them to work together. Workers typically continue to identify as members of their home disciplines who work in robotics, rather than as 'roboticists'. This structure is reinforced by the nature of some engineering professions, which grant chartered engineer status to members of home disciplines rather than to robotics as a whole.

Robotics careers are widely predicted to grow in the 21st century, as robots replace more manual and intellectual human work. Some workers who lose their jobs to robotics may be well-placed to retrain to build and maintain these robots, using their domain-specific knowledge and skills.

History

[edit]
Date Significance Robot name Inventor
c. 420 B.C. A wooden, steam-propelled bird, which was able to fly Flying pigeon Archytas of Tarentum
Third century B.C. and earlier One of the earliest descriptions of automata appears in the Lie Zi text, on a much earlier encounter between King Mu of Zhou (1023–957 BC) and a mechanical engineer known as Yan Shi, an 'artificer'. The latter allegedly presented the king with a life-size, human-shaped figure of his mechanical handiwork.[166] Yan Shi (Chinese: 偃师)
First century A.D. and earlier Descriptions of more than 100 machines and automata, including a fire engine, a wind organ, a coin-operated machine, and a steam-powered engine, in Pneumatica and Automata by Heron of Alexandria Ctesibius, Philo of Byzantium, Heron of Alexandria, and others
1206 Created early humanoid automata, programmable automaton band[167]
Robot band, hand-washing automaton,[168] automated moving peacocks[169]
Al-Jazari
1495 Designs for a humanoid robot Mechanical Knight Leonardo da Vinci
1560s Clockwork Prayer that had machinal feet built under its robes that imitated walking. The robot's eyes, lips, and head all move in lifelike gestures. Clockwork Prayer
[citation needed]
Gianello della Torre
1738 Mechanical duck that was able to eat, flap its wings, and excrete Digesting Duck Jacques de Vaucanson
1898 Nikola Tesla demonstrates the first radio-controlled vessel. Teleautomaton Nikola Tesla
1903 Leonardo Torres Quevedo presented the Telekino at the Paris Academy of Science, a radio-based control system with different operational states, for testing airships without risking human lives.[170] He conduct the initial test controlling a tricycle almost 100 feet away, being the first example of a radio-controlled unmanned ground vehicle.[171][172] Telekino Leonardo Torres Quevedo
1912 Leonardo Torres Quevedo builds the first truly autonomous machine capable of playing chess. As opposed to the human-operated The Turk and Ajeeb, El Ajedrecista had an integrated automaton built to play chess without human guidance. It only played an endgame with three chess pieces, automatically moving a white king and a rook to checkmate the black king moved by a human opponent.[173][174] El Ajedrecista Leonardo Torres Quevedo
1914 In his paper Essays on Automatics published in 1914, Leonardo Torres Quevedo proposed a machine that makes "judgments" using sensors that capture information from the outside, parts that manipulate the outside world like arms, power sources such as batteries and air pressure, and most importantly, captured information and past information. It was defined as an organism that can control reactions in response to external information and adapt to changes in the environment to change its behavior.[175][176][177][178] Essays on Automatics Leonardo Torres Quevedo
1921 First fictional automatons called "robots" appear in the play R.U.R. Rossum's Universal Robots Karel Čapek
1930s Humanoid robot exhibited at the 1939 and 1940 World's Fairs Elektro Westinghouse Electric Corporation
1946 First general-purpose digital computer Whirlwind Multiple people
1948 Simple robots exhibiting biological behaviors[179] Elsie and Elmer William Grey Walter
1948 Formulation of principles of cybernetics cybernetics Norbert Wiener
1956 First commercial robot, from the Unimation company founded by George Devol and Joseph Engelberger, based on Devol's patents[180] Unimate George Devol
1961 First installed industrial robot. The first digitally operated and programmable robot, Unimate, was installed in 1961 to lift hot pieces of metal from a die casting machine and stack them. Unimate George Devol
1967 to 1972 First full-scale humanoid intelligent robot,[181][182] and first android. Its limb control system allowed it to walk with the lower limbs, and to grip and transport objects with its hands, using tactile sensors. Its vision system allowed it to measure distances and directions to objects using external receptors, artificial eyes, and ears. And its conversation system allowed it to communicate with a person in Japanese, with an artificial mouth.[183][184][185] WABOT-1 Waseda University
1973 First industrial robot with six electromechanically driven axes[186][187] Famulus KUKA Robot Group
1974 The world's first microcomputer controlled electric industrial robot, IRB 6 from ASEA, was delivered to a small mechanical engineering company in southern Sweden. The design of this robot had been patented in 1972. IRB 6 ABB Robot Group
1975 Programmable universal manipulation arm, a Unimation product PUMA Victor Scheinman
1978 The first object-level robot programming language, RAPT, allowing robots to handle variations in object position, shape, and sensor noise.[188] Freddy I and II Patricia Ambler and Robin Popplestone
1983 First multitasking, the parallel programming language used for robot control. It was the Event Driven Language (EDL) on the IBM/Series/1 process computer, with the implementation of both inter-process communication (WAIT/POST) and mutual exclusion (ENQ/DEQ) mechanisms for robot control.[189] ADRIEL I Stevo Bozinovski and Mihail Sestakov

See also

[edit]

Notes

[edit]

References

[edit]

Further reading

[edit]
[edit]
Revisions and contributorsEdit on WikipediaRead on Wikipedia
from Grokipedia

Robotics is a branch of engineering and computer science involving the design, construction, operation, and application of robots—machines programmed to execute complex tasks automatically, often substituting for human effort in repetitive, dangerous, or precision-demanding activities.
The field's modern origins trace to the mid-20th century, with the Unimate, the first industrially deployed robot arm, installed at a General Motors plant in 1961 to handle die-casting tasks, marking the start of automated manufacturing on a large scale. Subsequent milestones include the development of humanoid robots like Honda's ASIMO in 2000, which demonstrated bipedal walking, object recognition, and gesture response, advancing mobility and interaction capabilities. Robotics finds primary applications in industrial settings for assembly, , and to boost efficiency and safety; in for surgical precision, such as with systems aiding minimally invasive procedures, rehabilitation exoskeletons, and disinfection; and in space , where autonomous rovers conduct planetary surveys and sample collection beyond human reach. While driving productivity gains and enabling feats like remote hazardous operations, robotics has sparked debates over widespread job displacement from , ethical dilemmas in , and risks of unintended harm, necessitating robust regulatory frameworks for and human oversight.

Definition and Fundamentals

Definition and Scope

Robotics is the interdisciplinary and scientific discipline concerned with the conception, , manufacture, operation, and application of , which are programmable machines capable of carrying out complex actions automatically. A is formally defined by ISO 8373:2021 as "an actuated mechanism programmable in two or more axes with a certain degree of which operates with or without intervention of a operator." This definition emphasizes programmability, actuation, and as core attributes, distinguishing robots from simpler automated machinery, though full -level autonomy remains technologically limited in practice, with most systems relying on predefined algorithms, sensors, and human oversight for reliable performance. The scope of robotics extends beyond industrial manipulators to encompass a broad array of systems designed for tasks requiring precision, repeatability, or operation in environments hazardous to humans. In manufacturing, robots handle assembly, , and , with over 3.9 million industrial robots installed worldwide by 2022, primarily in automotive and electronics sectors. Medical robotics includes surgical assistants like the da Vinci system, enabling minimally invasive procedures with sub-millimeter accuracy, while rehabilitation devices aid patient mobility recovery. Exploration robotics supports planetary rovers, such as NASA's Perseverance on Mars since 2021, and underwater vehicles for ocean mapping. Service and consumer robotics covers domestic assistants, logistics automation in warehouses—exemplified by Amazon's deployment of over 750,000 mobile robots by 2023—and agricultural harvesters for crop monitoring and picking. Emerging areas include military unmanned systems for reconnaissance and mimicking biological flexibility for delicate manipulation. The discipline integrates for structural design, for sensors and actuators, for control algorithms, and increasingly for adaptive behaviors, though ethical considerations around job displacement and safety standards, as in ISO 10218, constrain deployment.

Core Components and Principles

Robots fundamentally comprise a mechanical structure, actuators, sensors, a , and a , integrated to perform programmed tasks autonomously or semi-autonomously. The mechanical structure forms the robot's body through rigid links connected by joints, which define for motion; for instance, humanoid robots like feature up to 72 links and 26 joints to approximate human . Actuators produce mechanical motion by converting input energy—typically electrical—into torque or force, commonly via electric motors coupled with transmissions such as or cables to amplify output; wheeled robots may employ simpler actuators, while manipulators use servo motors for precise control. Sensors enable by measuring internal states (proprioceptive, e.g., encoders for position feedback) or external conditions (exteroceptive, e.g., cameras for vision or for distance), supplying data essential for , manipulation, and error correction. The acts as the computational core, processing sensor data through algorithms to generate actuator commands, often implemented via microcontrollers or dedicated processors executing real-time software. Power supplies, ranging from rechargeable batteries in mobile robots to AC mains in fixed installations, provide sustained to sustain operations across all components, with critical to endurance in untethered systems. Core operational principles center on closed-loop feedback control, wherein continuous cycles of sensing current states, comparing against desired trajectories, and adjusting actuators minimize errors, enabling stability and adaptability; this contrasts with open-loop systems lacking feedback, which suit repetitive, low-variability tasks but falter in uncertain environments. The sense-plan-act paradigm structures this process: sensors inform planning algorithms that compute actions, executed via actuators, with iterative refinement ensuring causal responsiveness to perturbations.

Kinematics and Dynamics

![PUMA robotic arm][float-right] In robotics, examines the geometric relationships between joint variables and the position and orientation of the robot's end-effector, excluding forces and masses. This branch focuses on mapping joint configurations to Cartesian , essential for path planning and control without considering dynamic effects. Forward computes the end-effector's pose from given joint angles or displacements, typically using transformation matrices for serial manipulators. The Denavit-Hartenberg (DH) convention standardizes this by assigning coordinate frames to links and joints, enabling recursive computation via homogeneous transformation matrices. For a six-degree-of-freedom , this yields the end-effector position as a function of joint variables, crucial for tasks like reachability analysis. Inverse kinematics solves the reverse problem: determining joint angles required to achieve a specified end-effector pose, often nonlinear and potentially yielding multiple solutions or none, depending on singularities. Analytical methods exploit manipulator for closed-form solutions in specific cases, such as spherical wrists, while numerical techniques like -based or optimization handle general configurations. The matrix relates joint velocities to end-effector velocities, facilitating redundancy resolution in hyper-redundant robots via pseudoinverse methods. Singularity analysis identifies configurations where the Jacobian loses rank, leading to loss of , analyzed through manipulability measures. Dynamics extends kinematics by incorporating inertial properties, forces, and torques to model acceleration and interaction with the environment. Robot dynamics equations typically take the form M(q)q¨+C(q,q˙)q˙+G(q)=τM(q) \ddot{q} + C(q, \dot{q}) \dot{q} + G(q) = \tau, where M(q)M(q) is the inertia matrix, CC captures Coriolis and centrifugal effects, G(q)G(q) accounts for gravity, qq denotes joint positions, and τ\tau are actuated torques. Derived via Lagrangian mechanics, with kinetic energy T=12q˙TM(q)q˙T = \frac{1}{2} \dot{q}^T M(q) \dot{q} and potential V(q)V(q), the equations follow from τi=ddt(Lq˙i)Lqi\tau_i = \frac{d}{dt} \left( \frac{\partial L}{\partial \dot{q}_i} \right) - \frac{\partial L}{\partial q_i} where L=TVL = T - V. Forward dynamics predicts motion from applied torques, while inverse dynamics computes required torques for desired trajectories, vital for high-fidelity control in dynamic environments. Computational efficiency is achieved through recursive Newton-Euler formulations, reducing complexity from O(n3)O(n^3) to O(n)O(n) for nn joints. These models underpin advanced control strategies, such as computed control, which linearizes dynamics via compensation, and enable for design validation. In practice, parameter identification refines and estimates from experimental data, addressing model uncertainties from or unmodeled compliance. For mobile robots, dynamics incorporate base motion, coupling manipulator and vehicle equations in floating-base systems.

History

Pre-20th Century Automata and Concepts

Early precursors to robotics emerged in ancient civilizations through mechanical devices known as automata, which demonstrated principles of self-motion via levers, , and . In , around 400 BC, the philosopher of Tarentum reportedly constructed a steam-propelled wooden pigeon capable of flight, illustrating rudimentary propulsion concepts. By the 1st century AD, advanced these ideas in treatises like Pneumatica and On Automata-Making, describing programmable miniature theaters where figurines performed scripted actions—such as gods battling giants—using hidden ropes, pulleys, weights, and steam or water power to simulate lifelike movements without direct human intervention. Hero's designs, including automated temple doors opened by altar fires heating vessels to expand air and displace water, emphasized causal chains of mechanical forces mimicking agency. During the , engineer (c. 1136–1206) documented over 100 mechanical inventions in The Book of Knowledge of Ingenious Mechanical Devices, including humanoid automata for practical and entertainment purposes. Notable examples were a hand-washing device with a programmable humanoid servant that poured water, dried hands with a , and bowed, powered by water flow and cam mechanisms; and a floating musical featuring four automata musicians that played instruments in sequence during royal banquets, sequenced via pegged wheels akin to early programming. Al-Jazari's hydropower-driven moving peacocks and elephant clocks further integrated feedback-like behaviors, such as synchronized beak movements and water-spouting, laying groundwork for programmed sequences in machines. In Renaissance Europe, sketched designs around 1495 for a mechanical knight armored in plate, powered by pulleys, cables, and torsion springs to sit, wave its arms, and move its jaw, embodying automation concepts though no functional prototype survives. By the 18th century, created the Canard Digérateur () in 1739, a life-sized with over 400 parts per wing that flapped, quacked, ingested grain via a simulated digestive system involving chemical breakdown and excreted processed matter, sparking debates on mechanical simulation of biological processes despite later revelations that undigested grain was stored and ejected. Swiss watchmaker Jaquet-Droz's The Writer (1774), a child-sized figure with 40 cams controlling interchangeable pens to compose custom sentences up to 40 characters via a programmed , exemplified precision in replicating human dexterity. Philosophically, these automata influenced views of mechanism in nature; in the posited animals as soulless automata governed by physical laws, extending to human body-machine dualism and foreshadowing cybernetic ideas of feedback without . Aristotle's earlier musings in (c. 350 BC) envisioned "instruments which... supply the place of slaves" through self-operating looms or shuttles, conceptualizing as liberation from manual labor via inanimate movers, though realized more in myth than mechanism. Such devices, while entertainment-focused and limited by materials like wood and brass, established core robotics tenets: kinematic chains for motion, energy transduction, and rudimentary control via cams or weights, predating electrical or computational paradigms.

Industrial and Cybernetic Foundations (1940s–1980s)

The foundations of modern robotics in the mid-20th century were shaped by advances in cybernetics and control theory, which emphasized feedback mechanisms for machine behavior akin to biological systems. Norbert Wiener introduced the term "cybernetics" in his 1948 book Cybernetics: Or Control and Communication in the Animal and the Machine, defining it as the study of control and communication in systems, whether mechanical or organic. This framework influenced early robotic control by enabling servomechanisms that adjusted outputs based on sensory inputs, essential for precise manipulation. Wiener's ideas drew from wartime developments in anti-aircraft predictors, where machines anticipated targets via predictive feedback, laying causal groundwork for autonomous error correction in robots. Industrial robotics emerged in the 1950s with George Devol's invention of the first programmable . Devol filed a for "Programmed Article Transfer" in 1954, granted in 1961, introducing stored digital instructions for repeatable tasks, a departure from fixed automation. This concept, termed , enabled a hydraulic manipulator to transfer die-cast parts. In 1961, the first robot was installed at a plant in , for unloading hot metal parts from die-casting machines, marking the debut of computer-controlled industrial automation. , partnering with Devol, co-founded Inc. in 1962 to commercialize the technology, focusing on assembly-line efficiency in automotive manufacturing. By the 1970s, robotic arms proliferated with improved and electronics. Unimation's 1978 PUMA (Programmable Universal Machine for Assembly), derived from Victor Scheinman's 1969 Stanford Arm, offered and electric actuation, suitable for lighter precision tasks like electronics assembly. integration allowed teach-in programming via lead-through methods, reducing setup times. In , labor shortages post-1960s economic boom drove adoption; installed the first derivative in 1968, and by 1980, accounted for over half of global installations, emphasizing and in auto plants. The era saw robots handling hazardous or repetitive tasks, with installations growing from dozens in the 1960s to over 50,000 worldwide by 1985, primarily hydraulic for heavy loads. Cybernetic principles underpinned , though early systems relied on open-loop replay of trajectories, limiting real-time responsiveness to disturbances. This period established robotics as a tool, driven by cost reductions and reliability gains, though integration challenges like and programming persisted.

AI-Driven Expansion (1990s–Present)

The integration of into robotics accelerated in the 1990s, building on computational advances to enable more autonomous behaviors beyond pre-programmed tasks. Honda's program, initiated in 1990 with prototypes focused on bipedal balance, produced in 2000, which achieved stable walking at 0.36 m/s and rudimentary environmental interaction via s and basic algorithms for obstacle avoidance. By 2007, upgraded versions incorporated enhanced mobility, reaching running speeds of 9 km/h and AI-driven capabilities for face recognition and response, demonstrating causal links between and adaptive . These developments privileged empirical testing of with AI feedback loops, revealing limitations in to unstructured settings. DARPA-sponsored challenges catalyzed AI progress by incentivizing verifiable performance in real-world . The 2004 Grand Challenge required unmanned vehicles to traverse 240 km of terrain using AI for and ; no entrant completed it, underscoring gaps in robust sensing fusion amid dust and variability. In 2005, Stanford's Stanley robot succeeded over 212 km in under 7 hours, employing probabilistic AI models for terrain classification from and camera data, achieving 100% obstacle avoidance through on sensor inputs. The 2007 Urban Challenge extended this to simulated traffic, with Carnegie Mellon's entry navigating 89 km autonomously, integrating for dynamic path planning. These events empirically drove adoption of modular AI architectures, with post-challenge analyses showing causal improvements in localization accuracy from 10-20% to over 90% via iterative data-driven refinements. Open-source tools further democratized AI-robotics integration. released the initial (ROS) code repository on November 7, 2007, providing for distributing AI computations across , , and actuation, which by 2010's version 1.0 supported over 100 packages for and SLAM. The 2012-2015 Robotics Challenge tested humanoid AI in scenarios, requiring robots to drive and manipulate ; top scorers like IHMC's Atlas achieved 28/32 tasks via for balance, though hardware failures highlighted AI's dependence on reliable dynamics modeling. The 2010s deep learning surge enabled scalable perception and learning from data. Convolutional neural networks, trained on datasets like , improved robotic to 90%+ accuracy by 2015, facilitating end-to-end policies for grasping irregular items. applications, such as policy gradients for locomotion, allowed robots like ' models to traverse uneven terrain autonomously, with simulation-to-real transfer reducing training time from weeks to hours. By 2020, hybrid systems combining deep models with classical control yielded empirical gains in industrial cobots, cutting human intervention in assembly by 40% through predictive error correction, though real-world data variance remains a barrier to full causal reliability.

Mechanical Design

Actuators and Power Sources

Actuators in robotics are mechanisms that convert input energy into mechanical motion to drive robot joints and end-effectors, enabling tasks from precise manipulation to locomotion. Electric actuators, predominantly DC motors, stepper motors, and servo motors, dominate due to their high precision and efficiency, achieving up to 95% in linear variants, while offering clean operation without fluid leaks. These motors are commonly paired with wheels or tracks for ground-based mobility in mobile robots. In contrast, hydraulic actuators provide superior power density for heavy-load applications, delivering forces exceeding those of equivalent electric systems, though their efficiency hovers around 45% at moderate duty cycles due to heat losses. Pneumatic actuators excel in speed and simplicity for tasks requiring rapid extension, but suffer from lower precision owing to air compressibility. Emerging actuator technologies address limitations in traditional rigid systems, particularly for . elastomer actuators and electro-thermal variants enable compliant motion mimicking biological tissues, with recent untethered designs achieving autonomous deformation without external tethers as of 2024. Shape memory alloys and piezoelectric materials offer micron-scale precision for micro-robots, though they face challenges in response time and energy demands. Advances from 2020 to 2025 emphasize and energy efficiency, with electromagnetic actuators like direct-drive motors reducing backlash for high-precision tasks.
Actuator TypeEfficiencyPower DensityPrecisionKey Applications
Electric85-95%ModerateHighAssembly, manipulation
Hydraulic~45%HighModerateHeavy lifting
PneumaticVariableLowLowFast cycling
Soft (e.g., DEA)Low-MedLowVariableBio-inspired gripping
Power sources supply the energy required for actuators, with lithium-ion batteries prevailing in mobile robots for their 0.5 kWh/kg and portability, enabling untethered operation over hours depending on load. Electronics such as microcontrollers (e.g., Arduino, Raspberry Pi), motor drivers, and sensors integrate with these batteries to enable control and actuation. Tethered systems, common in industrial settings, draw from or , avoiding runtime limits but restricting mobility. Fuel cells and hybrid generators offer higher energy densities—up to twice that of Li-ion in some biofuels—but incur mass penalties from conversion inefficiencies and are less mature for compact integration. Empirical comparisons show batteries outperforming generators in mass-equivalent setups for short missions, while solar supplementation extends endurance in low-power robots. Ongoing research prioritizes bio-inspired sources like microbial fuel cells for sustained, low-power actuation in exploratory robotics.

Structural Materials and Mechanisms

Structural materials in robotics prioritize properties such as high strength-to-weight ratio, fatigue resistance, and manufacturability to support dynamic loads and precise movements. Aluminum alloys, particularly 6061-T6, dominate frames and links due to their lightweight nature—density around 2.7 —and tensile strength exceeding 300 MPa, facilitating energy-efficient designs in industrial and mobile robots. Plastics such as ABS and PLA are commonly employed for 3D printed parts, while acrylic sheets provide options for enclosures, offering ease of fabrication in hobbyist and prototyping contexts. Steel alloys like 4140 and 304 provide superior rigidity for heavy-duty components, with yield strengths up to 1,000 MPa, though their of approximately 7.8 g/cm³ increases inertial demands. Composite materials, including carbon fiber reinforced polymers, achieve stiffness-to-weight ratios over 10 times that of , enabling lighter structures for and high-speed applications without sacrificing durability. For DIY and hobbyist robots, aluminum extrusions, 3D printed plastics, and off-the-shelf electronics are most common due to availability, cost, and ease of use, supplemented by miscellaneous items like wires, screws, nuts/bolts, adhesives, and breadboards. For compliant robots, soft materials like elastomers and silicones offer tunable elasticity, with Young's moduli ranging from 0.1 to 10 MPa, allowing deformation under stress while recovering shape for safe human interaction. Advances in metamaterials, such as ultralight lattice structures with densities below 1% of bulk equivalents, enable self-reprogrammable frames that adapt via mechanical reconfiguration, demonstrated in prototypes achieving payloads over 100 times their mass. Robotic mechanisms convert actuator forces into controlled trajectories through assemblies of links, joints, and transmissions. Serial kinematic chains, comprising sequential rigid joined by revolute or prismatic joints, afford extensive reach—often exceeding 1 meter in industrial arms—and multi-degree-of-freedom dexterity, as seen in anthropomorphic designs. Parallel mechanisms employ multiple closed-loop chains linking base to end-effector, yielding higher and —up to 100 g—for precision tasks; the , developed by Reymond Clavel in the early 1980s, exemplifies this with speeds over 10 m/s in pick-and-place operations. Transmission elements like gears, belts, and linkages amplify or reduce backlash, with harmonic drives common in precision joints for ratios up to 100:1 and positional accuracy below 0.01 mm.

End-Effectors and Grippers

End-effectors represent the terminal components of robotic manipulators, interfacing directly with the task environment to execute operations such as grasping, tooling, or sensing. , a predominant subclass, facilitate prehensile manipulation by securing and relocating objects through mechanical, pneumatic, or other actuation principles. These devices must accommodate capacities ranging from grams for delicate items to over 10 kg for industrial loads, while ensuring precision in force application to avoid damage. Mechanical , including parallel-jaw and multi-finger configurations, dominate rigid applications due to their reliability and precise control, often actuated by electric servos or for tasks in assembly and . Parallel-jaw variants constrain motion fully, enabling high but limiting adaptability to object , with jaw openings typically spanning 2-170 mm. and electromagnetic grippers suit non-porous or materials, respectively, offering contactless holding via or fields, though they falter on irregular or non-magnetic surfaces. Deformable and underconstrained , leveraging compliant mechanisms or soft materials like , address versatility challenges by conforming to irregular shapes, as seen in pneumatic soft designs handling fruits or biomedical items with payloads up to several kilograms. Underactuated systems reduce control complexity by using fewer actuators than , enhancing adaptation but risking uneven force distribution without integrated sensors. Examples include three-fingered compliant grippers from 2020 studies, prioritizing gentleness over raw strength. Key design challenges encompass dexterity trade-offs, where rigid grippers excel in speed and load but fail on fragility, while soft variants offer compliance at the cost of lower payloads and actuation energy demands. , including force-torque feedback, mitigates slippage and overload, yet environmental variability—such as surface or object deformability—demands hybrid approaches. Recent advancements, documented in 2023 reviews of 2019-2022 designs, emphasize bio-inspired soft architectures and AI-assisted grasping to boost reliability in unstructured settings.

Sensing and Perception

Internal and Tactile Sensing

Internal sensing in robotics encompasses proprioceptive mechanisms that monitor the robot's internal states, such as joint positions, velocities, accelerations, and internal forces, enabling precise control and self-awareness akin to biological proprioception. Common implementations include rotary encoders or resolvers for angular positions in revolute joints, with resolutions down to 0.01 degrees in industrial arms, and inertial measurement units (IMUs) combining accelerometers and gyroscopes to track orientation and vibration. Force and torque sensors, often strain-gauge-based, measure loads in actuators and links; six-degree-of-freedom (6-DOF) variants in joint wrists detect both translational forces up to 1000 N and torques up to 50 Nm, facilitating compliant motion and collision avoidance. These sensors feed into feedback loops for inverse kinematics, compensating for backlash or elasticity in transmissions, as seen in collaborative robots where torque limits prevent overloads exceeding 150 Nm per joint. Tactile sensing extends this to surface-level interactions, capturing distributed , shear forces, and textures during manipulation, which is critical for tasks like grasping fragile objects or in-hand adjustment without vision. Traditional tactile arrays employ piezoresistive or capacitive elements, achieving spatial resolutions of 1-2 mm and ranges from 0.1 to 10 kPa, integrated into end-effectors for slip detection via signatures at frequencies up to 1 kHz. Optical methods, using cameras beneath elastomeric skins, provide high-fidelity deformation mapping, with recent prototypes resolving features at 0.5 mm scale for in unstructured environments. Advancements in the have focused on flexible, multimodal tactile skins mimicking human dermis, incorporating triboelectric nanogenerators for self-powered shear and sensing up to 50 kPa with response times under 10 ms, enabling dynamic events like rolling contacts. Bio-inspired designs, such as finger-shaped sensors with triboelectric effects, distinguish materials by coefficients differing by 0.1-0.5 and multidirectional forces in real-time, enhancing dexterity in hands. Integration challenges persist, including signal drift from (up to 5% in elastomers) and computational demands for arrays exceeding 1000 taxels at 100 Hz, though embedded reduces latency to sub-millisecond levels in advanced systems. These capabilities underpin safer human-robot collaboration, where tactile feedback adjusts grip forces to below 20 N for compliant assembly.

Visual and Auditory Systems

Robotic visual systems employ cameras as primary sensors to acquire image , which is processed through algorithms to enable tasks such as , pose estimation, and environmental mapping. Common configurations include monocular cameras for 2D analysis, stereo vision for disparity-based depth computation, and RGB-D sensors that fuse color and depth information, as demonstrated in applications like robotic manipulation where depth accuracy reaches sub-millimeter levels in controlled settings. These systems leverage convolutional neural networks (CNNs) for feature extraction, with advancements in the incorporating transformer-based models for improved semantic understanding and real-time processing on edge devices. In industrial contexts, machine vision techniques facilitate robot guidance by integrating structured light or laser triangulation for precise , achieving localization accuracies of 0.1 mm in assembly tasks, though performance degrades in unstructured environments due to lighting variability and occlusions. For autonomous navigation, (SLAM) algorithms process from cameras to build maps and estimate robot pose, with visual-inertial odometry fusing camera data with IMU readings to mitigate motion blur effects, as validated in dynamic scenarios. Recent integrations of in collaborative robotics enhance , allowing robots to track and interact with dynamic objects via end-to-end policies trained on large datasets. Auditory systems in robotics utilize microphone arrays to capture acoustic signals, enabling sound source localization (SSL) through time-difference-of-arrival (TDOA) estimation, where arrays of 4 to 8 achieve 3-degree azimuthal resolution and 3-meter range in reverberant environments. Binaural setups mimic human hearing for directional cues, supporting tasks like speaker tracking in human-robot interaction, with models refining localization under noise by learning spatial features from raw audio. In platforms, neural networks process multi-channel audio for 3D SSL, integrating head motion to resolve front-back ambiguities and enabling selective attention to specific sounds amid interference. Practical implementations often combine planar or circular arrays with to enhance signal-to-noise ratios, as in mobile robots where ad-hoc arrays of two dual- units localize sources with errors under 5 degrees in real-world tests. extends to object differentiation via acoustic signatures, where robots distinguish materials like metal tools by analyzing impact sounds, improving manipulation success rates in visually occluded scenarios. Fusion of auditory data with visual inputs in multimodal frameworks boosts robustness, as seen in robotic heads that align audio-visual cues for control and event detection. Challenges persist in dynamic acoustic environments, where cancellation and source separation algorithms, often based on or deep clustering, are employed to isolate relevant signals.

Environmental and Proprioceptive Sensors

Proprioceptive sensors provide feedback on the internal state of a , including positions, velocities, accelerations, forces, and orientations, enabling precise control of and dynamics. Common types include rotary encoders, which measure in with resolutions up to 20 bits, essential for accurate trajectory tracking in manipulators and mobile platforms. Inertial measurement units (IMUs), integrating accelerometers and gyroscopes, quantify linear and angular motion; early IMUs emerged in for but MEMS-based versions, compact enough for robotics, proliferated after the due to fabrication advances, supporting and balance in legged robots. Force-torque sensors, typically employing strain gauges, detect loads and end-effector interactions, facilitating impedance control and collision avoidance with sensitivities down to 0.1 N. These sensors collectively support by fusing data via Kalman filters to estimate full-body configuration, compensating for mechanical backlash or slippage. Environmental sensors detect external physical and chemical variables beyond visual or auditory inputs, such as , , , and gas composition, allowing robots to assess and adapt to ambient conditions. sensors, like thermistors or pyrometers, operate over ranges from -200°C to 1500°C, critical for thermal mapping in industrial furnaces or extraterrestrial terrains. Gas sensors, including electrochemical or metal-oxide types, identify volatile organic compounds or toxic gases at parts-per-million levels, applied in and air quality monitoring within confined spaces. and sensors, often capacitive, measure atmospheric variations to predict environmental , as in or robots where sudden changes signal instability. In aggregation, these sensors enable multi-modal environmental modeling, with robots like those in swarm monitoring systems using them to create real-time maps via algorithms. Integration of proprioceptive and environmental sensors enhances robotic in dynamic settings; for example, paired with gas detectors allow drones to maintain stability while navigating polluted zones, adjusting paths based on internal drift and external toxicity thresholds. Such combinations underpin applications in handling, where force feedback prevents overload during debris manipulation amid variable temperatures, or in planetary rovers that correlate internal data with readings for assessment. Limitations include sensor drift in , requiring periodic , and cross-sensitivity in gas detectors to , mitigated by machine learning-based compensation models. Advances in low-power fabrication continue to miniaturize these sensors, expanding their use in untethered, long-duration operations.

Control Systems

Feedback and Classical Control

Feedback control in robotics employs closed-loop architectures where sensor data on position, , or is compared against commanded values to generate corrective actuator signals, enhancing accuracy over open-loop methods. Classical control techniques, rooted in linear , dominate early and many current industrial applications by providing deterministic stability for multi-degree-of-freedom manipulators. These methods treat joints semi-independently, using single-input single-output (SISO) regulators to track trajectories despite disturbances like payload variations. The proportional-integral-derivative (PID) controller exemplifies classical feedback, with its formulation u(t)=Kpe(t)+Ki0te(τ)dτ+Kdde(t)dtu(t) = K_p e(t) + K_i \int_0^t e(\tau) d\tau + K_d \frac{de(t)}{dt}, where e(t)e(t) is the error between desired and actual state, and Kp,Ki,KdK_p, K_i, K_d are tuned gains. Developed theoretically by Nicolas Minorsky in 1922 for ship steering and refined for process industries, PID entered robotics prominently in the 1970s-1980s for servo drives in arms like the PUMA 560, enabling precise positioning with errors reduced to millimeters. Tuning methods, such as Ziegler-Nichols, facilitate empirical adjustment, balancing responsiveness against overshoot and steady-state error. In robot manipulators, PID or proportional-derivative (PD) variants regulate joint torques, often augmented by gravity compensation to counter static loads, as τ=Y(q)θ^KpeKde˙+g(q)\tau = Y(q) \hat{\theta} - K_p e - K_d \dot{e} + g(q), where YY linearizes dynamics and gg models . Arimoto and Miyazaki proved in 1984 that such PID schemes yield asymptotic stability for n-link manipulators with feedback, robust to uncertainties up to 50% in and , provided gains satisfy passivity conditions. This robustness stems from the controllers' dissipative nature, dissipating energy from tracking errors without requiring full dynamic models. Applications persist in , where over 90% of controllers remain PID-based for tasks like , due to their computational simplicity on embedded hardware. Limitations arise in nonlinear, coupled regimes at high speeds, where unmodeled Coriolis terms induce oscillations; here, classical methods yield conservative performance compared to model-based alternatives, though hybrid PID-computed extends efficacy. Experimental validations on six-axis arms confirm steady-state errors below 0.1 degrees with bandwidths up to 10 Hz under tuned PID.

Computational Algorithms and Planning

Computational algorithms and planning in robotics encompass methods for generating feasible sequences of actions, trajectories, or configurations that enable robots to navigate environments, manipulate objects, or execute complex tasks while avoiding obstacles and respecting constraints such as dynamics and . These algorithms address the core challenge of transforming high-level goals into low-level executable plans, often operating in high-dimensional configuration spaces where exhaustive search is computationally infeasible. , a foundational subset, computes collision-free paths from initial to goal states, with variants incorporating time, uncertainty, or multi-robot coordination. Task planning extends this by reasoning symbolically over discrete actions and world states to decompose goals into subtasks, frequently integrated with in task-and-motion planning (TAMP) frameworks to handle hybrid discrete-continuous problems. Classical deterministic approaches include graph-search algorithms like A*, which finds optimal paths in discretized state spaces by minimizing a cost function plus path cost from start, proven complete and optimal under admissible heuristics but limited to low-dimensional or grid-based environments due to in search space. Cell decomposition methods partition free space into regions connected via adjacency graphs, enabling path queries, while exact methods like visibility graphs connect obstacle vertices to form shortest Euclidean paths for polygonal environments, though they scale poorly beyond 2D. These techniques underpin early robotic systems but struggle with non-holonomic constraints or real-time requirements in dynamic settings. Probabilistic sampling-based planners dominate modern applications for their scalability in high dimensions (e.g., 6+ DOF manipulators), probabilistically complete under infinite sampling but not guaranteed optimal without modifications. Probabilistic Roadmap (PRM) methods, introduced by Kavraki et al. in 1996, generate a roadmap by uniformly sampling configurations, retaining collision-free samples, and connecting nearby pairs with local paths, yielding query-efficient graphs for repeated planning; variants like Lazy PRM defer collision checks to improve efficiency. (RRT), developed by LaValle in 1998, incrementally builds a tree by sampling random states and extending towards the nearest tree node via straight-line motions, biased towards unexplored space for fast coverage in cluttered or kinematically constrained spaces, with RRT* (2011) adding rewiring for asymptotic optimality. These have enabled real-time planning for mobile robots and arms, as in NASA's or industrial pick-and-place tasks, though they require post-processing for smoothness (e.g., via splines) and can fail in narrow passages without informed sampling. Task-level planning employs symbolic AI techniques to sequence discrete predicates, such as STRIPS (Stanford Research Institute Problem Solver, 1970s) for state-space search via add/delete lists, or Hierarchical Task Networks (HTN) for decomposing abstract tasks into primitives using , reducing branching factors in long-horizon problems like household robotics. (Planning Domain Definition Language), standardized in the 1990s, formalizes these for off-the-shelf planners like FF or Optic, outputting action sequences executable by low-level controllers. Challenges arise in grounding symbolic plans to continuous motions, addressed by TAMP algorithms that interleave discrete search with geometric feasibility checks, as in MIT's pddlstream framework (2020s), which has demonstrated solvability for manipulation tasks involving object relocation in cluttered scenes. Recent advances incorporate learning, such as neural approximations of value functions in MDPs for environments, but retain reliance on verifiable models to avoid hallucination-induced failures.

AI Integration for Autonomy

AI integration enables robots to achieve greater autonomy by processing sensory data to make context-aware decisions, learn from interactions, and adapt to unforeseen conditions, surpassing rule-based control systems that falter in unstructured settings. Core techniques include , where agents maximize cumulative rewards through environmental interactions, and deep neural networks for end-to-end policies that map perceptions directly to actions. This shift from explicit programming to data-driven optimization allows robots to handle complex tasks like and manipulation without predefined trajectories. A foundational example is , developed by from 1966 to 1972, which integrated early AI for reasoning about actions, combining , path planning, and logical inference to navigate indoors autonomously—albeit slowly, processing commands over minutes due to computational limits of the era. Modern RL applications, such as deep Q-networks (DQN) and proximal policy optimization, have enabled real-world feats like dexterous manipulation in robotic arms and locomotion in legged robots, with systems training policies in simulation before sim-to-real transfer. For instance, asynchronous real-world RL frameworks have demonstrated continual improvement in tasks like object grasping, reducing reliance on human demonstrations by learning from physical trials. Hybrid approaches increasingly fuse RL with large language models (LLMs) and foundation models to enhance high-level planning, where LLMs interpret goals into sub-tasks that RL executes, as seen in shared for marine robotics. In surgical robotics, deep RL optimizes needle insertion paths by simulating tissue interactions, achieving precision beyond classical methods while minimizing tissue damage. Empirical successes include quadruped robots like those from , which employ RL for robust adaptation on uneven terrain, though these often augment AI with model-predictive control for stability. Despite advances, real-world autonomy remains constrained by RL's sample inefficiency—requiring millions of interactions infeasible in physical hardware—and the sim-to-real gap, where simulated policies degrade in noisy, dynamic environments due to unmodeled physics. Safety challenges necessitate verifiable guarantees, as AI-driven decisions can exhibit brittleness in edge cases, prompting frameworks like constrained RL to enforce hard limits on actions. Deployment hurdles include cybersecurity vulnerabilities in networked autonomous systems and ethical concerns over opaque decision-making, with studies emphasizing the need for human oversight in high-stakes domains like defense. Full Level 5 autonomy, as in untethered operation across novel scenarios, eludes most systems as of 2025, with commercial examples like warehouse robots relying on fenced environments to mitigate generalization failures.

Mobility and Interaction

Ground-Based Locomotion

Ground-based locomotion in robotics primarily encompasses wheeled, tracked, and legged systems, each optimized for specific terrains and tasks. Wheeled mechanisms dominate due to their mechanical simplicity, high efficiency on flat surfaces, and stability from continuous ground contact. Tracked systems enhance traction and distribute weight over larger areas, suiting softer or uneven ground, while legged designs offer superior adaptability to irregular obstacles at the cost of higher energy demands and control complexity. These approaches address core challenges like energy efficiency, stability, and terrain traversal, with selection driven by environmental demands rather than universality. Wheeled robots excel in structured environments, achieving speeds up to several meters per second with minimal power—often 100 times less than legged counterparts on smooth paths—due to rolling without slipping. NASA's Mars Exploration Rovers, such as Spirit and Opportunity launched in 2003, demonstrated durability over rocky Martian terrain, traveling cumulative distances exceeding 40 kilometers each via suspension for obstacle negotiation up to 30 cm high. Hybrid wheel-leg designs, like Boston Dynamics' introduced in 2017, combine rolling efficiency with stepping for loading docks and warehouses, enabling payload handling up to 15 kg while balancing dynamically. However, wheels falter on steep inclines or loose , where slip reduces accuracy and risks entrapment. Tracked locomotion, mimicking treads, provides robust performance on deformable surfaces by increasing contact area and lowering ground , often below 10 kPa for planetary analogs. Systems like the TRX 10-ton unmanned vehicle employ hybrid-electric propulsion for enhanced and reduced soil disturbance, supporting scouting over or . Flexible rubber tracks allow and obstacle surmounting up to 0.5 m, as modeled in simulations showing stable gaits on inclines exceeding 30 degrees. Drawbacks include higher mechanical complexity, increased mass from track tensioners, and vulnerability to debris entanglement, limiting speeds to under 2 m/s. Legged robots prioritize versatility for unstructured terrains, using discrete foot contacts for stepping over gaps or rocks, with quadrupeds like ANYmal traversing forests and rubble via policies trained for blind locomotion. ' Spot, commercialized in 2019, achieves autonomous navigation at 1.6 m/s with payload capacity of 14 kg, leveraging impedance control for shock absorption and whole-body momentum planning. Advancements in enable real-time adaptation to slips or perturbations, as in humanoid trials covering uneven paths with foot placement errors under 5 cm. Yet, legged systems consume substantially more power—up to 100 times that of wheels on flats—due to frequent stance-swing transitions and balance maintenance, restricting battery life to minutes under load. Ongoing research integrates vision and force sensing to mitigate falls, targeting deployment in search-and-rescue where wheeled or tracked options fail.

Aerial and Aquatic Systems

Aerial robotic systems primarily consist of unmanned aerial vehicles (UAVs), categorized into rotary-wing, fixed-wing, and flapping-wing types, each optimized for specific mobility requirements in robotics applications. Rotary-wing UAVs, such as quadcopters, dominate due to their ability to hover and perform precise maneuvers, leveraging multiple rotors for stability and control without runways. Fixed-wing UAVs excel in endurance for long-range surveillance, while flapping-wing robots, or ornithopters, provide agile locomotion in confined spaces by imitating insect or bird flight dynamics. Developments accelerated from the , with exponential growth in autonomous capabilities driven by advancements in sensors, batteries, and control algorithms. Key milestones include the integration of AI for path planning and obstacle avoidance, enabling applications like , infrastructure inspection, and . For instance, autonomous drones have demonstrated reliable in dynamic environments, reducing human intervention through onboard . Flapping-wing innovations, such as those achieving autonomous perching on narrow surfaces in 2022, highlight progress in bio-inspired actuation for interaction tasks like grasping or environmental sampling. These systems interact with environments via payloads including cameras and manipulators, though challenges persist in energy efficiency and wind resistance. Aquatic robotic systems include remotely operated vehicles (ROVs) for tethered control and autonomous underwater vehicles (AUVs) for independent operation, both essential for mobility in challenging underwater domains. The first AUV, SPURV (Self-Propelled Underwater Research Vehicle), emerged in , marking the inception of untethered submersible robotics for research. AUVs propel via thrusters or gliders, navigating with inertial systems and due to limited GPS availability underwater, supporting tasks like ocean mapping and resource surveying. Biomimetic designs, such as robotic fish, enhance efficiency by undulating tails or fins to mimic natural swimmers, reducing drag compared to propeller-based systems. Pioneering biomimetic examples include RoboTuna, developed in 1994 to replicate carangiform swimming for hydrodynamic studies. Recent soft robotic fish, like those using elastomer actuators, achieve high maneuverability for applications in and pollution monitoring. Interaction capabilities involve sampling arms or sensors, with autonomy improving through for adaptive behaviors in currents. Persistent challenges include communication latency and power constraints in deep-sea operations.

Manipulation and Human-Robot Interfaces


Robotic manipulation encompasses the mechanisms and algorithms enabling robots to grasp, transport, and reorient objects using end-effectors such as grippers and dexterous hands. Early industrial manipulators, like the Unimate hydraulic arm introduced in 1961 for General Motors' assembly lines, focused on repetitive tasks such as die casting and welding, achieving payload capacities up to 4 kg with six degrees of freedom. These systems relied on programmed trajectories rather than sensory feedback, prioritizing reliability in structured environments over adaptability.
Subsequent developments emphasized dexterity, with the Shadow Dexterous Hand, developed by Shadow Robot Company since 2004, featuring 24 degrees of freedom and air-muscle actuation to mimic human-like grasping and in-hand manipulation. Recent advances integrate soft materials and multimodal sensing; for instance, RISOs (Rigid end-effectors with SOft materials) combine rigid jaws with compliant pads to enhance grasp stability on irregular objects, demonstrated in 2024 experiments achieving 95% success rates on fragile items. Tactile-enabled grippers, such as the five-DOF device tested in 2024, perform in-hand singulation by distinguishing and isolating objects via embedded sensors, addressing challenges in cluttered environments.
Human-robot interfaces facilitate operator control and collaboration, ranging from full teleoperation—where human inputs directly map to robot motions via joysticks or haptic gloves—to shared autonomy systems that blend human intent with algorithmic assistance. In teleoperation, frameworks like those proposed in 2023 for surgical robots adaptively allocate control authority, reducing operator workload by up to 30% through force feedback and predictive path guidance. Shared control paradigms, evaluated in 2024 studies, employ motion polytopes in virtual reality to constrain unsafe actions while preserving operator agency, improving task completion times in remote manipulation by 25% compared to pure teleoperation. Gesture-based interfaces, including hand-tracking for multi-robot coordination, emerged in 2024 prototypes, enabling intuitive commands with latency under 100 ms for applications in hazardous settings. Levels of robot autonomy (LoRA) frameworks classify interfaces from teleoperated (LoRA 1) to fully autonomous (LoRA 10), guiding HRI design to balance human oversight with machine capability in dynamic scenarios.
Integration of manipulation and interfaces advances through learning-based methods; for example, 2025 dexterous hands like the F-TAC incorporate biomimetic tactile arrays with 100+ sensors per finger, enabling real-time adaptation via reinforcement learning for tasks like egg handling without damage. These systems often employ programming by demonstration, where human demonstrations via interfaces train policies for in-hand reorientation, achieving human-level dexterity in simulated benchmarks as reported in 2025 surveys. Challenges persist in generalizing to unstructured environments, where sensory noise and computational demands limit reliability, underscoring the need for robust force-torque feedback and hybrid control strategies.

Applications

Industrial and Manufacturing

Industrial robotics originated with the installation of the robot at ' Ternstedt plant in , on December 3, 1961, marking the first use of a programmable in manufacturing for die-casting handling and . This hydraulic manipulator, developed by and , automated repetitive and hazardous tasks, setting the foundation for factory automation. By the 1970s, adoption expanded to assembly lines, particularly in the automotive sector, with articulated robots enabling precise operations like and . Global deployment has surged, with 542,076 industrial robots installed in 2024, more than double the installations a decade prior, and a total of 4,664,000 units operational worldwide, reflecting a 9% annual increase. accounted for 74% of these installations, led by at 54%, driven by electronics and automotive manufacturing demands. Automotive applications dominated new installations, comprising about 30% of the total, followed by electrical and industries. Common configurations include articulated robots, which feature rotary joints mimicking human arms and hold over 50% for their versatility in multi-axis tasks; SCARA robots for high-speed assembly in horizontal planes; Cartesian (gantry) robots for linear precision in pick-and-place operations; and delta robots for rapid handling of lightweight parts. These systems enhance through consistent accuracy, reduced cycle times, and operation in unsafe environments, with robots achieving densities of 126 per 10,000 workers globally in recent years. Empirical studies indicate industrial robots boost labor , particularly in low-robot-density settings, by automating routine tasks and enabling scale efficiencies, though effects diminish at higher densities. However, adoption correlates with employment reductions in , with one additional per thousand workers linked to a 0.2 drop in employment-to-population ratios and wage declines of 0.4-0.5%, disproportionately affecting lower-skilled males in routine roles. While robots displace specific jobs, they spur creation in maintenance, programming, and complementary sectors, contributing to overall via higher output per worker. Recent advances integrate robotics with Industry 4.0 principles, including collaborative robots (cobots) that safely share workspaces with humans via force-sensing and AI-driven adaptability, representing nearly 12% of installations. Cobots facilitate flexible production lines, reducing setup times and costs for small-batch manufacturing, while enhancements in enable and adaptive path planning. Projections anticipate continued growth, with installations exceeding 575,000 units in 2025, propelled by demands for precision in semiconductors and electric vehicles.

Medical and Surgical Robotics

Medical robotics encompasses systems designed to assist in diagnostics, , rehabilitation, and , enhancing precision, repeatability, and minimally invasive approaches compared to traditional methods. Surgical robotics, a primary subset, originated with the use of the PUMA 560 industrial robot for a stereotactic in 1985, marking the first application in human . Subsequent developments included the system in 1994, the first FDA-approved surgical robot for endoscopic camera control, and competing platforms like (FDA-approved 2000) and the da Vinci system (FDA-approved 2000 for laparoscopic procedures). These teleoperated systems provide surgeons with enhanced dexterity through wristed instruments, 3D visualization, and tremor filtration, enabling procedures in confined spaces such as prostatectomies and gynecological surgeries. The , developed by , became the dominant platform after its commercial launch in 2001, facilitating over 10 million procedures worldwide by 2021 and continuing rapid adoption, with 493 systems placed in Q4 2024 alone, including the da Vinci 5 model introduced in 2024. Meta-analyses of randomized trials indicate robotic-assisted often yields lower blood loss, reduced transfusion rates, shorter stays, and fewer conversions to open procedures compared to conventional or open in specialties like and colorectal resection, though operative times are typically longer. However, superiority in oncologic outcomes remains inconsistent, with some reviews finding equivalent long-term survival rates to but higher costs due to equipment and training demands. Recent integrations of AI for intraoperative guidance and force feedback in systems like da Vinci 5 aim to address limitations in haptic sensing. Beyond surgery, rehabilitation robotics employs and end-effector devices to support motor recovery post- or , delivering high-intensity, repetitive training that exceeds capacity. Devices like the Bi-Manu-Track facilitate bilateral upper-limb exercises with sensory feedback, while systems such as the Armeo Power enable task-specific movements. Systematic reviews confirm efficacy in improving upper-limb function and when combined with conventional therapy, particularly in subacute patients, with meta-analyses showing significant gains in Fugl-Meyer scores versus standard care alone. Lower-limb like ReWalk or Ekso GT assist training in rehabilitation, reducing therapist burden and enabling earlier mobilization, though evidence for long-term functional independence varies by injury severity. Emerging therapeutic and diagnostic applications include micro-robots for and minimally invasive biopsies, drawing from biomimetic designs to navigate vasculature or soft tissues. , using compliant materials, enable safer interactions in or capsule robots for gastrointestinal diagnostics, with prototypes demonstrating autonomous detection via onboard . AI-enhanced robots also support precision tasks like automated or radiotherapy positioning, reducing human error in radiation dosing. The global medical robotics market, valued at $16.6 billion in 2023, is projected to reach $63.8 billion by 2032, driven by aging populations and procedural volume growth, though adoption barriers persist in resource-limited settings due to high upfront costs and needs. Overall, while empirical data affirm benefits in precision and recovery metrics, causal impacts on broader health outcomes require ongoing randomized trials to disentangle from confounding factors like surgeon experience.

Military and Defense Operations

Robotic systems in and defense operations primarily enable remote execution of hazardous tasks, including , , (ISR), explosive ordnance disposal (EOD), resupply, and targeted engagements, thereby reducing risks to human operators. Unmanned aerial vehicles (UAVs) exemplify this, with platforms like the MQ-9A Reaper delivering up to 27 hours of flight endurance for persistent ISR and precision strikes using Hellfire missiles, as demonstrated in operations since 2007. Ground-based unmanned vehicles (UGVs) complement aerial assets by handling terrain-specific missions; for instance, systems like the TALON robot have been used for EOD since the early 2000s, while recent deployments in exceeded 15,000 UGVs by 2025 for direct combat support and ISR against numerically superior forces. Autonomy in these systems varies, with semi-autonomous features for navigation and target detection but U.S. Department of Defense (DoD) policy under Directive 3000.09 requiring human oversight for lethal decisions to ensure proportionality and discrimination. Advances in AI integration have expanded capabilities, such as drone swarms for coordinated electronic warfare and strikes, tested in U.S. exercises as of 2025, potentially scaling operations beyond prior manpower limits. Wearable robotic exoskeletons further augment dismounted soldiers, increasing load-carrying capacity by up to 20-50% and mitigating fatigue during extended marches; the U.S. Army's ongoing evaluations, including prototypes from 2024, focus on integration with infantry gear to enhance endurance without compromising mobility. Emerging applications include multi-domain robotic collaborations, such as trials in 2024 testing UGVs alongside UAVs for joint ISR and logistics in contested environments. These systems' effectiveness stems from and real-time data processing, though challenges like electronic warfare vulnerabilities and supply chain dependencies persist, as evidenced in where UGVs have proven "crucial" for despite attrition rates. DoD investments prioritize scalable autonomy, with RAND analyses projecting that by the 2030s, uncrewed platforms could comprise a larger fleet portion, driven by cost efficiencies over manned alternatives.

Agriculture, Logistics, and Exploration

In , robots facilitate precision tasks such as planting, weeding, monitoring, and harvesting to address labor shortages and optimize resource use. Autonomous tractors, exemplified by John Deere's models equipped with GPS and AI for driverless operation, enable 24-hour fieldwork while reducing fuel consumption by up to 15% through optimized paths. Harvesting robots like the CROO system for strawberries use to selectively pick ripe fruit, minimizing crop damage compared to manual methods. Drones equipped with multispectral cameras conduct aerial surveys for crop health, applying targeted pesticides via AI-driven analysis, which can cut chemical usage by 20-30% in applications. robots, holding 48.6% of the agricultural robotics in 2023, automate dairy operations by attaching to cows via sensors, improving efficiency in large-scale farms. Logistics robotics primarily involves autonomous mobile robots (AMRs) for warehouse fulfillment and supply chain automation, enhancing speed and scalability amid e-commerce growth. Amazon's acquisition of Kiva Systems in 2012 introduced shelf-transporting AMRs that navigate warehouses to deliver inventory to human pickers, reducing retrieval times from hours to minutes; by June 2025, Amazon deployed over 1 million such robots across its facilities. Recent advancements include Amazon's Blue Jay robot, unveiled in October 2025, which integrates picking, sorting, and consolidation in a single system using AI vision for package handling. The global warehouse robotics market is projected to grow from $6.51 billion in 2025 to $17.98 billion by 2032 at a CAGR of 15.6%, driven by demand for high-throughput operations in sectors like retail and manufacturing. These systems prioritize safety through collision avoidance sensors, though integration challenges include high initial costs and the need for facility redesign. Exploration robotics extends to extraterrestrial and oceanic environments, where autonomy is critical due to communication delays and harsh conditions. NASA's Perseverance rover, landed in Jezero Crater on February 18, 2021, has traversed over 28 kilometers by 2025, collecting 24 rock core samples potentially containing biosignatures from ancient microbial life and analyzing volcanic rocks to reveal Mars' geologic history. China's Tianwen-2 mission, launched May 29, 2025, employs robotic arms for asteroid sampling and return, marking the nation's first such deep-space endeavor. In oceanic exploration, autonomous underwater vehicles (AUVs) like Woods Hole Oceanographic Institution's Sentry operate at depths up to 6,000 meters, mapping seafloors with sonar and collecting water samples for chemical analysis without human intervention. The Orpheus AUV, introduced for full-ocean-depth missions, supports prolonged surveys of hydrothermal vents and biodiversity hotspots. NASA's underwater robots, tested for icy moon analogs, simulate autonomous navigation in subsurface oceans of Europa and Enceladus, advancing techniques for future astrobiology probes. These platforms enable data collection in inaccessible regions, though limitations persist in power endurance and real-time adaptability to unforeseen obstacles.

Service and Consumer Robotics

Service and consumer robotics involve autonomous or semi-autonomous machines designed to perform practical tasks in non-industrial settings, such as homes, offices, venues, and healthcare facilities, thereby assisting humans without direct applications. These robots typically operate in unstructured environments, relying on sensors, AI-driven , and for tasks like cleaning, delivery, and basic assistance, with variants focused on commercial efficiency and personal/domestic ones tailored for use. Global sales of service robots reached nearly 200,000 units in 2024, reflecting a 9% year-over-year increase amid rising demand for in labor-short sectors. The broader service robotics market, valued at approximately USD 47.10 billion in 2024, is projected to expand to USD 98.65 billion by 2029, driven by advancements in AI and that enhance obstacle avoidance and adaptability. In consumer applications, robotic vacuum cleaners exemplify widespread adoption, with iRobot's , introduced in September 2002, accumulating over 40 million units sold worldwide by mapping floors via algorithms and sensors to navigate homes autonomously. reported 2024 revenues of USD 681.85 million, predominantly from such devices, though sales have faced headwinds from market saturation and competition. Robotic lawn mowers represent another mature segment, with the global market estimated at USD 8.47 billion in 2024 and forecasted to reach USD 21.97 billion by 2033, utilizing GPS, boundary wires, or vision systems for perimeter mowing; models like the Navimow employ spiked wheels and RTK positioning for precise operation on slopes up to 40%. Delivery robots, such as those from deployed on U.S. college campuses since 2019, integrate radars, cameras, and to transport food and groceries over short distances, contributing to a nascent market projected to grow from USD 0.4 billion in 2025 to USD 0.77 billion by 2029. Similarly, Kiwibot systems facilitate on-demand campus deliveries, emphasizing low-emission alternatives to human couriers. Service robots in and healthcare address operational bottlenecks, with examples including Robotics' models for delivery and UV disinfection in hotels, reducing staff workload by automating repetitive tasks like tray transport. In hospitals, robots from automate medication, linen, and waste transport, minimizing human exposure to contaminants and errors in supply chains. Home assistance extends to emerging companion devices, though adoption lags due to limitations in natural interaction and high initial costs exceeding USD 1,000 for advanced units. Despite progress in AI autonomy, these robots often require human oversight for edge cases like cluttered spaces or dynamic obstacles, underscoring ongoing challenges in and under causal uncertainties. Market growth is tempered by reliability issues in diverse real-world conditions, with empirical data indicating failure rates of 5-10% in early deployments for delivery systems.

Research and Innovations

Biomimetic and Soft Robotics

Biomimetic robotics designs machines by emulating biological structures and processes to achieve superior adaptability, efficiency, and functionality in complex environments. This approach leverages evolutionary optimizations in , such as muscle-tendon systems for locomotion or sensory organs for , to overcome limitations of rigid robotics. Key principles include hierarchical control inspired by neural systems and morphology that enables emergent behaviors without centralized computation. Early milestones trace to the with snake-like robots mimicking locomotion for pipe inspection, evolving into diverse forms like flapping-wing micro aerial vehicles patterned after for agile flight. In , biomimetic designs facilitate planetary missions; for instance, entomopter concepts emulate wings for Mars atmospheric sampling, providing thrust in low-density air where traditional rotors fail. Aquatic examples include robotic like iSplash, which replicate carangiform swimming to achieve speeds up to 0.25 m/s with low energy consumption, aiding underwater surveillance. Soft robotics, often intersecting with , utilizes compliant materials such as elastomers and hydrogels to enable deformation, safe interaction, and through unstructured terrains. Unlike rigid systems, soft actuators like pneumatic McKibben muscles—developed in 1957 for prosthetics—allow continuous deformation mimicking contraction. This field gained momentum in the with fully soft prototypes like the Harvard Octobot, a pneumatic octopus-inspired demonstrating untethered via chemical fuel reactions. Recent advances include stimuli-responsive materials for dielectric elastomer actuators, enabling high-strain responses up to 200% under electric fields, though challenged by voltage requirements exceeding 1 kV. In , untethered soft integrated shape-memory alloys for precise manipulation, addressing power tethering issues via embedded batteries. Biomimetic soft robots, such as those replicating trunks for dexterous grasping, excel in medical applications like minimally invasive , where compliance reduces tissue damage. Challenges persist in actuation scalability, with thermal and magnetic methods suffering slow response times (seconds) and simulation inaccuracies due to nonlinear material dynamics. Fabrication via additive manufacturing advances precision but struggles with multi-material integration for hybrid rigid-soft systems. Despite these, soft-biomimetic hybrids promise breakthroughs in disaster response, where gecko-inspired adhesion enables climbing over debris.

Swarm and Multi-Robot Systems

Swarm robotics refers to the study and design of systems comprising numerous relatively simple robots that interact locally to produce robust, scalable collective behaviors without centralized control or external infrastructure. These behaviors emerge from , where individual robots follow simple rules based on local sensing and communication, analogous to natural systems like colonies or schools. Key desirable properties include through redundancy, adaptability to dynamic environments, and flexibility in task reconfiguration, enabling the swarm to maintain functionality despite individual failures. The field draws foundational principles from swarm intelligence algorithms, such as optimization developed by Marco Dorigo in the mid-1990s, which models pheromone-based path finding in . Early experimental platforms emerged in the early 2000s, with the SWARM-BOTS project (2002–2006), coordinated by Dorigo, demonstrating self-assembling mobile robots capable of bridging gaps and transporting objects collectively. Multi-robot systems extend this paradigm to smaller teams of more capable agents, often incorporating distributed or hybrid control for coordinated tasks like or , as seen in agricultural monitoring where robots divide labor for crop scouting and weeding. Applications span exploration, where swarms map unknown terrains by dividing coverage areas probabilistically, outperforming single robots in speed and completeness in simulations of up to 100 agents. In military operations, drone swarms—deployed in numbers exceeding 100 units—provide resilient surveillance and offensive capabilities, leveraging redundancy to overwhelm defenses, as demonstrated in U.S. Department of Defense tests of low-cost attritable systems since 2016. Industrial uses include warehouse logistics, with multi-robot fleets coordinating via decentralized auctions for task allocation, reducing congestion in facilities handling thousands of items daily. Persistent challenges include scalability beyond scales, where communication interference and constraints degrade in groups larger than 50 robots, necessitating advances in low-power ad-hoc networks. Task allocation remains difficult without central oversight, as probabilistic methods like virtual bidding can lead to inefficiencies in heterogeneous swarms, with further complicated by map-merging errors in (SLAM) across distributed agents. Ongoing research integrates for adaptive behaviors, as in frameworks tested on swarms of 20–30 units for dynamic avoidance, aiming to bridge simulation-to-reality gaps observed in real-world deployments.

Humanoid and Collaborative Robots

Humanoid robots are engineered to mimic human form and capabilities, featuring bipedal locomotion, articulated limbs, and dexterous hands to navigate and manipulate objects in human-centric environments. Recent advancements emphasize whole-body coordination through and large behavior models, enabling dynamic tasks such as walking, running, crawling, and without predefined trajectories. At CES 2026, and Hyundai unveiled the production-ready version of the fully electric Atlas, standing approximately 1.5 meters tall and weighing 75 kg, with improved dexterity, fluid movements, and three-fingered grippers suited for factory tasks including material handling and assembly line work with electric screwdrivers. Powered by AI integration, Atlas enables real-time thinking, adaptation, and error recovery, with initial deployments planned for Hyundai plants. It demonstrates these capabilities via sim-to-real policies derived from human , achieving autonomous loco-manipulation in unstructured settings like manufacturing sequencing. Similarly, Tesla's Optimus Gen 2 incorporates 28 in its body plus 11 per hand, supporting faster walking, , and precise grasping powered by end-to-end AI trained on video data, with demonstrations including real-time to novel tasks as of 2025. Collaborative robots, or cobots, prioritize safe physical interaction with humans through inherent design limits on force, speed, and payload, often adhering to ISO/TS 15066 standards that define four modes: safety-rated monitored stop, hand guiding, speed and separation monitoring, and power and force limiting. Originating with Universal Robots' UR5 model in 2008, cobots enable rapid deployment—typically 2-4 hours for integration—facilitating applications in machine tending, assembly, and without protective barriers. Innovations in AI-enhanced cobots reduce cycle times and adapt to variability, boosting efficiency in small-batch production while maintaining human oversight. The global cobot market expanded from $1.2 billion in 2023 to projected $7.2 billion by 2030, driven by affordability and versatility across industries. Research bridges humanoid and collaborative paradigms by addressing human-robot interaction challenges, such as intuitive via demonstration and real-time in shared spaces. For s, efforts focus on scalable behaviors via unified models controlling full-body dynamics, mitigating issues like environmental complexity and contact-rich maneuvers. studies integrate sensory feedback for predictive collision avoidance, with empirical tests showing reduced injury risks compared to traditional industrial arms. Despite progress, limitations persist in humanoid dexterity for fine manipulation and cobot scalability for heavy payloads, necessitating hybrid controls grounded in physics-based to ensure reliability. Ongoing trials, including U.S. Department of Defense explorations of humanoid , underscore causal trade-offs between and human controllability in dynamic operations.

Emerging Technologies (AI, Digital Twins)

Artificial intelligence (AI) has advanced robotic perception through algorithms, particularly convolutional neural networks (CNNs) for and techniques for interpreting complex environments, enabling robots to process multimodal data like vision and tactile inputs with higher accuracy. In robotic control, models, such as Soft Actor-Critic, have been integrated to optimize grasping and manipulation tasks, reducing errors in unstructured settings by learning from simulated trials before physical deployment. These developments, documented in peer-reviewed studies from 2024, demonstrate empirical improvements in decision-making latency and adaptability, with AI-driven systems achieving up to 20-30% gains in task success rates compared to rule-based predecessors in controlled experiments. Digital twins, virtual replicas of physical robots that synchronize from sensors and actuators, facilitate and , allowing iterative testing of control algorithms without hardware wear or safety risks. In manufacturing applications, case studies from 2023-2025 show digital twins enabling human-robot collaboration by modeling interactions to minimize collision probabilities and ergonomic strains, with one simulation framework reducing assembly cycle times by 15% through virtual scenario optimization. For additive manufacturing robots, digital twins integrated with AI have supported real-time process adjustments, improving material deposition precision and yield in empirical prototypes tested in 2025. The convergence of AI and digital twins amplifies robotic , as AI models trained within twin environments predict behaviors under edge cases, such as fault or environmental variability, outperforming standalone simulations in . Empirical validations in robotics domains, including flexible systems, indicate that this hybrid approach enhances scalability, with digital twins reducing physical prototyping iterations by factors of 5-10 while incorporating for adaptive updates. Challenges persist in latency and model accuracy for highly dynamic robots, but advancements in and are addressing these, as evidenced by industry case studies achieving sub-millisecond twin-to-physical alignment.

Societal and Economic Impacts

Productivity Gains and

Industrial robots have demonstrably enhanced labor and (TFP) in adopting sectors, primarily through capital deepening—where robots augment capital stock—and efficiency gains in task execution. Empirical analysis across 17 developed countries from 1993 to 2007 indicates that one additional per thousand workers raised annual labor growth by 0.36 percentage points, accounting for roughly one-sixth of total increases during the period. Similarly, these robots contributed 0.37 percentage points to annual GDP per capita growth, representing over one-tenth of aggregate expansion. Such effects stem from robots' ability to perform repetitive, precise tasks continuously, reducing downtime and error rates compared to human labor. Updated estimates extending to 2022 across 29 advanced economies, including the Euro Area, quantify robots' role in recent decades. Using elasticities from prior models, robots added approximately 0.20 percentage points annually to U.S. GDP growth from 2005 to 2022 via combined capital deepening (0.08 points) and TFP effects (0.12 points). In , the contribution was notably higher at 0.57 points, reflecting denser . These gains align with findings that robot density correlates with firm-level TFP improvements, robust to controls for endogeneity such as Bartik-style instruments. accelerations have also supported growth, with robots increasing average wages without net displacement in aggregate hours worked. In emerging economies, adoption has amplified more substantially, aiding economic convergence. From 1999 to 2019, robot capital deepening accounted for 17.2% of labor productivity growth in 16 such countries, compared to 7.3% in 19 developed ones, with standout cases like (41.2%–53.7% contribution) driven by rapid robot stock expansion. This has narrowed productivity gaps, as evidenced by reduced dispersion in output per worker across nations. Broader adoption in has lowered unit labor costs—for instance, by 6% in Spanish firms post-robotics integration—fostering reshoring and sustained output growth. Overall, these productivity enhancements have underpinned akin to prior technological shifts, with robots contributing around 10% to GDP growth in countries from 1993 to 2016. In high-adoption locales like , each robot per thousand workers boosted GDP by 0.5% over a decade. While benefits concentrate in robot-intensive industries, they promote capital-labor complementarity in complementary tasks, yielding net positive growth effects despite task-specific substitutions. The integration of artificial intelligence with robotics facilitates physical automation in factories and homes, replacing manual labor and addressing labor shortages driven by aging demographics, where robot adoption correlates with older populations to fill workforce gaps. This synergy holds potential for high-value companies, creating trillion-scale markets; for example, Morgan Stanley projects the humanoid robot market could surpass $5 trillion by 2050, while ARK Invest estimates a $26 trillion opportunity in humanoid robotics.

Employment Effects and Job Displacement

Industrial robots have demonstrably displaced in sectors involving routine manual tasks, such as and assembly, by substituting for human labor in repetitive operations. Empirical of U.S. labor markets from 1990 to 2007 reveals that the introduction of industrial robots reduced the employment-to-population ratio by 0.18 to 0.34 percentage points per additional robot per thousand workers, equivalent to an decline of approximately 3.3 to 6.2 workers per robot. This displacement effect was most pronounced in industries like automotive and , where robot density increased significantly, leading to localized reductions of 0.25 to 0.42 percent per robot exposure. Similar patterns persist into the 2020s, with a 2022 study finding that a one standard deviation increase in robot exposure correlates with a 7.5 percent drop in and 9 percent decline in hourly s for affected commutersheds. While robots enhance —boosting output per worker by enabling 24/7 operations without fatigue—their causal impact on labor favors displacement over reinstatement in the short to medium term, as new tasks created (e.g., robot maintenance) often require higher skills and fail to fully offset losses among low- to medium-skill workers. Acemoglu and Restrepo's framework posits that robots primarily automate existing tasks rather than complementing them broadly, unlike earlier technologies like computers, resulting in net negative effects on aggregate in exposed sectors. A 2025 analysis confirms uneven gender impacts, with robots reducing male by 3.7 percentage points versus 1.6 for women between 1993 and 2014, exacerbating gaps in routine occupations. Countervailing evidence, such as a German study indicating a 10 percent net rise four years post-adoption in some firms, suggests firm-level variation, but aggregate U.S. and European data predominantly show sustained downward pressure on routine jobs without equivalent broad-scale creation. Long-term economic adjustments, including worker reallocation to service or non-routine roles, mitigate some effects, yet empirical models indicate persistent challenges for displaced workers, including prolonged durations—up to 20 percent longer for those in robot-exposed routine occupations. Projections from the World Economic Forum's 2025 report anticipate robotics driving 58 percent of structural labor market shifts by 2030, displacing roles in assembly and while generating demand for technicians and programmers, though skill mismatches hinder rapid transitions. Overall, robotics' labor market footprint underscores a of task-specific displacement, with gains accruing unevenly and necessitating targeted retraining to address causal reductions in low-skill employment opportunities.

Safety, Liability, and Standards

Robot-related workplace injuries primarily occur during programming, testing, , or non-routine operations, with stationary industrial s accounting for the majority of incidents. Between 2015 and 2022, the U.S. (OSHA) documented 77 robot-related accidents, resulting in 66 injuries, predominantly finger amputations and crush injuries from robot arms striking or trapping workers. In 78% of analyzed cases involving fatalities or severe injuries, robots struck workers, often during activities when safeguards were bypassed. Empirical data from indicates that increased robot density correlates with reduced accident rates, with one additional robot per 1,000 workers linked to 0.254 fewer accidents and 0.0353 fewer fatalities, suggesting can enhance overall safety when properly implemented. International standards establish requirements for safe robot design, integration, and operation to mitigate these risks. The ISO 10218 series, updated in 2025, specifies safety requirements for industrial , including inherent safe design features, protective measures such as emergency stops and speed reductions, and user information for . ISO 10218-1 addresses individual as partly completed machinery, emphasizing limits on , , and speed to prevent , while ISO 10218-2 covers robot systems and cells, requiring safeguarding like fencing and light curtains for non-collaborative setups. For collaborative robots (cobots) that operate alongside humans without barriers, ISO/TS 15066 supplements ISO 10218 by defining maximum allowable and speed thresholds to minimize injury risk during contact. OSHA in the United States endorses these ISO standards as guidelines for compliance with general industry regulations under 29 CFR 1910, focusing on hazard identification and control rather than prescriptive robot-specific rules. In the , the Machinery Regulation (EU) 2023/1230, effective from 2027, integrates AI Act requirements for high-risk systems, mandating conformity assessments for robots incorporating to ensure safety and transparency. Liability for robot-induced harm typically falls under frameworks, where manufacturers face for defects in , manufacturing, or warnings, as seen in cases attributing failures to foreseeable malfunctions. For autonomous robots, attributing causation becomes complex, as courts must distinguish between predictable defects and unpredictable AI decisions, potentially shifting burden from users to developers under emerging proposals. In the U.S., unresolved questions in AI-related product liability cases highlight challenges in proving foreseeability, with at least 11 ongoing suits by 2025 examining algorithmic errors in robotic systems. Critics argue that overly broad could stifle innovation by imposing excessive costs on deployers, particularly for adaptive AI behaviors not attributable to initial flaws.

Controversies and Debates

Lethal Autonomous Weapons Systems

Lethal autonomous weapons systems (LAWS), also known as autonomous weapons or "killer robots," refer to weapon systems that, once activated, can independently select and engage targets without requiring further human intervention in the critical functions of target identification, tracking, and attack. This capability relies on sensors, algorithms, and to process data and execute lethal force, distinguishing LAWS from semi-autonomous systems where humans retain oversight. U.S. Department of Defense Directive 3000.09, updated in January 2023, defines an autonomous weapon system as one capable of selecting and engaging targets after activation, while mandating appropriate human judgment over lethal decisions to ensure compliance with (IHL). Development of LAWS has accelerated amid great-power competition, with systems transitioning from defensive to offensive roles. Early examples include the U.S. Phalanx Close-In Weapon System (CIWS), deployed since the 1980s, which autonomously detects and destroys incoming missiles and aircraft using radar and gunfire without human input once engaged. More advanced offensive systems emerged in the 2010s, such as Israel's , a drone capable of autonomous target selection and self-destruction on impact, used in conflicts including in 2020. Turkey's STM Kargu-2 quadcopter drone, equipped with facial recognition and for target identification, was reportedly deployed in in 2020, marking one of the first documented uses of a self-operating drone swarm to attack retreating forces. Russia has fielded Lancet loitering munitions in since 2022, with autonomous terminal guidance capabilities, while and continue prototyping AI-integrated ground and aerial systems, though full deployment details remain classified. Proponents, including U.S. and allied analysts, argue LAWS offer tactical advantages such as faster reaction times in high-threat environments, reduced risk to human operators, and precision targeting that minimizes compared to human-piloted systems prone to or emotion. In peer conflicts like potential U.S.- scenarios, enables operations in GPS-denied or communications-jammed areas, preserving without personnel losses. Critics, however, highlight risks of algorithmic errors, such as misidentification due to biased data or unpredictable behaviors in novel scenarios, potentially violating IHL principles of distinction and proportionality. gaps arise when machines make lethal choices, complicating attribution under existing laws of , and proliferation to non-state actors could lower barriers to , as low-cost drones evade human oversight. International deliberations under the UN (CCW) since 2014 have failed to produce a binding , with divisions between states favoring —such as the U.S. emphasis on meaningful human control—and those like and opposing preemptive bans that hinder technological edge. A December 2024 UN resolution, supported by 161 states, called for 2025 talks on LAWS governance but stopped short of prohibition, reflecting ongoing stalemate. Advocacy groups like the Campaign to Stop Killer Robots, a coalition of over 270 NGOs including , push for a total ban citing dehumanization of killing, though their positions align with broader disarmament agendas that may undervalue military necessities in . Existing IHL, including the , applies to LAWS, requiring predictability and discrimination, but lacks specific prohibitions, leaving to national policies amid rapid AI advances.

Ethical Dilemmas in AI Autonomy

Autonomous robots equipped with advanced AI raise profound ethical challenges concerning in ambiguous or high-stakes scenarios, where human oversight is absent or delayed. A central dilemma is the "," adapted to robotics, wherein an AI must choose between outcomes that inevitably cause harm, such as an autonomous vehicle deciding whether to swerve into a barrier to protect passengers or pedestrians, potentially sacrificing one life to save others. This scenario, explored in ethical frameworks for self-driving cars, highlights the difficulty of programming universal moral rules, as preferences vary culturally and individually; for instance, surveys indicate that respondents favor utilitarian outcomes in abstract dilemmas but shift toward in personalized contexts. Empirical studies on AI moral judgments reveal inconsistencies, with models often failing to align with human ethical intuitions due to training data biases, underscoring the causal challenge of deriving robust, context-invariant principles from incomplete datasets. Accountability emerges as another core issue, creating an "attributability gap" when autonomous systems cause unintended harm, as responsibility cannot be straightforwardly assigned to non-sentient machines lacking or . In cases like healthcare robots administering treatments or industrial cobots malfunctioning, liability typically falls to human designers, manufacturers, or operators, yet diffused decision chains—spanning providers, developers, and deployers—complicate enforcement. Legal analyses argue that even fully autonomous AI remains tethered to human , as machines cannot bear , but this raises incentives for under-designing safeguards to evade blame, potentially exacerbating risks in real-world deployments. For example, investigations into AI-driven errors in robotic emphasize the need for traceable decision logs, yet opacity in neural networks often hinders post-hoc audits, fueling debates on mandatory explainability standards. Debates over further intensify these dilemmas, with consensus in philosophical and engineering literature that robots cannot possess genuine moral status due to the absence of , emotions, or autonomous volition, rendering them tools rather than agents capable of ethical reasoning. Attempts to imbue AI with "ethical governors"—pre-programmed constraints mimicking values—face incompleteness problems, as no finite rule set can anticipate all scenarios, leading to potential misalignments where robots prioritize programmed metrics over nuanced welfare. Critics, including those from research, warn that over-reliance on such systems risks moral in humans, while proponents advocate for hybrid models where AI augments rather than supplants ; however, empirical tests show AI behaviors influencing human moral choices, sometimes eroding users' . This interplay demands rigorous validation of AI modules against diverse, real-world data to mitigate , though institutional biases in academic sourcing—often favoring precautionary stances—may overstate risks relative to verifiable incident rates in controlled trials.

Regulatory Barriers vs. Innovation Imperatives

Regulatory frameworks for robotics often prioritize risk mitigation through stringent safety, liability, and ethical standards, yet these can conflict with the imperatives for and deployment essential to technological advancement. In fields like autonomous systems and AI-integrated robots, iterative development relies on real-world testing and data feedback loops, processes that pre-market approvals and conformity assessments can prolong by years. For instance, the European Union's AI Act, effective from August 2024, categorizes many robotic applications—such as those in or healthcare—as high-risk, mandating risk assessments, , and human oversight requirements that impose significant compliance costs on developers. These measures, while aimed at preventing misuse, have been criticized for creating uncertainty that deters investment, particularly for smaller firms lacking resources to navigate bureaucratic hurdles, thereby favoring established players with legal expertise. In the United States, the Food and Drug Administration's (FDA) 510(k) clearance pathway for surgical robots exemplifies inherent in device approval, requiring demonstrations of substantial equivalence to predicates while addressing cybersecurity and levels. Companies like Vicarious Surgical have repeatedly postponed FDA submissions—shifting from 2024 to late 2025 or even 2026—due to the need for additional preclinical validation and data, extending development timelines and increasing capital burn rates. Similarly, SS Innovations adjusted its filing for a soft-tissue surgical to Q4 2025, highlighting how iterative refinements demanded by regulators can sideline U.S. innovators against less-regulated competitors in . Empirical analyses indicate that such processes correlate with reduced R&D , as firms anticipate escalating compliance burdens with scale, stifling the experimentation vital for breakthroughs in robotic precision and . Broader economic evidence underscores how over-regulation entrenches barriers, particularly for mobile and public-area robots where concerns amplify caution. A 2023 MIT study found that regulatory triggers tied to firm growth discourage innovation by raising operational risks, a dynamic evident in robotics where undefined standards for swarm systems or collaborative arms leave developers in a "regulatory " prone to retroactive enforcement. The Information Technology and Innovation Foundation (ITIF) has recommended U.S. agencies systematically review robotics-specific barriers, arguing that precautionary approaches—often influenced by institutional risk-aversion in academia and policy circles—hinder adoption in sectors like and eldercare, where empirical safety gains accrue from scaled deployment rather than prohibitions. Counterbalancing these barriers, innovation imperatives demand regulatory flexibility to harness robotics' productivity potential, as rigid rules risk ceding leadership to jurisdictions like , where state-driven scaling outpaces Western caution. Proponents, including industry leaders, advocate for outcome-based standards over prescriptive ones, enabling faster iteration while maintaining accountability through post-market surveillance. For example, has emphasized proactive but targeted oversight for AI-driven robots to avert existential risks, yet warned that excessive controls could throttle the "robot army" scale needed for economic transformation, aligning with causal evidence that innovation velocity itself enhances safety via rapid error correction. Ultimately, reconciling these tensions requires evidence-led reforms prioritizing verifiable risks over hypothetical harms, lest regulatory inertia perpetuate inefficiencies in a field where empirical progress outstrips static rules.

Future Directions

Near-Term Advancements (2025–2030)

The integration of advanced artificial intelligence with robotics hardware is poised to enable greater deployment of versatile systems in industrial, service, and medical applications during 2025–2030. Humanoid robots, designed for general-purpose tasks in unstructured environments, represent a focal point, with the global market projected to expand from USD 2.92 billion in 2025 to USD 15.26 billion by 2030 at a 39.2% compound annual growth rate, driven by improvements in mobility, dexterity, and AI-driven learning. Tesla anticipates deploying thousands of its Optimus Gen 3 robots in factory settings by late 2025 for tasks like material handling, though production setbacks have tempered earlier mass-scaling goals to hundreds of units initially. Similarly, initiatives in China aim to establish a full-stack humanoid ecosystem by 2025, emphasizing industrial applications amid global competition. Industrial robotics will advance through enhanced collaborative robots (cobots) and autonomous mobile manipulators, supporting higher in and . The sector's market is forecasted to grow from USD 48.3 billion in 2025 to USD 90.6 billion by 2030 at a 13.4% CAGR, with key drivers including AI for adaptive programming and for real-time environmental adaptation. By 2025, and dual-armed systems are expected to enter commercial factory roles, transitioning from prototypes to operational units for repetitive yet variable tasks like assembly and . Overall robotics , encompassing industrial and service segments, is projected to reach USD 110.7 billion by 2030, a 2.5-fold increase from 2024 levels, predicated on scalable AI and cost reductions in actuators and computing. In healthcare, surgical and assistive robotics will prioritize precision and minimally invasive procedures, with the U.S. surgical robots market expanding from USD 2.35 billion in 2024 to USD 4.14 billion by 2030. Orthopedic applications alone are anticipated to surpass USD 3.5 billion globally by 2030 at over 10% CAGR, incorporating AI for intraoperative guidance and reduced variability in outcomes. Medical service robots, including those for patient mobility and disinfection, will grow at 16.5% CAGR from 2025 onward, enabling deployment in hospitals for labor-intensive tasks amid workforce shortages. These developments hinge on verifiable empirical progress in reliability, as rapid AI gains in simulation do not always translate to physical robustness in real-world settings.

Long-Term Challenges and Scalability

A primary long-term challenge in robotics scalability stems from the "reality gap," the persistent discrepancy between simulated training environments and real-world physics, including unmodeled dynamics, sensor noise, and stochastic interactions. This gap impedes efficient sim-to-real transfer, requiring extensive real-world that does not scale with computational advances in simulation, such as GPU-parallelized environments simulating thousands of robots. Proposed mitigations like domain randomization and improve generalization but demand ongoing validation, limiting deployment to controlled settings rather than ubiquitous, adaptive systems. Hardware constraints, particularly , pose fundamental barriers to scaling mobile and robots for prolonged, untethered operation. Lithium-ion batteries currently afford humanoids only 2-3 hours of runtime before requiring 1-2 hours to recharge, constraining high-utilization applications like warehouse logistics or elder care. For example, Agility Robotics' Digit model achieves a 90-minute active runtime with a 9-minute recharge cycle, yet reliability targets of 99.99% uptime—essential for economic viability—remain elusive, as even 99% uptime incurs approximately 5 hours of monthly downtime. Emerging silicon-anode technologies promise 30% higher and faster charging, but thermal management during power-intensive tasks like manipulation continues to throttle performance and risks hardware failure. Software and AI limitations further hinder scalability, as current systems excel in narrow tasks but falter in semantic understanding and dexterous manipulation within unstructured environments. Scaling beyond pilot phases requires AI capable of long-horizon and , yet 40% of industrial executives report unclear business cases due to these gaps, compounded by insufficient internal digital skills for integration. Generative AI advancements, such as those for robotic manipulation, address data scarcity through synthetic generation but struggle with real-world variability, necessitating hybrid approaches that blend with empirical tuning. Economic and deployment hurdles amplify these technical issues, with high upfront costs, customization needs, and safety certifications impeding . Humanoid scaling projections, like Tesla's target of 50,000 units in 2026, depend on resolving demand uncertainties and ISO-compliant safety for dynamic operations, where power failures could lead to . upskilling is critical, as 61% of leaders identify capability shortages as a key barrier, delaying ROI from pilots—now averaging 1.3 years in optimized cases—to broader ecosystems. In multi-robot scenarios, coordination methods often sacrifice optimality for computational in extended operations, underscoring the need for decentralized algorithms robust to communication delays and failures.

References

  1. https://www.[mdpi](/page/MDPI).com/2076-3417/13/13/7547
Add your contribution
Related Hubs
User Avatar
No comments yet.