Robust Jacobian estimation for uncalibrated visual servoing
Bibliographic record
Abstract
This paper addresses robust estimation of the uncalibrated visual-motor Jacobian for an image-based visual servoing (IBVS) system. The proposed method does not require knowledge of model or system parameters and is robust to outliers caused by various visual tracking errors, such as occlusion or mis-tracking. Previous uncalibrated methods are not robust to outliers and assume that the visual-motor data belong to the underlying model. In unstructured environments, this assumption may not hold. Outliers to the visual-motor model may deteriorate the Jacobian, which can make the system unstable or drive the arm in the wrong direction. We propose to apply a statistically robust M-estimator to reject the outliers. We compare the quality of the robust Jacobian estimation with the least squares-based estimation. The effect of outliers on the estimation quality is studied through MATLAB simulations and eye-in-hand visual servoing experiments using a WAM arm. Experimental results show that the Jacobian estimated by robust M-estimation is robust when up to 40% of the visual-motor data are outliers.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.007 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".