MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2011792403 · doi:10.1109/icra.2014.6907430

Single image 3D object detection and pose estimation for grasping

2014· article· en· W2011792403 on OpenAlexaff
Menglong Zhu, Konstantinos G. Derpanis, Yinfei Yang, Samarth Brahmbhatt, Mabel M. Zhang, Cody Phillips, Matthieu Lecce, Kostas Daniilidis

Bibliographic record

Venuenot available
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEngineering
TopicRobot Manipulation and Learning
Canadian institutionsToronto Metropolitan University
FundersNational Science Foundation
KeywordsArtificial intelligenceSilhouetteComputer visionComputer sciencePoseObject (grammar)Bounding overwatchGround truthObject detectionProjection (relational algebra)Image (mathematics)Set (abstract data type)3D pose estimationPattern recognition (psychology)

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

We present a novel approach for detecting objects and estimating their 3D pose in single images of cluttered scenes. Objects are given in terms of 3D models without accompanying texture cues. A deformable parts-based model is trained on clusters of silhouettes of similar poses and produces hypotheses about possible object locations at test time. Objects are simultaneously segmented and verified inside each hypothesis bounding region by selecting the set of superpixels whose collective shape matches the model silhouette. A final iteration on the 6-DOF object pose minimizes the distance between the selected image contours and the actual projection of the 3D model. We demonstrate successful grasps using our detection and pose estimate with a PR2 robot. Extensive evaluation with a novel ground truth dataset shows the considerable benefit of using shape-driven cues for detecting objects in heavily cluttered scenes.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.002
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Simulation or modeling · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Methods · Consensus signal: Methods
Teacher disagreement score0.004
Threshold uncertainty score0.013

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.002
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0020.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0020.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.001
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0020.002
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0040.003

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.

Opus teacher head0.013
GPT teacher head0.222
Teacher spread0.209 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designSimulation or modeling
Domainnot available
GenreMethods

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".

Quick stats

Citations228
Published2014
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same topicRobot Manipulation and LearningFrench-language works237,207