Visual pointing gestures for bi-directional human robot interaction in a pick-and-place task
Why this work is in the frame
A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
This paper explores visual pointing gestures for two-way nonverbal communication for interacting with a robot arm. Such non-verbal instruction is common when humans communicate spatial directions and actions while collaboratively performing manipulation tasks. Using 3D RGBD we compare human-human and human-robot interaction for solving a pick-and-place task. In the human-human interaction we study both pointing and other types of gestures, performed by humans in a collaborative task. For the human-robot interaction we design a system that allows the user to interact with a 7DOF robot arm using gestures for selecting, picking and dropping objects at different locations. Bi-directional confirmation gestures allow the robot (or human) to verify that the right object is selected. We perform experiments where 8 human subjects collaborate with the robot to manipulate ordinary household objects on a tabletop. Without confirmation feedback selection accuracy was 70-90% for both humans and the robot. With feedback through confirmation gestures both humans and our vision-robotic system could perform the task accurately every time (100%). Finally to illustrate our gesture interface in a real application, we let a human instruct our robot to make a pizza by selecting different ingredients.
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.
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 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 it