MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2129818002 · doi:10.1109/robot.2008.4543223

Automated modeling and robotic grasping of unknown three-dimensional objects

2008· article· en· W2129818002 on OpenAlexaff
Gary M. Bone, Andrew Lambert, Mark Edwards

Bibliographic record

Venuenot available
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEngineering
TopicRobot Manipulation and Learning
Canadian institutionsMcMaster University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsComputer visionArtificial intelligenceGRASPSilhouetteComputer scienceObject (grammar)Orientation (vector space)GrippersA priori and a posterioriRobotRobotic armLaser scanningObject modelEngineering

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

This paper describes the development of a novel vision-based modeling and grasping system for three-dimensional (3D) objects whose shape and location are unknown a priori. Our approach integrates online computer vision-based 3D object modeling with online 3D grasp planning and execution. A single wrist-mounted video camera is moved around the stationary object to obtain images from multiple viewpoints. Object silhouettes are extracted from these images and used to form a 3D solid model of the object. To refine the model, the object's top surface is modeled by scanning with a wrist-mounted line laser while recording images. The laser line in each image is used to form a 3D surface model that is combined with the silhouette result. The grasp planning algorithm is designed for the parallel-jaw grippers that are commonly used in industry. The algorithm analyses the solid model, generates a robust force closure grasp, and outputs the required gripper position and orientation for grasping the object. The robot then automatically picks up the object. Experiments are performed with two real-world 3D objects, a metal bracket and a hex nut. The shape, position and orientation of the objects are not known by the system a priori. The time required to compute an object model and plan a grasp was less than 4 s for each object. The experimental results demonstrate that the automated grasping system can obtain suitable models and generate successful grasps, even when the objects are not lying parallel to the supporting table.

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)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.001
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Bench or experimental · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.004
Threshold uncertainty score0.008

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.001
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.001

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 head0.030
GPT teacher head0.224
Teacher spread0.194 · 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 designBench or experimental
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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

Citations72
Published2008
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same topicRobot Manipulation and LearningFrench-language works237,207