MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2160004075 · doi:10.1177/02783640122067273

Global Planning for Dexterous Reorientation of Rigid Objects: Finger Tracking with Rolling and Sliding

2001· article· en· W2160004075 on OpenAlexaff
Moëz Cherif, Kamal Gupta

Bibliographic record

VenueThe International Journal of Robotics Research · 2001
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEngineering
TopicRobot Manipulation and Learning
Canadian institutionsSimon Fraser University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsGRASPKinematicsComputer scienceMotion planningMotion (physics)Reduction (mathematics)TrajectoryConfiguration spaceTracking (education)Object (grammar)Space (punctuation)Computer visionArtificial intelligenceRegular polygonRobotMathematicsGeometry

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

We address global motion planning for quasi-static reorientation of convex objects (polyhedral and smooth objects) with a four-fingertip grasp. We make use of a simple humanlike manipulation strategy in which a single finger is moved at each instant while the other three are maintained fixed (with regard to the palm)—an extended version of the original finger-tracking scheme of Rus. This new version es sentially incorporates frictional rolling and sliding at the fingertips and deals with the related contact kinematics and quasi-static mo tion/force prediction issues. Our contribution is twofold. First, we describe an analysis showing that this extended scheme is suitable for reducing the space of the object motions, thereby making motion planning easier and operating on a search space of low dimension. Our second contribution is a planner that exploits such a search space reduction and applies the extended finger tracking at the core of a multilevel hierarchical framework to search for global reorien tation trajectories. The planner has been implemented and used for achieving several nontrivial frictional reorientation tasks that show the capabilities and the promise of our approach.

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 distilled prediction

Teacher imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Simulation or modeling · Consensus signal: Simulation or modeling
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.445
Threshold uncertainty score0.202

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.108
GPT teacher head0.396
Teacher spread0.287 · 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 teacher head, not a consensus.

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

Citations20
Published2001
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueThe International Journal of Robotics ResearchSame topicRobot Manipulation and LearningFrench-language works237,207