Robotic grasp detection using extreme learning machine
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
Object grasping using vision is one of the important functions of manipulators. Machine learning based methods have been proposed for grasp detection. However, due to the variety of grasps and 3D shapes of objects, how to effectively find the best grasp is still a challenging issue. Thus this paper presents an extreme learning machine (ELM) based method to cope with this issue. This proposed method consists of three successive modules, including candidate object detection, estimation of object's major orientations and grasp detection. In the first module, candidate object region is extracted based on depth information. In the second module, object's major orientations guide the directions for sliding windows. In the third module, a cascaded classifier is trained to identify the right grasp. ELM is used as the base classifier in the cascade. Histograms of oriented gradients (HOG) are used as features. Experimental results in benchmark dataset and real manipulators have shown that this proposed method outperforms other methods in terms of accuracy and computational efficiency.
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