Unsupervised feature learning for classifying dynamic tactile events using sparse coding
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Robotic operations that involve the displacement of objects generate different kinds of dynamic events. These may simply correspond to normal robot-related motion, or contact(s) with the object(s) during grasping, but they may also be potentially-problematic events like slippage. In this paper, we use sparse data from tactile sensors to detect slippage and discriminate object-gripper slip from object-world slip. The method we propose can also identify vibrations that correspond to other dynamic events automatically, even when those events are not related to slippage. The tactile data can then be classified, allowing the robot to react accordingly. To achieve this goal, we compute the power spectral density (PSD) of the tactile dynamic signal, and we apply transformations to the PSD that were inspired by the automatic speech recognition (ASR) field. The originality of this work comes from using a sparse representation of the transformed data to obtain sparse vectors containing a small set of high-level features. Those sparse vectors are then used as inputs to a simple linear support vector machine (SVM), that acts as a classifier and quickly estimates the event to which they correspond. Our method was tested on data obtained from 244 experiments that were conducted on 32 different everyday-objects. Results show that we can successfully discriminate most of the dynamic events we studied in this work. Moreover, by using this technique, we are able to detect slippage with an accuracy of 92.60% and to differentiate object-gripper slip from object-world slip with a success rate of 89.42%.
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 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 itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.
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".