4-DoF Tracking for Robot Fine Manipulation Tasks
Bibliographic record
Abstract
This paper presents two visual trackers from the different paradigms of learning and registration based tracking and evaluates their application in image based visual servoing. They can track object motion with four degrees of freedom (DoF) which, as we will show here, is sufficient for many fine manipulation tasks. One of these trackers is a newly developed learning based tracker that relies on learning discriminative correlation filters while the other is a refinement of a recent 8 DoF RANSAC based tracker adapted with a new appearance model for tracking 4 DoF motion. Both trackers are shown to provide superior performance to several state of the art trackers on an existing dataset for manipulation tasks. Further, a new dataset with challenging sequences for fine manipulation tasks captured from robot mounted eye-in-hand (EIH) cameras is also presented. These sequences have a variety of challenges encountered during real tasks including jittery camera movement, motion blur, drastic scale changes and partial occlusions. Quantitative and qualitative results on these sequences are used to show that these two trackers are robust to failures while providing high precision that makes them suitable for such fine manipulation tasks.
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 imitationNot 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.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 0.001 |
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.
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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), 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".