Detecting insertion tasks using convolutional neural networks during robot teaching-by-demonstration
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Today, collaborative robots are often taught new tasks through “teaching by demonstration” techniques rather than manual programming. This works well for many tasks; however, some tasks like precise tight-fitting insertions can be hard to recreate through exact position replays because they also involve forces and are highly affected by the robot's repeatability and the position of the object in the hand. As of yet there is no way to automatically detect when procedures to reduce position uncertainty should be used. In this paper, we present a new way to automatically detect insertion tasks during impedance control-based trajectory teaching. This is accomplished by recording the forces and torques applied by the operator and inputting these signals to a convolutional neural network. The convolutional neural network is used to extract important features of the spatio-temporal forces and torque signals for distinguishing insertion tasks. Eventually, this method could help robots understand the tasks they are taught at a higher level. They will not only be capable of a position-time replay of the task, but will also recognize the best strategy to apply in order to accomplish the task (in this case insertion). Our method was tested on data obtained from 886 experiments that were conducted on eight different in-hand objects. Results show that we can distinguish insertion tasks from pick-and-place tasks with an average accuracy of 82%.
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 | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| 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".