Incorporating Object Intrinsic Features Within Deep Grasp Affordance Prediction
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
Robotic grasping systems often rely on visual observations to drive the grasping process, where the robot must be able to detect and localize an object, extract features relevant to the task, and then combine this information to plan a manipulation strategy. But what happens when some of the most impactful features are not observed by the robot? Without context on an objects center-of-mass, for example, a robot may make assumptions such as uniform density that do not hold, and which may in turn guide the robot into perceiving a sub-optimal set of grasping configurations. In this work, we examine how having prior knowledge of an object's intrinsic properties influences the task of dense grasp affordance prediction. We investigate a simple, constrained grasping task where object properties heavily regulate the space of successful grasps, and further evaluate how learning is affected when generalizing across unseen weight configurations and unseen object shapes.
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