MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W3096175651 · doi:10.1109/access.2020.3034386

Detecting 6D Poses of Target Objects From Cluttered Scenes by Learning to Align the Point Cloud Patches With the CAD Models

2020· article· en· W3096175651 on OpenAlexaff
Xuzhan Chen, Youping Chen, Bang You, Jingming Xie, Homayoun Najjaran

Bibliographic record

VenueIEEE Access · 2020
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEngineering
TopicRobot Manipulation and Learning
Canadian institutionsUniversity of British Columbia, Okanagan CampusUniversity of British Columbia
FundersNational Natural Science Foundation of China
KeywordsPoint cloudComputer scienceRobustness (evolution)Artificial intelligenceComputer visionObject detectionCADCloud computingObject (grammar)AutomationKey (lock)Cognitive neuroscience of visual object recognitionSegmentationEngineeringEngineering drawing

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

6D target object detection is of great importance to many applications such as robotics, industrial automation, and unmanned vehicles and is increasingly influencing broad industries including manufacturing, transportation, and retail industries, to name a few. This paper focuses on detecting the 6D poses of the target objects from the point cloud of a cluttered scene. However, conventional point cloud-based 6D object detection methods rely on the robustness of key-point detection results that are not straightforward for humans to understand. The drawback makes conventional point cloud-based methods require expert knowledge to tune. In this paper, we introduced a 6D target object detection method that uses segmented object point cloud patches instead of key points to predict object 6D poses and identity. Our main contributions are an end-to-end data-driven pose correction model that is enhanced with a novel simple yet efficient basis spanning layer booster. Experiments show that although the proposed model is trained only using object CAD models, its 6D detection performance matches that of the models using view data. Thus, the proposed method is suitable for 6D detection applications that have object CAD models instead of labeled scene data.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.001
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Simulation or modeling · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.003
Threshold uncertainty score0.007

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.001
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0020.002
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0020.002

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.

Opus teacher head0.035
GPT teacher head0.237
Teacher spread0.202 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designSimulation or modeling
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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".

Quick stats

Citations12
Published2020
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueIEEE AccessSame topicRobot Manipulation and LearningFrench-language works237,207