MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort

Knowledge-Based Grasp Planning Using Dynamic Self-Organizing Network

2020· article· en· W3129803301 on OpenAlexaff
Shiyi Yang, Soo Jeon

Bibliographic record

Venuenot available
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEngineering
TopicRobot Manipulation and Learning
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Waterloo
Fundersnot available
KeywordsGRASPInitializationComputer scienceCodebookCluster analysisArtificial intelligenceProcess (computing)Task (project management)Set (abstract data type)Machine learningData miningEngineering

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Category-based methods for task-specified grasp planning have recently been proposed in the literature. Such methods, however, are normally time consuming in both training and grasp determination process and lack capabilities to improve grasping skills due to the fixed training data set. This paper presents an improved approach for knowledge-based grasp planning by developing a multi-layer network using self-organizing map. A number of grasp candidates are learned in the experiments and the information that is associated with these grasp candidates is clustered based on different criteria on each network layer. A codebook which is composed of a small number of generalized models and the corresponding task-oriented grasps is generated from the network. In addition, the proposed network is capable of automatically adjusting its size so that the codebook can be continuously updated from each interaction with the novel objects. In order to increase the accuracy and convergence rate of the clustering process, a new initialization method is also proposed. Simulation results present the advantages of the proposed initialization method and the auto-growing algorithm in terms of accuracy and efficiency over some conventional methods. Experimental results demonstrate that novel objects can be successfully grasped in accordance with desired tasks using the proposed approach.

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: Simulation or modeling
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.007
Threshold uncertainty score0.014

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 studies0.0010.001
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0020.001
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.040
GPT teacher head0.260
Teacher spread0.219 · 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

Citations0
Published2020
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same topicRobot Manipulation and LearningFrench-language works237,207