A Soft Robotic Gripper with Anti-Freezing Ionic Hydrogel-Based Sensors for Learning-Based Object Recognition
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Soft robotic grippers possess high structural compliance and adaptability for grasping objects with unknown and irregular shapes and sizes. To enable more dexterous manipulation, soft sensors with similar mechanical properties to common elastomer materials are desired to be integrated into soft grippers. In this paper, we develop ionic hydrogel-based strain and tactile sensors and integrate these sensors into a three-finger soft gripper for learning-based object recognition. Such hydrogel-based sensors have excellent conductivity, high stretchability and toughness, good ambient stability, and unique anti-freezing property, and can be readily attached to a soft gripper at desired locations for strain and tactile sensing. Based on a deep-learning model, we demonstrate the capability of the sensory soft gripper for object grasping and recognition at both room and freezing temperatures, and achieve high recognition accuracy close to 100% for 10 typical objects. With these abilities, our gripper can find interesting applications such as sorting food or chemicals in low temperature storage and cold chain transportation, or manipulating equipment in polar area.
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 | 0.000 | 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 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 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 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".