Instance Segmentation for Autonomous Log Grasping in Forestry Operations
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Wood logs picking is a challenging task to automate. Indeed, logs usually come in cluttered configurations, randomly orientated and overlapping. Recent work on log picking automation usually assume that the logs' pose is known, with little consideration given to the actual perception problem. In this paper, we squarely address the latter, using a data-driven approach. First, we introduce a novel dataset, named TimberSeg 1.0, that is densely annotated, i.e., that includes both bounding boxes and pixel-level mask annotations for logs. This dataset comprises 220 images with 2500 individually segmented logs. Using our dataset, we then compare three neural network architectures on the task of individual logs detection and segmentation; two region-based methods and one attention-based method. Unsurprisingly, our results show that axis-aligned proposals, failing to take into account the directional nature of logs, underperform with 19.03 mAP. A rotation-aware proposal method significantly improve results to 31.83 mAP. More interestingly, a Transformer-based approach, without any inductive bias on rotations, outperformed the two others, achieving a mAP of 57.53 on our dataset. Our use case demonstrates the limitations of region-based approaches for cluttered, elongated objects. It also highlights the potential of attention-based methods on this specific task, as they work directly at the pixel-level. These encouraging results indicate that such a perception system could be used to assist the operators on the short-term, or to fully automate log picking operations in the future.
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 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.004 | 0.002 |
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.
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".