Learning to Detect Slip with Barometric Tactile Sensors and a Temporal Convolutional Neural Network
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
The ability to perceive object slip via tactile feedback enables humans to accomplish complex manipulation tasks including maintaining a stable grasp. Despite the utility of tactile information for many applications, tactile sensors have yet to be widely deployed in industrial robotics settings; part of the challenge lies in identifying slip and other events from the tactile data stream. In this paper, we present a learning-based method to detect slip using barometric tactile sensors. These sensors have many desirable properties including high durability and reliability, and are built from inexpensive, off-the-shelf components. We train a temporal convolution neural network to detect slip, achieving high detection accuracies while displaying robustness to the speed and direction of the slip motion. Further, we test our detector on two manipulation tasks involving a variety of common objects and demonstrate successful generalization to real-world scenarios not seen during training. We argue that barometric tactile sensing technology, combined with data-driven learning, is suitable for many manipulation tasks such as slip compensation.
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