MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4316464918 · doi:10.3390/robotics12010012

Simulated and Real Robotic Reach, Grasp, and Pick-and-Place Using Combined Reinforcement Learning and Traditional Controls

2023· article· en· W4316464918 on OpenAlex

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.

affAt least one author lists a Canadian institution in the pinned OpenAlex snapshot.

Bibliographic record

VenueRobotics · 2023
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldComputer Science
TopicReinforcement Learning in Robotics
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Waterloo
FundersKorea Electrotechnology Research Institute
KeywordsReinforcement learningGRASPTask (project management)Artificial intelligenceRoboticsComputer scienceRobotControl (management)Plan (archaeology)Margin (machine learning)Human–computer interactionMachine learningEngineeringSoftware engineeringSystems engineering

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The majority of robots in factories today are operated with conventional control strategies that require individual programming on a task-by-task basis, with no margin for error. As an alternative to the rudimentary operation planning and task-programming techniques, machine learning has shown significant promise for higher-level task planning, with the development of reinforcement learning (RL)-based control strategies. This paper reviews the implementation of combined traditional and RL control for simulated and real environments to validate the RL approach for standard industrial tasks such as reach, grasp, and pick-and-place. The goal of this research is to bring intelligence to robotic control so that robotic operations can be completed without precisely defining the environment, constraints, and the action plan. The results from this approach provide optimistic preliminary data on the application of RL to real-world robotics.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesMeta-epidemiology (narrow)
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 score0.817
Threshold uncertainty score1.000

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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 head0.038
GPT teacher head0.267
Teacher spread0.229 · 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