Exploring Tactile Temporal Features for Object Pose Estimation during Robotic Manipulation
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Dexterous robotic manipulation tasks depend on estimating the state of in-hand objects, particularly their orientation. Although cameras have been traditionally used to estimate the object's pose, tactile sensors have recently been studied due to their robustness against occlusions. This paper explores tactile data's temporal information for estimating the orientation of grasped objects. The data from a compliant tactile sensor were collected using different time-window sample sizes and evaluated using neural networks with long short-term memory (LSTM) layers. Our results suggest that using a window of sensor readings improved angle estimation compared to previous works. The best window size of 40 samples achieved an average of 0.0375 for the mean absolute error (MAE) in radians, 0.0030 for the mean squared error (MSE), 0.9074 for the coefficient of determination (R2), and 0.9094 for the explained variance score (EXP), with no enhancement for larger window sizes. This work illustrates the benefits of temporal information for pose estimation and analyzes the performance behavior with varying window sizes, which can be a basis for future robotic tactile research. Moreover, it can complement underactuated designs and visual pose estimation methods.
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 | 0.002 |
| 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 | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| 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".