An Underwater Robotic System With a Soft Continuum Manipulator for Autonomous Aquatic Grasping
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Delicate underwater manipulation tasks such as biological specimen collection are promising fields that require new robotic designs and intelligent robotic technologies. In this study, we proposed an automatic aquatic object-collecting system with a soft manipulator controlled by a reinforcement learning-based controller. For underwater sensing, we implemented a visual perception framework to restore the quality of the underwater image, detect the seafood animals, and track the target's position. The online learning ability of the reinforcement learning-based controller endowed strong adaptability for the soft manipulator against underwater disturbances. The water tank grasping tests show a 91.7% successful grasping rate without flow disturbance and 83.3% with flow disturbances. We demonstrated that the soft robotic collecting system gripped seafood animals in a lab aquarium as well as the natural seabed environment. The real-world experimental results showed that the robot successfully collected 28 shells within 40 min at a water depth of 15 m and even completed grasping tasks in a dark environment. Our results demonstrated that this manipulator prototype is potentially applicable for fully autonomous delicate objects underwater.
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 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 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".