Enhancing Robotic Tactile Exploration With Multireceptive Graph Convolutional Networks
Bibliographic record
Abstract
While robotic tactile sensors have been developed to help robots to perceive and interact effectively with their surrounding environment by mimicking the structure and function of human skin, most of them overlook the role of near-contact behavior and data structure modeling in robotic perception, which limits robotic exploration capabilities. To address this problem, this article presents a novel proximity-tactile fingertip (PT-TIP) sensor, and a new multireceptive graph convolutional network (MR-GCN) that seamlessly integrates near-contact behavior and tactile perception in rich sensory data. Moreover, MR-GCN utilizes two graph structures, including topology graph and affinity graph, to capture temporal and spatial connections and differences among sensing units on PT-TIP, and it learns a robust feature representation from different receptive fields with attention mechanisms. The performance of MR-GCN was evaluated in two common robotic tasks, namely, object recognition and grasp stability detection, and the results show that the presented method outperforms state-of-the-art work in both tasks.
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 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 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| 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 itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, 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".