Visual Sensing and Depth Perception for Welding Robots and Their Industrial Applications
Bibliographic record
Abstract
With the rapid development of vision sensing, artificial intelligence, and robotics technology, one of the challenges we face is installing more advanced vision sensors on welding robots to achieve intelligent welding manufacturing and obtain high-quality welding components. Depth perception is one of the bottlenecks in the development of welding sensors. This review provides an assessment of active and passive sensing methods for depth perception and classifies and elaborates on the depth perception mechanisms based on monocular vision, binocular vision, and multi-view vision. It explores the principles and means of using deep learning for depth perception in robotic welding processes. Further, the application of welding robot visual perception in different industrial scenarios is summarized. Finally, the problems and countermeasures of welding robot visual perception technology are analyzed, and developments for the future are proposed. This review has analyzed a total of 2662 articles and cited 152 as references. The potential future research topics are suggested to include deep learning for object detection and recognition, transfer deep learning for welding robot adaptation, developing multi-modal sensor fusion, integrating models and hardware, and performing a comprehensive requirement analysis and system evaluation in collaboration with welding experts to design a multi-modal sensor fusion architecture.
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 | 0.000 |
| 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 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".