Leveraging Compliant Tactile Perception for Haptic Blind Surface Reconstruction
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Non-flat surfaces pose difficulties for robots operating in unstructured environments. Reconstructions of uneven surfaces may only be partially possible due to non-compliant end-effectors and limitations on vision systems such as transparency, reflections, and occlusions. This study achieves blind surface reconstruction by harnessing the robotic manipulator’s kinematic data and a compliant tactile sensing module, which incorporates inertial, magnetic, and pressure sensors. The module’s flexibility enables us to estimate contact positions and surface normals by analyzing its deformation during interactions with unknown objects. While previous works collect only positional information, we include the local normals in a geometrical approach to estimate curvatures between adjacent contact points. These parameters then guide a spline-based patch generation, which allows us to recreate larger surfaces without an increase in complexity while reducing the time-consuming step of probing the surface. Experimental validation demonstrates that this approach outperforms an off-the-shelf vision system in estimation accuracy. Moreover, this compliant haptic method works effectively even when the manipulator’s approach angle is not aligned with the surface normals, which is ideal for unknown non-flat surfaces.
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) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 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".