Weakly-Supervised Depth Completion during Robotic Micromanipulation from a Monocular Microscopic Image
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Obtaining three-dimensional information, especially the z-axis depth information, is crucial for robotic micromanipulation. Due to the unavailability of depth sensors such as lidars in micromanipulation setups, traditional depth acquisition methods such as depth from focus or depth from defocus directly infer depth from microscopic images and suffer from poor resolution. Alternatively, micromanipulation tasks obtain accurate depth information by detecting the contact between an end-effector and an object (e.g., a cell). Despite its high accuracy, only sparse depth data can be obtained due to its low efficiency. This paper aims to address the challenge of acquiring dense depth information during robotic cell micromanipulation. A weakly-supervised depth completion network is proposed to take cell images and sparse depth data obtained by contact detection as input to generate a dense depth map. A two-stage data augmentation method is proposed to augment the sparse depth data, and the depth map is optimized by a network refinement method. The experimental results show that the MAE value of the depth prediction error is less than 0.3 µm, which proves the accuracy and effectiveness of the method. This deep learning network pipeline can be seamlessly integrated with the robotic micromanipulation tasks to provide accurate depth information.
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 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| 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".