In-Simulation Testing of Deep Learning Vision Models in Autonomous Robotic Manipulators
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Testing autonomous robotic manipulators is challenging due to the complex software interactions between vision and control components. A crucial element of modern robotic manipulators is the deep learning based object detection model. The creation and assessment of this model requires real world data, which can be hard to label and collect, especially when the hardware setup is not available. The current techniques primarily focus on using synthetic data to train deep neural networks (DDNs) and identifying failures through offline or online simulation-based testing. However, the process of exploiting the identified failures to uncover design flaws early on, and leveraging the optimized DNN within the simulation to accelerate the engineering of the DNN for real-world tasks remains unclear. To address these challenges, we propose the MARTENS (Manipulator Robot Testing and Enhancement in Simulation) framework, which integrates a photorealistic NVIDIA Isaac Sim simulator with evolutionary search to identify critical scenarios aiming at improving the deep learning vision model and uncovering system design flaws. Evaluation of two industrial case studies demonstrated that MARTENS effectively reveals robotic manipulator system failures, detecting 25% to 50% more failures with greater diversity compared to random test generation. The model trained and repaired using the MARTENS approach achieved mean average precision (mAP) scores of 0.91 and 0.82 on real-world images with no prior retraining. Further fine-tuning on real-world images for a few epochs (less than 10) increased the mAP to 0.95 and 0.89 for the first and second use cases, respectively. In contrast, a model trained solely on real-world data achieved mAPs of 0.8 and 0.75 for use case 1 and use case 2 after more than 25 epochs.
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 | 0.001 | 0.004 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| 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) | 0.002 | 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".