GraspAgent 1.0: Adversarial Continual Dexterous Grasp Learning
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Grasp is at the core of robotic manipulation tasks. Nonetheless, most 6-DOF methods resort to a one-time setup via intensive analytics and targeting a predetermined domain. On the other hand, learning and adapting in real environments is of great promise to robotics yet challenging. In this context, this letter presents a grasp learning agent embodied in a dual-arm robot with a gripper and suction ends. Theoretically, GraspAgent is equipped with two adversarial components with the capacity for continual improvement. The first component aims to learn the synthesis of high dexterity grasps using a novel <italic xmlns:mml="http://www.w3.org/1998/Math/MathML" xmlns:xlink="http://www.w3.org/1999/xlink">Grasp Awareness Generative Adversarial Network</i>. Thanks to the designed set of contrastive objectives, GA-GAN yields a high rate of feasible grasps for clutter scenes. The second component is an <italic xmlns:mml="http://www.w3.org/1998/Math/MathML" xmlns:xlink="http://www.w3.org/1999/xlink">Adversarial Experience Replay</i>. AER promotes certain attributes during the regular rounds of training. For instance, a quality network is forced to adapt the maturity of the sampler by highlighting regions where the sampler performs well. Further, the quality network of each arm is encouraged to learn different grasp primitives, which reflects on better learning capacity. Finally, Experiments on a Yumi robot reveal a final average success rate of 93% after exploiting 17k+ feedback data. Moreover, We show that grasp sampling with GA-GAN surpasses a set of recent baseline methods.
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 | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| 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".