Integrating Historical Learning and Multi-View Attention with Hierarchical Feature Fusion for Robotic Manipulation
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Humans typically make decisions based on past experiences and observations, while in the field of robotic manipulation, the robot's action prediction often relies solely on current observations, which tends to make robots overlook environmental changes or become ineffective when current observations are suboptimal. To address this pivotal challenge in robotics, inspired by human cognitive processes, we propose our method which integrates historical learning and multi-view attention to improve the performance of robotic manipulation. Based on a spatio-temporal attention mechanism, our method not only combines observations from current and past steps but also integrates historical actions to better perceive changes in robots' behaviours and their impacts on the environment. We also employ a mutual information-based multi-view attention module to automatically focus on valuable perspectives, thereby incorporating more effective information for decision-making. Furthermore, inspired by human visual system which processes both global context and local texture details, we have devised a method that merges semantic and texture features, aiding robots in understanding the task and enhancing their capability to handle fine-grained tasks. Extensive experiments in RLBench and real-world scenarios demonstrate that our method effectively handles various tasks and exhibits notable robustness and adaptability.
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 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| 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".