MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4405270910 · doi:10.1109/mra.2024.3481609

Robotic Grasping and Manipulation Competition at the 2024 IEEE/RAS International Conference on Robotics and Automation [Competitions]

2024· article· en· W4405270910 on OpenAlexfundno aff
Yu Sun, Berk Çallı, Kenneth Kimble, Francis wyffels, Victor-Louis De Gusseme, Kaiyu Hang, Salvatore D’Avella, Alessio Xompero, Andrea Cavallaro, Máximo A. Roa, José Roberto Reyes Avendaño, Anastasia Mavrommati

Bibliographic record

VenueIEEE Robotics & Automation Magazine · 2024
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEngineering
TopicRobot Manipulation and Learning
Canadian institutionsnot available
FundersAmazon RoboticsCanadian Institute for Advanced Research
KeywordsAutomationRoboticsArtificial intelligenceCompetition (biology)RobotComputer scienceEngineeringManufacturing engineeringMechanical engineering

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The Ninth Robotic Grasping and Manipulation Competition (RGMC) took place in Yokohama, Japan, during the 2024 IEEE/RAS International Conference on Robotics and Automation (ICRA). The series of RGMC events started in 2016 at the IEEE/RSJ International Conference on Intelligent Robots and Systems (IROS) with strong support from the conference’s organization committee, and since then they have been held each year at ICRA or IROS [1]. Across the editions, RGMC engaged the community in solving the open challenges associated with various robotic grasping and manipulation tasks for manufacturing, service robots, and logistics, and in advancing research and technology towards more realistic scenarios that can be encountered in daily activities at home or in warehouses. These tasks include assembling and disassembling boards, hand-in-hand grasping, picking and placing various objects, pouring liquids into a cup, bin picking, rearranging and setting formal tables, folding and unfolding cloths, and receiving objects handed over by a person. The goal of RGMC across these tasks is to assess the autonomous manipulation capabilities of a robotic arm when dealing with unknown or novel objects with varying physical properties and when handling scenarios with various degrees of uncertainty caused by a cluttered scene, random initial configurations, or human behaviors when interacting with the robot. For example, objects can vary in their shapes, appearances, transparency, deformability, and weight.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.004
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.003
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: Not applicable
GenreCandidate signal: Other · Consensus signal: Other
Teacher disagreement score0.056
Threshold uncertainty score0.187

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0040.003
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0020.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0030.001
Scholarly communication0.0040.002
Open science0.0020.003
Research integrity0.0030.003
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0560.023

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.

Opus teacher head0.031
GPT teacher head0.267
Teacher spread0.236 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designNot applicable
Domainnot available
GenreOther

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".

Quick stats

Citations2
Published2024
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueIEEE Robotics & Automation MagazineSame topicRobot Manipulation and LearningFrench-language works237,207