Visual-Tactile Inference of 2.5D Object Shape From Marker Texture
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Visual-tactile sensing affords abundant capabilities for contact-rich object manipulation tasks including grasping and placing. Here we introduce a shape-from-texture inspired contact shape estimation approach for visual-tactile sensors equipped with visually distinct membrane markers. Under a perspective projection camera model, measurements related to the change in marker separation upon contact are used to recover surface shape. Our approach allows for shape sensing in real time, without requiring network training or complex assumptions related to lighting, sensor geometry or marker placement. Experiments show that the surface contact shape recovered is qualitatively and quantitatively consistent with those obtained through the use of photometric stereo, the current state of the art for shape recovery in visual-tactile sensors. Importantly, our approach is applicable to a large family of sensors not equipped with photometric stereo hardware, and also to those with semi-transparent membranes. The recovery of surface shape affords new capabilities to these sensors for robotic applications, such as the estimation of contact and slippage in object manipulation tasks (Hogan etal., 2022) and the use of force matching for kinesthetic teaching using multimodal visual-tactile sensing (Ablett etal., 2024).
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 | 0.002 |
| 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 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
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".