Active Pose Refinement for Textureless Shiny Objects using the Structured Light Camera
Bibliographic record
Abstract
6D pose estimation of textureless shiny objects has become an essential problem in many robotic applications. Many pose estimators require high-quality depth data, often measured by structured light cameras. However, when objects have shiny surfaces (e.g., metal parts), these cameras fail to sense complete depths from a single viewpoint due to the specular reflection, resulting in a significant drop in the final pose accuracy. To mitigate this issue, we present a complete active vision framework for 6D object pose refinement and next-best-view prediction. Specifically, we first develop an optimization-based pose refinement module for the structured light camera. Our system then selects the next best camera viewpoint to collect depth measurements by minimizing the predicted uncertainty of the object pose. Compared to previous approaches, we additionally predict measurement uncertainties of future viewpoints by online rendering, which significantly improves the next-best-view prediction performance. We test our method on the real-world ROBI dataset. The results show that our pose refinement module outperforms the traditional ICP-based approach when given the same input depth data, and our next-best-view strategy can achieve high object pose accuracy with significantly fewer viewpoints than the heuristic-based policies.
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) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 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".