Goto

Collaborating Authors

 Yuan, Jiacheng


VFAS-Grasp: Closed Loop Grasping with Visual Feedback and Adaptive Sampling

arXiv.org Artificial Intelligence

We consider the problem of closed-loop robotic grasping and present a novel planner which uses Visual Feedback and an uncertainty-aware Adaptive Sampling strategy (VFAS) to close the loop. At each iteration, our method VFAS-Grasp builds a set of candidate grasps by generating random perturbations of a seed grasp. The candidates are then scored using a novel metric which combines a learned grasp-quality estimator, the uncertainty in the estimate and the distance from the seed proposal to promote temporal consistency. Additionally, we present two mechanisms to improve the efficiency of our sampling strategy: We dynamically scale the sampling region size and number of samples in it based on past grasp scores. We also leverage a motion vector field estimator to shift the center of our sampling region. We demonstrate that our algorithm can run in real time (20 Hz) and is capable of improving grasp performance for static scenes by refining the initial grasp proposal. We also show that it can enable grasping of slow moving objects, such as those encountered during human to robot handover.


Active Mass Distribution Estimation from Tactile Feedback

arXiv.org Artificial Intelligence

In this work, we present a method to estimate the mass distribution of a rigid object through robotic interactions and tactile feedback. This is a challenging problem because of the complexity of physical dynamics modeling and the action dependencies across the model parameters. We propose a sequential estimation strategy combined with a set of robot action selection rules based on the analytical formulation of a discrete-time dynamics model. To evaluate the performance of our approach, we also manufactured re-configurable block objects that allow us to modify the object mass distribution while having access to the ground truth values. We compare our approach against multiple baselines and show that our approach can estimate the mass distribution with around 10% error, while the baselines have errors ranging from 18% to 68%.