Pose accuracy is not grasp reliability: residual pose posteriors improve simulated robotic grasp planning
Pose accuracy is not grasp reliability: residual pose posteriors improve simulated robotic grasp planning
The authors propose building a pose posterior from estimator errors on annotated frames to score grasps across sampled poses and physics scenarios.
The study demonstrates that high pose accuracy metrics do not guarantee grasp reliability in simulation, proposing a method to incorporate residual pose posteriors for improved planning without retraining the base estimator.
Source: arXiv Robotics — research abstracts · Read original article ↗
Loading article text…
What the source reports
Publisher-reported claims, with original evidence. These results have not been independently verified by RoboSignal.
- Environment
- SimulationOpen source S2
Reported numbers
percent
0.796–0.984
View original evidence
imulated success rises from 0.796 to 0.984. Among test scenes assigned singleton-success conformal prediction sets, observed held-out precision is 0.972, compared with 0.904 for the point-estimate planner; these are empirical precision estimates, not conditional guarantees. On occluded LM-O scenes never used for tuning, posterior planning closes 66\% of the gap to the annotated pose.
Open source S5
- paper: not_reported
Source excerpts and review record
Automatically extracted; no manual editorial approval recorded.
arXiv:2609.13235v2 Announce Type: replace Abstract: Model-based robotic grasping estimates an object's six-dimensional (6D) pose and plans on its mesh as if that pose were exact. We show that this assumption reduces simulated grasp success even when the pose passes the standard accuracy test. We built LM-Grasp, a benchmark of 15{,}800 real LINEMOD RGB-D images with grasp outcomes simulated on scanned meshes. Foundati
Open source S2
onPose meets the ADD(-S) criterion (mean model-point error below 10\% of the object diameter) on 0.997 of test scenes, yet planning on its estimate succeeds in 0.791 of scenes, compared with 0.856 using the annotated pose. Because the estimator reports no uncertainty, we build a pose posterior from its own errors on annotated training frames, resampled from frames with similar observable fit, and score each grasp by
Open source S3
its mean success across sampled poses and four equally weighted physics scenarios. Without retraining the estimator, posterior planning yields 0.859 (difference from the annotated-pose result +0.003; 95\% scene-wise paired-bootstrap interval [$-$0.003, +0.009]). This interval is compatible with no difference and a small shortfall; we did not conduct an equivalence test. For pose errors of 5 to 10\% of the diameter, s
Open source S4
imulated success rises from 0.796 to 0.984. Among test scenes assigned singleton-success conformal prediction sets, observed held-out precision is 0.972, compared with 0.904 for the point-estimate planner; these are empirical precision estimates, not conditional guarantees. On occluded LM-O scenes never used for tuning, posterior planning closes 66\% of the gap to the annotated pose.
Open source S5
Source：arXiv Robotics — research abstracts · arxiv.org