Pith. sign in

REVIEW 4 major objections 5 minor 26 references

A vision-only fault-diagnosis loop can detect and correct the failures that interrupt robotic strawberry harvesting, cutting mean gripper offset to about 3–4 mm and recovering 81% of slipping fruit.

Reviewed by Pith at T0; open to challenge. T0 means a machine referee read the full paper against a public rubric. the ladder, T0–T4 →

Challenge this review Re-run · record.json Download PDF Read on arXiv ↗

T0 review

2026-08-03 12:37 UTC pith:BT6TAREJ

load-bearing objection The slip-prediction and grasp-verification parts are genuinely useful integration work on a real robot; the headline compensation numbers, though, rest on an underspecified rule and an ambiguous error metric. the 4 major comments →

arxiv 2601.02085 v3 pith:BT6TAREJ submitted 2026-01-05 cs.RO cs.AI

Vision-Based Early Fault Diagnosis and Self-Recovery for Strawberry Harvesting Robots

Meili Sun , Chunjiang Zhao , Lichao Yang , Hao Liu , Shimin Hu , Ya Xiong This is my paper
classification cs.RO cs.AI
keywords visual fault perceptionearly diagnosisrelative error compensationearly abort strategyharvesting robotstrawberry harvestingslippage predictionmulti-task perception
verification ladder T0 review T1 audit T2 compute T3 formal T4 reserved

The pith

A machine-rendered reading of the paper's core claim, the machinery that carries it, and where it could break.

The paper tries to establish that one vision-based loop can handle the three most common faults in robotic strawberry harvesting—gripper misalignment, empty grasps or misgrasps, and fruit slipping from the gripper—without adding tactile sensors. A single multi-task network detects and segments both the fruit and the gripper, estimates ripeness, and measures their relative offset; when the offset exceeds a 10 mm tolerance, a correction is applied before the second approach. A miniature camera in the gripper then monitors whether the fruit was actually grasped and whether it is about to slip, triggering an early abort or a re-grasp. Reported results include mean physical alignment errors falling from 11.52 mm to 3.12 mm along x and from 5.15 mm to 4.11 mm along y, with an 81.25% recovery rate for slipping strawberries. A sympathetic reader would care because these failures are what normally force a harvesting robot to stop and wait for human help, so correcting them from images alone could make continuous orchard operation more realistic.

Core claim

On its own strawberry-harvesting robot, the paper claims, a single multi-task network can serve as both the picker's eye and its fault detector. SRR-Net detects and segments the fruit and the gripper in the same frame and estimates ripeness, making it possible to measure the relative offset between the gripper and the picking point directly in one coordinate frame; when that offset exceeds a 10 mm tolerance, a proportional correction is applied before a second approach. During the deflating phase a miniature camera in the gripper lets a lightweight classifier decide whether the fruit is actually held, aborting empty-grasp or misgrasp cycles early. During snap-off, an LSTM over five frames of

What carries the argument

The carrying mechanism is a closed visual loop with three components: SRR-Net, an end-to-end network with one shared backbone and a parallel ripeness-regression head, producing detection, segmentation, and ripeness outputs at 163.35 FPS; a thresholded relative-error compensation rule, Eqs. (3)–(5), that applies a gain kx/ky to the measured x/y offset between simultaneously detected gripper and fruit, relying on common-mode cancellation of hand-eye calibration error; and an early-abort stage in which a micro-optical camera feeds a MobileNet V3-Small grasp classifier and an LSTM slip predictor operating on normalized area and position features over a five-frame sliding window, with a two-conse

Load-bearing premise

The load-bearing premise is that the x/y offset of the gripper relative to the fruit, as measured by the network in a single camera frame, is the main cause of picking failure and that a fixed scalar gain applied to that measured offset reliably cancels the physical misalignment; if this common-mode assumption fails, the reported sub-5 mm errors will not transfer beyond the test setup.

What would settle it

Take the 20 trials of Table 3, keep any trial where compensation was not triggered because the initial error was within tolerance, and recompute the mean post-compensation error including those rows; if the mean rises above the claimed 3.12/4.11 mm, the compensation result is a selective estimate. Separately, run the same pipeline with the same gains on a second strawberry cultivar or in a new lighting regime and test whether the 81.25% slipping recovery rate and sub-5 mm errors persist without retuning.

Watch this falsifier. Get emailed when new claim-graph text bears on it.

Share X Bluesky LinkedIn Reddit HN

If this is right

  • Harvesting cycles can be shortened by roughly 4 seconds when empty-grasp, misgrasp, or slippage is detected early, because the robot skips wasted placing and homing motions.
  • Positional compensation keeps end-effector-to-fruit alignment at about 3–4 mm on average, below the 10 mm tolerance threshold, while adding less than one second to the cycle.
  • The slip-prediction LSTM can recover 81.25% of slipping strawberries by re-inflating and re-snapping off, converting prospective failures into harvested fruit.
  • All diagnosis and recovery signals come from cameras already in the system, so no additional tactile or force sensors are needed; this matters for soft pneumatic grippers where force sensing is impractical.
  • Multi-task perception stays fast enough for real-time control (163 FPS), so the fault-diagnosis loop does not slow down the harvesting cycle.

Where Pith is reading between the lines

These are editorial extensions of the paper, not claims the author makes directly.

  • The compensation rule treats hand-eye calibration errors as common-mode so that a fixed gain can cancel them; if those errors vary with depth, gripper pose, or the specific arm, the same gains may not transfer to other robots or cultivars, and the paper does not report kx/ky values for testing this.
  • The slip-prediction feature set—normalized strawberry area, gripper area, background area, width, height, and center point—is trained on one cultivar and one gripper; whether these features generalize to other strawberry varieties, occlusions, or lighting conditions is not yet demonstrated.
  • The two-consecutive-frame time-stability rule implicitly defines detection latency; measuring how many milliseconds before actual detachment the LSTM flags a slip would clarify whether the diagnosis is genuinely early enough to act on in harder cases.
  • Because the z-axis error is deliberately ignored, the residual y-axis error of about 4 mm may partly reflect the unmodeled vertical offset during snap-off; adding z feedback could shrink it further, but at higher computation cost.

Editorial analysis

A structured set of objections, weighed in public.

Desk editor's note, referee report, simulated authors' rebuttal, and a circularity audit.

Referee Report

4 major / 5 minor

Summary. The paper proposes a vision-based fault diagnosis and self-recovery framework for a strawberry harvesting robot. It introduces SRR-Net, an end-to-end multi-task network for simultaneous detection, segmentation, and ripeness estimation of strawberries and the gripper; a relative-error compensation method based on simultaneous target-gripper detection; and an early-abort strategy using a micro-optical camera, a MobileNet V3-Small classifier for grasp verification, and an LSTM classifier for slip prediction. The experiments report that the compensation method reduces the mean positioning error from 11.52 mm/5.15 mm to 3.12 mm/4.11 mm, that grasp adjustment avoids empty placement in about 90% of failure cases, and that slip prediction achieves an 81.25% recovery rate for slipping strawberries and an 88.89% success rate for slipped cases, with reduced cycle times. The authors also introduce four datasets (FaultData, GraspData, SnapData, SlipData).

Significance. If the central quantitative claims are valid, the framework is a practically relevant contribution: it integrates perception and fault diagnosis in one lightweight network, closes the loop with a low-cost intra-gripper camera, and demonstrates time-series slip prediction on a real robot without tactile sensors. The paper includes real-robot trials and makes datasets and code available. The main risk is that the headline positioning-error reduction is measured relative to the vision-derived compensated point rather than the true strawberry, which would undermine the claim of improved physical alignment; this must be resolved before the central claim can be accepted.

major comments (4)
  1. [§4.4, Table 3] The caption defines E_x/E_y as "the relative error between the compensated picking point and the end-effector in the physical world." That is a servo-tracking residual of the commanded (vision-derived) point, not the physical misalignment between the end-effector and the true strawberry. The pre-compensation ground-truth errors (Δxw, Δyw) show that visual errors can be large (row 1: Δx=22 mm vs Δxw=17.3 mm). After compensation, no ground-truth post-compensation error is reported. The claim that the "proposed compensation mechanism reduced the relative errors ... to 3.12 mm and 4.11 mm" is therefore not supported by the data as presented. The authors must report the true physical error after compensation, or explicitly state that E_x/E_y are only residuals with respect to the vision-computed point; in the latter case, the implication that alignment with the fruit improved should be remove
  2. [§3.3, Eqs. (3)–(5)] The compensation rule is under-specified: the scale factors k_x/k_y are never reported, and their sign is consequential. With Δx = x_p - x_e as defined, Eq. (3) commands x_c = x_p + k_x Δx. Row 1 of Table 3 uses x_p=709, x_e=686, Δx=22, x_ce=732, implying k_x=1; this moves the commanded point away from the gripper and, relative to the true fruit (Δxw=17.3 mm, so the true point is ~703 mm), would place the gripper ~28 mm from the fruit if the commanded move is executed. Either the coordinate frame is mis-described or the sign convention is unusual. The authors should state k_x/k_y, explain the sign, report how they were chosen, and provide a sensitivity analysis. Without this, Eqs. (3)–(5) cannot be reproduced or assessed.
  3. [§4.4, Table 3] The reported after-compensation means (3.12 mm and 4.11 mm) are computed only over the 17 trials where compensation was triggered; the three rows with |Δx|<10 mm (rows 8, 11, 19) are excluded from the mean. If those rows are assigned their pre-compensation physical errors (12.8, 6.9, 5.7 mm on x; 1.3, 3.0, 0 on y), the overall mean physical error is about 3.9 mm (x) and 3.7 mm (y). The selective averaging overstates the method's effect. Report the mean over all trials, per-condition sample sizes, standard deviations or confidence intervals, and a paired significance test against pre-compensation errors.
  4. [§4.7, Table 8] The success rates for grasp adjustment and slip prediction are based on 30–36 repeated trials per condition, with no confidence intervals, no explicit definition of a successful trial for each condition, and no description of how trials were selected or randomized. The 81.25% recovery rate, in particular, is a binomial proportion with wide uncertainty at this sample size. Please provide the trial protocol, success criteria, and binomial confidence intervals, and clarify whether the trials were independent across conditions.
minor comments (5)
  1. [Abstract vs §4.4/§6] The error values are inconsistent: the abstract reports 11.50/5.25 mm before and 4.06 mm after compensation, while §4.4 and §6 report 11.52/5.15 mm and 4.11 mm. Please harmonize.
  2. [§4.5] "The classification results for all categories were 1" should read "precision, recall, and F1-score were 1.00". Given a small validation set, per-class support and any additional metrics (e.g., confusion matrix) would help.
  3. [§4.7 and Table 6] The text says grasp adjustment reduced the cycle time by approximately 4 s, while the abstract and Table 6 imply a reduction of about 6.7 s for the misgrasp case and about 5.6 s for the empty-grasp case. Please reconcile.
  4. [§4.6] Section header contains a typo: "Slip prediciton" should be "Slip prediction".
  5. [§3.2 and §3.4] The weighting coefficient λ in Eq. (1) is never given numerically, and the LSTM "minimum" and "maximum" probability thresholds are not reported. Please provide these values or state that they were selected on the validation set.

Circularity Check

1 steps flagged

Post-compensation 'physical error' is defined relative to the compensated command point, so the headline 3.12/4.11 mm reduction is substantially self-referential.

specific steps
  1. self definitional [§3.3 Eqs. (3)–(5); §4.4 and Table 3 caption]
    "So the 'compensated picking point' is the output of Eqs. (3)-(5), and E_x/E_y are 'the relative error between the compensated picking point and the end-effector in the physical world' — not the error between the gripper and the true strawberry. The pre-compensation error Δx_w is explicitly fruit-referenced: 'the corresponding positional error in the physical world.'"

    E_x/E_y are defined as the residual between the compensated picking point — the output of Eqs. (3)–(5), x_ce = x_p + k_x·Δx — and the end-effector, not between the gripper and the true fruit. Δx_w is explicitly the physical error to the strawberry ('the corresponding positional error in the physical world'), so comparing mean(Δx_w)=11.52 with mean(E)=3.12 mixes references: in the arm frame, E is essentially the servo tracking residual of the corrected command, which the controller drives small by construction. Table 3 confirms this: row 1 has x_e=686, Δx_w=17.3 (true fruit ≈703), yet the compensated command x_ce=732 yields E_x=1.5; E_x=0 in rows 4, 6, 7, 17. The after-mean also excludes the 3 no-trigger rows (row 8: physical x-error 12.8 mm); including them raises the x-mean to ≈3.92 mm. H

full rationale

The paper has one genuinely circular link: the post-compensation error E is measured relative to the compensated picking point generated by the very correction rule being validated, while the pre-compensation error Δx_w is measured against the true fruit. The compensation formula (Eq. 3, x_c = x_p + k_xΔx) would predict residuals |Δx_w − 2Δx| (e.g., ≈27 mm for row 1 if k_x=1), yet the table reports E_x=1.5 mm and even E_x=0 in several rows — consistent only with E being a command-referenced servo residual, not a fruit-referenced physical error. The 3.12/4.11 mm headline therefore does not demonstrate that misalignment with the actual strawberry was corrected. Additionally, the after-mean is computed over 17 of 20 trials, excluding 3 no-trigger rows including one with 12.8 mm physical x-error (row 8); including them raises the x-mean to ≈3.92 mm. The gains k_x/k_y are never reported, further preventing an independent check. The other components are not circular: SRR-Net's detection/segmentation/ripeness numbers are evaluated on FaultData annotated in this paper, the grasp classifier is tested on GraspData, and the LSTM slip predictor uses labels from future frames and is validated by physical robot trials (Table 8) — future-frame labels mean the prediction is not defined in terms of its own output. Self-citations ([21] SRR-Net, [14] gripper, [25] localization) are background/hardware references with in-paper evaluation, so they are not load-bearing. Overall, partial circularity concentrated in the central compensation claim.

Axiom & Free-Parameter Ledger

5 free parameters · 4 axioms · 0 invented entities

The central claims rest on a small set of manually set parameters (T, kx/ky, thresholds) and on the sufficiency of visual features for slip prediction. No new physical entities are introduced. The compensation gains are the most significant free parameters because their values are undisclosed and they directly determine the reported error reduction.

free parameters (5)
  • T (error tolerance threshold) = 10 mm
    Hand-set threshold for triggering compensation in Eqs. (3)-(4).
  • kx, ky (compensation scale factors) = not disclosed
    The gain applied to vision-measured offsets; if tuned to the data, the reported error reduction is partly a fit.
  • λ (ripeness loss weight) = not specified
    Weighting coefficient in Eq. (1) balancing ripeness loss against detection/segmentation losses.
  • LSTM prediction probability thresholds = not specified
    Output probabilities used to decide whether a strawberry is normal, slipping, or slipped; affects success rates.
  • Ripeness threshold for ripe/unripe classification = not specified
    Used in §3.5 to decide which strawberries are tracked for harvesting.
axioms (4)
  • domain assumption Hand-eye calibration provides sufficient accuracy to transform camera-frame positions to robot frame.
    Used in §3.3 to compute Δx/Δy and move to the compensated point; if calibration errors are not common-mode, compensation fails.
  • domain assumption Micro-camera image features (normalized areas, width/height/center) are sufficient to predict slippage 3 frames ahead.
    Used as LSTM input in §3.4; no force/tactile information, so if slip dynamics are not visually predictive, the predictor fails.
  • ad hoc to paper The compensation equation xc = xp + kx·Δx moves the gripper to the fruit rather than away.
    With kx=1 and Δx=xp–xe, xc=2xp–xe, which appears to overshoot the target unless kx is negative or the coordinate convention differs; equation details are not justified.
  • standard math SRR-Net, YOLOv11, MobileNet V3, and LSTM perform as standard.
    Background ML methods used as tools; the paper does not verify these base models on external benchmarks.

reviewed 2026-08-03 · how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Vision-Based Early Fault Diagnosis and Self-Recovery for Strawberry Harvesting Robots." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/BT6TAREJ

@misc{pith2026260102085,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Vision-Based Early Fault Diagnosis and Self-Recovery for Strawberry Harvesting Robots},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/BT6TAREJ}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2601.02085}
}
Share X Bluesky LinkedIn Reddit HN
read the original abstract

Strawberry-harvesting robots faced challenges such as poor visual perception, gripper misalignment, empty grasp/misgrasp, and slippage, which reduced harvesting stability and efficiency.To overcome these issues, this paper proposes a visual fault diagnosis and self-recovery framework. An end-to-end SRR-Net achieved unified perception and fault diagnosis through joint detection, segmentation, and ripeness regression of the fruit and gripper. Leveraging this integrated perception, a relative error compensation method driven by simultaneous target-gripper detection was designed to correct positional misalignments exceeding the tolerance threshold. A micro-optical camera integrated within the end-effector delivered real-time visual feedback. Based on the micro-optical camera, a MobileNet V3-Small classifier was utilized for grasp adjustment during the deflating stage, enabling the early abort of the harvesting cycle in cases of empty grasp/misgrasps. Furthermore, a time-series LSTM classifier was applied during the snap-off stage to predict strawberry slippage. Based on these predictions, the system executed re-inflation and a secondary snap-off attempt for slipping strawberries, or aborted the cycle for slipped strawberries. Experiments demonstrated that the mean absolute errors between the end-effector and the picking point were reduced to 3.12 mm and 4.06 mm from 11.50 mm and 5.25 mm along the x- and y-axes, respectively, at the cost of a time increment of 0.64 $pm$ 0.24 s. The grasp adjustment module reduced the grasping phase by approximately 0.5 s and avoided empty-placement for failure cases. The strawberry slip prediction module handled slipped cases with an 88.89% success rate, saving approximately 4.00 s per harvesting cycle for failure cases. Also, it achieved an 81.25% recovery rate for slipping strawberries, requiring additional 0.63 s for re-grasping.

discussion (0)

Sign in with ORCID, Apple, or X to comment. Anyone can read and Pith papers without signing in.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

26 extracted references · 2 linked inside Pith

  1. [1]

    Computers and Electronics in Agriculture235, 110343 (2025)

    Hua, W., Zhang, Z., Zhang, W., Liu, X., Hu, C., He, Y., Mhamed, M., Li, X., Dong, H., Saha, C.K.,et al.: Key technologies in apple harvesting robot for stan- dardized orchards: A comprehensive review of innovations, challenges, and future directions. Computers and Electronics in Agriculture235, 110343 (2025)

    2025

  2. [2]

    Journal of Electrical Engineering & Technology19(1), 773–789 (2024)

    Xiao, X., Wang, Y., Jiang, Y.: Review of research advances in fruit and vegetable harvesting robots. Journal of Electrical Engineering & Technology19(1), 773–789 (2024)

    2024

  3. [3]

    Precision Agriculture25(5), 2321–2355 (2024)

    Hou, C., Xu, J., Tang, Y., Jiajun, Z., Tan, Z., Chen, W., Wei, S., Huang, H., Fang, M.: Detection and localization of citrus picking points based on binocular vision. Precision Agriculture25(5), 2321–2355 (2024)

    2024

  4. [4]

    Applied Sciences13(4), 2675 (2023)

    Milecki, A., Nowak, P.: Review of fault-tolerant control systems used in robotic manipulators. Applied Sciences13(4), 2675 (2023)

    2023

  5. [5]

    arXiv preprint arXiv:2402.02980 (2024)

    Quamar, M.M., Nasir, A.: Review on fault diagnosis and fault-tolerant control scheme for robotic manipulators: Recent advances in ai, machine learning, and digital twin. arXiv preprint arXiv:2402.02980 (2024)

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2024

  6. [6]

    Journal of Field Robotics 41(7), 2247–2279 (2024)

    Rajendran, V., Debnath, B., Mghames, S., Mandil, W., Parsa, S., Parsons, S., Ghalamzan-E, A.: Towards autonomous selective harvesting: A review of robot 25 perception, robot design, motion planning and control. Journal of Field Robotics 41(7), 2247–2279 (2024)

    2024

  7. [7]

    Sensors25(13), 3851 (2025)

    Wang, H., Lao, L., Zhang, H., Tang, Z., Qian, P., He, Q.: Structural fault detection and diagnosis for combine harvesters: A critical review. Sensors25(13), 3851 (2025)

    2025

  8. [8]

    In: 2024 9th International Conference on Control and Robotics Engineering (ICCRE), pp

    Rapalo, A.O.V., Cort´ es, C.A.B., Ordo˜ nez´Avila, J.L.: Design and analysis of a pneumatic end-effector with an air contraction clamp for soft robotics. In: 2024 9th International Conference on Control and Robotics Engineering (ICCRE), pp. 98–103 (2024). IEEE

    2024

  9. [9]

    Sensors19(18), 4019 (2019)

    Khalastchi, E., Kalech, M.: Fault detection and diagnosis in multi-robot systems: A survey. Sensors19(18), 4019 (2019)

    2019

  10. [10]

    arXiv preprint arXiv:2006.11729 (2020)

    Nejati, M., Penhall, N., Williams, H., Bell, J., Lim, J., Ahn, H.S., MacDonald, B.: Kiwifruit detection in challenging conditions. arXiv preprint arXiv:2006.11729 (2020)

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2006

  11. [11]

    Agronomy15(1), 145 (2025)

    Shi, X., Wang, S., Zhang, B., Ding, X., Qi, P., Qu, H., Li, N., Wu, J., Yang, H.: Advances in object detection and localization techniques for fruit harvesting robots. Agronomy15(1), 145 (2025)

    2025

  12. [12]

    Agriculture15(15), 1593 (2025)

    Tantan, J., Xiongzhe, H., Wang, P., Lyu, Y., Eunha, C., Haetnim, J., Lirong, X.: Performance evaluation of robotic harvester with integrated real-time perception and path planning for dwarf hedge-planted apple orchard. Agriculture15(15), 1593 (2025)

    2025

  13. [13]

    Discover Applied Sciences7(9), 931 (2025)

    Kamat, P., Gite, S., Chandekar, H., Dlima, L., Pradhan, B.: Multi-class fruit ripeness detection using yolo and ssd object detection models. Discover Applied Sciences7(9), 931 (2025)

    2025

  14. [14]

    IEEE Robotics and Automation Letters 11(1), 121–128 (2026) https://doi.org/10.1109/LRA.2025.3630528

    Yang, L., Li, H., Lin, S., Xiong, Y.: High-tolerance soft-rigid gripper for low- damage robotic strawberry harvesting. IEEE Robotics and Automation Letters 11(1), 121–128 (2026) https://doi.org/10.1109/LRA.2025.3630528

    arXiv 2026

  15. [15]

    Results in Engineering23, 102397 (2024)

    Sabry, A.H., Amirulddin, U.A.B.U.: A review on fault detection and diagnosis of industrial robots and multi-axis machines. Results in Engineering23, 102397 (2024)

    2024

  16. [16]

    Mechanical Systems and Signal Processing177, 109175 (2022)

    Zhang, C., Mousavi, A.A., Masri, S.F., Gholipour, G., Yan, K., Li, X.: Vibra- tion feature extraction using signal processing techniques for structural health monitoring: A review. Mechanical Systems and Signal Processing177, 109175 (2022)

    2022

  17. [17]

    In: 26 2024 9th International Conference on Control, Robotics and Cybernetics (CRC), pp

    Vukadinovic, M., Reiterer, B., Rathmair, M., Schuetz, C.G.: Anomaly detection in robot applications: Comparison of rule-based and machine learning methods. In: 26 2024 9th International Conference on Control, Robotics and Cybernetics (CRC), pp. 1–5 (2024). IEEE

    2024

  18. [18]

    IEEE Access11, 2250–2258 (2023)

    Hasan, A., Tahavori, M., Midtiby, H.S.: Model-based fault diagnosis algorithms for robotic systems. IEEE Access11, 2250–2258 (2023)

    2023

  19. [19]

    Computers and Electronics in Agriculture234, 110222 (2025)

    Zhou, H., Ahmed, A., Liu, T., Romeo, M., Beh, T., Pan, Y., Kang, H., Chen, C.: Finger vision enabled real-time defect detection in robotic harvesting. Computers and Electronics in Agriculture234, 110222 (2025)

    2025

  20. [20]

    Neurocomputing556, 126694 (2023)

    Hwang, C.-L.: Cooperation of robot manipulators with motion constraint by real- time rnn-based finite-time fault-tolerant control. Neurocomputing556, 126694 (2023)

    2023

  21. [21]

    Computers and Electronics in Agriculture241, 111169 (2026) https://doi.org/10.1016/j.compag.2025.111169

    Sun, M., Hu, S., Zhao, C., Xiong, Y.: Light-resilient visual regression of strawberry ripeness for robotic harvesting. Computers and Electronics in Agriculture241, 111169 (2026) https://doi.org/10.1016/j.compag.2025.111169

    arXiv 2026

  22. [22]

    In: 2019 IEEE/CVF International Conference on Computer Vision (ICCV), pp

    Howard, A., Sandler, M., Chen, B., Wang, W., Chen, L.-C., Tan, M., Chu, G., Vasudevan, V., Zhu, Y., Pang, R., Adam, H., Le, Q.: Searching for mobilenetv3. In: 2019 IEEE/CVF International Conference on Computer Vision (ICCV), pp. 1314–1324 (2019). https://doi.org/10.1109/ICCV.2019.00140

    arXiv 2019

  23. [23]

    In: 2024 IEEE/RSJ International Conference on Intelligent Robots and Systems (IROS), pp

    Chen, Y., Miao, Z., Ge, Y., Lin, S., Chen, L., Xiong, Y.: Design and control of a novel six-degree-of-freedom hybrid robotic arm. In: 2024 IEEE/RSJ International Conference on Intelligent Robots and Systems (IROS), pp. 3597–3604 (2024). IEEE

    2024

  24. [24]

    Proceedings of the IEEE98(8), 1467–1484 (2010)

    Torralba, A., Russell, B.C., Yuen, J.: Labelme: Online image annotation and applications. Proceedings of the IEEE98(8), 1467–1484 (2010)

    2010

  25. [25]

    Precision Agriculture24(2), 764–782 (2023)

    Ge, Y., Xiong, Y., From, P.J.: Three-dimensional location methods for the vision system of strawberry-harvesting robots: development and comparison. Precision Agriculture24(2), 764–782 (2023)

    2023

  26. [26]

    Proceedings of the IEEE111(3), 257–276 (2023) https://doi.org/10.1109/ JPROC.2023.3238524 27

    Zou, Z., Chen, K., Shi, Z., Guo, Y., Ye, J.: Object detection in 20 years: A survey. Proceedings of the IEEE111(3), 257–276 (2023) https://doi.org/10.1109/ JPROC.2023.3238524 27

    arXiv 2023

This paper was first reviewed by deepseek-v4-flash on August 3, 2026.