Pith. sign in

REVIEW 4 major objections 7 minor 34 references

SPGrasp: Spatiotemporal Prompt-driven Grasp Synthesis in Dynamic Scenes

T0 review · 4 major / 7 minor · reviewed 2026-08-15 · deepseek-v4-flash

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

Pith's one-line read SPGrasp claims that a single user prompt can start real-time grasp tracking on moving objects, hitting 92.0% accuracy at 73.1 ms per frame on GraspNet-1Billion.

desk verdict Real contribution in sparse-prompt grasp tracking, but the '94.8% real-world success rate' is offline prediction accuracy, not physical grasps; deserves review with major revision. read the letter →

arxiv 2508.20547 v2 pith:RUTNRT5D submitted 2025-08-28 cs.RO cs.AIcs.CV

Yunpeng Mei , Hongjie Cao , Yinqiu Xia , Wei Xiao , Zhaohan Feng , Gang Wang , Jie Chen This is my paper · ORCID
classification cs.ROcs.AIcs.CV
keywords dynamicgraspsynthesisprompt-drivengraspingspatiotemporalcontextsegmentanythingmodel2videotrackingreal-time4-DoFposeocclusionrecovery
verification ladder T0 review T1 audit T2 compute T3 formal

The pith

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

The reading

SPGrasp tries to close the latency-interactivity gap in dynamic grasping: existing promptable grasp methods require a fresh user prompt on every frame, while tracking-based methods need object priors or predefined targets. The paper claims that one prompt can start a tracking-and-grasping stream, because a spatiotemporal memory bank stores visual features, prior grasp masks, and an object pointer, and cross-frame attention fuses this history into the current prediction. If the method works as claimed, a robot could accept a single click, box, or language description of an object and then keep producing grasp poses for it as it moves and reappears after occlusion, at interactive rates. On benchmarks the paper reports 90.6% on OCID, 93.8% on Jacquard, and 92.0% accuracy with 73.1 ms per-frame latency on GraspNet-1Billion, together with a 94.8% success rate in a real-world test with 13 moving toys.

What carries the argument

The central mechanism is the spatiotemporal context module: a FIFO memory buffer of the past Nhist state vectors, where each state concatenates the frame's visual embedding, the predicted grasp position mask, and an object pointer, combined with a cross-frame attention operation that uses the current embedding as query against history keys and values. This lets a single initial prompt seed a tracking sequence and keeps object identity and grasp predictions coherent across unprompted frames, including recovery after the target disappears and reappears within the buffer's capacity.

What would settle it

Run SPGrasp on video sequences with genuinely moving objects, where ground-truth grasp poses are known, and compare per-frame accuracy and tracking recovery under occlusions against the 92.0% reported on GraspNet-1Billion; if accuracy drops markedly or latency under true streaming exceeds 100 ms, the central claim is not supported.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

SPGrasp's central claim is that prompt-driven grasp synthesis and object tracking can be unified in a single end-to-end model built on SAM 2, so that a user-specified target is tracked and grasped without per-frame prompting. The model outputs a five-channel mask per frame—grasp position, sine and cosine of twice the grasp angle, grasp width, and an object semantic mask—from which 4-DoF grasp poses are decoded. A FIFO memory buffer of the last Nhist states, each storing visual embeddings, grasp position masks, and an object pointer, is attended over with the current frame's embedding to inform the mask decoder; new prompts reset the buffer and re-initialize tracking. The paper claims this yields accuracy comparable to the best promptable baseline, RoG-SAM, while running 2.4 times faster (73.1 vs 176 ms per frame), and that the memory buffer is what lets the model recover targets after occlusion.

Load-bearing premise

The claim that SPGrasp works in dynamic scenes leans on treating camera movement around static objects as a stand-in for objects genuinely moving in front of a camera, and on reporting real-world prediction accuracy rather than physical grasp success; if either does not transfer, the central claim is only weakly tested.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • A user can select an object once with a click, box, or text prompt, and the robot continues to output grasp poses for that instance as it moves, without repeated prompting.
  • Sparse prompting at 8-frame intervals is enough to match per-frame prompting accuracy (92.0% vs 91.9% on GraspNet-1Billion), meaning the interactive burden on users drops substantially.
  • The memory buffer, not just the backbone, carries tracking: removing it drops accuracy by 2.6% and loses targets after occlusion, while removing pretraining drops accuracy by 15.8%.
  • At 73.1 ms per frame, the method clears a real-time threshold for interactive grasping at the tested resolution, and the 59.4 ms configuration with smaller history also stays under 100 ms.
  • Tuning history length Nhist trades roughly 6-8 ms per additional 2 steps for accuracy gains, while clip length Nclip mainly affects training memory rather than inference speed.

Reading between the lines

Editorial extensions of the paper, not claims the author makes directly.

  • Because the GraspNet-1Billion sequences are camera motion over static scenes, the dynamic-scene claim would be stronger if benchmarked on sequences with genuinely moving objects; the real-world toy experiments move in that direction but report prediction accuracy rather than physical robot grasp success.
  • The per-instance object pointer suggests the architecture could be extended to multi-target tracking with multiple concurrent prompts; the paper shows qualitative multi-instance results but does not quantify multi-target tracking accuracy.
  • The fixed memory window bounds occlusion recovery: if a target is hidden longer than Nhist frames, the object pointer and historical features expire, so a new prompt would be needed; the paper states this capacity explicitly.
  • The 4-DoF grasp output (center, angle, width) is a projection of a full 6-DoF grasp, so extending to 6-DoF would require additional depth-based reasoning, which the authors list as future work.
Share X Bluesky LinkedIn Reddit HN

Signed reviews

No signed human review yet.

Editorial analysis

A structured set of objections, weighed in public.

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

Referee Report

4 major / 7 minor

Summary. The paper proposes SPGrasp, a prompt-driven grasp synthesis framework that extends SAM2 with a spatiotemporal memory bank, aiming to track a user-selected object across video frames and predict 4-DoF grasp poses without per-frame prompting. The architecture combines a SAM-style image encoder, prompt encoder, mask decoder, and a FIFO memory buffer storing visual features, grasp masks, and an object pointer; cross-frame attention fuses history with the current embedding. Training uses a multi-channel mask loss over grasp position, angle, width, and semantic segmentation. Experiments report 90.6% accuracy on OCID, 93.8% on Jacquard, 92.0% accuracy at 73.1 ms per frame on GraspNet-1Billion, and a claimed 94.8% real-world success rate on 13 moving toys with occlusion. Ablations examine prompt interval, history length, clip length, memory removal, pretraining, and backbone size.

Significance. If the central claims are fully supported, the paper would make a useful contribution: it integrates a foundation-model backbone with a lightweight temporal memory for sparse-prompt instance-level grasp synthesis, and it provides extensive ablations isolating the roles of memory, pretraining, clip length, and backbone capacity. The reported 2.4x speed advantage over RoG-SAM and the ability to maintain tracking with only an initial prompt are practically valuable. However, the dynamic-grasping evidence is weaker than the abstract suggests: the only real-world result is offline prediction accuracy, and the benchmark used for dynamic scenes relies on camera motion over static objects. The latency measurement is amortized over a clip rather than demonstrated as a true online per-frame budget, and no statistical variance is reported. These issues leave the 'latency-interactivity trade-off' claim only partially established.

major comments (4)
  1. [Abstract, Section IV-C, Table V] The abstract and introduction describe a 94.8% real-world 'success rate,' but Section IV-C reports 'prediction accuracy' on a self-collected dataset of 13 toys and 173 sequences. No physical robot grasping is described anywhere: there is no mention of executed grasp attempts, gripper closure, lift-and-hold success criteria, or failure counts. The word 'success rate' in the abstract therefore overstates what was measured. Please either report physical grasp success with explicit trial counts and failure cases, or revise the abstract, introduction, and conclusion to say 'prediction accuracy' and temper the claim that SPGrasp 'resolves the latency-interactivity trade-off in dynamic grasp synthesis.'
  2. [Section IV-A, Table II] The central dynamic-scene claim rests on treating GraspNet-1Billion camera-waypoint sequences as video streams, but the objects in those scenes are static and only the camera moves. Section IV-A states that 'data collection involved camera movement through predefined waypoints' and that this 'enables treatment as video streams.' This setup tests viewpoint change and ego-motion tracking, but not object motion, object-induced occlusion, or target displacement within a fixed scene. Since the only real-world experiment is offline prediction accuracy on a small self-collected set, the evidence for tracking genuinely moving objects is considerably weaker than the paper's language suggests. Please add an evaluation with moving objects (e.g., a dynamic-object benchmark or physical trials with moving targets), or explicitly scope the claim to tracking under changing viewpoints.
  3. [Section IV-B, Table III] The latency comparison is not yet an apples-to-apples online measurement. Section IV-B says inference time is 'total processing time per frame ... which includes amortized feature extraction costs from the entire clip plus per-frame decoding and propagation time.' For a real-time interactive system, the relevant budget is the time to process each newly arriving frame in a streaming fashion, not the average over an offline clip with amortized encoding cost. If the 73.1 ms figure includes amortization over an 8-frame clip, it may understate the true per-frame latency in an online setting. Please report a true streaming per-frame time, and also provide the measurement protocol for the RoG-SAM 176 ms baseline (GPU, resolution, batch size, prompt type, and whether the same amortization convention is used).
  4. [Tables II, III, IV, V] No table reports error bars, number of repeated trials, random seeds, or per-sequence variance. The main comparisons involve small differences: 92.0% vs. 91.2% for RoG-SAM (Table II), 89.4% vs. 92.0% for the memory ablation (Table IV), and 97.7% vs. 94.8% across occlusion levels (Table V). Without repeated training runs or per-scene statistics, the reader cannot assess whether any of these differences is significant. Please report means with standard deviations or confidence intervals over multiple runs, or at least per-sequence/per-scene breakdowns, for the central accuracy and latency claims.
minor comments (7)
  1. [Section III-A, III-B] The name 'SPD-Grasp' appears in the problem statement and architecture description, while the rest of the paper uses 'SPGrasp.' Please use one consistent name throughout.
  2. [Section IV-A] There is a spelling inconsistency: 'The performance of SPgrasp is quantified' uses lowercase 'g'; correct to 'SPGrasp.'
  3. [Section III-C, Eq. (4)] Equation (4) uses the class-balancing factor αc but does not give its formula. The text says αc is the negative-to-positive sample ratio clamped by βc; please write the explicit expression, e.g., αc = min(βc, N_neg/N_pos).
  4. [Table II] The comparison of SPGrasp at 8-frame prompt intervals with RoG-SAM at 1-frame intervals is labeled as 'comparable conditions,' but the prompt frequencies differ. To support the claim of superiority, please report RoG-SAM under sparse prompting or explicitly state that per-frame prompting is the only protocol available for the baseline.
  5. [Section IV-C] The setup description says 'two Galaxea G1 parallel gripper,' which is unclear. Please specify whether there is one gripper with two fingers or two separate grippers, and describe the mounting.
  6. [Reference [34]] Reference [34] is cited for the Galaxea R1 robot, but the cited work appears to be the Behavior Robot Suite software; please verify that this is the correct citation for the hardware, or add the appropriate hardware reference.
  7. [Table V] The phrase 'the model achieves a accuracy of 97.7%' contains a grammatical error; correct to 'an accuracy.'

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 1.0 of 10

No material circularity; the derivation is self-contained and the only self-citation (RoG-SAM) is a non-load-bearing baseline comparison.

full rationale

SPGrasp's load-bearing results are measured against external datasets (OCID, Jacquard, GraspNet-1Billion) and a self-collected real-world set; the accuracy numbers are not obtained from equations that already contain the target claims. The core recursion in Eqs. (1)-(3) defines the feature fusion and memory update, but the reported 90.6%, 93.8%, and 92.0% figures come from benchmark evaluation with defined IoU/angle criteria, not from the formulation itself. The only same-author reference, RoG-SAM, is used as an accuracy and latency baseline rather than as a justification for the SPGrasp architecture or for any uniqueness claim. The real-world experiment reports 94.8% prediction accuracy for occlusion scenarios (Table V), not executed physical grasps; this is an evidentiary limitation for the dynamic-manipulation claim, but it is not a circularity because the prediction metric is measured independently rather than derived from the model's own assumptions. No fitted parameter is renamed as a prediction, no uniqueness theorem is imported from the authors' prior work, and no ansatz is smuggled in via citation. The paper's central derivation is therefore self-contained, with at most a minor non-load-bearing self-citation.

Assumptions & free parameters 5 free parameters · 4 assumptions · 0 invented entities

The central claim is empirical: a trained network plus SAM2 pretraining. The key non-derived choices are the FIFO memory length, clip length, loss weights, and evaluation thresholds. No new physical entities are introduced. The strongest implicit axiom is that static-object camera-motion sequences exercise the same machinery as true object motion.

free parameters (5)
  • Loss weights w1..w5 = w1=5.0, w2=w3=5.0, w4=1.0, w5=1.0
    Set by hand to balance position, angle, width, and semantic channels in Eq. (6); not derived from data and affects training balance.
  • Class-balancing clamps beta1, beta4, beta5 = 20, 10, 5
    Clamping values in the BCE loss in Section III-C; chosen empirically.
  • History length Nhist = 8
    Selected by ablation in Table III; directly controls inference time (59.4 ms at Nhist=4 to 73.1 ms at Nhist=8) and tracking behavior.
  • Clip length Nclip = 8
    Selected by ablation; increasing from 1 to 8 frames yields large accuracy gains, while 8 to 16 gives marginal gains at nearly double training memory.
  • Grasp correctness thresholds = IoU > 0.25, angle < 30 degrees
    Evaluation criteria in Eq. (8) and Section IV-A; standard in the field but directly determines all reported accuracy numbers.
assumptions (4)
  • domain assumption SAM2 pretrained weights on large video datasets transfer to grasp affordance and instance-level detection.
    Section IV-B ablation shows removing pretraining drops accuracy from 92.0% to 76.2%; the paper credits SA-V pretraining, but this transfer is assumed, not proven specifically for grasp synthesis.
  • domain assumption GraspNet-1Billion camera-waypoint sequences can serve as dynamic video streams for evaluating moving-object grasping.
    Section IV-A explicitly treats camera movement as enabling dynamic grasp synthesis evaluation, yet objects in the dataset are static; this assumption carries the dynamic-scene claim.
  • domain assumption A grasp proposal is correct when its orientation is within 30 degrees of ground truth and rectangle IoU exceeds 0.25.
    This operational definition in Eq. (8) is standard for static benchmarks but is not independently validated as a predictor of physical grasp success on moving objects.
  • domain assumption The object pointer derived from mask tokens is sufficient to maintain instance identity across occlusion and re-identification.
    Section III-B2 states the pointer maintains persistent object identity across frames; the mechanism is architectural and validated only by reported experiments, not guaranteed.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of SPGrasp: Spatiotemporal Prompt-driven Grasp Synthesis in Dynamic Scenes." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/RUTNRT5D

@misc{pith2026250820547,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: SPGrasp: Spatiotemporal Prompt-driven Grasp Synthesis in Dynamic Scenes},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/RUTNRT5D}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2508.20547}
}
read the original abstract

Real-time interactive grasp synthesis for dynamic objects remains challenging as existing methods fail to achieve low-latency inference while maintaining promptability. To bridge this gap, we propose SPGrasp (spatiotemporal prompt-driven dynamic grasp synthesis), a novel framework extending segment anything model v2 (SAMv2) for video stream grasp estimation. Our core innovation integrates user prompts with spatiotemporal context, enabling real-time interaction with end-to-end latency as low as 59 ms while ensuring temporal consistency for dynamic objects. In benchmark evaluations, SPGrasp achieves instance-level grasp accuracies of 90.6% on OCID and 93.8% on Jacquard. On the challenging GraspNet-1Billion dataset under continuous tracking, SPGrasp achieves 92.0% accuracy with 73.1 ms per-frame latency, representing a 58.5% reduction compared to the prior state-of-the-art promptable method RoG-SAM while maintaining competitive accuracy. Real-world experiments involving 13 moving objects demonstrate a 94.8% success rate in interactive grasping scenarios. These results confirm SPGrasp effectively resolves the latency-interactivity trade-off in dynamic grasp synthesis.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2508.20547 by the authors.

Figure 1
Figure 1. Architectural comparison: a) Existing grasp tracking methods require [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p001_1.png] view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. SPGrasp framework overview. a) Multi-head grasp prediction pipeline depicting forward data flow, with inter-frame memory buffers integrating [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p003_2.png] view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. Qualitative grasp predictions by SPGrasp on Jacquard and OCID Datasets. Left: Jacquard examples (three columns). Right: OCID examples (three [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p006_3.png] view at source ↗
Figures from the paper (4 more)
Figure 4
Figure 4. Figure 4: Predicted grasp poses and position heatmaps at prompt intervals of [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p007_4.png]
Figure 5
Figure 5. Figure 5: Visualization of ablation study results for cluttered (single-frame) and occlusion recovery (multi-frame) scenarios in Graspnet-1Billion. For the cluttered [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p008_5.png]
Figure 6
Figure 6. Figure 6: The real-world experimental setup. a) The robot, camera, and [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p008_6.png]
Figure 7
Figure 7. Figure 7: Qualitative results of SPGrasp’s prediction under different occlusion scenarios with multiple dynamic objects. The model successfully re-establishes [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p009_7.png]

Review history (2 revisions) →

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

34 extracted references · 24 canonical work pages

  1. [1]

    Antipodal robotic grasping using generative residual convolutional neural network,

    S. Kumra, S. Joshi, and F. Sahin, “Antipodal robotic grasping using generative residual convolutional neural network,” in Proc. IEEE/RSJ Int. Conf. Intell. Robots Syst. IEEE, 2020, pp. 9626–9633

    work page 2020

  2. [2]

    Multi-agent embodied AI: Advances and future directions,

    Z. Feng, R. Xue, L. Yuan, Y . Yu, N. Ding, M. Liu, B. Gao, J. Sun, X. Zheng, and G. Wang, “Multi-agent embodied AI: Advances and future directions,” arXiv:2505.05108, 2025

    arXiv 2025

  3. [3]

    SAM 2: Segment anything in images and videos,

    N. Ravi, V . Gabeur, Y .-T. Hu, R. Hu, C. Ryali, T. Ma, H. Khedr, R. R ¨adle, C. Rolland, L. Gustafson et al. , “SAM 2: Segment anything in images and videos,” arXiv:2408.00714, 2024

    arXiv 2024

  4. [4]

    Pluralistic salient object detection,

    X. Feng, Y . Li, D. Chen, C. Qiao, J. Yuan, L. Yuan, and G. Hua, “Pluralistic salient object detection,” IEEE Trans. Image Process. , 2025

    work page 2025

  5. [5]

    Motion consistency model: Accelerating video diffusion with disentangled motion-appearance distillation,

    Y . Zhai, K. Lin, Z. Yang, L. Li, J. Wang, C.-C. Lin, D. Doermann, J. Yuan, and L. Wang, “Motion consistency model: Accelerating video diffusion with disentangled motion-appearance distillation,” Adv. Neural Inf. Process. Syst. , vol. 37, pp. 111 000–111 021, 2024

    work page 2024

  6. [6]

    An overview of 3D object grasp synthesis algorithms,

    A. Sahbani, S. El-Khoury, and P. Bidaud, “An overview of 3D object grasp synthesis algorithms,” Robot. Auton. Syst. , vol. 60, no. 3, pp. 326– 336, 2012

    work page 2012

  7. [7]

    Universal visuo-tactile video understanding for embodied interaction,

    Y . Xie, M. Li, S. Li, X. Li, G. Chen, F. Ma, F. R. Yu, and W. Ding, “Universal visuo-tactile video understanding for embodied interaction,” arXiv:2505.22566, 2025

    arXiv 2025

  8. [8]

    ManiGaussian++: General robotic bimanual ma- nipulation with hierarchical Gaussian world model,

    T. Yu, G. Lu, Z. Yang, H. Deng, S. S. Chen, J. Lu, W. Ding, G. Hu, Y . Tang, and Z. Wang, “ManiGaussian++: General robotic bimanual ma- nipulation with hierarchical Gaussian world model,” arXiv:2506.19842, 2025

    arXiv 2025

Show all 34 references
  1. [9]

    Dgbench: An open-source, reproducible benchmark for dynamic grasping,

    B. Burgess-Limerick, C. Lehnert, J. Leitner, and P. Corke, “Dgbench: An open-source, reproducible benchmark for dynamic grasping,” in Proc. IEEE/RSJ Int. Conf. Intell. Robots Syst. IEEE, 2022, pp. 3218–3224

    2022

  2. [10]

    MotionGrasp: Long-term grasp motion tracking for dynamic grasping,

    N. Chen, X.-M. Wu, G. Xu, J.-J. Jiang, Z. Chen, and W.-S. Zheng, “MotionGrasp: Long-term grasp motion tracking for dynamic grasping,” IEEE Robot. Autom. Lett. , vol. 10, no. 1, pp. 796–803, 2025

    2025

  3. [11]

    Target-referenced reactive grasping for dynamic objects,

    J. Liu, R. Zhang, H.-S. Fang, M. Gou, H. Fang, C. Wang, S. Xu, H. Yan, and C. Lu, “Target-referenced reactive grasping for dynamic objects,” in Proc. IEEE/CVF Conf. Comput. Vis. Pattern Recognit. , 2023, pp. 8824– 8833

    2023

  4. [12]

    Anygrasp: Robust and efficient grasp perception in spatial and temporal domains,

    H.-S. Fang, C. Wang, H. Fang, M. Gou, J. Liu, H. Yan, W. Liu, Y . Xie, and C. Lu, “Anygrasp: Robust and efficient grasp perception in spatial and temporal domains,” IEEE Trans. Robot. , vol. 39, no. 5, pp. 3929– 3945, 2023

    2023

  5. [13]

    Segment anything,

    A. Kirillov, E. Mintun, N. Ravi, H. Mao, C. Rolland, L. Gustafson, T. Xiao, S. Whitehead, A. C. Berg, W.-Y . Loet al., “Segment anything,” in Proc. IEEE/CVF Int. Conf. Comput. Vis. , 2023, pp. 4015–4026

    2023

  6. [14]

    RoG- SAM: A language-driven framework for instance-level robotic grasping detection,

    Y . Mei, J. Sun, Z. Peng, F. Deng, G. Wang, and J. Chen, “RoG- SAM: A language-driven framework for instance-level robotic grasping detection,” IEEE Trans. Multimedia , vol. 27, pp. 3057–3068, 2025

    2025

  7. [15]

    Closing the loop for robotic grasping: A real-time, generative grasp synthesis approach,

    D. Morrison, P. Corke, and J. Leitner, “Closing the loop for robotic grasping: A real-time, generative grasp synthesis approach,” arXiv:1804.05172, 2018

    2018 arXiv

  8. [16]

    GraspNet-1Billion: A large- scale benchmark for general object grasping,

    H.-S. Fang, C. Wang, M. Gou, and C. Lu, “GraspNet-1Billion: A large- scale benchmark for general object grasping,” in Proc. IEEE/CVF Conf. Comput. Vis. Pattern Recognit. , 2020, pp. 11 444–11 453

    2020

  9. [17]

    Dynamic grasping with reachability and motion awareness,

    I. Akinola, J. Xu, S. Song, and P. K. Allen, “Dynamic grasping with reachability and motion awareness,” in Proc. IEEE/RSJ Int. Conf. Intell. Robots Syst. IEEE, 2021, pp. 9422–9429

    2021

  10. [18]

    Object-independent human-to-robot handovers using real time robotic vision,

    P. Rosenberger, A. Cosgun, R. Newbury, J. Kwan, V . Ortenzi, P. Corke, and M. Grafinger, “Object-independent human-to-robot handovers using real time robotic vision,” IEEE Robot. Autom. Lett. , vol. 6, no. 1, pp. 17–23, 2021

    2021

  11. [19]

    Yolov3: An incremental improvement,

    J. Redmon and A. Farhadi, “Yolov3: An incremental improvement,” arXiv:1804.02767, 2018

    2018 arXiv

  12. [20]

    EdgeYOLO: An edge- real-time object detector,

    S. Liu, J. Zha, J. Sun, Z. Li, and G. Wang, “EdgeYOLO: An edge- real-time object detector,” in Chinese Control Conf. IEEE, 2023, pp. 7507–7512

    2023

  13. [21]

    Learning transferable visual models from natural language supervision,

    A. Radford, J. W. Kim, C. Hallacy, A. Ramesh, G. Goh, S. Agarwal, G. Sastry, A. Askell, P. Mishkin, J. Clark et al. , “Learning transferable visual models from natural language supervision,” in Proc. Int. Conf. Mach. Learn. PMLR, 2021, pp. 8748–8763

    2021

  14. [22]

    Language- guided robot grasping: Clip-based referring grasp synthesis in clutter,

    G. Tziafas, Y . Xu, A. Goel, M. Kasaei, Z. Li, and H. Kasaei, “Language- guided robot grasping: Clip-based referring grasp synthesis in clutter,” arXiv:2311.05779, 2023

    2023 arXiv

  15. [23]

    Show and grasp: Few-shot semantic segmentation for robot grasping through zero-shot foundation models,

    L. Barcellona, A. Bacchin, M. Terreran, E. Menegatti, and S. Ghidoni, “Show and grasp: Few-shot semantic segmentation for robot grasping through zero-shot foundation models,” arXiv:2404.12717, 2024

    2024 arXiv

  16. [24]

    Dino: Detr with improved denoising anchor boxes for end-to- end object detection,

    H. Zhang, F. Li, S. Liu, L. Zhang, H. Su, J. Zhu, L. M. Ni, and H.-Y . Shum, “Dino: Detr with improved denoising anchor boxes for end-to- end object detection,” arXiv:2203.03605, 2022

    2022 arXiv

  17. [25]

    A real-time robotic grasping approach with oriented anchor box,

    H. Zhang, X. Zhou, X. Lan, J. Li, Z. Tian, and N. Zheng, “A real-time robotic grasping approach with oriented anchor box,” IEEE Trans. Syst. Man Cybern. Syst. , vol. 51, no. 5, pp. 3014–3025, 2019

    2019

  18. [26]

    End-to-end trainable deep neural net- work for robotic grasp detection and semantic segmentation from RGB,

    S. Ainetter and F. Fraundorfer, “End-to-end trainable deep neural net- work for robotic grasp detection and semantic segmentation from RGB,” in Proc. IEEE Int. Conf. Robot. Autom. IEEE, 2021, pp. 13 452–13 458

    2021

  19. [27]

    Jacquard: A large scale dataset for robotic grasp detection,

    A. Depierre, E. Dellandr ´ea, and L. Chen, “Jacquard: A large scale dataset for robotic grasp detection,” in Proc. IEEE/RSJ Int. Conf. Intell. Robots Syst., 2018, pp. 3511–3516

    2018

  20. [28]

    Instance-wise grasp synthesis for robotic grasping,

    Y . Xu, M. Kasaei, H. Kasaei, and Z. Li, “Instance-wise grasp synthesis for robotic grasping,” in Proc. IEEE Int. Conf. Robot. Autom. IEEE, 2023, pp. 1744–1750

    2023

  21. [29]

    Real-world multiobject, multigrasp detection,

    F.-J. Chu, R. Xu, and P. A. Vela, “Real-world multiobject, multigrasp detection,” IEEE Robot. Autom. Lett., vol. 3, no. 4, pp. 3355–3362, 2018

    2018

  22. [30]

    Learning robust, real-time, reactive robotic grasping,

    D. Morrison, P. Corke, and J. Leitner, “Learning robust, real-time, reactive robotic grasping,” Int. J. Robot. Res. , vol. 39, no. 2-3, pp. 183– 201, 2020

    2020

  23. [31]

    A semantic robotic grasping framework based on multi-task learning in stacking scenes,

    S. Duan, G. Tian, Z. Wang, S. Liu, and C. Feng, “A semantic robotic grasping framework based on multi-task learning in stacking scenes,” Eng. Appl. Artif. Intell. , vol. 121, p. 106059, 2023

    2023

  24. [32]

    GR-ConvNet v2: A real-time multi- grasp detection network for robotic grasping,

    S. Kumra, S. Joshi, and F. Sahin, “GR-ConvNet v2: A real-time multi- grasp detection network for robotic grasping,” Sensors, vol. 22, no. 16, p. 6208, 2022

    2022

  25. [33]

    Medical SAM adapter: Adapting segment anything model for medical image segmentation,

    J. Wu, W. Ji, Y . Liu, H. Fu, M. Xu, Y . Xu, and Y . Jin, “Medical SAM adapter: Adapting segment anything model for medical image segmentation,” arXiv:2304.12620, 2023

    2023 arXiv

  26. [34]

    Behavior robot suite: Streamlining real-world whole-body manipulation for everyday household activities,

    Y . Jiang, R. Zhang, J. Wong, C. Wang, Y . Ze, H. Yin, C. Gokmen, S. Song, J. Wu, and L. Fei-Fei, “Behavior robot suite: Streamlining real-world whole-body manipulation for everyday household activities,” arXiv:2503.05652, 2025

    2025 arXiv

Pith tools

Reviewed August 15, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.