Pith. sign in

REVIEW 3 major objections 5 minor 1 cited by

A Haptic-Based Proximity Sensing System for Buried Object in Granular Material

T0 review · 3 major / 5 minor · reviewed 2026-08-12 · deepseek-v4-flash

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

Pith's one-line read A rod dragged through sand or seeds can sense a buried object 0.5 to 7 cm before touching it, using only force-feedback anomalies from the granular failure wedge zone.

desk verdict A clever proof-of-concept for haptic proximity sensing in granules; the physics story is nice, but threshold calibration and missing false-positive statistics make the headline ranges provisional. read the letter →

arxiv 2411.17083 v1 pith:ZZIXISWM submitted 2024-11-26 cs.RO physics.flu-dynphysics.geo-phphysics.ins-det

Zeqing Zhang , Ruixing Jia , Youcan Yan , Ruihua Han , Shijie Lin , Qian Jiang , Liangjun Zhang , Jia Pan This is my paper · ORCID
classification cs.ROphysics.flu-dynphysics.geo-phphysics.ins-det
keywords proximitysensinggranularmediahapticfeedbackfailurewedgezoneGaussianprocessregressionforcepatternanomalyburiedobjectdetectionspiraltrajectory
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

This paper tries to establish that a simple instrumented rod, dragged through granular material, can detect a buried object before touching it by reading the force feedback produced when the granular 'failure wedge zone' ahead of the rod jams against the object. The authors build a complete system, GRAINS, that learns the recent force pattern with Gaussian process regression, predicts the next short stretch of force readings, and raises a proximity warning when the actual readings diverge from the prediction by more than a per-granule calibrated threshold. In experiments the system reports sensing ranges of 0.5 to 7 cm ahead of contact across sand, cat litter, cassia seed, and soybean, and stops the probe before collision. If correct, this gives a low-cost, calibration-light way to give excavators, mine-clearance tools, and other probes early warning of buried obstacles in granular media.

What carries the argument

The failure wedge zone is the wedge-shaped, fan-shaped region of mobilized particles that forms ahead of a probe moved through granular material. It serves as the sensing medium: when a buried object enters this zone, granules jam and force chains carry extra resistance to the probe. The detector is Gaussian process regression with a periodic Exp-Sine-Squared kernel plus white noise kernel, trained online on the recent force-magnitude sequence; the system predicts the next force distribution and converts the gap between prediction and observation into a $z$-score. When any $z$-score exceeds the per-granule calibrated threshold $\bar{z}$, the system classifies the state as proximity and stops the probe. The spiral trajectory, parameterized by circular radius, advance velocity, and motion velocity, rotates the failure wedge zone so objects off the forward line are also detected.

What would settle it

Run the calibration protocol in a container with no buried object, then let the probe follow the same spiral trajectory for many object-free trials and count how often the real-time $z$-score exceeds the calibrated $\bar{z}$. If these false alarms occur at a rate comparable to the detection rate in object-present trials, the claimed 0.5 to 7 cm sensing ranges are not reliable indicators of proximity.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

The central claim is that granule jamming within the failure wedge zone produces a detectable force anomaly before the probe touches the object, so proximity can be inferred from haptic feedback alone. In the paper's terms, the failure wedge zone acts as an airbag: particles squeezed between probe and object form force chains that transmit a resistance increase to the force sensor, and this increase appears as a z-score outlier relative to the Gaussian-process prediction of the normal periodic force pattern. The system is claimed to perceive underground objects over 0.5 to 7 cm in advance among various materials. The authors also claim the spiral trajectory rotates the failure wedge zone, enabling 360-degree coverage, and that the autonomous calibration of motion speed, kernel periodicity, and z-score threshold makes the method work across different granules without manual re-tuning.

Load-bearing premise

The load-bearing premise is that any force anomaly exceeding the no-object calibration threshold $\bar{z}$ is caused by a nearby buried object, not by ordinary granular fluctuations, trajectory changes, or sensor noise; the paper does not report false-positive rates for this assumption.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • A probe using GRAINS can avoid direct collision with buried objects, with demonstrated stopping distances of about 1.3 to 4.5 cm in tested granules and a reported sensing range up to 7 cm.
  • The same hardware works across sand, cat litter, cassia seed, and soybean without manual re-tuning, because calibration selects motion speed, kernel periodicity, and $z$-score threshold automatically for each granule.
  • The spiral trajectory widens the effective sensing field to roughly 360 degrees around the probe, so objects beside the forward path are reachable.
  • The fixed-force-threshold baseline fails in the same test, breaking the probe without warning, while the pattern-based detector stops in time.

Reading between the lines

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

  • A direct test the paper does not report: run long object-free trials in each granule and count how often the $z$-score crosses $\bar{z}$; if natural fluctuations cross it as often as buried objects do, the reported ranges overstate reliability.
  • The sensing range's dependence on particle size and surface smoothness (soybean shortest, cat litter and sand longest) suggests a predictive model linking granule properties to expected detection distance could be built from more systematic variation of particle size, shape, and friction.
  • The same force-pattern anomaly could be sensed by cheaper tactile sensors than the 6-axis F/T sensor used here, since only force magnitude time series is needed; this is an implicit consequence of the method's reliance on force patterns rather than precise absolute forces.
  • Extending from homogeneous granules to layered or mixed soils, which the paper names as future work, would require the calibration and threshold logic to adapt online rather than once per granule.
Share X Bluesky LinkedIn Reddit HN

Editorial analysis

A structured set of objections, weighed in public.

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

Referee Report

3 major / 5 minor

Summary. The paper proposes GRAINS, an intrusive haptic proximity sensing system for buried objects in granular media. A probe is dragged along a spiral trajectory so that the failure wedge zone ahead of the probe rotates and enlarges the sensing area. The system learns a periodic force pattern with Gaussian process regression on a sliding window and computes z-scores between predicted and measured force magnitudes; when a z-score exceeds a calibrated threshold, the robot stops. Thresholds and other parameters are selected automatically for each granular material. Experiments in sand, cassia seed, cat litter, and soybean report stopping distances with medians of roughly 4.2, 2.7, 4.5, and 1.3 cm, summarized in the abstract as perception of buried objects 0.5 to 7 cm in advance. A baseline using a fixed force threshold is shown to fail in sand.

Significance. If the detection reliability is established, the system would be a simple, low-cost alternative to ground-penetrating radar and to prior model-based haptic methods, with a physically motivated sensing mechanism based on the failure wedge zone. The paper's strengths are its concrete hardware prototype, real physical experiments in four granular materials, the autonomous parameter calibration procedure, and the clear statement of a falsifiable sensing-range claim. The main weakness is statistical: the reported ranges rest on a threshold derived from a single no-object run, and no false-positive or false-negative rates are reported. The central idea is plausible, but the experimental evidence as presented does not yet support the reliability implied by the headline claim.

major comments (3)
  1. [Sec. 5.4, Eq. (22), and Sec. 6.2] The z-score threshold zbar is set to the maximum z-score observed in a single no-object calibration run for each granular material. A single maximum is an order statistic, not a distributional characterization of the null behavior: it depends on the length of the calibration run, the chosen motion velocity, and local packing fluctuations, and longer calibration would raise the threshold and reduce sensitivity. The paper reports no repeated null trials, no false-positive rates, and no false-negative rates. Since the 0.5–7 cm sensing range claimed in the abstract and Fig. 6(a) is defined by stopping exactly when z exceeds this threshold, the central claim of reliable proximity sensing is not yet statistically grounded. I recommend repeated no-object runs, reporting of false-positive and false-negative rates, and a threshold justification based on the tail of the z-score distribution rather than a single maximum.
  2. [Sec. 6.1, Fig. 5(a) and (e)] The baseline comparison uses a single hand-selected force threshold of 15 N, with the explanation that lower values stall the probe and higher values fail to stop. This does not represent the state-of-the-art threshold-based method of [14], and it gives no information about how a fixed-threshold detector would perform with the same autonomous calibration or across the other three granular materials. To support the claim that GRAINS improves on threshold-based approaches, the baseline threshold should be swept systematically and the comparison repeated under the same experimental protocol.
  3. [Sec. 6.2 and Definition 1] Twenty runs per granular material are reported, but the paper gives only medians and visual boxplots; there are no standard deviations, confidence intervals, or a statement of how ground-truth distance to the buried object was measured. The abstract's '0.5 to 7 cm' range conflates a spread of point estimates without specifying percentiles or operating conditions, and the non-optimal MV=0.5 case in cat litter shows outliers with a sensing range as low as 0.6 cm. The sensing-range claim should be tied to a defined operating condition and reported with variability measures.
minor comments (5)
  1. [Sec. 5.2] The text contains typos: 'sprial trajecotry' should be 'spiral trajectory', and the description of MV as a dimensionless UR5 speed ratio should state explicitly that the mapping from MV to physical speed is approximate.
  2. [Sec. 5.3] The paper invokes the 99% confidence-interval z-score 2.576 but then uses calibrated thresholds such as 3.9 in sand; the relationship between the theoretical Gaussian interval and the empirically calibrated threshold should be explained.
  3. [Sec. 6.1, Fig. 5(d)] The terms '0-th eps' and '3-th eps' are undefined abbreviations; define 'eps' or replace it with a consistent label such as 'trial segment'.
  4. [Sec. 7] The conclusion contains a typo: 'near-filed perception' should be 'near-field perception'.
  5. [Sec. 5.3, Eq. (16)] The predictive distribution in Eq. (16) is written for the latent function p(t*), but the z-score in Eq. (21) compares this prediction with a noisy force measurement; clarify whether sigma* includes the observation noise term, since this directly affects the z-score scale and threshold.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 0.0 of 10

No significant circularity: the proximity sensing range is an experimentally measured outcome, and the calibrated threshold only sets the null-detection level.

full rationale

The paper's central claim, that GRAINS perceives buried objects 0.5 to 7 cm before contact, is an empirical result measured after the fact, not a quantity derived from fitted inputs. The detection rule in Eq. (22) uses z-scores from GP force predictions in Eq. (21), and the threshold zbar is calibrated in Section 5.4 as the maximum z-score observed during a no-object calibration run. This calibration sets the false-positive operating point against null data; it does not encode the target sensing range and is not used to fit a distance. The sensing ranges reported in Section 6 are measured on separate object-present trials using Definition 1. The GP predicts future force magnitudes from recent force patterns, not object distance, so the prediction target is not equivalent to the claimed output. No load-bearing self-citations or imported uniqueness theorems appear. The main weakness is statistical, namely a single no-object calibration run and no reported false-positive rate, but that is a correctness and validation concern, not circularity.

Assumptions & free parameters 6 free parameters · 5 assumptions · 0 invented entities

No new physical entities are introduced. The failure wedge zone, force chains, and jamming are prior concepts from granular mechanics literature. The paper's contribution is the sensing method, not a new physical object or force.

free parameters (6)
  • z_score_threshold zbar = 3.9 (sand); other granules in Table 2
    Calibrated per granule as the maximum z-score over a no-object calibration run. Directly controls when the system declares proximity.
  • motion_velocity MV* = 0.2 (sand), 0.3 (cat litter), etc.
    Selected by minimizing RMSE of z-scores during no-object calibration over MV in {0.2, ..., 0.7}.
  • circular_radius CR = 0.02 m
    Hand-set based on sandbox size and experimental observation; not autonomously optimized.
  • advance_velocity AV = 0.01 m
    Hand-set along with CR; determines the spiral path shape.
  • sliding window sizes M and M* = M=2000, M*=1000
    Chosen without stated justification; affect GP training and prediction horizon.
  • GPR kernel hyperparameters = not specified
    sigma_p^2, l, and sigma_w^2 are said to be given fixed values and tuned by GPR, but the fixed values are not reported.
assumptions (5)
  • domain assumption A failure wedge zone forms ahead of a probe dragged through homogeneous granular media, and particles inside it are perturbed while outside remain still.
    Section 4, Fig. 2(a). This is a known soil-tool interaction concept [25], assumed to hold for the tested granules.
  • domain assumption When a buried object enters the failure wedge zone, granule jamming occurs and force chains transmit extra resistive force to the probe before direct contact.
    Section 4, Fig. 2(b)-(e). This is the physical basis for the proximity signal; if jamming is not reliably detectable, the system fails.
  • domain assumption The force magnitude sequence under the spiral trajectory follows a periodic pattern that can be modeled by an Exp-Sine-Squared kernel with a known period T.
    Section 5.3, Eq. (17). The GP prior assumes this structure; deviations are then interpreted as anomalies.
  • domain assumption The z-score threshold calibrated on object-free granules remains valid when objects are present, so high z-scores indicate proximity rather than unrelated fluctuations.
    Section 5.4. No false positive rate is reported.
  • domain assumption The buried object lies within the probe's penetration depth and the granules are single and homogeneous.
    Problem statement Section 3 and stated limitation in Section 7.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of A Haptic-Based Proximity Sensing System for Buried Object in Granular Material." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/ZZIXISWM

@misc{pith2026241117083,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: A Haptic-Based Proximity Sensing System for Buried Object in Granular Material},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/ZZIXISWM}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2411.17083}
}
read the original abstract

The proximity perception of objects in granular materials is significant, especially for applications like minesweeping. However, due to particles' opacity and complex properties, existing proximity sensors suffer from high costs from sophisticated hardware and high user-cost from unintuitive results. In this paper, we propose a simple yet effective proximity sensing system for underground stuff based on the haptic feedback of the sensor-granules interaction. We study and employ the unique characteristic of particles -- failure wedge zone, and combine the machine learning method -- Gaussian process regression, to identify the force signal changes induced by the proximity of objects, so as to achieve near-field perception. Furthermore, we design a novel trajectory to control the probe searching in granules for a wide range of perception. Also, our proximity sensing system can adaptively determine optimal parameters for robustness operation in different particles. Experiments demonstrate our system can perceive underground objects over 0.5 to 7 cm in advance among various materials.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2411.17083 by the authors.

Figure 1
Figure 1. Prototype of our haptic-based proximity sensing system, GRAINS, for the near￾field perception of the buried object in granules. 4 We present an autonomous parameter calibration process, allowing the sys￾tem to adaptively update optimal parameters and work robustly in different particles. 2 Related Work In this section, we will review the proximity sensors that are commonly used by industry and proposed by researcher… view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. Physical principle. (a) Failure wedge zone ahead of the probe as it moves in granules. (b)-(d) State changes of the failure wedge zone as the probe approaches the object in GMs and (e) the corresponding force variations. Inset: force chains (from [21]) when the granule jamming occurs. 5 Sensor Design 5.1 Prototype The prototype of GRAINS is simple and compact, as explicated in [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p006… view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. Definition of the spiral trajectory. Enlarged view: one circular motion in the spiral trajectory, i.e., θ ∈ [0, 2π]. vibration rotates the failure wedge zone. As illustrated in [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p007_3.png] view at source ↗
Figures from the paper (3 more)
Figure 4
Figure 4. Figure 4: Snapshots of the failure wedge zone ahead of the probe along (a) linear and (b) spiral trajectories. 5.3 Haptic-Based Proximity Sensing According to Sec. 4, we know our proximity sensor perceives the nearby object in advance via the variations in the haptic feedback. H…
Figure 5
Figure 5. Figure 5: Proximity sensing experiments in sands. (a),(e) Baseline method. (b)-(d),(f) Our mehtod. from granular jamming, resulting in a shorter ζ(ξ) (∼ 2.7 cm), even if cassia seed has a similar grain size to cat litter. Soybean has the shortest ζ(ξ) (∼ 1.3 cm) due to its large…
Figure 6
Figure 6. Figure 6: Proximity sensing experiments in various GMs. (a) The distribution of prox￾imity sensing range ζ. (b) Tested granules in this work. The scale bar represents 5 cm [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p014_6.png]

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Forward citations

Cited by 1 Pith paper

Reviewed papers in the Pith corpus that reference this work. Sorted by Pith novelty score. Full citation record

  1. Understanding Particles From Video: Property Estimation of Granular Materials via Visuo-Haptic Learning

    cs.CV 2024-12 conditional novelty 6.0 of 10

    A video-only estimator of relative particle size and density for granular materials, trained by mapping particle motion to drag forces.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

29 extracted references · 29 canonical work pages · cited by 1 Pith paper

  1. [14]

    IEEE Robotics and Automation Letters 7(4), 9953–9960 (2022)

    Jia, S., Zhang, L., Santos, V.J.: Autonomous tactile localization and mapping of objects buried in granular materials. IEEE Robotics and Automation Letters 7(4), 9953–9960 (2022)

    work page 2022

  2. [1]

    https://www.cablejoints.co.uk/upload/EZIDIG Excavator Mounted Buried Cable & Pipe Location.pdf, accessed: 2024-07-29

    Ezidig. https://www.cablejoints.co.uk/upload/EZIDIG Excavator Mounted Buried Cable & Pipe Location.pdf, accessed: 2024-07-29

    work page 2024

  3. [2]

    Physical review letters 82(1), 205 (1999)

    Albert, R., Pfeifer, M., Barab´ asi, A.L., Schiffer, P.: Slow drag in a granular medium. Physical review letters 82(1), 205 (1999)

    work page 1999

  4. [3]

    Optics Express 31(1), 235–247 (2023)

    Aranchuk, V., Johnson, S., Aranchuk, I., Hickey, C.: Laser doppler multi-beam differential vibration sensor based on a line-scan cmos camera for real-time buried objects detection. Optics Express 31(1), 235–247 (2023)

    work page 2023

  5. [4]

    Daniels, D.J.: Ground penetrating radar, vol. 1. Iet (2004)

    work page 2004

  6. [5]

    Duvenaud, D.: Automatic model construction with Gaussian processes. Ph.D. the- sis (2014)

    work page 2014

  7. [6]

    The Journal of the Acoustical Society of America 108(1), 147–156 (2000)

    Frazier, C.H., C ¸ adallı, N., Munson Jr, D.C., O’Brien Jr, W.D.: Acoustic imaging of objects buried in soil. The Journal of the Acoustical Society of America 108(1), 147–156 (2000)

    work page 2000

  8. [7]

    IEEE transactions on pattern analysis and machine intelligence 44(1), 154–180 (2020)

    Gallego, G., Delbr¨ uck, T., Orchard, G., Bartolozzi, C., Taba, B., Censi, A., Leutenegger, S., Davison, A.J., Conradt, J., Daniilidis, K., et al.: Event-based vision: A survey. IEEE transactions on pattern analysis and machine intelligence 44(1), 154–180 (2020)

    work page 2020

Show all 29 references
  1. [8]

    In: 2023 IEEE International Conference on Robotics and Automation (ICRA)

    Girdhar, Y., McGuire, N., Cai, L., Jamieson, S., McCammon, S., Claus, B., San Soucie, J.E., Todd, J.E., Mooney, T.A.: Curee: A curious underwater robot for ecosystem exploration. In: 2023 IEEE International Conference on Robotics and Automation (ICRA). pp. 11411–11417. IEEE (2023)

    2023

  2. [9]

    Physical review letters 105(12), 128301 (2010)

    Gravish, N., Umbanhowar, P.B., Goldman, D.I.: Force and flow transition in plowed granular media. Physical review letters 105(12), 128301 (2010)

    2010

  3. [10]

    Marine Technology Society Journal 41(2), 44–55 (2007) 16 Z

    Hover, F., Vaganay, J., Elkins, M., Willcox, S., Polidoro, V., Morash, J., Damus, R., Desset, S.: A vehicle system for autonomous relative survey of in-water ships. Marine Technology Society Journal 41(2), 44–55 (2007) 16 Z. Zhang et al

    2007

  4. [11]

    Reviews of modern physics 68(4), 1259 (1996)

    Jaeger, H.M., Nagel, S.R., Behringer, R.P.: Granular solids, liquids, and gases. Reviews of modern physics 68(4), 1259 (1996)

    1996

  5. [12]

    In: Proceedings of the RSS Workshop Tactile Sensing for Manipulation: Hardware, Modeling, and Learning, Boston, MA, USA

    Jia, S., Santos, V.J.: Multimodal haptic perception within granular media via re- current neural networks. In: Proceedings of the RSS Workshop Tactile Sensing for Manipulation: Hardware, Modeling, and Learning, Boston, MA, USA. vol. 15 (2017)

    2017

  6. [13]

    ACM Transactions on Human-Robot Interaction (THRI) 10(4), 1–27 (2021)

    Jia, S., Santos, V.J.: Tactile perception for teleoperated robotic exploration within granular media. ACM Transactions on Human-Robot Interaction (THRI) 10(4), 1–27 (2021)

    2021

  7. [15]

    In: Adaptive Mobile Robotics, pp

    Li, C., Zhang, T., Goldman, D.I.: A resistive force model for legged locomotion on granular media. In: Adaptive Mobile Robotics, pp. 433–440. World Scientific (2012)

    2012

  8. [16]

    Liu, A.J., Nagel, S.R.: The jamming transition and the marginally jammed solid. Annu. Rev. Condens. Matter Phys. 1(1), 347–369 (2010)

    2010

  9. [17]

    Sensors and Actuators A: Physical 347, 113914 (2022)

    Liu, Y., Hu, Q., Yang, Q., Fu, T.: Underwater variable frequency vibrating dipole detection of artificial lateral line based on the joint time-frequency analysis. Sensors and Actuators A: Physical 347, 113914 (2022)

    2022

  10. [18]

    science 325(5938), 314–318 (2009)

    Maladen, R.D., Ding, Y., Li, C., Goldman, D.I.: Undulatory swimming in sand: subsurface locomotion of the sandfish lizard. science 325(5938), 314–318 (2009)

    2009

  11. [19]

    Physical review letters 64(22), 2727 (1990)

    Onoda, G.Y., Liniger, E.G.: Random loose packings of uniform spheres and the dilatancy onset. Physical review letters 64(22), 2727 (1990)

    1990

  12. [20]

    In: International Symposium on Experimental Robotics

    Patel, R., Ouyang, R., Romero, B., Adelson, E.: Digger finger: Gelsight tactile sensor for object identification inside granular media. In: International Symposium on Experimental Robotics. pp. 105–115. Springer (2021)

    2021

  13. [21]

    Physical review E 72(4), 041307 (2005)

    Peters, J., Muthuswamy, M., Wibowo, J., Tordesillas, A.: Characterization of force chains in granular material. Physical review E 72(4), 041307 (2005)

    2005

  14. [22]

    In: Summer school on machine learning

    Rasmussen, C.E.: Gaussian processes in machine learning. In: Summer school on machine learning. pp. 63–71. Springer (2003)

    2003

  15. [23]

    Nature materials 4(2), 121–128 (2005)

    Richard, P., Nicodemi, M., Delannay, R., Ribiere, P., Bideau, D.: Slow relaxation and compaction of granular systems. Nature materials 4(2), 121–128 (2005)

    2005

  16. [24]

    Japanese Journal of Applied Physics 50(7S), 07HC18 (2011)

    Sugimoto, T., Abe, T.: Buried object detection method using optimum frequency range in extremely shallow underground. Japanese Journal of Applied Physics 50(7S), 07HC18 (2011)

    2011

  17. [25]

    Journal of Terramechanics 25(1), 43–56 (1988)

    Swick, W., Perumpral, J.: A model for predicting soil-tool interaction. Journal of Terramechanics 25(1), 43–56 (1988)

    1988

  18. [26]

    In: 2020 IEEE/ASME International Conference on Advanced Intelligent Mecha- tronics (AIM)

    Syrymova, T., Massalim, Y., Khassanov, Y., Kappassov, Z.: Vibro-tactile foreign body detection in granular objects based on squeeze-induced mechanical vibrations. In: 2020 IEEE/ASME International Conference on Advanced Intelligent Mecha- tronics (AIM). pp. 175–180. IEEE (2020)

    2020

  19. [27]

    Applied Computing and Informatics 17(2), 296–308 (2020)

    Travassos, X.L., Avila, S.L., Ida, N.: Artificial neural networks and machine learn- ing techniques applied to ground penetrating radar: A review. Applied Computing and Informatics 17(2), 296–308 (2020)

    2020

  20. [28]

    Sensors 17(12), 2762 (2017)

    Yuan, W., Dong, S., Adelson, E.H.: Gelsight: High-resolution robot tactile sensors for estimating geometry and force. Sensors 17(12), 2762 (2017)

    2017

  21. [29]

    EPL (Europhysics Letters) 17(4), 315 (1992)

    Zik, O., Stavans, J., Rabin, Y.: Mobility of a sphere in vibrated granular media. EPL (Europhysics Letters) 17(4), 315 (1992)

    1992

Pith tools

Reviewed August 12, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.