Pith. sign in

REVIEW 4 major objections 5 minor 46 references

PUGS: Perceptual Uncertainty for Grasp Selection in Underwater Environments

T0 review · 4 major / 5 minor · reviewed 2026-08-07 · deepseek-v4-flash

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

Pith's one-line read Reweighting grasp confidence by occupancy uncertainty makes autonomous underwater grasping succeed on partial and noisy 3D reconstructions.

desk verdict A coherent uncertainty-aware grasp selection pipeline, but the central reweighting heuristic is untested and the evaluation is too thin to support the robustness claim. read the letter →

arxiv 2502.09824 v1 pith:S4JUIEJU submitted 2025-02-13 cs.RO cs.CV

Onur Bagoren , Marc Micatka , Katherine A. Skinner , Aaron Marburg This is my paper · ORCID
classification cs.ROcs.CV
keywords perceptualuncertaintyoccupancygraspselectionunderwatermanipulationmulti-viewreconstructionstochasticvariationalGaussianprocessstereodepthnoisepose
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

PUGS is built around a single idea: when a robot reconstructs an object from noisy stereo images and drifting pose estimates, not all points on the reconstructed surface deserve equal trust, so grasp selection should be driven by a map of how sure the reconstruction is. The paper constructs that map by propagating depth-measurement noise and camera-pose covariance into a fused occupancy field, fitting a stochastic variational Gaussian process over it to get predictive variance, and fusing both uncertainty sources into an occupancy variance per point. It then reweights the grasp confidences from an existing grasp model (TSGrasp) by dividing them by occupancy variance raised to a fixed exponent. In simulation on partial and noisy partial reconstructions, the paper reports that this reweighting turns failed grasps into successful ones, while on complete reconstructions the baseline still performs better on several metrics. The intended payoff is practical: underwater manipulators can pick more reliable grasp locations without new hardware, using uncertainty that already exists in the mapping pipeline.

What carries the argument

The central object is the occupancy uncertainty map $\sigma_{\mathrm{occ}}^2$, a per-point variance over whether a location is occupied, assembled by fusing observational and predictive uncertainties. Observational uncertainty flows from stereo depth noise and SLAM pose covariance through the backprojection Jacobian into a fused occupancy field (FOF), a Gaussian mixture over backprojected points with weighted Bayesian fusion of nearby Gaussians. Predictive uncertainty comes from a stochastic variational Gaussian process regressed on the FOF, with variance rescaled by occupancy density via $\sigma_{\mathrm{pred}}^2 = \sigma_Z^2/(1+|\mu_Z|)$. Cubature integration over $\sigma$ points derived from the positional covariance combines the two, and the final scalar variance is used as the denominator in Eq. (13) with exponent $\nu=5$. All of the reported behavior flows from this single reweighting identity.

What would settle it

Run the partial-kettlebell simulation with a sweep of the weighting exponent $\nu$ in Eq. (13) over values such as 0, 1, 3, 5, 7, and 10, and record grasp traversal success; if the reported 60% success at $\nu=5$ is not part of a broad plateau, or if $\nu=0$ reaches the same success, then the advantage is a tuned artifact rather than a general property of uncertainty reweighting. The complete-reconstruction result already provides a check: at $\nu=5$ on a complete kettlebell, PUGS drops from the baseline's 100% to 60% traversal success.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

The paper's central claim is that a grasp's confidence should be penalized where the 3D reconstruction is uncertain, via the rule $\tilde{c}_G = GS(p_G)/(\sigma_{\mathrm{occ}}^2)^\nu$ with $\nu=5$, where $GS$ is a pretrained grasp-selection network and $\sigma_{\mathrm{occ}}^2$ is the occupancy variance at the grasp points. That occupancy variance is the product of two modeled sources: observational uncertainty, obtained by backprojecting stereo depth with variance $\sigma_{uv}^2$ and camera pose with covariance $\Sigma_C^i$ into a fused occupancy field of Gaussians, and predictive uncertainty, obtained by training a stochastic variational Gaussian process on that field and scaling its variance by occupancy density. The two are merged through cubature integration over the positional covariance. The paper reports that this reweighted score selects grasp poses away from the incomplete edges of partial reconstructions, converting 0% grasp success for the baseline into 40--80% success depending on object and metric, while on complete reconstructions TSGrasp retains the advantage on most metrics.

Load-bearing premise

Everything hinges on the unexamined choice that dividing a grasp score by the fifth power of occupancy variance ranks grasps better than the raw score; the paper fixes $\nu=5$ without deriving it, and on complete reconstructions the same rule makes PUGS perform worse than the baseline, so if that exponent is miscalibrated the claimed benefit has no principled foundation.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • Underwater robots can get better grasps on partially reconstructed objects without additional sensors, because the uncertainty signal already present in stereo depth and SLAM covariance is enough to steer the gripper away from unreliable geometry.
  • The reweighting is agnostic to the grasp network's internals, so any grasp model that outputs per-grasp confidences can be wrapped by PUGS instead of being retrained.
  • PUGS reuses the reconstructed point cloud and adds no new hardware, so the only added cost is the post-processing uncertainty computation, which the paper notes currently takes minutes for real-world scenes.
  • Because the same occupancy variance map hurts performance on complete reconstructions, the benefit is specific to partial or noisy inputs; a deployable system would gain from activating the weighting only when the reconstruction is known to be incomplete.

Reading between the lines

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

  • A testable extension is to treat the exponent $\nu$ in Eq. (13) as a learned or per-object parameter; the reported numbers use one fixed value, and a sweep would reveal whether the benefit is a plateau or a tuned peak.
  • The occupancy-uncertainty field is also a map of where observations are missing, so the same representation could drive next-best-view planning or active perception rather than only grasp reranking.
  • Because the real-world evaluation is qualitative and limited to one object, a quantitative tank trial with multiple objects and repeated trials would show how much of the simulation benefit survives real stereo noise and pose drift.
  • On complete reconstructions the uncertainty weighting hurts, so a principled variant might gate the reweighting by a global completeness measure, combining the baseline's complete-scene performance with PUGS's partial-scene gains.
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 / 5 minor

Summary. The paper proposes PUGS, a pipeline that estimates occupancy uncertainty from multi-view stereo depth and camera-pose uncertainty by propagating measurement and pose covariances into a fused occupancy field (FOF) and then training a stochastic variational Gaussian process (SVGP) to produce predictive occupancy variance. That variance is fused with the FOF through cubature integration and used to reweight the grasp confidences output by the TSGrasp baseline via Eq. (13), c_obs = GS(p_G) / (sigma_occ^2)^nu, with nu fixed to 5. The method is evaluated in Gazebo simulation on a kettlebell and a coffee mug under partial, noisy, and complete reconstructions, and qualitatively in a real-world test tank with a Bravo 7 manipulator and Trisect stereo sensor. The paper claims that accounting for perceptual uncertainty makes grasp selection robust to partial and noisy underwater measurements.

Significance. If the central claim is established, PUGS would be a useful contribution: it converts perceptual uncertainty that is typically discarded into a grasp-ranking signal, and it does so in an underwater setting where real evaluations are scarce. The paper has clear strengths: it explicitly models two uncertainty sources (depth measurement noise and pose covariance), it provides a full pipeline from stereo images to grasp selection, it includes simulation and real-world test-tank experiments, and it reports the degradations on complete reconstructions rather than hiding them. However, the current evidence is not strong enough to support the central claim. The evaluation relies on only five simulation trials per condition with no error bars, the real-world results are qualitative, and the key reweighting rule in Eq. (13) is an unexplained heuristic with a fixed exponent. The paper's own Table I shows systematic degradation on complete reconstructions, which indicates that the uncertainty signal can actively harm grasp ranking when it is not informative.

major comments (4)
  1. [III.E, Eq. (13), and IV.A] The entire proposed benefit is mediated by Eq. (13), which reweights grasp confidence by dividing by the occupancy variance raised to a fixed exponent nu=5. The paper provides no derivation for this functional form, no sensitivity analysis over nu, and no comparison to simpler penalties such as local point density or distance to the reconstruction boundary. Table I makes the risk concrete: on complete reconstructions, PUGS reduces kettlebell gripper-closed success from 100% to 60% and goal-reached from 100% to 60%, and coffee-mug goal-reached from 60% to 20%. The authors call this 'expected,' but systematic degradation is not the same as being less impactful; it shows that the reweighting can actively harm grasp ranking when the uncertainty signal is uninformative. Unless Eq. (13) is shown to be more effective than plausible alternatives and robust to nu, the central claim that perceptual uncertainty improves grasp selection is not empirically established.
  2. [IV.B and Table I] The simulation evaluation uses N=5 trials per condition with no error bars or confidence intervals, and the reported PUGS improvements over TSGrasp are at most three successful trials out of five per condition. The protocol described in Section IV.B compounds this: 'we transform the object's pose to make the grasp collision-free and kinematically feasible. If neither of these is achievable, the experiment is repeated.' This means the reported success rates are conditioned on a post-hoc selection of feasible runs, which can systematically favor whichever method happens to produce feasible grasps more often. To assess the central claim, the paper should report unmodified trial counts (or clearly separate the feasibility filter from grasp success), increase the number of trials, and provide statistical measures such as confidence intervals or a paired test.
  3. [III.C, Eq. (8)] The predictive occupancy uncertainty is defined as sigma2_pred = sigma2_Z / (1 + |mu_Z|), with no derivation or validation. The text notes that SVGP variance is dictated by spatial frequency rather than the regressed function value, and Eq. (8) is introduced purely as a rescaling to account for occupancy density. Since this rescaled variance flows directly into the cubature integration and then into Eq. (13), the arbitrariness of Eq. (8) compounds the arbitrariness of the grasp reweighting. The paper should justify this form empirically (e.g., by comparing different rescaling choices or by showing that the resulting variance correlates with measured grasp failures) or replace it with a more principled uncertainty definition.
  4. [V.B] The real-world evaluation is entirely qualitative. The paper reports selected grasp poses overlaid on reconstructions and asserts that PUGS 'consistently leads the gripper pose to areas with more observations while retaining the grasping area's geometric feasibility,' but there is no quantitative measure of grasp success, no repeated trials, and no error analysis for the real-world setting. Given that the simulation results are themselves limited, a quantitative real-world evaluation (even with a small number of attempts) is necessary to support the claim that the method works outside simulation.
minor comments (5)
  1. [Section VI vs. IV.A and V.B] The conclusion states that PUGS requires 'no hand-tuning,' but Section IV.A fixes the depth noise variance to sigma2_uv = 0.001 m and the grasp weight exponent to nu = 5, and Section V.B describes tuning the outlier removal threshold to sigma_thresh = 0.1 for the leftmost real-world result. Please clarify which parameters are considered hand-tuned and which are fixed by the problem.
  2. [IV.A and IV.B] The depth noise variance is described as 'static across frames and fixed as sigma2_uv = 0.001 m,' but the noisy partial reconstruction in simulation uses sigma2_uv = 0.01 m. It would help to state explicitly how sigma2_uv is set in the real-world experiments and whether it comes from the depth model or is chosen by the authors.
  3. [III.C, Eq. (7)] There is a typo in the text following Eq. (7): 'variance of the occuancy density' should be 'variance of the occupancy density.'
  4. [Section I] The introduction contains a grammatical error: 'the uncertainty of the occupied regions can be a useful for improving existing grasp selection methods' should be 'can be useful for improving' or 'can be a useful signal for improving.'
  5. [Abstract and Section VI] The paper states 'Code will be made available at https://onurbagoren.github.io/PUGS/' but the repository is not linked at the time of review. If the code is not yet public, the statement should be revised to indicate the planned release date or an alternative availability mechanism.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 0.0 of 10

No significant circularity: PUGS is evaluated against external physical grasp success, and its uncertainty signal is an input-derived representation rather than a fitted prediction of the outcome.

full rationale

The paper's derivation chain is self-contained with respect to its evaluation. PUGS constructs a fused occupancy field from depth and pose uncertainties (Eqs. 1-6), regresses an SVGP on that field to obtain predictive occupancy variance (Eqs. 7-8), fuses the two uncertainty representations (Alg. 1), and then reweights TSGrasp confidence outputs using Eq. (13). Nothing in this chain is fitted to the grasp-success labels; the weight exponent nu=5 is set by hand, not learned from outcomes, and the final metric is physical grasp success in simulation and qualitative real-world grasping. The uncertainty map and TSGrasp confidence both derive from the same pointcloud, but that is not circularity because the central claim is tested against an external behavioral outcome rather than against the uncertainty map itself. The paper's self-citations (e.g., prior underwater mapping, the WAVE emulator, and the Trisect sensor) are background or hardware references and are not load-bearing for the main argument. The degradation on complete reconstructions and the small number of trials are legitimate evidence-quality concerns, but they are not instances of a prediction reducing to its inputs by construction. No circular step meeting the required evidence standard was found.

Assumptions & free parameters 6 free parameters · 7 assumptions · 0 invented entities

The central claim rests on several hand-set parameters (nu, sigma_uv, sigma_thresh, cubature parameters, K) and on domain assumptions about Gaussian noise models for depth and pose. The reweighting formulas in Eqs. (8) and (13) are heuristic. No new physical entities are posited.

free parameters (6)
  • depth_noise_variance_sigma2_uv = 0.001 m (fixed)
    Chosen by hand as static across all frames; in simulation noisy condition uses 0.01 m for data generation but it is unclear if PUGS uses 0.001 or 0.01 for uncertainty computation. Section IV.A.
  • grasp_weight_exponent_nu = 5
    Set for all experiments in Eq. (13); no ablation or derivation. Section IV.A and Eq. (13).
  • outlier_removal_threshold_sigma_thresh = 0.01 (0.1 for one real log)
    Open3D statistical outlier removal threshold; changed to 0.1 for the noisy real-world log. Section IV.A, V.B.
  • cubature_spread_parameters_alpha_beta_kappa = not reported
    Eqs. (9)-(12) define cubature integration points but the actual values of alpha, beta, kappa are not given; these affect the integration weights and hence sigma^2_occ.
  • number_of_nearest_gaussians_K = not reported
    K in Eq. (5)-(6) is never specified; affects the Bayesian fusion.
  • svgp_hyperparameters = LR 1e-3, 500 inducing points, 100 epochs
    Training choices for the SVGP; standard but still hand-set.
assumptions (7)
  • domain assumption Depth measurements are Gaussian random variables with known variance.
    Section III.A.1 models d_uv ~ N(mu, sigma^2); sigma is fixed globally, not estimated per pixel.
  • domain assumption Camera pose estimates are Gaussian random variables with covariance from the nearest keyframe.
    Section III.A.1 and IV.C: poses between keyframes inherit the most recent keyframe covariance, which may not reflect true uncertainty.
  • ad hoc to paper The probability distribution of a backprojected point can represent occupancy density in 3D space.
    Section III.B.3 states this modeling choice without justification.
  • ad hoc to paper Predictive variance from SVGP scaled by 1/(1+|mu|) reflects occupancy uncertainty relevant to grasping.
    Eq. (8) is introduced to mitigate the SVGP's spatial-frequency-driven variance; no derivation.
  • ad hoc to paper Grasp confidence divided by occupancy variance to a power nu gives a better grasp ranking.
    Eq. (13) is the core fusion rule; its form and exponent are not derived, and it is known to hurt performance on complete reconstructions.
  • standard math The occupancy field can be represented as a Gaussian mixture and fused via weighted Bayesian fusion with uniform responsibilities.
    Follows Barfoot [34]; reasonable but relies on the Gaussian assumption.
  • domain assumption In simulation, transforming the object pose to make proposed grasps feasible does not bias the comparison.
    Section IV.B repeats experiments when no feasible pose is found; this protocol assumes fairness across methods.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of PUGS: Perceptual Uncertainty for Grasp Selection in Underwater Environments." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/S4JUIEJU

@misc{pith2026250209824,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: PUGS: Perceptual Uncertainty for Grasp Selection in Underwater Environments},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/S4JUIEJU}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2502.09824}
}
read the original abstract

When navigating and interacting in challenging environments where sensory information is imperfect and incomplete, robots must make decisions that account for these shortcomings. We propose a novel method for quantifying and representing such perceptual uncertainty in 3D reconstruction through occupancy uncertainty estimation. We develop a framework to incorporate it into grasp selection for autonomous manipulation in underwater environments. Instead of treating each measurement equally when deciding which location to grasp from, we present a framework that propagates uncertainty inherent in the multi-view reconstruction process into the grasp selection. We evaluate our method with both simulated and the real world data, showing that by accounting for uncertainty, the grasp selection becomes robust against partial and noisy measurements. Code will be made available at https://onurbagoren.github.io/PUGS/

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2502.09824 by the authors.

Figure 1
Figure 1. Real-world underwater manipulation setup in the test tank at the [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p001_1.png] view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. Overview of the proposed system. We use a SLAM pipeline to construct dense 3D reconstructions of objects of interest. PUGS quantifies the [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p003_2.png] view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. Selected results from simulation experiments with partial recon [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p005_3.png] view at source ↗
Figures from the paper (1 more)
Figure 4
Figure 4. Figure 4: Results from data collected from the test tank. The columns represent separate logs collected in the test tank. Each log contains images of partial [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p006_4.png]

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

46 extracted references · 38 canonical work pages

  1. [1]

    Findingplastic: Underwa- ter plastic bag detection and retrieval,

    N. Guimond, A. Marburg, and H. Chizeck, “Findingplastic: Underwa- ter plastic bag detection and retrieval,” in OCEANS 2024 MTS/IEEE Halifax. Halifax, NS, Canada: IEEE, Sep. 2024

    work page 2024

  2. [2]

    Marine Robotics for Deep-Sea Specimen Collection: A Systematic Review of Underwater Grippers,

    A. Mazzeo, J. Aguzzi, M. Calisti, S. Canese, F. Vecchi, S. Stefanni, and M. Controzzi, “Marine Robotics for Deep-Sea Specimen Collection: A Systematic Review of Underwater Grippers,” Sensors, vol. 22, no. 2, p. 648, Jan. 2022. [Online]. Available: https: //www.mdpi.com/1424-8220/22/2/648

    work page 2022

  3. [3]

    An overview of collaborative robotic manipulation in multi-robot systems,

    Z. Feng, G. Hu, Y . Sun, and J. Soon, “An overview of collaborative robotic manipulation in multi-robot systems,” Annual Reviews in Control, vol. 49, pp. 113–127, 2020. [Online]. Available: https: //www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S1367578820300043

    work page 2020

  4. [4]

    Underwater manipulators: A review,

    S. Siv ˇcev, J. Coleman, E. Omerdi ´c, G. Dooly, and D. Toal, “Underwater manipulators: A review,” Ocean Engineering , vol. 163, pp. 431–450, Sep. 2018. [Online]. Available: https://linkinghub. elsevier.com/retrieve/pii/S0029801818310308

    work page 2018

  5. [5]

    Underwater Robots: From Remotely Operated Vehicles to Intervention- Autonomous Underwater Vehicles,

    Y . R. Petillot, G. Antonelli, G. Casalino, and F. Ferreira, “Underwater Robots: From Remotely Operated Vehicles to Intervention- Autonomous Underwater Vehicles,” IEEE Robot. Automat. Mag. , vol. 26, no. 2, pp. 94–101, Jun. 2019. [Online]. Available: https://ieeexplore.ieee.org/document/8706541/

    work page arXiv 2019

  6. [6]

    Clustered grasp volumes for improved grasp selection,

    M. Micatka and A. Marburg, “Clustered grasp volumes for improved grasp selection,” in OCEANS 2024 MTS/IEEE Halifax . Halifax, NS, Canada: IEEE, Sep. 2024

    work page 2024

  7. [7]

    Real-Time Dense 3D Mapping of Underwater Environments,

    W. Wang, B. Joshi, N. Burgdorfer, K. Batsosc, A. Q. Lid, P. Mordohaia, and I. Rekleitisb, “Real-Time Dense 3D Mapping of Underwater Environments,” in 2023 IEEE International Conference on Robotics and Automation (ICRA) . London, United Kingdom: IEEE, May 2023, pp. 5184–5191. [Online]. Available: https: //ieeexplore.ieee.org/document/10160266/

    work page arXiv 2023

  8. [8]

    MonoRUn: Monocular 3D Object Detection by Reconstruction and Uncertainty Propagation,

    H. Chen, Y . Huang, W. Tian, Z. Gao, and L. Xiong, “MonoRUn: Monocular 3D Object Detection by Reconstruction and Uncertainty Propagation,” in 2021 IEEE/CVF Conference on Computer Vision and Pattern Recognition (CVPR) . Nashville, TN, USA: IEEE, Jun. 2021, pp. 10 374–10 383. [Online]. Available: https://ieeexplore.ieee. org/document/9578186/

    work page arXiv 2021

Show all 46 references
  1. [9]

    Turtlmap: Real-time localization and dense mapping of low-texture underwater environments with a low-cost unmanned underwater vehi- cle,

    J. Song, O. Bagoren, R. Andigani, A. V . Sethuraman, and K. Skinner, “Turtlmap: Real-time localization and dense mapping of low-texture underwater environments with a low-cost unmanned underwater vehi- cle,” arXiv preprint arXiv:2408.01569 , 2024

    2024 arXiv

  2. [10]

    Light and water : radiative transfer in natural waters,

    C. D. Mobley, “Light and water : radiative transfer in natural waters,” 1994, iSBN: 0125027508 Place: San Diego Publication Title: Light and water : radiative transfer in natural waters

    1994

  3. [11]

    Watergan: Unsupervised generative network to enable real-time color correction of monocular underwater images,

    J. Li, K. A. Skinner, R. Eustice, and M. Johnson-Roberson, “Watergan: Unsupervised generative network to enable real-time color correction of monocular underwater images,” IEEE Robotics and Automation Letters (RA-L), 2017, accepted

    2017

  4. [12]

    Uncertainty-aware acoustic localization and mapping for underwater robots,

    J. Song, O. Bagoren, and K. A. Skinner, “Uncertainty-aware acoustic localization and mapping for underwater robots,” in OCEANS 2023 - Limerick, 2023, pp. 1–9

    2023

  5. [13]

    SVIn2: A multi-sensor fusion-based underwater SLAM system,

    S. Rahman, A. Quattrini Li, and I. Rekleitis, “SVIn2: A multi-sensor fusion-based underwater SLAM system,” The International Journal of Robotics Research , vol. 41, no. 11-12, pp. 1022–1042, Sep

  6. [14]

    What uncertainties do we need in bayesian deep learning for computer vision?

    A. Kendall and Y . Gal, “What uncertainties do we need in bayesian deep learning for computer vision?” in Proceedings of the 31st International Conference on Neural Information Processing Systems , ser. NIPS’17. Red Hook, NY , USA: Curran Associates Inc., 2017, p. 5580–5590

    2017

  7. [15]

    Probabilistic volumetric fusion for dense monocular slam,

    A. Rosinol, J. J. Leonard, and L. Carlone, “Probabilistic volumetric fusion for dense monocular slam,” in Proceedings of the IEEE/CVF Winter Conference on Applications of Computer Vision (WACV) , January 2023, pp. 3097–3105

    2023

  8. [16]

    Bayes’ rays: Uncertainty quantification for neural radiance fields,

    L. Goli, C. Reading, S. Sell ´an, A. Jacobson, and A. Tagliasacchi, “Bayes’ rays: Uncertainty quantification for neural radiance fields,” in Proceedings of the IEEE/CVF Conference on Computer Vision and Pattern Recognition (CVPR), June 2024, pp. 20 061–20 070

    2024

  9. [17]

    Patches, Planes and Probabilities: A Non-Local Prior for V olumetric 3D Reconstruction,

    A. O. Ulusoy, M. J. Black, and A. Geiger, “Patches, Planes and Probabilities: A Non-Local Prior for V olumetric 3D Reconstruction,” in 2016 IEEE Conference on Computer Vision and Pattern Recognition (CVPR). Las Vegas, NV , USA: IEEE, Jun. 2016, pp. 3280–3289. [Online]. Availab...

    2016

  10. [18]

    Clasp: Constrained latent shape projection for refining object shape from robot contact,

    B. Saund and D. Berenson, “Clasp: Constrained latent shape projection for refining object shape from robot contact,” in Proceedings of the 5th Conference on Robot Learning , ser. Proceedings of Machine Learning Research, A. Faust, D. Hsu, and G. Neumann, Eds., vol

  11. [19]

    Real-Time Generative Grasping with Spatio-temporal Sparse Convolution,

    T. R. Player, D. Chang, L. Fuxin, and G. A. Hollinger, “Real-Time Generative Grasping with Spatio-temporal Sparse Convolution,” in 2023 IEEE International Conference on Robotics and Automation (ICRA). London, United Kingdom: IEEE, May 2023, pp. 7981–7987. [Online]. Available: ...

    2023

  12. [20]

    Hybrid Visual SLAM for Underwater Vehicle Manipulator Systems,

    G. Billings, R. Camilli, and M. Johnson-Roberson, “Hybrid Visual SLAM for Underwater Vehicle Manipulator Systems,” IEEE Robot. Autom. Lett. , vol. 7, no. 3, pp. 6798–6805, Jul. 2022. [Online]. Available: https://ieeexplore.ieee.org/document/9779491/

    2022

  13. [21]

    Adaptive and Informative Planning for an Underwater Vehicle-Manipulator System,

    D. Chang, S. Chow, T. R. Player, and G. A. Hollinger, “Adaptive and Informative Planning for an Underwater Vehicle-Manipulator System,” in IEEE International Conference on Robotics and Automation 1st Advanced Marine Robotics TC Workshop: Active Perception , Xi’an, China, 2021

    2021

  14. [22]

    6-dof graspnet: Variational grasp generation for object manipulation,

    A. Mousavian, C. Eppner, and D. Fox, “6-dof graspnet: Variational grasp generation for object manipulation,” in International Conference on Computer Vision (ICCV) , 2019

    2019

  15. [23]

    Exact bias correction and covariance estimation for stereo vision,

    C. Freundlich, M. Zavlanos, and P. Mordohai, “Exact bias correction and covariance estimation for stereo vision,” in 2015 IEEE Conference on Computer Vision and Pattern Recognition (CVPR) . Boston, MA, USA: IEEE, Jun. 2015, pp. 3296–3304. [Online]. Available: http://ieeexplore...

    2015

  16. [24]

    Towards Probabilistic V olumetric Reconstruction Using Ray Potentials,

    A. O. Ulusoy, A. Geiger, and M. J. Black, “Towards Probabilistic V olumetric Reconstruction Using Ray Potentials,” in 2015 International Conference on 3D Vision . Lyon, France: IEEE, Oct. 2015, pp. 10–18. [Online]. Available: http://ieeexplore.ieee.org/document/7335464/

    2015

  17. [25]

    Multi-view 3D Object Reconstruction and Uncertainty Modelling with Neural Shape Prior,

    Z. Liao and S. L. Waslander, “Multi-view 3D Object Reconstruction and Uncertainty Modelling with Neural Shape Prior,” in 2024 IEEE/CVF Winter Conference on Applications of Computer Vision (WACV). Waikoloa, HI, USA: IEEE, Jan. 2024, pp. 3086–3095. [Online]. Available: https://i...

    2024

  18. [26]

    Rtab-map as an open-source lidar and visual simultaneous localization and mapping library for large-scale and long-term online operation,

    M. Labb ´e and F. Michaud, “Rtab-map as an open-source lidar and visual simultaneous localization and mapping library for large-scale and long-term online operation,” Journal of Field Robotics , vol. 36, no. 2, pp. 416–446, 2019

    2019

  19. [27]

    Uncertainty-Aware Manipulation Planning Using Gravity and Environment Geometry,

    F. V on Drigalski, K. Kasaura, C. C. Beltran-Hernandez, M. Hamaya, K. Tanaka, and T. Matsubara, “Uncertainty-Aware Manipulation Planning Using Gravity and Environment Geometry,” IEEE Robot. Autom. Lett. , vol. 7, no. 4, pp. 11 942–11 949, Oct. 2022. [Online]. Available: https:...

    2022

  20. [28]

    Fully-probabilistic terrain modelling and localization with stochastic variational gaussian process maps,

    I. Torroba, C. I. Sprague, and J. Folkesson, “Fully-probabilistic terrain modelling and localization with stochastic variational gaussian process maps,” IEEE Robotics and Automation Letters, vol. 7, no. 4, pp. 8729– 8736, 2022

    2022

  21. [29]

    Online stochastic variational gaussian process mapping for large-scale bathymetric slam in real time,

    I. Torroba, M. Cella, A. Ter ´an, N. Rolleberg, and J. Folkesson, “Online stochastic variational gaussian process mapping for large-scale bathymetric slam in real time,” IEEE Robotics and Automation Letters, vol. 8, no. 6, pp. 3150–3157, 2023

    2023

  22. [30]

    RTAB-Map as an open-source lidar and visual simultaneous localization and mapping library for large- scale and long-term online operation,

    M. Labb ´e and F. Michaud, “RTAB-Map as an open-source lidar and visual simultaneous localization and mapping library for large- scale and long-term online operation,” Journal of Field Robotics , vol. 36, no. 2, pp. 416–446, Mar. 2019. [Online]. Available: https://onlinelibrar...

    2019 doi

  23. [31]

    Detectron2,

    Y . Wu, A. Kirillov, F. Massa, W.-Y . Lo, and R. Girshick, “Detectron2,” https://github.com/facebookresearch/detectron2, 2019

    2019

  24. [32]

    Raft-stereo: Multilevel recurrent field transforms for stereo matching,

    L. Lipson, Z. Teed, and J. Deng, “Raft-stereo: Multilevel recurrent field transforms for stereo matching,” in International Conference on 3D Vision (3DV), 2021

    2021

  25. [33]

    Probabilistic point cloud model- ing via self-organizing gaussian mixture models,

    K. Goel, N. Michael, and W. Tabib, “Probabilistic point cloud model- ing via self-organizing gaussian mixture models,” IEEE Robotics and Automation Letters, vol. 8, no. 5, pp. 2526–2533, 2023

    2023

  26. [34]

    T. D. Barfoot, State Estimation for Robotics , 1st ed. Cambridge University Press, Jul. 2017. [Online]. Available: https://www. cambridge.org/core/product/identifier/9781316671528/type/book

    2017

  27. [35]

    Scalable Variational Gaussian Process Classification,

    J. Hensman, A. Matthews, and Z. Ghahramani, “Scalable Variational Gaussian Process Classification,” in Proceedings of the Eighteenth International Conference on Artificial Intelligence and Statistics , ser. Proceedings of Machine Learning Research, G. Lebanon and S. V . N. Vis...

    2015

  28. [36]

    Gpytorch: Blackbox matrix-matrix gaussian process inference with gpu acceleration,

    J. R. Gardner, G. Pleiss, D. Bindel, K. Q. Weinberger, and A. G. Wil- son, “Gpytorch: Blackbox matrix-matrix gaussian process inference with gpu acceleration,” in Advances in Neural Information Processing Systems, 2018

    2018

  29. [37]

    V oxblox: Incremental 3d euclidean signed distance fields for on-board mav planning,

    H. Oleynikova, Z. Taylor, M. Fehr, R. Siegwart, and J. Nieto, “V oxblox: Incremental 3d euclidean signed distance fields for on-board mav planning,” in IEEE/RSJ International Conference on Intelligent Robots and Systems (IROS) , 2017

    2017

  30. [38]

    Open3D: A modern library for 3D data processing,

    Q.-Y . Zhou, J. Park, and V . Koltun, “Open3D: A modern library for 3D data processing,” arXiv:1801.09847, 2018

    2018 arXiv

  31. [39]

    B. O. Community, Blender - a 3D modelling and rendering package , Blender Foundation, Stichting Blender Foundation, Amsterdam, 2018. [Online]. Available: http://www.blender.org

    2018

  32. [40]

    Robotic operating system

    Stanford Artificial Intelligence Laboratory et al., “Robotic operating system.” [Online]. Available: https://www.ros.org

  33. [41]

    Design and use paradigms for gazebo, an open-source multi-robot simulator,

    N. Koenig and A. Howard, “Design and use paradigms for gazebo, an open-source multi-robot simulator,” in 2004 IEEE/RSJ International Conference on Intelligent Robots and Systems (IROS) (IEEE Cat. No.04CH37566), vol. 3, 2004, pp. 2149–2154 vol.3

    2004

  34. [42]

    Underwater ROV Products, Arms & More

    “Underwater ROV Products, Arms & More.” [Online]. Available: https://reachrobotics.com/products/

  35. [43]

    Wave: An open-source underwater arm-vehicle emulator,

    M. Rosette, H. Kolano, C. Holm, G. Hollinger, A. Marburg, M. Pickett, and J. Davidson, “Wave: An open-source underwater arm-vehicle emulator,” 05 2024, pp. 1505–1511

    2024

  36. [44]

    Trisect perception sensor

    A. Marburg, “Trisect perception sensor.” [Online]. Available: https://trisect-perception-sensor.gitlab.io/

  37. [164]

    1391–1400

    PMLR, 08–11 Nov 2022, pp. 1391–1400. [Online]. Available: https://proceedings.mlr.press/v164/saund22a.html

    2022

  38. [2022]

    Available: http://journals.sagepub.com/doi/10.1177/ 02783649221110259

    [Online]. Available: http://journals.sagepub.com/doi/10.1177/ 02783649221110259

Pith tools

Reviewed August 7, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.