3D Hand-Eye Calibration for Collaborative Robot Arm: Look at Robot Base Once

Leihui Li; Lixuepiao Wan; Volker Krueger; Xuping Zhang

REVIEW 3 major objections 4 minor 35 references

3D Hand-Eye Calibration for Collaborative Robot Arm: Look at Robot Base Once

T0 review · 3 major / 4 minor · reviewed 2026-08-16 · deepseek-v4-flash

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

Pith's one-line read Point-cloud registration of the robot base alone produces hand-eye calibration comparable to commercial solutions.

desk verdict A credible engineering extension of the base-as-target idea, with a genuinely useful dataset-generation method and a broad simulation campaign, but the real-world 'comparable to commercial' claim rests on an unverified CAD-to-physical frame alignment assumption. read the letter →

arxiv 2504.21619 v2 pith:QFHOIRWK submitted 2025-04-30 cs.RO

Leihui Li , Lixuepiao Wan , Volker Krueger , Xuping Zhang This is my paper · ORCID

classification cs.RO

keywords hand-eyecalibration3Dvisionpointcloudregistrationcollaborativerobotbaseeye-in-handcalibration-object-freedatasetgeneration

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

The paper claims that hand-eye calibration for a collaborative robot can be performed with a single 3D view of the robot base, without any external calibration object such as a chessboard. It reports that this approach is accurate enough to match a commercial calibration solution, while cutting the procedure from about two minutes and fifty seconds to under six seconds. This is useful because frequent recalibration in industrial settings is currently slow and inconvenient, and the method turns recalibration into a quick scan-and-go step. The paper supports the claim with simulation across 14 robot arms from 9 brands and with a physical experiment on a collaborative robot arm.

What carries the argument

The mechanism is a closed kinematic chain built around the robot base instead of a removable target. The registration module, trained on a generated dataset of robot-base point clouds, estimates the transform $^{c}_{ref'}T$ from the camera to the reference model; applying the predefined $^{ref'}_{ref}T$ gives the camera-to-base transform, and the chain $I = {}^{b}_{t}T {}^{t}_{c}T {}^{c}_{b}T$ converts this into the eye-in-hand calibration. The dataset is generated by sampling camera viewpoints on hemispheres of radius 0.5 m and 0.7 m and by adding robot poses sampled under realistic joint limits, so the method is not tuned to one robot geometry.

What would settle it

Use an independent high-precision measurement, such as a laser tracker or a precision fixture attached to the robot base, to obtain the true camera-to-base transform on a robot whose physical base geometry is deliberately made to differ from its CAD model; if the calibration error tracks that geometric mismatch rather than staying within the reported few millimeters, the frame-alignment assumption is the limiting factor and the central claim is refuted.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

The central discovery, stated on the paper's own terms, is that the robot base can serve as the calibration target. A camera mounted on the flange captures a point cloud of the base; a learned registration network aligns this scan to a reference model of the base whose frame is defined to coincide with the robot base frame. The resulting camera-to-base transform $^{b}_{c}T$, combined with forward kinematics through the closed chain $I = {}^{b}_{t}T {}^{t}_{c}T {}^{c}_{b}T$, yields the camera-to-flange transform. The paper reports a simulation mean error of $1.29$ mm in position and $0.39$ degrees in rotation over 14 robot arms, and a physical comparison in which the calibration differs from a commercial solution by roughly 3 mm, 2 mm, and 3 mm in position and 0.001 to 0.002 radians in rotation, with a single pose and a single frame of point cloud sufficient.

Load-bearing premise

The load-bearing premise is that the reference model point cloud used for registration is exactly aligned in frame and scale with the physical robot base, so any mismatch between the CAD model and the real arm's geometry shows up directly as calibration error.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

Recalibrating a vision-guided collaborative robot becomes a seconds-long operation: point the camera at the base, capture one point cloud, and the hand-eye transform follows.
No external calibration object, board, or target-holding fixture is needed, removing a source of setup error and spare-part dependency.
The method's accuracy, as reported, is within a few millimeters and roughly a tenth of a degree of a commercial multi-pose calibration, placing it in the usable range for many industrial manipulation tasks.
Because the simulation spans 14 arms from 9 brands, the dataset-generation recipe may transfer to new robot models without per-robot manual tuning.
A single 3D frame is enough for a stable calibration, so the method is also suitable for cameras that cannot hold a static pose for long.

Reading between the lines

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

Beyond the paper: if CAD-to-real geometric deviations are the dominant error source, the method's accuracy ceiling will vary from robot unit to robot unit; a verification step that uses the robot's own joint motions to check consistency between multiple base views could expose that bias without an external target.
Beyond the paper: the same camera-to-base estimate is the full eye-to-hand calibration, so the method should extend to fixed cameras directly, which the paper notes is computationally simpler than the validated eye-in-hand case.
Beyond the paper: the reported simulation errors of about 1.29 mm sit close to the 2 mm voxel size of the point clouds, suggesting that denser scans or a higher-resolution reference model would lower the error floor further.
Beyond the paper: one could build a self-diagnostic calibration test by comparing calibrations from a few distinct base-looking poses; agreement across poses would indicate that registration noise, not base-frame misalignment, dominates.

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.

Desk Editor's Note

read the letter

Short version: this is a credible engineering extension, not a conceptual breakthrough. The new dataset generation procedure and the 14-arm simulation campaign are concrete additions over the authors' earlier paper, and the public code and data make the results checkable. But the real-world comparability claim leans on an assumption that is stated, not verified: the reference CAD model's frame is taken to coincide exactly with the physical robot base frame.

What the paper actually does well: it turns the 'look at robot base' idea into something more generic. Generating training point clouds from hemisphere views plus realistic joint configurations is a sensible way to cover multiple robot geometries. Running 900 calibration evaluations across 14 arms from 9 brands is a solid breadth test. The physical experiment on a UR10e with a Zivid camera is a legitimate attempt to show the pipeline works outside simulation, and the comparison to a commercial AX=XB solver gives a useful anchor. The code and dataset are public, which is real evidence.

The soft spots are real but not fatal. The biggest one is the alignment assumption behind Eq. 5. The paper says the reference frame is aligned with the physical base frame, and introduces a scale pre-transformation in Eq. 4, but never says how that pre-transformation is obtained or validated. Any rotation, translation, or scale error between the CAD frame and the actual base leaks straight into the hand-eye result. Because the simulation generates both training and test clouds from the same CAD source, the reported 1.29 mm / 0.39° errors cannot detect this bias. That does not invalidate the method, but it means the simulation numbers are optimistic for absolute accuracy.

The real-world experiment compares against one commercial product on one robot. Offsets of 2–3 mm and 0.001–0.002 rad look good, but there is no independent ground truth, so the 'comparable' claim should be read as 'agrees with this particular commercial implementation under these conditions.' If the commercial solver shares the same kinematic bias, agreement is less meaningful. I would want at least one independent measurement, or a clear statement acknowledging this limitation.

Minor point: Table III reports single values per method; I would prefer the scatter across the four runs rather than just the mean.

Overall, the math is straightforward, the paper is honest about being an extension, and the reproducibility support is there. This deserves a serious referee. I would recommend conditional acceptance: keep the simulation and dataset contributions, and require either a stronger real-world validation or a more careful framing of what the experiment can show.

Referee Report

3 major / 4 minor

Summary. The paper presents a 3D vision-based hand-eye calibration method that avoids external calibration objects by using the robot base itself as the target. The camera observes the base, a learned point-cloud registration network (PREDATOR) aligns the captured point cloud to a reference CAD/URDF model, and the resulting camera-to-model transform is combined with forward kinematics to obtain the hand-eye transform. The authors extend their prior work by proposing a generic dataset generation procedure (hemisphere viewpoints plus realistic joint configurations), evaluating the method in simulation on 14 collaborative robot arms from 9 brands, and performing a real-world experiment on a UR10e with a Zivid 2+ MR60 camera, comparing against a commercial eye-in-hand calibration solution (BM-HEC). They report simulation mean errors of 1.29 mm and 0.39 degrees, physical offsets of 2-3 mm and 0.001-0.002 rad relative to the commercial product, and a calibration time of about 6 seconds.

Significance. If the accuracy claims hold, the method offers a practical, fast, and calibration-object-free alternative to classical AX=XB hand-eye calibration. The paper has concrete strengths: the code and dataset are publicly released, the simulation study covers a wide range of cobot models, and a physical experiment against a commercial product is included. However, the evidence as presented is not fully convincing. The simulation uses the same CAD/URDF models for both training and test, so the reported accuracy mainly validates the registration pipeline under distribution-matched conditions. The real-world comparison has no independent ground truth and only shows agreement with one commercial solution. Most importantly, the derivation of the camera-to-base transform in Eq. (5) rests on an unverified assertion that the reference model frame coincides with the physical robot base frame, and the pre-transformation in Eq. (4) is not explained or validated. These gaps are load-bearing for the central claim of comparable real-world performance. The paper is likely of interest to the robotics community but requires substantial revision before its claims are fully supported.

major comments (3)

[III-D, Eqs. (4)-(5)] The derivation of b_cT in Eq. (5) depends entirely on the statement in Section III-D that 'the frame of the reference data is aligned with the frame of the robot base in the real world.' No procedure is given for establishing or validating the pre-transformation ref'_refT introduced in Eq. (4); the manuscript does not state how this transform is computed, which degrees of freedom it contains (rotation, translation, and/or scale), or how its accuracy is verified. Any error in this pre-alignment propagates directly into t_cT through Eq. (7) and biases the final hand-eye result. In the simulation, the reference model and the ground-truth robot base are generated from the same CAD source, so this effect is absent by construction. Please specify the method for obtaining ref'_refT, provide a validation of the reference-frame alignment on the physical robot, or quantify the sensitivity of the calibration to a known misalignment of the reference frame.
[IV-B, Table I] The simulation study trains the PREDATOR registration network on point clouds generated from the same 14 robot CAD/URDF models that are later used to generate the test point clouds (Table I lists per-robot dataset sizes and Table II lists the same 14 robots for evaluation). The reported mean errors of 1.29 mm and 0.39 degrees therefore largely characterize the registration pipeline under near-ideal, distribution-matched conditions rather than the generalizability of the method to unseen robot models. To support the claimed generality, please add a leave-one-out or held-out evaluation (e.g., train on 13 robots and test on the 14th) or introduce synthetic geometry perturbations (mounting offsets, model deviations) and show that accuracy degrades gracefully.
[IV-C, Table III] The real-world comparison uses a single commercial solution (BM-HEC) as the reference, without any independent ground-truth measurement of the camera-to-flange transform. The reported offsets of 2-3 mm in position and 0.001-0.002 rad in rotation therefore cannot distinguish errors in the proposed method from errors in the commercial product, especially since the commercial solution is itself an estimate from an AX=XB formulation with its own noise characteristics. The paper's own text in Section IV-B acknowledges that 'discrepancies between the CAD model and the scanned robot base can further contribute to calibration errors,' but the physical experiment does not quantify this contribution. Please add an independent accuracy check (e.g., an external tracking system, a precisely machined test tool, or a multi-pose consistency metric) or clearly characterize the reported offsets as relative agreement rather than absolute accuracy.

minor comments (4)

[IV-B] The sentence 'the final calibration result is obtained by averaging the rotation matrices in quaternion space' should clarify the exact averaging procedure, including how quaternion sign ambiguity is handled and whether the average is computed over the 30 repeated scans or over the 30 poses; the current text is ambiguous.
[IV-A, Table I] The dataset sizes in Table I are listed without a description of the generation parameters, such as the number of hemispheres, the number of camera viewpoints per radius, and the proportion of data coming from the hemisphere strategy versus the realistic-joint-configuration strategy. Please add these details to the dataset-generation description.
[Figures 4, 5, 9, 11] Several figures contain garbled Unicode symbols in the manuscript PDF, which makes the plots difficult to read. Please regenerate the figures with proper font embedding and ensure the axis labels, legends, and captions are legible.
[Introduction, Contributions] The novelty relative to the authors' prior work [22] should be stated more explicitly. The current contribution list emphasizes the dataset generation, the 14-arm simulation study, and the real-world comparison, but does not clearly state whether the core registration pipeline or the use of the robot base as a target is new or unchanged from [22].

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 0.0 of 10

No significant circularity: the hand-eye transform is derived from a direct registration and forward-kinematics composition, with no fitted parameter disguised as a prediction.

full rationale

The derivation chain is self-contained. The camera-to-base transform b_cT is obtained directly from point-cloud registration (Eq. 3-5), and the hand-eye transform is then computed by the closed kinematic chain composition t_cT = b_tT^{-1} c_bT^{-1} (Eq. 6-7). No free parameter is fitted to the calibration result that the paper then presents as a prediction. The simulation errors (1.29 mm, 0.39 deg) are measured against an independently known ground-truth transform in PyBullet, and the real-world experiment reports raw offsets against the commercial BM-HEC solution rather than rescaling any fitted quantity. The only self-citation is to the authors' prior work [22] as the conceptual starting point ("we build upon our previous work [22]"), but the present paper states the full method and does not rely on an unverified theorem from that citation; the registration network PREDATOR [35] is external. Two limitations are noted but are not circular reductions: (i) the frame alignment assumption in Eq. 5, "the frame of the reference data is aligned with the frame of the robot base in the real world," is unverified for CAD-to-real deviations, and the paper itself acknowledges that "discrepancies between the CAD model and the scanned robot base can further contribute to calibration errors"; this is a correctness/robustness risk, not a circular step because the calibration output is not used to define its own input. (ii) The same robot models appear in both the generated training dataset (Table I) and the simulation test set (Table II), making the simulation in-distribution for the learned registration network; this is a generalization-evaluation concern, not an equation-level circularity. Neither observation makes the claimed result equal to its input by construction.

Assumptions & free parameters 3 free parameters · 5 assumptions · 0 invented entities

No new physical entities are introduced. The central claim rests on the accuracy of the CAD reference model and its frame alignment, the transferability of the learned registration network from synthetic to real data, and the accuracy of robot forward kinematics. These are domain assumptions that go unverified beyond a single real-world comparison.

free parameters (3)

Reference pre-transformation ref'_refT = not reported
Eq. 4 introduces a pre-transformation to align the reference model with the robot base frame/scale. Its value or how it is obtained is not given; if set manually or per robot, it is a hand-chosen parameter that affects the final calibration result.
Point cloud voxel size = 2 mm
Used for downsampling both dataset and inference point clouds; affects registration resolution and reported errors.
Virtual hemisphere radii = 0.5 m and 0.7 m
Dataset generation camera distances; influence the simulated point cloud density and the trained network's operating range.

assumptions (5)

domain assumption The CAD/URDF mesh of the robot base is geometrically accurate and its coordinate frame coincides with the physical robot base frame.
Eq. 5 equates the registered reference frame with the robot base frame; if this alignment is off, the camera-to-base estimate is biased. The paper does not provide a verification step.
domain assumption A registration network (PREDATOR) trained on synthetic point clouds generalizes to real camera point clouds of robot bases.
The real-world experiment relies on this transfer without fine-tuning or domain adaptation; the only real-world validation is a single UR10e setup compared with a commercial product.
domain assumption Robot forward kinematics accurately provide the flange pose in the base frame.
Eq. 6-7 use b_tT from forward kinematics to compute the hand-eye transform; kinematic errors propagate directly into the calibration.
domain assumption PyBullet simulation faithfully represents the robot geometry and camera imaging enough to serve as training data.
The dataset is generated in PyBullet with OBJ/URDF models and a virtual camera; any sim-to-real mismatches are not quantified.
standard math The closed kinematic chain identity I = b_tT * t_cT * c_bT (Eq. 6) holds.
This is a standard rigid-transform composition; it is exact given the other transforms.

how reviews work

0 comments

Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of 3D Hand-Eye Calibration for Collaborative Robot Arm: Look at Robot Base Once." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/QFHOIRWK

@misc{pith2026250421619,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: 3D Hand-Eye Calibration for Collaborative Robot Arm: Look at Robot Base Once},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/QFHOIRWK}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2504.21619}
}

read the original abstract

Hand-eye calibration is a common problem in the field of collaborative robotics, involving the determination of the transformation matrix between the visual sensor and the robot flange to enable vision-based robotic tasks. However, this process typically requires multiple movements of the robot arm and an external calibration object, making it both time-consuming and inconvenient, especially in scenarios where frequent recalibration is necessary. In this work, we extend our previous method which eliminates the need for external calibration objects such as a chessboard. We propose a generic dataset generation approach for point cloud registration, focusing on aligning the robot base point cloud with the scanned data. Furthermore, a more detailed simulation study is conducted involving several different collaborative robot arms, followed by real-world experiments in an industrial setting. Our improved method is simulated and evaluated using a total of 14 robotic arms from 9 different brands, including KUKA, Universal Robots, UFACTORY, and Franka Emika, all of which are widely used in the field of collaborative robotics. Physical experiments demonstrate that our extended approach achieves performance comparable to existing commercial hand-eye calibration solutions, while completing the entire calibration procedure in just a few seconds. In addition, we provide a user-friendly hand-eye calibration solution, with the code publicly available at github.com/leihui6/LRBO.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2504.21619 by the authors.

**Figure 2.** Flowchart of the our developed hand-eye calibration. [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p003_2.png] view at source ↗

**Figure 3.** Visualization of randomly selected robot base-looking poses for various robotic manipulators, with one representative joint configuration shown. [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p005_3.png] view at source ↗

Figures from the paper (5 more)

**Figure 4.** Figure 4: The hand-eye calibration results calculated from all poses for each [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p005_4.png]

**Figure 7.** Figure 7: Setup of our calibration, where no external calibration object is needed [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p005_7.png]

**Figure 9.** Figure 9: Calibration Averaged Over the First N calibration at a Single Pose [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p006_9.png]

**Figure 10.** Figure 10: Different poses used in our proposed hand-eye calibration method. [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p007_10.png]

**Figure 11.** Figure 11: Hand-eye calibration results across 6 poses. [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p007_11.png]

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

35 extracted references · 33 canonical work pages

[1]

3d robot perception with point cloud library, 2016

Matteo Munaro, Radu B Rusu, and Emanuele Menegatti. 3d robot perception with point cloud library, 2016

work page 2016
[2]

Trajectory planning and optimization for robotic machining based on measured point cloud

Gang Wang, Wenlong Li, Cheng Jiang, Dahu Zhu, Zhongwei Li, Wei Xu, Huan Zhao, and Han Ding. Trajectory planning and optimization for robotic machining based on measured point cloud. IEEE transactions on robotics, 38(3):1621–1637, 2021

2021
[3]

Ubiquitous manufacturing system based on cloud: A robotics application

Xi Vincent Wang, Lihui Wang, Abdullah Mohammed, and Mohammad Givehchi. Ubiquitous manufacturing system based on cloud: A robotics application. Robotics and Computer-Integrated Manufacturing, 45:116– 125, 2017

work page 2017
[4]

Robotic vision for human-robot interaction and collaboration: A survey and systematic review

Nicole Robinson, Brendan Tidd, Dylan Campbell, Dana Kuli ´c, and Peter Corke. Robotic vision for human-robot interaction and collaboration: A survey and systematic review. ACM Transactions on Human-Robot Interaction, 12(1):1–66, 2023. 7 Pose#1Pose#2Pose#3Pose#4Pose#5Pose#6 Fig. 10. Different poses used in our proposed hand-eye calibration method. /uni0000...

work page 2023
[5]

Review of vision-based safety systems for human-robot collaboration

Roni-Jussi Halme, Minna Lanz, Joni K ¨am¨ar¨ainen, Roel Pieters, Jyrki Latokartano, and Antti Hietanen. Review of vision-based safety systems for human-robot collaboration. Procedia Cirp, 72:111–116, 2018

work page 2018
[6]

Deep learning on 3d object detection for automatic plug-in charging using a mobile manipulator

Zhengxue Zhou, Leihui Li, Riwei Wang, and Xuping Zhang. Deep learning on 3d object detection for automatic plug-in charging using a mobile manipulator. In 2021 IEEE International Conference on Robotics and Automation (ICRA) , pages 4148–4154. IEEE, 2021

work page 2021
[7]

Grasp pose detection in point clouds

Andreas Ten Pas, Marcus Gualtieri, Kate Saenko, and Robert Platt. Grasp pose detection in point clouds. The International Journal of Robotics Research, 36(13-14):1455–1473, 2017

work page 2017
[8]

Path planning with automatic seam extraction over point cloud models for robotic arc welding

Peng Zhou, Rui Peng, Maggie Xu, Victor Wu, and David Navarro- Alarcon. Path planning with automatic seam extraction over point cloud models for robotic arc welding. IEEE robotics and automation letters , 6(3):5002–5009, 2021

work page 2021

Show all 35 references

[9]

Hand-eye calibration

Radu Horaud and Fadi Dornaika. Hand-eye calibration. The interna- tional journal of robotics research , 14(3):195–210, 1995

1995
[10]

An overview of hand-eye calibration

Jianfeng Jiang, Xiao Luo, Qingsheng Luo, Lijun Qiao, and Minghao Li. An overview of hand-eye calibration. The International Journal of Advanced Manufacturing Technology, 119(1):77–97, 2022

2022
[11]

A comparative review of hand-eye calibration techniques for vision guided robots

Ikenna Enebuse, Mathias Foo, Babul Salam Ksm Kader Ibrahim, Hafiz Ahmed, Fhon Supmak, and Odongo Steven Eyobu. A comparative review of hand-eye calibration techniques for vision guided robots. IEEE Access, 9:113143–113155, 2021

2021
[12]

Accuracy evaluation of hand-eye calibration techniques for vision-guided robots

Ikenna Enebuse, Babul KSM Kader Ibrahim, Mathias Foo, Ranveer S Matharu, and Hafiz Ahmed. Accuracy evaluation of hand-eye calibration techniques for vision-guided robots. Plos one, 17(10):e0273261, 2022

2022
[13]

Eye-to-hand coordination for vision-guided robot control applications

SW Wijesoma, DFH Wolfe, and RJ Richards. Eye-to-hand coordination for vision-guided robot control applications. The International Journal of Robotics Research , 12(1):65–78, 1993

1993
[14]

A new technique for fully autonomous and efficient 3 d robotics hand/eye calibration

Roger Y Tsai, Reimar K Lenz, et al. A new technique for fully autonomous and efficient 3 d robotics hand/eye calibration. IEEE Transactions on robotics and automation , 5(3):345–358, 1989

1989
[15]

Optimal hand-eye calibration

Klaus H Strobl and Gerd Hirzinger. Optimal hand-eye calibration. In 2006 IEEE/RSJ international conference on intelligent robots and systems, pages 4647–4653. IEEE, 2006

2006
[16]

Which pattern? biasing aspects of planar calibration patterns and detection methods

John Mallon and Paul F Whelan. Which pattern? biasing aspects of planar calibration patterns and detection methods. Pattern recognition letters, 28(8):921–930, 2007

2007
[17]

One-step solving the hand–eye calibra- tion by dual kronecker product

Xiao Wang and Hanwen Song. One-step solving the hand–eye calibra- tion by dual kronecker product. Journal of Mechanisms and Robotics , 16(10), 2024

2024
[18]

Globally optimal symbolic hand-eye calibration

Jin Wu, Ming Liu, Yilong Zhu, Zuhao Zou, Ming-Zhe Dai, Chengxi Zhang, Yi Jiang, and Chong Li. Globally optimal symbolic hand-eye calibration. IEEE/ASME Transactions on Mechatronics , 26(3):1369– 1379, 2020

2020
[19]

Simultaneously calibration of multi hand–eye robot system based on graph

Zishun Zhou, Liping Ma, Xilong Liu, Zhiqiang Cao, and Junzhi Yu. Simultaneously calibration of multi hand–eye robot system based on graph. IEEE Transactions on Industrial Electronics , 71(5):5010–5020, 2023

2023
[20]

Multi-camera hand-eye calibration for human-robot collaboration in industrial robotic workcells

Davide Allegro, Matteo Terreran, and Stefano Ghidoni. Multi-camera hand-eye calibration for human-robot collaboration in industrial robotic workcells. arXiv preprint arXiv:2406.11392 , 2024

2024 arXiv
[21]

Modeling and calibration of high-order joint-dependent kinematic errors for industrial robots

Le Ma, Patrick Bazzoli, Patrick M Sammons, Robert G Landers, and Douglas A Bristow. Modeling and calibration of high-order joint-dependent kinematic errors for industrial robots. Robotics and Computer-Integrated Manufacturing, 50:153–167, 2018

2018
[22]

Automatic robot hand-eye calibration enabled by learning-based 3d vision

Leihui Li, Xingyu Yang, Riwei Wang, and Xuping Zhang. Automatic robot hand-eye calibration enabled by learning-based 3d vision. Journal of Intelligent & Robotic Systems , 110(3):130, 2024

2024
[23]

Generative adversarial networks for solving hand-eye calibration without data correspondence

Ilkwon Hong and Junhyoung Ha. Generative adversarial networks for solving hand-eye calibration without data correspondence. IEEE Robotics and Automation Letters , 2025

2025
[24]

Point cloud registration- enabled globally optimal hand–eye calibration

Dahu Zhu, Hao Wu, Tao Ding, and Lin Hua. Point cloud registration- enabled globally optimal hand–eye calibration. IEEE/ASME Transac- tions on Mechatronics , 2024

2024
[25]

Calibration of wrist-mounted robotic sensors by solving homogeneous transform equations of the form ax= xb

Yiu Cheung Shiu and Shaheen Ahmad. Calibration of wrist-mounted robotic sensors by solving homogeneous transform equations of the form ax= xb. 1987

1987
[26]

Simultaneous robot/world and tool/flange calibration by solving homogeneous trans- formation equations of the form ax= yb

Hanqi Zhuang, Zvi S Roth, and Raghavan Sudhakar. Simultaneous robot/world and tool/flange calibration by solving homogeneous trans- formation equations of the form ax= yb. IEEE Transactions on Robotics and Automation, 10(4):549–554, 1994

1994
[27]

A noise-tolerant algorithm for robotic hand-eye calibration with or without sensor orientation measure- ment

Hanqi Zuang and Yiu Cheung Shiu. A noise-tolerant algorithm for robotic hand-eye calibration with or without sensor orientation measure- ment. IEEE transactions on systems, man, and cybernetics , 23(4):1168– 1175, 1993

1993
[28]

New probabilistic approaches to the ax= xb hand-eye calibration without correspondence

Qianli Ma, Haiyuan Li, and Gregory S Chirikjian. New probabilistic approaches to the ax= xb hand-eye calibration without correspondence. In 2016 IEEE international conference on robotics and automation (ICRA), pages 4365–4371. IEEE, 2016

2016
[29]

Solving the robot-world hand- eye (s) calibration problem with iterative methods

Amy Tabb and Khalil M Ahmad Yousef. Solving the robot-world hand- eye (s) calibration problem with iterative methods. Machine Vision and Applications, 28(5):569–590, 2017

2017
[30]

Probabilistic framework for hand–eye and robot–world calibration ax = yb

Junhyoung Ha. Probabilistic framework for hand–eye and robot–world calibration ax = yb. IEEE Transactions on Robotics, 39(2):1196–1211, 2022

2022
[31]

General hand–eye calibration based on reprojection error minimization

Kenji Koide and Emanuele Menegatti. General hand–eye calibration based on reprojection error minimization. IEEE Robotics and Automa- tion Letters, 4(2):1021–1028, 2019

2019
[32]

Hand–eye calibration algorithm based on an optimized neural network

Jiang Hua and Liangcai Zeng. Hand–eye calibration algorithm based on an optimized neural network. In Actuators, volume 10, page 85. MDPI, 2021

2021
[33]

Learning to calibrate-estimating the hand-eye transformation without calibration objects

Krittin Pachtrachai, Francisco Vasconcelos, Philip Edwards, and Danail Stoyanov. Learning to calibrate-estimating the hand-eye transformation without calibration objects. IEEE Robotics and Automation Letters , 6(4):7309–7316, 2021

2021
[34]

Con- tinual learning approaches to hand–eye calibration in robots

Ozan Bahadir, Jan Paul Siebert, and Gerardo Aragon-Camarasa. Con- tinual learning approaches to hand–eye calibration in robots. Machine Vision and Applications , 35(4):97, 2024

2024
[35]

Predator: Registration of 3d point clouds with low overlap

Shengyu Huang, Zan Gojcic, Mikhail Usvyatsov, Andreas Wieser, and Konrad Schindler. Predator: Registration of 3d point clouds with low overlap. In Proceedings of the IEEE/CVF Conference on computer vision and pattern recognition , pages 4267–4276, 2021

2021

Pith tools

Reviewed August 16, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.

[1] [1]

3d robot perception with point cloud library, 2016

Matteo Munaro, Radu B Rusu, and Emanuele Menegatti. 3d robot perception with point cloud library, 2016

work page 2016

[2] [2]

Trajectory planning and optimization for robotic machining based on measured point cloud

Gang Wang, Wenlong Li, Cheng Jiang, Dahu Zhu, Zhongwei Li, Wei Xu, Huan Zhao, and Han Ding. Trajectory planning and optimization for robotic machining based on measured point cloud. IEEE transactions on robotics, 38(3):1621–1637, 2021

2021

[3] [3]

Ubiquitous manufacturing system based on cloud: A robotics application

Xi Vincent Wang, Lihui Wang, Abdullah Mohammed, and Mohammad Givehchi. Ubiquitous manufacturing system based on cloud: A robotics application. Robotics and Computer-Integrated Manufacturing, 45:116– 125, 2017

work page 2017

[4] [4]

Robotic vision for human-robot interaction and collaboration: A survey and systematic review

Nicole Robinson, Brendan Tidd, Dylan Campbell, Dana Kuli ´c, and Peter Corke. Robotic vision for human-robot interaction and collaboration: A survey and systematic review. ACM Transactions on Human-Robot Interaction, 12(1):1–66, 2023. 7 Pose#1Pose#2Pose#3Pose#4Pose#5Pose#6 Fig. 10. Different poses used in our proposed hand-eye calibration method. /uni0000...

work page 2023

[5] [5]

Review of vision-based safety systems for human-robot collaboration

Roni-Jussi Halme, Minna Lanz, Joni K ¨am¨ar¨ainen, Roel Pieters, Jyrki Latokartano, and Antti Hietanen. Review of vision-based safety systems for human-robot collaboration. Procedia Cirp, 72:111–116, 2018

work page 2018

[6] [6]

Deep learning on 3d object detection for automatic plug-in charging using a mobile manipulator

Zhengxue Zhou, Leihui Li, Riwei Wang, and Xuping Zhang. Deep learning on 3d object detection for automatic plug-in charging using a mobile manipulator. In 2021 IEEE International Conference on Robotics and Automation (ICRA) , pages 4148–4154. IEEE, 2021

work page 2021

[7] [7]

Grasp pose detection in point clouds

Andreas Ten Pas, Marcus Gualtieri, Kate Saenko, and Robert Platt. Grasp pose detection in point clouds. The International Journal of Robotics Research, 36(13-14):1455–1473, 2017

work page 2017

[8] [8]

Path planning with automatic seam extraction over point cloud models for robotic arc welding

Peng Zhou, Rui Peng, Maggie Xu, Victor Wu, and David Navarro- Alarcon. Path planning with automatic seam extraction over point cloud models for robotic arc welding. IEEE robotics and automation letters , 6(3):5002–5009, 2021

work page 2021