Pith. sign in

REVIEW 3 major objections 5 minor 39 references

rt-RISeg: Real-Time Model-Free Robot Interactive Segmentation for Active Instance-Level Object Understanding

T0 review · 3 major / 5 minor · reviewed 2026-08-06 · deepseek-v4-flash

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

Pith's one-line read rt-RISeg claims that random reference frames on a pushed object expose its identity through identical spatial twists, enabling model-free real-time segmentation.

desk verdict A plausible real-time model-free interactive segmentation pipeline, but the paper leaves the central 3D construction ambiguous and the evaluation is thin. read the letter →

arxiv 2507.10776 v1 pith:BYUJAQQS submitted 2025-07-14 cs.RO cs.CV

Howard H. Qian , Yiting Chen , Gaotian Wang , Podshara Chanrungmaneekul , Kaiyu Hang This is my paper
classification cs.ROcs.CV
keywords interactiveperceptionunseenobjectinstancesegmentationspatialtwistbodyframe-invariantfeatureopticalflowmodel-freerigidmotionMarkovclustering
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

rt-RISeg claims that a robot can segment previously unseen objects in a cluttered scene without any learned segmentation model, by pushing objects slightly and watching how sampled points on them move. The key idea is that two small reference frames attached to the same rigid body show the same spatial twist when viewed from a fixed world frame, even if their individual motions differ, so grouping frames by twist separates objects. Because the feature is computed from motion rather than appearance, segmentation happens in real time during the push and generalizes to out-of-distribution objects. On roughly 100 manually annotated images across 20 tabletop scenes, the method reaches 75.1% correctly segmented objects after all interactions, about 27.5 percentage points above the static baselines it compares against, and its masks can be used to prompt a foundation model for sharper boundaries.

What carries the argument

The central object is the Body Frame-Invariant Feature (BFIF), a spatial twist $V_s = [\omega_s, \upsilon_s]^\top \in \mathbb{R}^6$ expressed in a fixed space frame. For a body frame $\{b\}$ on a rigid body, the spatial twist is computed from the transformation $T_{sb}$ via $\dot{T}_{sb} T_{sb}^{-1} = [V_s]$; frames on the same rigid body yield the same $V_s$, while frames on different objects yield different ones. The pipeline's components are effective optical flow $X_t = O_t - E_t$ (observed flow minus expected flow from the wrist camera's own motion, computed from forward kinematics and depth), random non-collinear pixel triplets that define body frames $\{F^k_{t-1}\}$, tracked through the flow to $\{F^k_t\}$, and unsupervised grouping of the resulting BFIFs by Mahalanobis distance followed by Markov clustering. The BFIFs do the identification; the flood fill and mask propagation do the boundary assignment.

What would settle it

A reader could test whether one rigid object, pushed so that it rotates about an axis not parallel to the camera plane, is still returned as a single cluster: compute the BFIFs from 2D pixel coordinates alone, without depth, and check whether points at different depths on the same object give equal spatial twists. If the invariance fails under this 2D construction, the reported grouping rests on an unstated 3D step.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

The paper's central discovery is that object identity can be read off from motion alone during a minimally disruptive robot interaction. It defines the Body Frame-Invariant Feature (BFIF): for any two body frames rigidly attached to the same moving object, the spatial twists expressed in a fixed space frame are identical, regardless of the frames' absolute rotations and translations. rt-RISeg samples random triplets of pixels whose effective optical flow is large, builds a body frame from each triplet, tracks it to the next frame, computes its spatial twist, and clusters the resulting twist vectors using Mahalanobis distances and Markov clustering. Each cluster seeds a flood fill in the optical flow to produce and update an object mask during the interaction. The method needs no base segmentation mask and no training, and it outperforms the learned unseen-object segmentation models it is compared against in overlap and boundary metrics after two to three interactions.

Load-bearing premise

The load-bearing premise is that the random pixel triplets used to build body frames are placed in metric 3D coordinates via the depth channel before their axes and twists are computed, so the BFIF comparison is a true 3D rigid-body comparison; the paper never explicitly says this 3D lift happens in Algorithm 3.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • Unseen object segmentation becomes a byproduct of manipulation: any robot that can push an object slightly can segment it, with no pre-trained segmentation network and no dataset of object appearances.
  • Because masks update during the action, downstream manipulation planning can react to segmentation while the push is still in progress, rather than waiting for an observe–act–observe cycle.
  • The method transfers to out-of-distribution objects by construction, since the grouping signal is rigid-body motion, not static visual features that can overfit.
  • rt-RISeg's masks can be fed as prompts to a foundation model like SAM, substantially improving boundary precision without losing the object-level grouping.
  • The reported 75.1% versus 45–50% correct-object rate after interactions implies that interactive perception can beat static segmentation on exactly the cluttered scenes where learned models are weakest.

Reading between the lines

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

  • Editorial inference: if the BFIF grouping is genuinely 3D, the same machinery should work with any dense motion cue, such as scene flow from RGB-D or lidar, and could segment objects during non-push interactions like grasping or pouring, not just pushes.
  • Editorial inference: the autonomously generated masks could be collected as pseudo-ground truth to train a conventional static segmentation model, turning the interactive pipeline into a data engine rather than an end product.
  • Editorial inference: a direct stress test would be a rigid object undergoing pure rotation about the camera axis with no translation; under 2D optical flow, points at different depths trace different pixel velocities, so the BFIF equality would only hold if frames are lifted to metric 3D coordinates.
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 rt-RISeg, a real-time, model-free framework for unseen object instance segmentation (UOIS) based on robot interactions and a Body Frame-Invariant Feature (BFIF) derived from the spatial twists of rigid body motion. The framework samples body frames from effective optical flow, computes BFIFs, groups them via Mahalanobis distances and Markov clustering, and uses the groups to seed and propagate object masks while the robot is still moving. The authors report that rt-RISeg achieves 75.1% correctly segmented objects after interactions, outperforming static baselines MSMFormer and SAM by roughly 27.5 percentage points, and that prompting SAM with rt-RISeg masks further improves boundary quality. The paper positions the work as a paradigm shift from 'observe, interact, observe' to 'observe while interacting.'

Significance. If the central claims hold, this is a conceptually strong and practically relevant contribution: it shows that a physical invariant (spatial twist) can drive object segmentation without a learned segmentation model, achieving state-of-the-art-level results in real robot experiments while preserving scene task formation. The demonstrated use of autonomously generated masks to prompt SAM is a nice downstream illustration, and the proposed continuous, real-time interaction loop is a genuinely different paradigm from static UOIS. The empirical gains over static baselines are substantial, and the work is well-placed for a robotics journal. However, the significance is tempered by the unresolved implementation detail regarding 3D lifting of sampled points, the lack of timing measurements for the central 'real-time' claim, and the absence of reported parameter values; these issues must be addressed before the claims can be fully evaluated.

major comments (3)
  1. [Section IV.B.1, Algorithm 3, line 4] The description of CreateFrames is critically underspecified: the paper says 'we sample n random pixels from ||X_t|| >> 0 and pick triplets of pixels to create each frame' and defines the axes using 'the plane formed by the triplet of sampled points.' It is never stated that the sampled pixels are unprojected to 3D metric coordinates using the depth channel before constructing the frame. The BFIF invariance in Eq. (2) is a 3D SE(3) property: it holds only for body frames that are rigidly attached to a moving object in 3D. If the frames are built directly from 2D pixel coordinates, every non-collinear triplet is coplanar in the image plane, the resulting frame is not a rigid body frame in SE(3), and its motion under perspective projection is not a spatial twist. The equality of BFIFs for points on the same object would then have no theoretical basis, and the Markov clustering on Mahalanobis distances would not be grouping by true spatial twists. Since depth is already used in Eq. (5) for expected flow computation, the missing step is plausibly an omitted implementation detail, but as written the load-bearing mathematical premise is unverified. The authors must explicitly state that triplets are lifted to 3D (e.g., using dMap_{t-1}) before frame construction, or provide a different justification if the implementation is genuinely 2D.
  2. [Title, Abstract, Section V.D] The paper repeatedly claims 'real-time' operation, yet no timing measurements are reported anywhere. There is no average wall-clock time per frame, no latency between robot motion and mask update, and no comparison with the duration of robot interactions. Since real-time performance is a central claimed advantage of rt-RISeg over prior interactive methods, the authors should report at least the average computation time for SEGMENT_OBJS per time step and specify the hardware on which it was measured.
  3. [Section IV.B and Experiments V.A] Several core parameters that the method depends on are never given: the number of sampled body frames n, the maximum pairwise distance da, the threshold for '||X_t|| >> 0' used to select moving pixels, and the parameters of the Mahalanobis kernel / Markov clustering (e.g., inflation parameter). Without these values, the experiments are not reproducible and the sensitivity of the results to these choices cannot be assessed. Please report the exact values used in the experiments or, if they are tuned, provide a sensitivity analysis.
minor comments (5)
  1. [Introduction] The introduction states that 'rt-RISeg leverages BFIFs to derive object-level understanding without any learning,' but the pipeline uses RAFT, a learned optical flow model, as acknowledged in Section V.A.1. The abstract and later text correctly say 'without any learned segmentation model.' Please revise for consistency.
  2. [Section V.B and Fig. 7] The '27.5%' improvement mentioned in the abstract refers to the percentage of objects correctly segmented (Overlap F-measure >= 75%), but this metric is not clearly defined at first use. Please define 'object segmentation accuracy rate' explicitly in Section V.B and state whether the improvement is in percentage points or relative percentage.
  3. [Section V.A.2] The comparisons are limited to two static baselines, MSMFormer and SAM. While SAM is a strong and relevant baseline, the claim of surpassing 'state-of-the-art UOIS methods' is broad; consider comparing against additional recent UOIS methods (e.g., UCN or other RGB-D segmentation models) or softening the wording to reflect the specific baselines used.
  4. [Section IV.B.1] The sentence 'Because X_t represents absolute motion in the real world as a result of a robot interaction' is misleading: X_t is a 2D effective optical flow field after subtracting the expected camera motion, not an absolute 3D motion. Please rephrase to avoid confusion.
  5. [Fig. 2 caption] The notation 'υx\{s\}' is ambiguous; the superscripts indicating the different body frames are missing or unclear. Please use consistent notation such as 'υ_s^{a1}' and 'υ_s^{a2}'.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 2.0 of 10

No significant circularity: the central BFIF invariance is anchored in an external standard reference, and the segmentation gains are empirical results against external baselines.

full rationale

The paper's central feature, the body frame-invariant feature (BFIF), is taken from the authors' prior RISeg work [1], which is a self-citation. However, the load-bearing mathematical statement—that two body frames attached to the same rigid body have the same spatial twist when expressed in a fixed space frame—is stated in Section III-A and attributed to the external textbook Lynch and Park [8], and Eq. (2) derives the twist relation from Tsb and its derivative. The algorithm never uses ground-truth masks or the final segmentation to define BFIFs; body frames are sampled from effective optical flow Xt and grouped by an unsupervised Mahalanobis/Markov-clustering procedure (Alg. 3, lines 4-6), so the output mask is not fed back into the feature construction. The accuracy claims are empirical comparisons against external baselines MSMFormer and SAM on manually annotated scenes, and the paper does not fit any parameter to the evaluation set. The only self-citation that could be considered load-bearing is the origin of BFIF, but because the invariance is independently stated and referenced, this is a minor self-citation rather than a circular reduction. A separate concern is that Alg. 3's CreateFrames is specified on the 2D effective optical flow Xt, whereas the twist equality in Eq. (2) is a 3D SE(3) property; that is a correctness/missing-assumption risk, not a circularity.

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

No new physical entities are postulated. The BFIF is carried over from the authors' prior RISeg work and is grounded in standard spatial-twist theory. The free parameters and assumptions listed above are the main uncharged inputs; the paper does not provide full specifications for several of them.

free parameters (5)
  • dpush = 2 cm
    Push distance for each robot action; hand-selected to minimally disrupt the scene while generating measurable motion. Not fitted, but chosen by the authors; no sensitivity analysis.
  • ell_act = 0.3
    Overlap threshold in IsValidPush; hand-chosen to avoid pushing objects into each other. Controls which actions are executed and therefore which objects get segmented.
  • n (number of body frames) = not specified
    Sample size of random pixels used to create body frames; affects statistical reliability of BFIF grouping. Not specified in the paper.
  • da (max pairwise distance) = not specified
    Maximum pairwise distance for triplet selection; not specified, affects frame geometry.
  • Markov clustering and Mahalanobis kernel parameters = not specified
    Inflation and expansion parameters and Gaussian kernel width are not reported, yet they determine the grouping and hence the segmentation.
assumptions (5)
  • domain assumption Objects are rigid during interaction.
    Central to BFIF invariance; plastic or deformable objects would not satisfy equal spatial twists. Invoked throughout Section IV.B.
  • domain assumption Unseen objects lie on a flat tabletop.
    Used in Alg. 2 for RANSAC plane fitting to obtain object mask; no experiments with non-tabletop scenes.
  • standard math Spatial twist of body frames on the same rigid body is equal in a fixed space frame.
    Textbook result from Lynch and Park (ref [8]); used in Eq. 2 as the basis for BFIF.
  • domain assumption Camera-to-robot transform is known from joint angles via forward kinematics.
    Used in Alg. 3 to compute expected flow due to wrist-mounted camera motion; requires accurate calibration.
  • domain assumption Optical flow (RAFT) produces correct pixel correspondences between consecutive frames.
    The entire pipeline depends on optical flow accuracy; textureless or occluded regions could break the correspondences. Off-the-shelf model used without retraining.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of rt-RISeg: Real-Time Model-Free Robot Interactive Segmentation for Active Instance-Level Object Understanding." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/BYUJAQQS

@misc{pith2026250710776,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: rt-RISeg: Real-Time Model-Free Robot Interactive Segmentation for Active Instance-Level Object Understanding},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/BYUJAQQS}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2507.10776}
}
read the original abstract

Successful execution of dexterous robotic manipulation tasks in new environments, such as grasping, depends on the ability to proficiently segment unseen objects from the background and other objects. Previous works in unseen object instance segmentation (UOIS) train models on large-scale datasets, which often leads to overfitting on static visual features. This dependency results in poor generalization performance when confronted with out-of-distribution scenarios. To address this limitation, we rethink the task of UOIS based on the principle that vision is inherently interactive and occurs over time. We propose a novel real-time interactive perception framework, rt-RISeg, that continuously segments unseen objects by robot interactions and analysis of a designed body frame-invariant feature (BFIF). We demonstrate that the relative rotational and linear velocities of randomly sampled body frames, resulting from selected robot interactions, can be used to identify objects without any learned segmentation model. This fully self-contained segmentation pipeline generates and updates object segmentation masks throughout each robot interaction without the need to wait for an action to finish. We showcase the effectiveness of our proposed interactive perception method by achieving an average object segmentation accuracy rate 27.5% greater than state-of-the-art UOIS methods. Furthermore, although rt-RISeg is a standalone framework, we show that the autonomously generated segmentation masks can be used as prompts to vision foundation models for significantly improved performance.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2507.10776 by the authors.

Figure 1
Figure 1. Interactive segmentation of a cluttered scene through [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p001_1.png] view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. A visual representation of BFIFs, where the different [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p002_2.png] view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. Alg. 2 FindAction(·) heuristically selecting a robot action ai. [A] Current system segmentation mask Lt visualized over input image It. [B] objMask represents pixels belonging to objects. [C] binL represents pixels already segmented. [D] objsT oSegment represents pixels belonging to objects that still need to be segmented with boundaryP oints, center, and P overlaid. IsValidPush(·) evaluates a candidate push startin… view at source ↗
Figures from the paper (4 more)
Figure 4
Figure 4. Figure 4: Alg. 3 SegmentObjs(·) uses images (It−1, It) and robot joint angles (θt−1, θt) to derive effective optical flow Xt. Body frames {F k t−1} and {F k t } are sampled at points where ∥Xt∥2 >> 0. BFIFs are then computed and analyzed for real-time segmentation mask seeding. …
Figure 5
Figure 5. Figure 5: Qualitative comparison of unseen object instance segmentation between MSMFormer [6], SAM [10], rt-RISeg (Ours), and rt-RISeg [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p006_5.png]
Figure 6
Figure 6. Figure 6: Experiment objects chosen for segmentation difficulty. [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p006_6.png]
Figure 7
Figure 7. Figure 7: Percentage of objects correctly segmented by each method [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p007_7.png]

Discussion (0). Sign in to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

39 extracted references · 35 canonical work pages

  1. [1]

    Riseg: Robot interactive object segmentation via body frame-invariant features,

    H. H. Qian, Y . Lu, K. Ren, G. Wang, N. Khargonkar, Y . Xiang, and K. Hang, “Riseg: Robot interactive object segmentation via body frame-invariant features,” in IEEE International Conference on Robotics and Automation (ICRA) . IEEE, 2024

    work page 2024

  2. [2]

    Unseen object amodal instance segmentation via hierarchical occlusion mod- eling,

    S. Back, J. Lee, T. Kim, S. Noh, R. Kang, S. Bak, and K. Lee, “Unseen object amodal instance segmentation via hierarchical occlusion mod- eling,” in IEEE International Conference on Robotics and Automation (ICRA). IEEE, 2022, pp. 5085–5092

    work page 2022

  3. [3]

    Unseen object in- stance segmentation for robotic environments,

    C. Xie, Y . Xiang, A. Mousavian, and D. Fox, “Unseen object in- stance segmentation for robotic environments,” IEEE Transactions on Robotics, vol. 37, no. 5, pp. 1343–1359, 2021

    work page 2021

  4. [4]

    Learning rgb-d feature embeddings for unseen object instance segmentation,

    Y . Xiang, C. Xie, A. Mousavian, and D. Fox, “Learning rgb-d feature embeddings for unseen object instance segmentation,” in Conference on Robot Learning . PMLR, 2021, pp. 461–470

    work page 2021

  5. [5]

    Segmenting unknown 3d objects from real depth images using mask r-cnn trained on synthetic point clouds,

    M. Danielczuk, M. Matl, S. Gupta, A. Li, A. Lee, J. Mahler, and K. Goldberg, “Segmenting unknown 3d objects from real depth images using mask r-cnn trained on synthetic point clouds,” IEEE International Conference on Robotics and Automation (ICRA) , 2019

    work page 2019

  6. [6]

    Mean shift mask trans- former for unseen object instance segmentation,

    Y . Lu, Y . Chen, N. Ruozzi, and Y . Xiang, “Mean shift mask trans- former for unseen object instance segmentation,” inIEEE International Conference on Robotics and Automation (ICRA) . IEEE, 2024

    work page 2024

  7. [7]

    Interactive segmentation for manipulation in unstructured environments,

    J. Kenney, T. Buckley, and O. Brock, “Interactive segmentation for manipulation in unstructured environments,” in IEEE International Conference on Robotics and Automation (ICRA) . IEEE, 2009, pp. 1377–1382

    work page 2009

  8. [8]

    K. M. Lynch and F. C. Park, Modern robotics. Cambridge University Press, 2017

    2017

Show all 39 references
  1. [9]

    Continuous perception for deformable objects understand- ing,

    L. Mart ´ınez, J. R. del Solar, L. Sun, J. P. Siebert, and G. Aragon- Camarasa, “Continuous perception for deformable objects understand- ing,” Robotics and Autonomous Systems , vol. 118, pp. 220–230, 2019

    2019

  2. [10]

    Segment anything,

    A. Kirillov, E. Mintun, N. Ravi, H. Mao, C. Rolland, L. Gustafson, T. Xiao, S. Whitehead, A. C. Berg, W.-Y . Lo et al. , “Segment anything,” in International Conference on Computer Vision . IEEE, 2023, pp. 4015–4026

    2023

  3. [11]

    Efficient graph-based im- age segmentation,

    P. F. Felzenszwalb and D. P. Huttenlocher, “Efficient graph-based im- age segmentation,” International Journal of Computer Vision , vol. 59, pp. 167–181, 2004

    2004

  4. [12]

    Scenecut: Joint geometric and object segmentation for indoor scenes,

    T. T. Pham, T.-T. Do, N. S ¨underhauf, and I. Reid, “Scenecut: Joint geometric and object segmentation for indoor scenes,” in IEEE In- ternational Conference on Robotics and Automation (ICRA) . IEEE, 2018, pp. 3213–3220

    2018

  5. [13]

    Object partitioning using local convexity,

    S. Christoph Stein, M. Schoeler, J. Papon, and F. Worgotter, “Object partitioning using local convexity,” in IEEE Conference on Computer Vision and Pattern Recognition , 2014, pp. 304–311

    2014

  6. [14]

    D. A. Forsyth and J. Ponce, Computer vision: a modern approach . prentice hall professional technical reference, 2002

    2002

  7. [15]

    Efficient organized point cloud segmentation with connected components,

    A. J. Trevor, S. Gedikli, R. B. Rusu, and H. I. Christensen, “Efficient organized point cloud segmentation with connected components,” Semantic Perception Mapping and Exploration (SPME) , vol. 10, no. 6, pp. 251–257, 2013

    2013

  8. [16]

    The best of both modes: Separately leveraging rgb and depth for unseen object instance segmentation,

    C. Xie, Y . Xiang, A. Mousavian, and D. Fox, “The best of both modes: Separately leveraging rgb and depth for unseen object instance segmentation,” in Conference on Robot Learning . PMLR, 2020, pp. 1369–1378

    2020

  9. [17]

    Segmenting unknown 3d objects from real depth images using mask r-cnn trained on synthetic data,

    M. Danielczuk, M. Matl, S. Gupta, A. Li, A. Lee, J. Mahler, and K. Goldberg, “Segmenting unknown 3d objects from real depth images using mask r-cnn trained on synthetic data,” in IEEE International Conference on Robotics and Automation (ICRA) . IEEE, 2019, pp. 7283–7290

    2019

  10. [18]

    Clusternet: 3d instance segmentation in rgb-d images,

    L. Shao, Y . Tian, and J. Bohg, “Clusternet: 3d instance segmentation in rgb-d images,” arXiv preprint arXiv:1807.08894 , 2018

    2018 arXiv

  11. [19]

    Unseen object instance segmentation with fully test-time rgb-d embeddings adapta- tion,

    L. Zhang, S. Zhang, X. Yang, H. Qiao, and Z. Liu, “Unseen object instance segmentation with fully test-time rgb-d embeddings adapta- tion,” in IEEE International Conference on Robotics and Automation (ICRA). IEEE, 2023, pp. 4945–4952

    2023

  12. [20]

    Unbiasing se- mantic segmentation for robot perception using synthetic data feature transfer,

    J. C. Balloch, V . Agrawal, I. Essa, and S. Chernova, “Unbiasing se- mantic segmentation for robot perception using synthetic data feature transfer,” arXiv preprint arXiv:1809.03676 , 2018

    2018 arXiv

  13. [21]

    Interactive perception: Leveraging action in perception and perception in action,

    J. Bohg, K. Hausman, B. Sankaran, O. Brock, D. Kragic, S. Schaal, and G. S. Sukhatme, “Interactive perception: Leveraging action in perception and perception in action,” IEEE Transactions on Robotics , vol. 33, no. 6, pp. 1273–1291, 2017

    2017

  14. [22]

    Motion segmentation from feature trajectories with missing data,

    C. Julia, A. Sappa, F. Lumbreras, J. Serrat, and A. L ´opez, “Motion segmentation from feature trajectories with missing data,” in Pattern Recognition and Image Analysis . Springer, 2007, pp. 483–490

    2007

  15. [23]

    A multibody factorization method for independently moving objects,

    J. P. Costeira and T. Kanade, “A multibody factorization method for independently moving objects,” International Journal of Computer Vision, vol. 29, pp. 159–179, 1998

    1998

  16. [24]

    Segmenting motions of different types by unsupervised manifold clustering,

    A. Goh and R. Vidal, “Segmenting motions of different types by unsupervised manifold clustering,” in IEEE Conference on Computer Vision and Pattern Recognition . IEEE, 2007, pp. 1–6

    2007

  17. [25]

    The whole world in your hand: Active and interactive segmentation,

    A. Arsenio, P. Fitzpatrick, C. C. Kemp, and G. Metta, “The whole world in your hand: Active and interactive segmentation,” in Pro- ceedings of the Third International Workshop on Epigenetic Robotics , 2003, pp. 49–56

    2003

  18. [26]

    Early integration of vision and manipu- lation,

    G. Metta and P. Fitzpatrick, “Early integration of vision and manipu- lation,” Adaptive behavior , vol. 11, no. 2, pp. 109–128, 2003

    2003

  19. [27]

    Multi-view self-supervised deep learning for 6d pose estimation in the amazon picking challenge,

    A. Zeng, K.-T. Yu, S. Song, D. Suo, E. Walker, A. Rodriguez, and J. Xiao, “Multi-view self-supervised deep learning for 6d pose estimation in the amazon picking challenge,” in IEEE International Conference on Robotics and Automation (ICRA) . IEEE, 2017, pp. 1386–1383

    2017

  20. [28]

    A self-supervised learning system for object detection using physics simulation and multi-view pose estimation,

    C. Mitash, K. E. Bekris, and A. Boularias, “A self-supervised learning system for object detection using physics simulation and multi-view pose estimation,” in IEEE International Conference on Intelligent Robots and Systems (IROS) . IEEE, 2017, pp. 545–551

    2017

  21. [29]

    Self-supervised unseen object instance segmentation via long-term robot interaction,

    Y . Lu, N. Khargonkar, Z. Xu, C. Averill, K. Palanisamy, K. Hang, Y . Guo, N. Ruozzi, and Y . Xiang, “Self-supervised unseen object instance segmentation via long-term robot interaction,” in Robotics: Science and Systems , 2023

    2023

  22. [30]

    Random sample consensus: a paradigm for model fitting with applications to image analysis and automated cartography,

    M. FISCHLER AND, “Random sample consensus: a paradigm for model fitting with applications to image analysis and automated cartography,” Commun. ACM, vol. 24, no. 6, pp. 381–395, 1981

    1981

  23. [31]

    Some methods for classification and analysis of multi- variate observations,

    J. MacQueen, “Some methods for classification and analysis of multi- variate observations,” in Proceedings of the Fifth Berkeley Symposium on Mathematical Statistics and Probability, V olume 1: Statistics, vol. 5. University of California press, 1967, pp. 281–298

    1967

  24. [32]

    Clustering by means of medoids,

    L. Kaufmann and P. Rousseeuw, “Clustering by means of medoids,” Data Analysis based on the L1-Norm and Related Methods , pp. 405– 416, 01 1987

    1987

  25. [33]

    Mean shift: a robust approach toward feature space analysis,

    D. Comaniciu and P. Meer, “Mean shift: a robust approach toward feature space analysis,” IEEE Transactions on Pattern Analysis and Machine Intelligence, vol. 24, no. 5, pp. 603–619, 2002

    2002

  26. [34]

    Kucuk and Z

    S. Kucuk and Z. Bingul, Robot kinematics: F orward and inverse kinematics. INTECH Open Access Publisher London, UK, 2006

    2006

  27. [35]

    R. H. Riffenburgh, Statistics in medicine . Academic press, 2012

    2012

  28. [36]

    Graph clustering by flow simulation,

    S. Van Dongen, “Graph clustering by flow simulation,” PhD thesis, University of Utrecht , 2000

    2000

  29. [37]

    The franka emika robot: A reference platform for robotics research and education,

    S. Haddadin, S. Parusel, L. Johannsmeier, S. Golz, S. Gabl, F. Walch, M. Sabaghian, C. J ¨ahne, L. Hausperger, and S. Haddadin, “The franka emika robot: A reference platform for robotics research and education,” IEEE Robotics and Automation Magazine , vol. 29, no. 2, pp. 46–64, 2022

    2022

  30. [38]

    Metrological and critical characterization of the intel d415 stereo depth camera,

    M. Carfagni, R. Furferi, L. Governi, C. Santarelli, M. Servi, F. Uccheddu, and Y . V olpe, “Metrological and critical characterization of the intel d415 stereo depth camera,” Sensors, vol. 19, no. 3, p. 489, 2019

    2019

  31. [39]

    Raft: Recurrent all-pairs field transforms for optical flow,

    Z. Teed and J. Deng, “Raft: Recurrent all-pairs field transforms for optical flow,” in European Conference on Computer Vision , 2020, pp. 402–419

    2020

Pith tools

Reviewed August 6, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.