Pith. sign in

REVIEW 4 major objections 4 minor 35 references

Monocular One-Shot Metric-Depth Alignment for RGB-Based Robot Grasping

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

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

Pith's one-line read The paper claims that a robot can recover metric depth from a single RGB image by applying a one-shot scale–rotation–shift correction to a monocular depth model's output, calibrated with sparse ground-truth depth points, and demonstrates…

desk verdict A practical one-shot linear alignment for RGB-only grasping that works in real robot trials, but it is closer to a reparameterized scale-shift fit than the 'rotation' framing suggests, and the evaluation protocol needs tightening before the one-shot claim is fully supported. read the letter →

arxiv 2506.17110 v1 pith:UT2BHSD4 submitted 2025-06-20 cs.RO cs.CV

Teng Guo , Baichuan Huang , Jingjin Yu This is my paper · ORCID
classification cs.ROcs.CV
keywords monoculardepthestimationmetricalignmentone-shotcalibrationscale-rotation-shiftroboticgraspingtransparentobjectsaffine-invariant
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 a robot can recover metric (meter-accurate) depth from a single RGB image by fitting one scale–rotation–shift correction to the output of a monocular depth estimation model, using a sparse set of ground-truth depth points captured once during calibration. The concrete realization, called SSRA, optimizes a seven-parameter transform on min-max normalized predicted depth. On tabletop grasping and bin-picking with a real robot arm, the method reaches 82–86% success on opaque objects and 70–78% on transparent ones, while the same pipeline running on RGB-D fails on transparent objects. This matters because it offers a depth-sensor-free route to accurate depth for fixed-camera manipulation, avoiding costly sensors and their failure modes. The paper positions SSRA as an initial step rather than a complete replacement for RGB-D systems.

What carries the argument

The load-bearing object is the scale–rotation–shift alignment map $F(u,v,z_p|\Theta)$, the depth component of a Euclidean transform applied to the point cloud unprojected from the depth model's depth map under a learned pseudo-intrinsic. Concretely, $F = s(-x_p \sin\phi + y_p \sin\theta\cos\phi + z_p \cos\theta\cos\phi) + T_3$, with $x_p,y_p$ obtained from pixel coordinates and pseudo-intrinsics. Solving the optimization over $\Theta$ fits the transform to sparse ground-truth depth points once; the same $\hat\Theta$ then converts every later depth-model output into metric depth. Min-max normalization of the predicted depth precedes the fit, because the raw depth range fluctuates with scene content even when camera and background are fixed.

What would settle it

Measure the aligned depth error on object masks across many scene variations using a single calibration, and compare with re-fitting the transform per frame; a large gap would mean the one-shot transform does not transfer to novel objects.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

The central discovery is that the affine-invariant depth produced by a modern monocular depth estimator can be promoted to metric depth by a global transform that accounts for scale, rotation of the predicted point cloud, and shift—not just scale and shift. After min-max normalizing the raw depth map, the method solves a nonlinear least-squares problem over $\Theta=[s,\theta,\phi,T_3,c_x^p,c_y^p,f_p]^\top$ to minimize $\sum_k \|z_{c,k} - F(u_k,v_k,z_{p,k}|\Theta)\|^2$, where $F$ is the depth component of an $s R X_p + T$ rigid alignment under a pinhole model. With one calibration image and roughly tens to hundreds of ground-truth depth samples, the fitted transform stays valid across later images, giving $\delta_{1.10}>0.85$ and MAE below 0.03 meters on object masks. The method also extends to transparent objects after fine-tuning the underlying depth model on transparent-object datasets.

Load-bearing premise

The method assumes that a transform fitted once to sparse points on the fixed background still corrects the depth model's output on objects that appear later, even though the model's raw depth values shift with scene content.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • Fixed-camera industrial settings such as bin picking can use a single RGB camera and a one-time calibration to obtain depth accurate enough for grasping.
  • The alignment fits any monocular depth model, so swapping the underlying model only changes the fitted parameters, not the pipeline.
  • Fine-tuning the depth model on transparent-object data lets the one-shot calibration extend to transparent objects, which structured-light and time-of-flight sensors fail on.
  • Calibration takes a few seconds and runtime alignment takes under 10 milliseconds per frame, so the approach is compatible with real-time control loops.
  • Accuracy saturates at a few hundred ground-truth samples, making calibration data collection inexpensive.

Reading between the lines

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

  • A natural stress test is to sample calibration points from objects rather than the fixed background; if the fitted transform changes sharply, the one-shot transfer is relying on the background being a good proxy for object depth errors.
  • Extending the one-shot fit to a few calibration scenes should reduce sensitivity to scene-dependent depth fluctuations; the paper suggests this direction but does not quantify how many scenes are needed.
  • Because the fitted parameters include pseudo-intrinsics, the rotation terms may be absorbing a systematic bias in the depth model's virtual camera rather than a physical scene rotation; isolating the dominant parameter could lead to cheaper calibration.
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 / 4 minor

Summary. The paper proposes MOMA, a framework for recovering metric depth from a single RGB image by aligning the output of a monocular depth estimation model (MDEM) to sparse ground-truth depth points through a one-shot scale-shift-rotation alignment, instantiated as SSRA. The alignment parameters are fit on one calibration image and then applied to subsequent images in a fixed camera setup. The authors evaluate SSRA against global scale-shift alignment (GSSA), locally weighted linear regression (LWLR), and raw DAM output on opaque and transparent objects under multiple camera poses, report ablation studies on the number of calibration points, normalization, and MDEM choice, and present real-robot two-finger grasping and suction-based bin-picking experiments.

Significance. If the one-shot transfer claim holds, the contribution is practically valuable: it offers a simple, low-cost route to metric depth for fixed-camera robot manipulation without a continuously operating depth sensor. The method is straightforward, the paper includes real-robot experiments, and the authors make code and data available. The positive aspects are the clear formulation of the alignment problem, the explicit treatment of MDEM output fluctuation via normalization, and the demonstration that even a simple calibrated affine model can substantially improve raw MDEM depth. However, the evaluation protocol currently leaves the central transfer claim under-supported, and there are several concrete errors in the reported formulas and results that need correction before the claims can be accepted.

major comments (4)
  1. [§IV-C, §V-A, Table I] The one-shot transfer protocol is underspecified. Section IV-C states that calibration relies on a static portion of the scene (e.g., the table), while Section V-A says calibration uses "an RGB/D image" with "100 samples from the depth image" but does not state whether that image is disjoint from the 100 evaluation images or whether the samples lie only on the static background. Since the metrics in Table I are computed on object masks, the current description cannot rule out that the reported numbers partly reflect within-scene fitting rather than transfer to new scenes. Please specify the exact scene/object split and rerun Table I with a calibration image and calibration point set that are disjoint from the evaluation images, and report results for calibration points restricted to the static background versus points sampled over the full scene, to substantiate the one-shot generalization claim.
  2. [§IV-C, Eq. (12)] Equation (12) as printed is not a min-max normalization to a fixed range: it reads \hat z_p = (z_p - z_min)/(z_max - z_min) + z_min, which maps the data to [z_min, z_min+1] rather than [0,1]. This contradicts the stated purpose of stabilizing MDEM output fluctuations and the interpretation of the ablation in Table II. Please correct the equation (presumably removing the final + z_min) and verify that the implementation matches the corrected formula.
  3. [§V-E, Table IV] The text states that for the tote scenario "the δ1.05 score is above 0.85 and the mean absolute error (MAE) for the tote scenario is 0.0242," but Table IV reports SSRA in the tote scenario with δ1.05 = 0.5708, δ1.10 = 0.8547, and MAE = 0.0242. The sentence appears to conflate δ1.05 and δ1.10. Please correct the text to match the table.
  4. [§V-F, Table V] The 50-trial success rates in Table V are reported without confidence intervals or significance tests. For n=50, the standard error of a proportion is roughly 5-7 percentage points, so differences such as 82% vs 72% for opaque two-finger grasping and 86% vs 86% for suction grasping are not clearly distinguishable from sampling noise. Please report binomial confidence intervals or repeated-run statistics, and temper the claims that SSRA "beats" the baselines accordingly.
minor comments (4)
  1. [§V-A] The sentence "For GSSA, b=100 is used in the evaluation" appears to be a typo: the bandwidth b is a parameter of LWLR in Eq. (3), not of GSSA. Please correct.
  2. [§IV-B, Eq. (3)] In Eq. (3), the notation Z_p = [z_p,1]^T is not dimensionally consistent with the subsequent weighted least-squares expression; Z_p should be an n×2 design matrix with a column of ones. Please fix the notation.
  3. [§I, Abstract] The abstract says MOMA works "without additional data collection or model retraining," but Section V-E describes fine-tuning DAM on roughly 500K transparent-object images. Please clarify that the one-shot calibration applies to the target setup, while the optional transparent-object fine-tuning is a separate training stage.
  4. [§V-A] The phrase "using 100 samples from the depth image" is ambiguous about whether the samples are random, uniformly spaced, or selected from a particular scene region; please specify the sampling procedure.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 0.0 of 10

No circularity found: SSRA parameters are fit on one calibration image and applied to held-out evaluation images, so reported metrics are out-of-sample predictions.

full rationale

The derivation chain is self-contained. The alignment parameters are obtained by solving Eq. (6) on a sparse set of ground-truth depth samples from one RGB-D image; Section V-A states 'we first use an RGB/D image to compute alignment parameters Θ, using 100 samples from the depth image. The parameters Θ are used for the rest of the evaluations,' and the robot experiments calibrate with a single RGB-D image before running 50 trials with randomly placed objects. The evaluation metrics are computed on object masks, while the calibration samples are described as coming from the fixed portion of the scene (Section IV-C), so the evaluation targets are not the calibration inputs by construction. There are no load-bearing self-citations: the cited prior alignment methods (GSSA, LWLR) are external and used as baselines. The min-max normalization in Eq. (12) is a preprocessing choice, not a renamed prediction; even though the printed formula appears to add z_min back, which is a typo that should be corrected, this affects correctness rather than circularity. The claim that SSRA 'recovers' metric depth is a fitted mapping evaluated out-of-sample, which is a legitimate empirical prediction. The transparent-object evaluation uses pseudo-ground-truth obtained by substituting opaque replicas, an independent measurement procedure, not the MDEM output. No step in the paper reduces equationally to its own inputs.

Assumptions & free parameters 3 free parameters · 4 assumptions · 0 invented entities

The method contributes a calibration fit on top of a borrowed depth model. It assumes the MDEM's output, after normalization, is an affine function of metric depth with coefficients linear in pixel coordinates. The free parameters are the four identifiable alignment coefficients (and the LWLR bandwidth for the baseline); the transparency fine-tuning adds LoRA hyperparameters. No new physical entities are introduced.

free parameters (3)
  • SSRA alignment coefficients (effective: a, b, c, T3) = not reported; fit per camera pose from about 100 ground-truth depth points
    Parameters in Eqs. (6)-(8) are obtained by least-squares on one calibration image. Although presented as seven parameters (s, theta, phi, T3, cx_p, cy_p, fp), the depth-only objective identifies only four linear coefficients in u, v, z_p.
  • LWLR Gaussian bandwidth b = 100
    Set for the LWLR baseline in Eq. (3); not part of the proposed method but affects the comparison.
  • LoRA rank and training hyperparameters for transparent-object fine-tuning = rank 256, learning rate 5e-4, 20 epochs
    Hand-chosen hyperparameters for fine-tuning DAM on transparent datasets; they affect the transparent-object results but are not central to the alignment formulation.
assumptions (4)
  • domain assumption MDEM output is affine-invariant depth, related to metric depth by an unknown scale and shift that a global alignment can fix.
    Stated in Sec. I and III-A; the entire calibration rests on this property.
  • domain assumption A pinhole camera model with pseudo-intrinsics (cx_p, cy_p, fp) can describe the MDEM's depth map (Eq. 5).
    Used to convert predicted depth to 3D points before alignment; if the MDEM's internal projection is not pinhole-like, the model is misspecified.
  • domain assumption A fixed portion of the scene, such as the table surface, remains visible and stable, and ground-truth depth points from it can be reused across trials.
    Sec. IV-C assumes static background for one-shot calibration; a moving or changing background voids the calibration.
  • ad hoc to paper Min-max normalization of the predicted depth stabilizes MDEM output fluctuations across scenes.
    Introduced in Sec. IV-C and validated by ablation in Tab. II; it is an empirical fix, not derived from a model of MDEM errors.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Monocular One-Shot Metric-Depth Alignment for RGB-Based Robot Grasping." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/UT2BHSD4

@misc{pith2026250617110,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Monocular One-Shot Metric-Depth Alignment for RGB-Based Robot Grasping},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/UT2BHSD4}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2506.17110}
}
read the original abstract

Accurate 6D object pose estimation is a prerequisite for successfully completing robotic prehensile and non-prehensile manipulation tasks. At present, 6D pose estimation for robotic manipulation generally relies on depth sensors based on, e.g., structured light, time-of-flight, and stereo-vision, which can be expensive, produce noisy output (as compared with RGB cameras), and fail to handle transparent objects. On the other hand, state-of-the-art monocular depth estimation models (MDEMs) provide only affine-invariant depths up to an unknown scale and shift. Metric MDEMs achieve some successful zero-shot results on public datasets, but fail to generalize. We propose a novel framework, Monocular One-shot Metric-depth Alignment (MOMA), to recover metric depth from a single RGB image, through a one-shot adaptation building on MDEM techniques. MOMA performs scale-rotation-shift alignments during camera calibration, guided by sparse ground-truth depth points, enabling accurate depth estimation without additional data collection or model retraining on the testing setup. MOMA supports fine-tuning the MDEM on transparent objects, demonstrating strong generalization capabilities. Real-world experiments on tabletop 2-finger grasping and suction-based bin-picking applications show MOMA achieves high success rates in diverse tasks, confirming its effectiveness.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2506.17110 by the authors.

Figure 1
Figure 1. Two downstream applications over which our framework, Monocular One-shot Metric-depth Alignment (MOMA), was tested against: two-finger grasping on tabletop setting and suction-based bin-picking. Using only RGB image, MOMA enable the robot successfully pick challenging transparent objects in cluttered scences. grasp and manipulate objects, even with an eye closed (i.e., no stereo vision). In other words, based on mon… view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. The overall operating pipeline of MOMA. From MDEM, raw estimated depth is obtained and normalized to obtain normalized depth zp. For a new camera/environment setup, a one-time alignment parameter estimation is performed to obtain Θˆ using zp and some ground truth depth points. Θˆ can then be used for calibrate MDEM output to produced aligned depth z ′ p for downstream applications. Note: to simplify the illustration… view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. An extreme example case showcasing the capability of SSRA. (a) The RGB image. (b) The ground-truth depth. (c) The predicted depth from DAM fine-tuned on TransCG [21]; the input scenario could be treated entirely unseen by the MDEM, resulting in low-quality depth output. (d) Aligned depth using SSRA, which yields better results compared to LWLR and GSSA. (e) Aligned depth using GSSA. (f) Aligned depth using LWLR. of … view at source ↗
Figures from the paper (5 more)
Figure 4
Figure 4. Figure 4: An example showing MDEM prediction fluctuations. The top and bottom RGB images on the left have the same fixed camera/background. However, the MDEM depth outputs (shown on the right) vary drastically. depth zp to minimize the issue’s impact. We examined two normalizati…
Figure 5
Figure 5. Figure 5: [top] Four diverse camera poses used in our evaluation. [bottom] Corresponding sample scenes taken at the four poses. maps D and Dp, respectively. The thresholds δ are commonly set to 1.05, 1.10, and 1.25. The pre-trained DAM underperforms on transparent ob￾jects; we f…
Figure 6
Figure 6. Figure 6: (a) The RGB image. (b) The ground-truth depth. (c) The predicted depth from DAM;(d) Aligned depth using SSRA, which yields better results compared to LWLR and GSSA. (e) Aligned depth using GSSA. (f) Aligned depth using LWLR. often ranking second or third. DAM consisten…
Figure 7
Figure 7. Figure 7: Impact of the number of ground truth depth points used in performing that alignment (camera Pose 1 as shown in [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p006_7.png]
Figure 8
Figure 8. Figure 8: [top] An example containing RGB, mask, and ground-truth depth of the transparent object dataset used in the evaluation for the two-finger grasping downstream task. [bottom] The same for the suction-based bin￾picking downstream task. TABLE IV: Performance on transparent…

Review history (2 revisions) →

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

35 extracted references · 12 canonical work pages

  1. [1]

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

    H.-S. Fang, C. Wang, H. Fang, M. Gou, J. Liu, H. Yan, W. Liu, Y . Xie, and C. Lu, “Anygrasp: Robust and efficient grasp perception in spatial and temporal domains,”IEEE Transactions on Robotics, 2023

    2023

  2. [2]

    Suctionnet-1billion: A large- scale benchmark for suction grasping,

    H. Cao, H.-S. Fang, W. Liu, and C. Lu, “Suctionnet-1billion: A large- scale benchmark for suction grasping,”IEEE Robotics and Automation Letters, vol. 6, no. 4, pp. 8718–8725, 2021

    work page 2021

  3. [3]

    Contact- graspnet: Efficient 6-dof grasp generation in cluttered scenes,

    M. Sundermeyer, A. Mousavian, R. Triebel, and D. Fox, “Contact- graspnet: Efficient 6-dof grasp generation in cluttered scenes,” in2021 IEEE International Conference on Robotics and Automation (ICRA). IEEE, 2021, pp. 13 438–13 444

    2021

  4. [4]

    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,” inProceedings of the IEEE/CVF international conference on computer vision, 2019, pp. 2901–2910

    work page 2019

  5. [5]

    Midas v3. 1–a model zoo for robust monocular relative depth estimation,

    R. Birkl, D. Wofk, and M. M ¨uller, “Midas v3. 1–a model zoo for robust monocular relative depth estimation,”arXiv preprint arXiv:2307.14460, 2023

    arXiv 2023

  6. [6]

    Learning to recover 3d scene shape from a single image,

    W. Yin, J. Zhang, O. Wang, S. Niklaus, L. Mai, S. Chen, and C. Shen, “Learning to recover 3d scene shape from a single image,” inProceedings of the IEEE/CVF Conference on Computer Vision and Pattern Recognition, 2021, pp. 204–213

    2021

  7. [7]

    Depth anything: Unleashing the power of large-scale unlabeled data,

    L. Yang, B. Kang, Z. Huang, X. Xu, J. Feng, and H. Zhao, “Depth anything: Unleashing the power of large-scale unlabeled data,”ArXiv, vol. abs/2401.10891, 2024

    arXiv 2024

  8. [8]

    Zoedepth: Zero-shot transfer by combining relative and metric depth,

    S. F. Bhat, R. Birkl, D. Wofk, P. Wonka, and M. M ¨uller, “Zoedepth: Zero-shot transfer by combining relative and metric depth,”arXiv preprint arXiv:2302.12288, 2023

    arXiv 2023

Show all 35 references
  1. [9]

    Adabins: Depth estimation using adaptive bins,

    S. F. Bhat, I. Alhashim, and P. Wonka, “Adabins: Depth estimation using adaptive bins,” inProceedings of the IEEE/CVF conference on computer vision and pattern recognition, 2021, pp. 4009–4018

    2021

  2. [10]

    Depth anything v2,

    L. Yang, B. Kang, Z. Huang, Z. Zhao, X. Xu, J. Feng, and H. Zhao, “Depth anything v2,”arXiv preprint arXiv:2406.09414, 2024

    2024 arXiv

  3. [11]

    Monoc- ular relative depth perception with web stereo data supervision,

    K. Xian, C. Shen, Z. Cao, H. Lu, Y . Xiao, R. Li, and Z. Luo, “Monoc- ular relative depth perception with web stereo data supervision,” in Proceedings of the IEEE Conference on Computer Vision and Pattern Recognition, 2018, pp. 311–320

    2018

  4. [12]

    Structure- guided ranking loss for single image depth prediction,

    K. Xian, J. Zhang, O. Wang, L. Mai, Z. Lin, and Z. Cao, “Structure- guided ranking loss for single image depth prediction,” inProceedings of the IEEE/CVF Conference on Computer Vision and Pattern Recog- nition, 2020, pp. 611–620

    2020

  5. [13]

    Oasis: A large-scale dataset for single image 3d in the wild,

    W. Chen, S. Qian, D. Fan, N. Kojima, M. Hamilton, and J. Deng, “Oasis: A large-scale dataset for single image 3d in the wild,” in Proceedings of the IEEE/CVF Conference on Computer Vision and Pattern Recognition, 2020, pp. 679–688

    2020

  6. [14]

    Single-image depth perception in the wild,

    W. Chen, Z. Fu, D. Yang, and J. Deng, “Single-image depth perception in the wild,”Advances in neural information processing systems, vol. 29, 2016

    2016

  7. [15]

    Metric3d: Towards zero-shot metric 3d prediction from a single image,

    W. Yin, C. Zhang, H. Chen, Z. Cai, G. Yu, K. Wang, X. Chen, and C. Shen, “Metric3d: Towards zero-shot metric 3d prediction from a single image,” inProceedings of the IEEE/CVF International Conference on Computer Vision, 2023, pp. 9043–9053

    2023

  8. [16]

    Vision meets robotics: The kitti dataset,

    A. Geiger, P. Lenz, C. Stiller, and R. Urtasun, “Vision meets robotics: The kitti dataset,”The International Journal of Robotics Research, vol. 32, no. 11, pp. 1231–1237, 2013

    2013

  9. [17]

    Indoor seg- mentation and support inference from rgbd images,

    N. Silberman, D. Hoiem, P. Kohli, and R. Fergus, “Indoor seg- mentation and support inference from rgbd images,” inComputer Vision–ECCV 2012: 12th European Conference on Computer Vision, Florence, Italy, October 7-13, 2012, Proceedings, Part V 12. Springer, 2012, pp. 746–760

    2012

  10. [18]

    Depth anything: Unleashing the power of large-scale unlabeled data,

    L. Yang, B. Kang, Z. Huang, X. Xu, J. Feng, and H. Zhao, “Depth anything: Unleashing the power of large-scale unlabeled data,” in Proceedings of the IEEE/CVF Conference on Computer Vision and Pattern Recognition, 2024, pp. 10 371–10 381

    2024

  11. [19]

    Graspnet-1billion: A large- scale benchmark for general object grasping,

    H.-S. Fang, C. Wang, M. Gou, and C. Lu, “Graspnet-1billion: A large- scale benchmark for general object grasping,” inProceedings of the IEEE/CVF conference on computer vision and pattern recognition, 2020, pp. 11 444–11 453

    2020

  12. [20]

    Clear grasp: 3d shape estimation of transparent objects for manipulation,

    S. Sajjan, M. Moore, M. Pan, G. Nagaraja, J. Lee, A. Zeng, and S. Song, “Clear grasp: 3d shape estimation of transparent objects for manipulation,” in2020 IEEE international conference on robotics and automation (ICRA). IEEE, 2020, pp. 3634–3642

    2020

  13. [21]

    Transcg: A large-scale real- world dataset for transparent object depth completion and a grasping baseline,

    H. Fang, H.-S. Fang, S. Xu, and C. Lu, “Transcg: A large-scale real- world dataset for transparent object depth completion and a grasping baseline,”IEEE Robotics and Automation Letters, vol. 7, no. 3, pp. 7383–7390, 2022

    2022

  14. [22]

    Asgrasp: Generalizable transparent object reconstruction and 6-dof grasp detection from rgb-d active stereo camera,

    J. Shi, A. Yong, Y . Jin, D. Li, H. Niu, Z. Jin, and H. Wang, “Asgrasp: Generalizable transparent object reconstruction and 6-dof grasp detection from rgb-d active stereo camera,” in2024 IEEE International Conference on Robotics and Automation (ICRA). IEEE, 2024, pp. 5441–5447

    2024

  15. [23]

    Monograspnet: 6-dof grasping with a single rgb image,

    G. Zhai, D. Huang, S.-C. Wu, H. Jung, Y . Di, F. Manhardt, F. Tombari, N. Navab, and B. Busam, “Monograspnet: 6-dof grasping with a single rgb image,” in2023 IEEE International Conference on Robotics and Automation (ICRA). IEEE, 2023, pp. 1708–1714

    2023

  16. [24]

    Graspnerf: Multiview-based 6-dof grasp detection for transparent and specular ob- jects using generalizable nerf,

    Q. Dai, Y . Zhu, Y . Geng, C. Ruan, J. Zhang, and H. Wang, “Graspnerf: Multiview-based 6-dof grasp detection for transparent and specular ob- jects using generalizable nerf,” in2023 IEEE International Conference on Robotics and Automation (ICRA). IEEE, 2023, pp. 1757–1763

    2023

  17. [25]

    Evo-nerf: Evolving nerf for sequen- tial robot grasping of transparent objects,

    J. Kerr, L. Fu, H. Huang, Y . Avigal, M. Tancik, J. Ichnowski, A. Kanazawa, and K. Goldberg, “Evo-nerf: Evolving nerf for sequen- tial robot grasping of transparent objects,” in6th annual conference on robot learning, 2022

    2022

  18. [26]

    Rgbgrasp: Image-based object grasping by capturing multiple views during robot arm movement with neural radiance fields,

    C. Liu, K. Shi, K. Zhou, H. Wang, J. Zhang, and H. Dong, “Rgbgrasp: Image-based object grasping by capturing multiple views during robot arm movement with neural radiance fields,”IEEE Robotics and Automation Letters, 2024

    2024

  19. [27]

    Towards robust monocular depth estimation: Mixing datasets for zero- shot cross-dataset transfer,

    R. Ranftl, K. Lasinger, D. Hafner, K. Schindler, and V . Koltun, “Towards robust monocular depth estimation: Mixing datasets for zero- shot cross-dataset transfer,”IEEE transactions on pattern analysis and machine intelligence, vol. 44, no. 3, pp. 1623–1637, 2020

    2020

  20. [28]

    Toward 3d scene reconstruction from locally scale-aligned monocular video depth,

    G. Xu and F. Zhao, “Toward 3d scene reconstruction from locally scale-aligned monocular video depth,”JUSTC, vol. 54, no. 4, pp. 0402–1, 2024

    2024

  21. [29]

    Garc ´ıa, J

    S. Garc ´ıa, J. Luengo, F. Herrera,et al.,Data preprocessing in data mining. Springer, 2015, vol. 72

    2015

  22. [30]

    Clearpose: Large-scale transparent object dataset and benchmark,

    X. Chen, H. Zhang, Z. Yu, A. Opipari, and O. Chadwicke Jenkins, “Clearpose: Large-scale transparent object dataset and benchmark,” in European conference on computer vision. Springer, 2022, pp. 381– 396

    2022

  23. [31]

    Rgb-d local implicit function for depth completion of transparent objects,

    L. Zhu, A. Mousavian, Y . Xiang, H. Mazhar, J. van Eenbergen, S. Debnath, and D. Fox, “Rgb-d local implicit function for depth completion of transparent objects,” inProceedings of the IEEE/CVF Conference on Computer Vision and Pattern Recognition, 2021, pp. 4649–4658

    2021

  24. [32]

    Lora: Low-rank adaptation of large language models,

    E. J. Hu, Y . Shen, P. Wallis, Z. Allen-Zhu, Y . Li, S. Wang, L. Wang, and W. Chen, “Lora: Low-rank adaptation of large language models,” arXiv preprint arXiv:2106.09685, 2021

    2021 arXiv

  25. [33]

    Localbins: Improving depth estimation by learning local distributions,

    S. F. Bhat, I. Alhashim, and P. Wonka, “Localbins: Improving depth estimation by learning local distributions,” inEuropean Conference on Computer Vision. Springer, 2022, pp. 480–496

    2022

  26. [34]

    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,” inProceedings of the IEEE/CVF International Conference on Computer Vision, 2023, pp. 4015–4026

    2023

  27. [35]

    Metric3d v2: A versatile monocular geometric foundation model for zero-shot metric depth and surface normal estimation,

    M. Hu, W. Yin, C. Zhang, Z. Cai, X. Long, H. Chen, K. Wang, G. Yu, C. Shen, and S. Shen, “Metric3d v2: A versatile monocular geometric foundation model for zero-shot metric depth and surface normal estimation,”arXiv preprint arXiv:2404.15506, 2024

    2024 arXiv

Pith tools

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