Searcharxiv⌕ Search
Home/Archive/arXiv

arXiv · 2001.05443

Robotic Grasp Manipulation Using Evolutionary Computing and Deep Reinforcement Learning

Priya Shukla·Hitesh Kumar·G. C. Nandi
View original source ↗Read source document ↗Export metadata ↓

Abstract

Intelligent Object manipulation for grasping is a challenging problem for robots. Unlike robots, humans almost immediately know how to manipulate objects for grasping due to learning over the years. A grown woman can grasp objects more skilfully than a child because of learning skills developed over years, the absence of which in the present day robotic grasping compels it to perform well below the human object grasping benchmarks. In this paper we have taken up the challenge of developing learning based pose estimation by decomposing the problem into both position and orientation learning. More specifically, for grasp position estimation, we explore three different methods - a Genetic Algorithm (GA) based optimization method to minimize error between calculated image points and predicted end-effector (EE) position, a regression based method (RM) where collected data points of robot EE and image points have been regressed with a linear model, a PseudoInverse (PI) model which has been formulated in the form of a mapping matrix with robot EE position and image points for several observations. Further for grasp orientation learning, we develop a deep reinforcement learning (DRL) model which we name as Grasp Deep Q-Network (GDQN) and benchmarked our results with Modified VGG16 (MVGG16). Rigorous experimentations show that due to inherent capability of producing very high-quality solutions for optimization problems and search problems, GA based predictor performs much better than the other two models for position estimation. For orientation learning results indicate that off policy learning through GDQN outperforms MVGG16, since GDQN architecture is specially made suitable for the reinforcement learning. Based on our proposed architectures and algorithms, the robot is capable of grasping all rigid body objects having regular shapes.

Explore related subjects

cs.LGcs.ROstat.ML

Keep this discovery

BibTeXRIS

Priya Shukla, Hitesh Kumar, G. C. Nandi. 2020-01-15. Robotic Grasp Manipulation Using Evolutionary Computing and Deep Reinforcement Learning. https://arxiv.org/abs/2001.05443

Cite the original work for its findings. Save a collection to share your selection of sources.

KEEP EXPLORING

Related papers

arXiv2026

AUC Maximization from Biased Positive-unlabeled Data with Confidence

Maximizing the area under the receiver operating characteristic curve (AUC) is a standard approach to imbalanced binary classification. Although positive and negative data are required for maximizing the AUC, negative data are often difficult to collect in some real-world applications due to privacy concerns or the need for specialized expertise to annotate them. Thus, AUC maximization from positive and unlabeled (PU) data has been attracting attention. Existing methods assume that labeled positive data are unbiased samples from the true positive distribution. However, this ideal assumption is often violated in practice. In this paper, we propose a method to maximize the AUC from biased PU data. To address the bias, our key idea is to exploit {\it confidence}, i.e., the probability that an instance is positive, associated with the small number of labeled positive data. We derive an estimator of the AUC risk using biased PU data with confidence, enabling AUC maximization under such bias. We further show that the rewritten AUC risk induces a Bayes-optimal AUC ranking even when the available confidence is any strictly increasing transformation of the true posterior probability. We experimentally show the effectiveness of our method on eight real-world datasets.

cs.LG↗
arXiv2026

Measuring the Value of World-Model Updates: A Counterfactual Utility Protocol for Continual Adaptation

Continual world models must decide whether new data justify changing the model. Fixed replay schedules and prediction-error triggers specify when to update, but neither reveals the value of an individual update: one deployment run cannot show how the same model would have performed at that moment had it held its parameters. We introduce the fork ledger, which branches a deployment stream at pre-registered decision points into matched update and hold continuations under common random numbers. It evaluates both continuations on the same episodes and records $\Delta R = R_{\mathrm{update}} - R_{\mathrm{hold}}$. Always applying one fixed update mechanism lowers return on all three simulated control tasks: CartPole ($-144.0$; checkpoint-bootstrap $95\%$ CI $[-185.4,-116.1]$, against a converged return near $650$), Walker ($-82.8$; $[-101.1,-61.7]$) and Cheetah ($-18.6$; $[-29.0,-6.6]$). Divergence is an outcome of applying the update, so the estimand counts every attempted fork; restricted to the $693$ of $720$ that did not collapse, CartPole and Walker are unchanged in sign ($-113.4$ and $-82.1$) and Cheetah becomes unresolved ($-3.9$; $[-17.5,+13.0]$). The task is the unit of inference: each contributes $240$ attempted forks over five pretrained checkpoints crossed with two drift directions. The ledger makes counterfactual utility observable for a fixed mechanism, allowing triggers to be judged by the updates they select rather than by surprise detection alone.

cs.LG↗
arXiv2026

When More Is Not Better: Component Anti-Synergy in a P300 Speller

P300 brain-computer interface (BCI) spellers can provide hands-free communication for people with severe motor impairments. Modern pipelines combine multiple individually promising components, often assuming that 'more-is-better'. We tested this assumption using a four-component full-factorial experiment varying the inclusion of Euclidean Alignment (EA), xDAWN spatial filtering, subject calibration, and language model priors on a public P300 dataset. Performance was evaluated using accuracy, repetitions, and information transfer rate (ITR) with mixed-effects models. Results show that the value of components is conditional rather than additive. Calibration was the strongest singular contributor, while EA compensated for its absence in zero-calibration settings. Adding independently useful components could also reduce performance, revealing component anti-synergy. Contrary to conventional wisdom, LM support was not universally beneficial: its effect depends strongly on the strength of the underlying EEG pipeline, while results from a larger LM showed a similar pattern. Together, these findings challenge maximal 'all-on' pipeline design and highlight the value of selecting spatial and language-support components according to the quality of available EEG evidence.

cs.LG↗