Demo Data from VLDB 2026 / reviewers in the wild / expert
Paul M. Fitzpatrick
dblp:61/7382
· DBLP profile ↗
5ranked-venue papers
3as first author
0since 2021 · last 2003
—ORCID · none
Domains — the database's venue-derived domains; a paper can count in several
Artificial intelligence and machine learning · 4 · 3 first-authorSystems, architecture and hardware · 3 · 3 first-authorHuman-computer interaction and ubiquitous computing · 1
Expertise — from the expertise taxonomy: the topics of the expert's papers under the CCF categories. A weight counts papers with recency: 1 for a paper about the topic, 0.3 when the topic is its context, halved every five years.
| Artificial intelligence
1 paper |
Motion planning and robot control · 91% 3D vision · 9% |
Topics — the 4 heaviest of 4, each with the papers that count most for it
| Topic | Weight | Papers | Last | Evidence papers |
|---|---|---|---|---|
Robotics › Motion planning and robot control › robot learning
learning by doing |
0.0 | 1 | 2003 | Learning about objects through action -initial steps towards artificial cognition · ICRA 2003 |
Robotics › Motion planning and robot control › robot learning › object learning
object affordance learning |
0.0 | 1 | 2003 | Learning about objects through action -initial steps towards artificial cognition · ICRA 2003 |
Robotics › Motion planning and robot control
robot learning |
0.0 | 1 | 2003 | Learning about objects through action -initial steps towards artificial cognition · ICRA 2003 |
Computer vision › 3D vision
object representation |
0.0 | 1 | 2003 | Learning about objects through action -initial steps towards artificial cognition · ICRA 2003 |
Methods — techniques the papers use, named apart from their topics
self-generated action · 0.0imitation learning · 0.0
| Year | Publication | Venue | Position |
|---|---|---|---|
| 2003 | Learning about objects through action -initial steps towards artificial cognitionabstractWithin the field of Neuro Robotics we are driven primarily by the desire to understand how humans and animals live and grow and solve every day's problems. To this aim we adopted a "learn by doing" approach by building artificial systems, e.g. robots that not only look like human beings but also represent a model of some brain process. They should, ideally, behave and interact like human beings (being situated). The main emphasis in robotics has been on systems that act as a reaction to an external stimulus (e.g. tracking, reaching), rather than as a result of an internal drive to explore or "understand" the environment. We think it is now appropriate to try to move from acting, in the sense explained above, to "understanding". As a starting point we addressed the problem of learning about the effects and consequences of self-generated actions. How does the robot learn how to pull an object toward itself or to push it away? How does the robot learn that spherical objects roll while a cube only slides if pushed? Interacting with objects is important because it implicitly explores object representation, event understanding, and can provide definition of object-hood that could not be grasped with a mere passive observation of the world. Further, learning to understand what one's own body can do is an essential step toward learning by imitation. In this view two actions are similar not only if their kinematics and dynamics are similar but rather if the effects on the external world are the same. Along this line of research we discuss some recent experiments performed at the AI-Lab at MIT and at the LIRA-Lab at the University of Genova on COG and Babybot respectively. We show how the humanoid robots can learn how to poke and prod objects to obtain a consistently repeatable effect (e.g. sliding in a given direction), to help visual segmentation, and to interpret a poking action performed by a human manipulator. Paul M. Fitzpatrick, Giorgio Metta, Lorenzo Natale, Ajit Rao, Giulio Sandini |
ICRA | 1 |
| 2003 | Early integration of vision and manipulationabstractSummary form only given. Vision and manipulation are inextricably intertwined in the primate brain. Tantalizing results from neuroscience are shedding light on the mixed motor and sensory representations used by the brain during reaching, grasping, and object recognition. We now know a great deal about what happens in the brain during these activities, but not necessarily why. Is the integration we see functionally important, or just a reflection of evolution's lack of enthusiasm for sharp modularity? We wish to instantiate these results in robotic form to probe their technical advantages and to find any lacunae in existing models. We believe it would be missing the point to investigate this on a platform where dextrous manipulation and sophisticated machine vision are already implemented in their mature form, and instead follow a developmental approach from simpler primitives. We begin with a precursor to manipulation, simple poking and prodding, and show how it facilitates object segmentation, a long-standing problem in machine vision. The robot can familiarize itself with the objects in its environment by acting upon them. It can then recognize other actors (such as humans) in the environment through their effect on the objects it has learned about. We argue that following causal chains of events out from the robot's body into the environment allows for a very natural developmental progression of visual competence, and relate this idea to results in neuroscience. Giorgio Metta, Paul M. Fitzpatrick |
IJCNN | 2 |
| 2003 | First contact: an active vision approach to segmentationabstractHow a robot should grasp an object depends on its size and shape. Such parameters can be estimated visually, but this is fallible, particularly for unrecognized, unfamiliar objects. Failure will result in a clumsy grasp or glancing blow against the object. If the robot does not learn something from the encounter, then it will be apt to repeat the same mistake again and again. This paper shows how to recover information about an object's extent by poking it, either accidentally or deliberately. Poking an object makes it move, and motion is a powerful cue for visual segmentation. The periods immediately before and after the moment of impact turn out to be particularly informative, and give visual evidence for the boundary of the object that is well suited to segmentation using graph cuts. The segmentation algorithm is shown to produce results consistent enough to support autonomous collection of datasets for object recognition, which enables often-encountered objects to be segmented without the need for further poking. Paul M. Fitzpatrick |
IROS | 1 |
| 2002 | Towards manipulation-driven visionabstractFor the purposes of manipulation, we would like to know what parts of the environment are physically coherent ensembles, that is, which parts will move together, and which are more or less independent. It takes a great deal of experience before this judgement can be made from purely visual information. This paper develops active strategies for acquiring that experience through experimental manipulation, using tight correlations between arm motion and optic flow to detect both the arm itself and the boundaries of objects with which it comes into contact. Paul M. Fitzpatrick, Giorgio Metta |
IROS | 1 |
| 2001 | Active vision for sociable robotsabstractBallard (1991) described the implications of having a visual system that could actively position the camera coordinates in response to physical stimuli. In humanoid robotic systems, or in any animate vision system that interacts with people, social dynamics provide additional levels of constraint and additional opportunities for processing economy. In this paper, we describe an integrated visual-motor system that was implemented on a humanoid robot to negotiate the robot's physical constraints, the perceptual needs of the robot's behavioral and motivational systems, and the social implications of the motor acts. Cynthia Breazeal, Aaron Edsinger, Paul M. Fitzpatrick, Brian Scassellati |
IEEE Trans. Syst. Man Cybern. Part A | 3 |