Student or educator? Sign up with your school email and get 6 months of Pro free.
Cited by 602

The DOI matches its Crossref record; 2 of the 2 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.

Benchmarking in Manipulation Research: Using the Yale-CMU-Berkeley Object and Model Set

Calli, Berk, Walsman, Aaron, Singh, Arjun, Srinivasa, Siddhartha, Abbeel, Pieter, Dollar, Aaron M.·2015·IEEE Robotics & Automation Magazine

Abstract

In this article, we present the Yale-Carnegie Mellon University (CMU)-Berkeley (YCB) object and model set, intended to be used to facilitate benchmarking in robotic manipulation research. The objects in the set are designed to cover a wide range of aspects of the manipulation problem. The set includes objects of daily life with different shapes, sizes, textures, weights, and rigidities as well as some widely used manipulation tests. The associated database provides high-resolution red, green, blue, plus depth (RGB-D) scans, physical properties, and geometric models of the objects for easy incorporation into manipulation and planning software platforms. In addition to describing the objects and models in the set along with how they were chosen and derived, we provide a framework and a number of example task protocols, laying out how the set can be used to quantitatively evaluate a range of manipulation approaches, including planning, learning, mechanical design, control, and many others. A comprehensive literature survey on the existing benchmarks and object data sets is also presented, and their scope and limitations are discussed. The YCB set will be freely distributed to research groups worldwide at a series of tutorials at robotics conferences. Subsequent sets will be, otherwise, available to purchase at a reasonable cost. It is our hope that the ready availability of this set along with the ground laid in terms of protocol templates will enable the community of manipulation researchers to more easily compare approaches as well as continually evolve standardized benchmarking tests and metrics as the field matures.

Overview

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1109/mra.2015.2448951

Cites

2 of 2 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Verification

Claims the paper makes

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Self-check

Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.

The self-check needs the paper’s full text.

Citations

Cited by

See all 602

Metadata

Authors
Calli, B., Walsman, A., Singh, A., Srinivasa, S., Abbeel, P., & Dollar, A. M.
Venue
IEEE Robotics & Automation Magazine
Published
2015-09
Volume
22
Issue
3
Pages
36-52
ISSN
1070-9932 (ISSN-L)
OpenAlex
W3099587965
Cited by
602
References
2
FWCI
20.11
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
closed

About these checks

Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.

Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.

Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.

What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›

Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review

How to cite

Cite CoChat for the checks on this page, and the paper for its own findings.

This page
CoChat. (2026). Citation check: Benchmarking in Manipulation Research: Using the Yale-CMU-Berkeley Object and Model Set. https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.1109/mra.2015.2448951
The paper
Calli, B., Walsman, A., Singh, A., Srinivasa, S., Abbeel, P., & Dollar, A. M. (2015). Benchmarking in Manipulation Research: Using the Yale-CMU-Berkeley Object and Model Set. IEEE Robotics & Automation Magazine. https://doi.org/10.1109/mra.2015.2448951

Data sources

Bibliographic data: Semantic Scholar, OpenAlex, Crossref.

Contains information from the Semantic Scholar Academic Graph Datasets, made available under the ODC Attribution License (ODC-BY 1.0).

Semantic Scholar’s data is described in: Kinney, R., et al. (2023). The Semantic Scholar Open Data Platform. arXiv:2301.10140.