Researcher profile

Yanzhou Mu

Yanzhou Mu contributes to research discovery and scholarly infrastructure.

ResearcherAffiliation not importedOpen to collaborate

Trust snapshot

Quick read

Trust 13 - UnverifiedVerification L1Unclaimed author
2works
0followers
4topics
4close collaborators

Actions

Decide how to stay connected

Follow researcher0

Identity and collaboration

How to connect with this researcher

Claiming links this public author record to a researcher profile and unlocks direct collaboration workflows.

Log in to claim

Direct collaboration

Open a focused conversation when the fit is right

Claim this author entity first to unlock direct invitations.

Research graph

See the researcher in context

Open full explorer

Inspect adjacent work, topics, institutions and collaborators without jumping out to a separate graph page.

Building this graph slice

BZPEER is loading the nearby papers, people, topics and institutions for this page.

Published work

2 published item(s)

preprint2026arXiv

Tactile-based Multimodal Fusion in Embodied Intelligence: A Survey of Vision, Language, and Contact-Driven Paradigms

Tactile sensing is a fundamental modality for embodied intelligence, offering unique and direct feedback on contact geometry, material properties, and interaction dynamics that remote sensors cannot replace. However, unimodal tactile perception is inherently limited by its sparse spatial coverage and lack of global semantic context. With the recent explosion in deep learning and large language models, integrating tactile with vision and language has become essential to bridge physical interaction with semantic reasoning, leading to the emergence of Multimodal Tactile Fusion. Despite rapid progress, the existing researches remain fragmented across disparate datasets, sensing modalities, and tasks, lacking a unified theoretical framework. To address this gap, this paper provides a comprehensive survey of multimodal tactile fusion research up to the first quarter of 2026. We propose a hierarchical taxonomy that organizes the field into two primary dimensions: multimodal datasets and multimodal methods. On the data side, we categorize resources ranging from Tactile-Vision datasets, Tactile-Language datasets, Tactile-Vision-Language datasets, and Tactile-Vision-Other datasets. On the method side, we structure prior work into three core pillars: (1) Multimodal Perception and Recognition, which focuses on object understanding and grasp prediction; (2) Cross-Modal Generation, focusing on bidirectional translation between tactile, vision, and text; and (3) Multimodal Interaction, emphasizing feedback control and language-guided manipulation. Furthermore, we summarize representative tactile sensing hardware, review commonly used evaluation metrics and benchmark settings, and discuss current challenges and promising future directions.

preprint2019arXiv

Revisiting Heterogeneous Defect Prediction: How Far Are We?

Until now, researchers have proposed several novel heterogeneous defect prediction HDP methods with promising performance. To the best of our knowledge, whether HDP methods can perform significantly better than unsupervised methods has not yet been thoroughly investigated. In this article, we perform a replication study to have a holistic look in this issue. In particular, we compare state-of-the-art five HDP methods with five unsupervised methods. Final results surprisingly show that these HDP methods do not perform significantly better than some of unsupervised methods (especially the simple unsupervised methods proposed by Zhou et al.) in terms of two non-effort-aware performance measures and four effort-aware performance measures. Then, we perform diversity analysis on defective modules via McNemar's test and find the prediction diversity is more obvious when the comparison is performed between the HDP methods and the unsupervised methods than the comparisons only between the HDP methods or between the unsupervised methods. This shows the HDP methods and the unsupervised methods are complementary to each other in identifying defective models to some extent. Finally, we investigate the feasibility of five HDP methods by considering two satisfactory criteria recommended by previous CPDP studies and find the satisfactory ratio of these HDP methods is still pessimistic. The above empirical results implicate there is still a long way for heterogeneous defect prediction to go. More effective HDP methods need to be designed and the unsupervised methods should be considered as baselines.