Performance evaluation of monocular predictive display
Bibliographic record
Abstract
In teleoperation systems, operator performance is negatively affected by time-delayed visual feedback. Predictive display (PD) compensates for delays by providing synthesized visual feedback. While most existing PD methods rely on a priori models (e.g., from laser range finding or stereo vision), recent work on monocular SLAM and SFM makes it possible to acquire PD models in single camera applications. In this work, we evaluate operator performance of PD visual feedback based on a coarse 3D model. We report the experimental results of 12 human tele-operators each performing 96 visual alignment tasks with a 300ms delay. Four operating modes are considered: delayed video (no PD), video-based PD using a stabilizing plane (homography), 3D model-based PD, and no delay (ground truth). The results indicate that vision-based PD (both plane and 3D model-based) is significantly better than delayed video. It reduced task completion time 40% and is nearly as good as the no delay condition. PD based on a sparse a 3D model was somewhat better than the simpler plane based method.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.003 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.004 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".