Biologically plausible visual homing methods based on optical flow techniques
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Insects are able to return to important places in their environment by storing an image of the surroundings while at the goal, and later computing a home direction from a matching between this 'snapshot' image and the currently perceived image. Very similar ideas are pursued for the visual navigation of mobile robots. A wide range of different solutions for the matching between the two images have been suggested. This paper explores the application of optical flow techniques for visual homing. The performance of five different flow techniques and a reference method is analysed based on image collections from three different indoor environments. We show that block matching, two simple variants of block matching and two even simpler differential techniques produce robust homing behaviour, despite the simplicity of the matched features. Our analysis reveals that visual homing can succeed even in the presence of many incorrect feature correspondences, and that low-frequency features are sufficient for homing. In particular, the successful application of differential methods opens new vistas on the visual homing problem, both as plausible and parsimonious models of visual insect navigation, and as a starting point for novel robot navigation methods.
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 | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 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".