Practical Issues of Action-Conditioned Next Image Prediction
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The problem of action-conditioned image prediction in robotics is to predict the expected next frame given the current camera frame the robot observes and the action it selects. We provide the first comparison of two recent popular models, Convolutional Dynamic Neural Advection (CDNA) (6) and a feedforward model (15), especially for image prediction on cars. Our major finding is that action tiling encoding is the most important factor leading to the remarkable performance of the CDNA model. We present a light-weight model by action tiling encoding which has a single-decoder feedforward architecture same as (15). On a real driving dataset, the CDNA model achieves 0.3986 ×10 <sup xmlns:mml="http://www.w3.org/1998/Math/MathML" xmlns:xlink="http://www.w3.org/1999/xlink">-3</sup> MSE and 0.9836 Structure SIMilarity (SSIM) with a network size of about 12.6 million parameters. With a small network of fewer than 1 million parameters, our new model achieves a comparable performance to CDNA at 0.3613×10 <sup xmlns:mml="http://www.w3.org/1998/Math/MathML" xmlns:xlink="http://www.w3.org/1999/xlink">-3</sup> MSE and 0.9633 SSIM. Our model requires less memory, is more computationally efficient and more advantageous to be used inside self-driving vehicles.
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 distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| 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 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 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 teacher head, 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".