MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort

One-Shot Informed Robotic Visual Search in the Wild

2020· preprint· en· W3012812419 on OpenAlexafffund
Karim Koreitem, Florian Shkurti, Travis Manderson, Wei-Di Chang, Juan Camilo Gamboa Higuera, Gregory Dudek

Bibliographic record

Venuenot available
Typepreprint
Languageen
FieldComputer Science
TopicMultimodal Machine Learning Applications
Canadian institutionsMcGill UniversityVector InstituteUniversity of Toronto
FundersNatural Sciences and Engineering Research Council of CanadaAustralian Centre for Field Robotics
KeywordsComputer scienceArtificial intelligenceRobotVisual searchComputer visionViewpointsTask (project management)Field (mathematics)Similarity (geometry)Human–computer interactionFocus (optics)Flexibility (engineering)RoboticsImage (mathematics)

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

We consider the task of underwater robot navigation for the purpose of collecting scientifically relevant video data for environmental monitoring. The majority of field robots that currently perform monitoring tasks in unstructured natural environments navigate via path-tracking a pre-specified sequence of waypoints. Although this navigation method is often necessary, it is limiting because the robot does not have a model of what the scientist deems to be relevant visual observations. Thus, the robot can neither visually search for particular types of objects, nor focus its attention on parts of the scene that might be more relevant than the pre-specified waypoints and viewpoints. In this paper we propose a method that enables informed visual navigation via a learned visual similarity operator that guides the robot's visual search towards parts of the scene that look like an exemplar image, which is given by the user as a high-level specification for data collection. We propose and evaluate a weakly supervised video representation learning method that outperforms ImageNet embeddings for similarity tasks in the underwater domain. We also demonstrate the deployment of this similarity operator during informed visual navigation in collaborative environmental monitoring scenarios, in large-scale field trials, where the robot and a human scientist collaboratively search for relevant visual content. Code: https://github.com/rvl-lab-utoronto/visual_search_in_the_wild.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.004
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Simulation or modeling · Consensus signal: Simulation or modeling
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.007
Threshold uncertainty score0.014

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.004
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0000.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.001
Scholarly communication0.0010.002
Open science0.0020.002
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0030.001

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.

Opus teacher head0.117
GPT teacher head0.389
Teacher spread0.272 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designSimulation or modeling
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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".

Quick stats

Citations2
Published2020
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same topicMultimodal Machine Learning ApplicationsFrench-language works237,207