Understanding Contexts Inside Robot and Human Manipulation Tasks through Vision-Language Model and Ontology System in Video Streams
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Manipulation tasks in daily life, such as pouring water, unfold through human intentions. Being able to process contextual knowledge from these Activities of Daily Living (ADLs) over time can help us understand manipulation intentions, which are essential for an intelligent robot to transition smoothly between various manipulation actions. In this paper, to model the intended concepts of manipulation, we present a vision dataset under a strictly constrained knowledge domain for both robot and human manipulations, where manipulation concepts and relations are stored by an ontology system in a taxonomic manner. Furthermore, we propose a scheme to generate a combination of visual attentions and an evolving knowledge graph filled with commonsense knowledge. Our scheme works with real-world camera streams and fuses an attention-based Vision-Language model with the ontology system. The experimental results demonstrate that the proposed scheme can successfully represent the evolution of an intended object manipulation procedure for both robots and humans. The proposed scheme allows the robot to mimic human-like intentional behaviors by watching real-time videos. We aim to develop this scheme further for real-world robot intelligence in Human-Robot Interaction.
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 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| 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".