Understanding Contexts Inside Robot and Human Manipulation Tasks through Vision-Language Model and Ontology System in Video Streams
Why this work is in the frame
A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.
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.
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 | 0.000 |
| 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 it