MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort

Latent Attention Augmentation for Robust Autonomous Driving Policies

2021· article· en· W4200294443 on OpenAlexaff
Ran Cheng, Christopher Agia, Florian Shkurti, David Meger, Gregory Dudek

Bibliographic record

Venue2021 IEEE/RSJ International Conference on Intelligent Robots and Systems (IROS) · 2021
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldComputer Science
TopicDomain Adaptation and Few-Shot Learning
Canadian institutionsUniversity of TorontoMcGill University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsReinforcement learningComputer sciencePipeline (software)Artificial intelligenceAdaptabilityMachine learningDomain (mathematical analysis)SegmentationRobotState spaceLatent semantic analysisAdaptation (eye)

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Model-free reinforcement learning has become a viable approach for vision-based robot control. However, sample complexity and adaptability to domain shifts remain persistent challenges when operating in high-dimensional observation spaces (images, LiDAR), such as those that are involved in autonomous driving. In this paper, we propose a flexible framework by which a policy’s observations are augmented with robust attention representations in the latent space to guide the agent’s attention during training. Our method encodes local and global descriptors of the augmented state representations into a compact latent vector, and scene dynamics are approximated by a recurrent network that processes the latent vectors in sequence. We outline two approaches for constructing attention maps; a supervised pipeline leveraging semantic segmentation networks, and an unsupervised pipeline relying only on classical image processing techniques. We conduct our experiments in simulation and test the learned policy against varying seasonal effects and weather conditions. Our design decisions are supported in a series of ablation studies. The results demonstrate that our state augmentation method both improves learning efficiency and encourages robust domain adaptation when compared to common end-to-end frameworks and methods that learn directly from intermediate representations.

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 score0.004
Threshold uncertainty score0.007

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.004
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.001
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0010.002
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0020.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.100
GPT teacher head0.317
Teacher spread0.216 · 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

Citations5
Published2021
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venue2021 IEEE/RSJ International Conference on Intelligent Robots and Systems (IROS)Same topicDomain Adaptation and Few-Shot LearningFrench-language works237,207