MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4306156583 · doi:10.3389/frobt.2022.974397

Novelty detection in rover-based planetary surface images using autoencoders

2022· article· en· W4306156583 on OpenAlexafffund
Braden Stefanuk, Krzysztof Skonieczny

Bibliographic record

VenueFrontiers in Robotics and AI · 2022
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldComputer Science
TopicAnomaly Detection Techniques and Applications
Canadian institutionsConcordia University
FundersNatural Sciences and Engineering Research Council of Canada
KeywordsComputer scienceNovelty detectionNoveltyArtificial intelligenceComputer visionRemote sensingGeology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

In the domain of planetary science, novelty detection is gaining attention because of the operational opportunities it offers, including annotated data products and downlink prioritization. Using a variational autoencoder (VAE), this work improves upon state-of-the-art novelty detection performance in the context of Martian exploration by <mml:math xmlns:mml="http://www.w3.org/1998/Math/MathML" id="m1"><mml:mo>&gt;</mml:mo><mml:mn>7</mml:mn><mml:mi>%</mml:mi></mml:math> (measured by the area under the receiver operating characteristic curve (ROC AUC)). Autoencoders, especially VAEs, perform well across all classes of novelties defined for Martian exploration. VAEs are shown to have high recall in the Martian context, making them particularly useful for on-ground processing. Convolutional autoencoders (CAEs), on the other hand, demonstrate high precision making them good candidates for onboard downlink prioritization. In our implementation adversarial autoencoders (AAEs) are also shown to perform on par with state-of-the-art. Dimensionality reduction is a key feature of autoencoders for novelty detection. In this study the impact of dimensionality reduction on detection quality is explored, showing that both VAEs and AAEs achieve comparable ROC AUCs to CAEs despite observably poorer (blurred) image reconstructions; this is observed both in Martian data and in lunar analogue data.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation 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: Methods · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.604
Threshold uncertainty score0.394

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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 head0.011
GPT teacher head0.229
Teacher spread0.218 · 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 teacher head, not a consensus.

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

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
Published2022
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueFrontiers in Robotics and AISame topicAnomaly Detection Techniques and ApplicationsFrench-language works237,207