MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort

PhotoBot: Reference-Guided Interactive Photography via Natural Language

2024· article· en· W4405786372 on OpenAlexaff
Oliver Limoyo, Jimmy Li, Dmitriy Rivkin, Jonathan Kelly, Gregory Dudek

Bibliographic record

Venuenot available
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldComputer Science
TopicImage Retrieval and Classification Techniques
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Toronto
Fundersnot available
KeywordsComputer sciencePhotographyNatural (archaeology)Computational photographyNatural languageComputer graphics (images)Natural language processingArtificial intelligenceVisual artsArtImage (mathematics)HistoryImage processingArchaeology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

We introduce PhotoBot, a framework for fully automated photo acquisition based on an interplay between high-level human language guidance and a robot photographer. We propose to communicate photography suggestions to the user via reference images that are selected from a curated gallery. We leverage a visual language model (VLM) and an object detector to characterize the reference images via textual descriptions and then use a large language model (LLM) to retrieve relevant reference images based on a user’s language query through text-based reasoning. To correspond the reference image and the observed scene, we exploit pretrained features from a vision transformer capable of capturing semantic similarity across marked appearance variations. Using these features, we compute suggested pose adjustments for an RGB-D camera by solving a perspective-n-point (PnP) problem. We demonstrate our approach using a manipulator equipped with a wrist camera. Our user studies show that photos taken by PhotoBot are often more aesthetically pleasing than those taken by users themselves, as measured by human feedback. We also show that PhotoBot can generalize to other reference sources such as paintings.

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: Bench or experimental · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.973
Threshold uncertainty score0.367

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.001
Open science0.0010.000
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 head0.018
GPT teacher head0.303
Teacher spread0.286 · 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 designBench or experimental
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

Citations1
Published2024
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same topicImage Retrieval and Classification TechniquesFrench-language works237,207