MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4412699824 · doi:10.3390/robotics14080102

MLLM-Search: A Zero-Shot Approach to Finding People Using Multimodal Large Language Models

2025· article· en· W4412699824 on OpenAlexafffund
Angus Fung, Aaron Hao Tan, Haitong Wang, B. Benhabib, Goldie Nejat

Bibliographic record

VenueRobotics · 2025
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldComputer Science
TopicTopic Modeling
Canadian institutionsHealth Sciences NorthBaycrest HospitalToronto Rehabilitation InstituteUniversity of Toronto
FundersNatural Sciences and Engineering Research Council of CanadaCanada Research ChairsAGE-WELL
KeywordsZero (linguistics)Shot (pellet)Computer scienceArtificial intelligenceLinguisticsNatural language processingPhilosophy

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Robotic search of people in human-centered environments, including healthcare settings, is challenging, as autonomous robots need to locate people without complete or any prior knowledge of their schedules, plans, or locations. Furthermore, robots need to be able to adapt to real-time events that can influence a person’s plan in an environment. In this paper, we present MLLM-Search, a novel zero-shot person search architecture that leverages multimodal large language models (MLLM) to address the mobile robot problem of searching for a person under event-driven scenarios with varying user schedules. Our approach introduces a novel visual prompting method to provide robots with spatial understanding of the environment by generating a spatially grounded waypoint map, representing navigable waypoints using a topological graph and regions by semantic labels. This is incorporated into an MLLM with a region planner that selects the next search region based on the semantic relevance to the search scenario and a waypoint planner that generates a search path by considering the semantically relevant objects and the local spatial context through our unique spatial chain-of-thought prompting approach. Extensive 3D photorealistic experiments were conducted to validate the performance of MLLM-Search in searching for a person with a changing schedule in different environments. An ablation study was also conducted to validate the main design choices of MLLM-Search. Furthermore, a comparison study with state-of-the-art search methods demonstrated that MLLM-Search outperforms existing methods with respect to search efficiency. Real-world experiments with a mobile robot in a multi-room floor of a building showed that MLLM-Search was able to generalize to new and unseen environments.

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: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.012
Threshold uncertainty score0.024

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.004
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0020.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.002
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0010.001
Scholarly communication0.0010.003
Open science0.0040.003
Research integrity0.0020.002
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0050.002

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 head0.089
GPT teacher head0.324
Teacher spread0.235 · 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

Citations2
Published2025
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueRoboticsSame topicTopic ModelingFrench-language works237,207