A portion of the disclosure of this patent document contains material which is subject to copyright protection. The copyright owner has no objection to the facsimile reproduction by anyone of the patent document or the patent disclosure, as it appears in the Patent and Trademark Office patent file or records, but otherwise reserves all copyright rights whatsoever.
The present disclosure relates generally to automated navigation systems, and more specifically to a self-aware visual-textual co-grounded navigation agent.
A Vision-and-Language Navigation (VLN) task entails a robot or other mobile automated system following navigational instruction in an unknown environment. In the VLN task, an agent is placed in an unknown realistic environment and is required to follow natural language instructions to navigate the mobile automated system from its starting location to a goal location. In contrast to other navigation situations, a technical problem with a VLN task is that the agent does not have an explicit representation of the target (e.g., location in a map or image representation of the goal) to know if the goal has been reached or not. Instead, the agent needs to be aware of its navigation status through the association between the sequence of observed visual inputs to instructions.
In the figures, elements having the same designations have the same or similar functions.
This description and the accompanying drawings that illustrate aspects, embodiments, implementations, or applications should not be taken as limiting—the claims define the protected invention. Various mechanical, compositional, structural, electrical, and operational changes may be made without departing from the spirit and scope of this description and the claims. In some instances, well-known circuits, structures, or techniques have not been shown or described in detail as these are known to one skilled in the art. Like numbers in two or more figures represent the same or similar elements.
In this description, specific details are set forth describing some embodiments consistent with the present disclosure. Numerous specific details are set forth in order to provide a thorough understanding of the embodiments. It will be apparent, however, to one skilled in the art that some embodiments may be practiced without some or all of these specific details. The specific embodiments disclosed herein are meant to be illustrative but not limiting. One skilled in the art may realize other elements that, although not specifically described here, are within the scope and the spirit of this disclosure. In addition, to avoid unnecessary repetition, one or more features shown and described in association with one embodiment may be incorporated into other embodiments unless specifically described otherwise or if the one or more features would make an embodiment non-functional.
Computing Device
The computing device 100 can receive instructions 160 for instructing the robot or automated system to navigate in its current environment. An example of such instructions can be: “Exit the bedroom and go towards to the table. Go to the stairs on the left of the couch. Wait on the third step.” These instructions can be in the in the form of text or speech provided, for example, by a human user. The computing device 100 can also receive visual information 170, for example, in the form of images captured by a camera in the robot or mobile automated system. The computing device 100 processes both the navigation instructions 160 and visual information 170, and generates next action and progress results 180 for controlling the robot or mobile automated system.
According to some embodiments, the computing device 100 implements or participates in the implementation of a Vision-and-Language (VLN) navigation task, which requires the agent to follow natural language instructions to navigate through a photo-realistic environment without a map. In the VLN task, an agent is placed in an unknown realistic environment and is required to follow natural language instructions to navigate from its starting location to a goal location. Different from existing navigation tasks, the agent does not have an explicit representation of the target (e.g., location in a map or image representation of the goal) to know if the goal has been reached or not.
As shown in
Memory 120 may be used to store software executed by computing device 100 and/or one or more data structures used during operation of computing device 100. Memory 120 may include one or more types of machine readable media. Some common forms of machine readable media may include floppy disk, flexible disk, hard disk, magnetic tape, any other magnetic medium, CD-ROM, any other optical medium, punch cards, paper tape, any other physical medium with patterns of holes, RAM, PROM, EPROM, FLASH-EPROM, any other memory chip or cartridge, and/or any other medium from which a processor or computer is adapted to read.
Processor 110 and/or memory 120 may be arranged in any suitable physical arrangement. In some embodiments, processor 110 and/or memory 120 may be implemented on a same board, in a same package (e.g., system-in-package), on a same chip (e.g., system-on-chip), and/or the like. In some embodiments, processor 110 and/or memory 120 may include distributed, virtualized, and/or containerized computing resources. Consistent with such embodiments, processor 110 and/or memory 120 may be located in one or more data centers and/or cloud computing facilities.
Referring again to the example,
To address this, according to some embodiments, the navigation agent implemented by computing device 100 is provided or equipped with self-awareness, which provides or supports the following abilities: (1) identifying which direction to go or proceed by determining the part of the instruction that corresponds to the observed images—visual grounding, (2) identifying which part of the instruction has been completed or ongoing and which part is potentially needed for the next action selection—textual grounding, and (3) ensuring that the grounded instruction can correctly be used to estimate the progress made towards the goal, and apply regularization to ensure this—progress monitoring.
In some embodiments, both visual and textual grounding are achieved simultaneously by incorporating the full history of grounded instructions (e.g., based on or derived from navigation instructions 160), observed images (e.g., visual information 170), and selected actions into the navigation agent. The navigation agent leverages the structural bias between the words in the instructions used for action selection and the progress made towards the goal. A new objective function for the agent is proposed or provided to measure how well the agent can estimate the completion of instruction-following. By conditioning on the positions and weights of grounded instruction as input, the navigation agent can be self-aware of its progress and further ensure that the textual grounding accurately reflects the progress made.
To implement this, in some embodiments, as shown in
In some embodiments, the agent—implemented with textual grounding module 130, visual grounding module 140, progress monitor module 150, and action selection module 155—is modeled with sequence-to-sequence architecture with attention by using one or more recurrent neural networks (RNNs). In some embodiments, the RNN can use or be implemented with Long Short Term Memory (LSTM) to effectively carry the flow of information.
And although textual grounding module 130, visual grounding module 140, progress monitor module 150, and action selection module 155 are depicted as software modules, they may be implemented using hardware, software, and/or a combination of hardware and software.
While
Navigation Agent
As shown, the navigation agent 200 comprises textual grounding module 230, visual grounding module 240, progress monitor module 250, and action selection module 255 which in some embodiments, can be implementations for the textual grounding module 130, visual grounding module 140, progress monitor module 150, and action selection module 155 of
In some embodiments, navigation agent 200 may comprise one or more neural networks, which can implement one or more of the textual grounding module 230, visual grounding module 240, progress monitor module 250, and action selection module 255, or be in addition to, or separate from those modules. The one or more neural networks implement or operate as encoder and decoder to process the various information and other items received by, and generated within, the navigation agent 200. This includes, but is not limited to, the navigation instructions, observed images (e.g., visual information), and information for actions taken by the robot or mobile automated system.
In some embodiments, the navigation agent 200 performs co-grounding on visual and textual signals or information for the VLN task—visual grounding from instructions helps the agent 200 to determine the right direction, whereas textual grounding implicitly enables the navigation agent 200 to know which part of the instruction is completed and which is needed to proceed. Co-grounding provides useful information for the navigation agent 200 to be self-aware, continually monitoring its progress toward a desired goal—e.g., such as the completion of the set of navigations instructions for the robot or mobile automated system.
In some embodiments, the navigation agent 200 is modeled with a sequence-to-sequence architecture with attention by using a recurrent neural network (RNN). In some embodiments, as shown in
With respect to notation, given a natural language instruction (e.g., 160) with L words, its representation is denoted by X={x1, x2, . . . , xL}, where xl is the feature vector for the l-th word encoded by an LSTM language encoder. At each time step t, the navigation agent 200 perceives a set of images at each viewpoint vt={vt,1, vt,2, . . . , vt,K}, where K is the maximum number of navigable directions, and vt,k represents the image feature of direction k. The co-grounding feature of instruction and image are denoted as {circumflex over (x)}t and {circumflex over (v)}t respectively. The selected action is denoted as at. The learnable weights are denoted with W, with appropriate sub/super-scripts as necessary. In some embodiments, the bias term b can be omitted to avoid notational clutter in the exposition.
At each time step t, the LSTM 260 (decoder) observes representations of the current attended panoramic image or visual grounding feature {circumflex over (v)}t, previous selected action at-1 and current grounded instruction feature {circumflex over (x)}t as input, and outputs an encoder context or hidden state ht:
ht=LSTM([{circumflex over (x)}t,{circumflex over (v)}t,at-1]) (1)
where [,] denotes concatenation. The previous encoder context ht-1 is used to obtain the textual grounding feature {circumflex over (x)}t and visual grounding feature {circumflex over (v)}t, whereas the current encoder context ht can be used to obtain next action at, as described herein.
Navigation agent 200 receives as input navigation instructions (process 310 of
Based on the received navigation instructions, textual grounding module 230 generates an instruction grounding (process 330 of
zt,ltextual=(Wxht-1)TPE(xl), and αt=softmax(zttextual), (2)
where Wx are parameters to be learned, zt,ltextual is a scalar value computed as the correlation between word l of the instruction and previous hidden state ht-1, and αt is the attention weight over features in instructions X at time t. Based on the textual attention distribution, the grounded textual feature {circumflex over (x)}t can be obtained by the weighted sum over the textual features {circumflex over (x)}t=αT X.
In some embodiments, the embedding dimension for encoding the navigation instruction is 256. The navigation agent can use a dropout layer with ratio 0.5 after the embedding layer. The instruction can be encoded using a regular LSTM, and the hidden state is 512 dimensional. The MLP g used for projecting the raw image feature is BN→FC→BN→Dropout→ReLU. The FC layer projects the 2176-d input vector to a 1024-d vector, and the dropout ratio is set to be 0.5. The hidden state of the LSTM used for carrying the textual and visual information through time in Eq. 1 is 512. The maximum length of instruction is set to be 80, thus the dimension of the attention weights of textual grounding αt is also 80. The dimension of the learnable matrices from Eq. 2 to 5 are: Wx∈R512×512, Wv∈R512×1024, Wa∈R1024×1024, Wh∈R1536×512, and Wh∈R592×1.
In order to locate the completed or ongoing instruction, the navigation agent 200 should keep track of the sequence of images observed along the navigation trajectory. To accomplish this, the navigation agent 200 receives visual information (process 320 of
In some embodiments, visual grounding module 240 can use the pre-trained ResNet-152 on ImageNet to extract image features. Each image feature is thus a 2048-d vector. The embedded feature vector for each navigable direction is obtained by concatenating an appearance feature with a 4-d orientation feature [sin ϕ; cos ϕ; sin θ; cos θ], where ϕ and θ are the heading and elevation angles. The 4-dim orientation features are tiled 32 times (as described in more detail in Fried et al., 2018), resulting in an embedding feature vector with 2176 dimension.
In some embodiments, visual grounding module 240 performs visual attention over the surrounding views based on its previous hidden vector ht-1. The visual attention weight βt can be obtained as:
zt,kvisual=(Wvht-1)Tg(vt,k), and βt=softmax(ztvisual), (3)
where g is a two-layer Multi-Layer Perceptron (MLP), Wv are parameters to be learnt. Similar to Eq. 2, the grounded visual feature {circumflex over (v)}t can be obtained by the weighted sum over the visual features {circumflex over (v)}t=βlTv.
Navigation agent 200 generates an action for navigation (process 350 of
ot,k=(Wα[ht,{circumflex over (x)}t])Tg(vt,k) and pt=softmax(ot), (4)
where Wa are the learned parameters, g(.) is the same Multi-Layer Perceptron (MLP) as in Eq. 3, and pt is the probability of each navigable direction at time t. The action selection module 255 uses categorical sampling during training to select the next action at.
Unlike other methods with the panoramic view, which attend to instructions only based on the history of observed images, the navigation agent 200 achieves both textual and visual grounding using the shared hidden state output containing, derived, or based on grounded information from both textual and visual modalities. In some embodiments, during action selection, action selection module 255 relies on both hidden state output and grounded instruction, instead of only relying on grounded instruction.
According to some embodiments, one or both of LSTM 260 and action selection module 255 taken together with the textual grounding module 230 and the visual grounding module 240 support, allow for, or provide visual-textual co-grounding to identify or determine the navigation instruction completed in the past, the navigation instruction needed in the next action, and the moving direction from surrounding images. As such, such combination of these elements can form a visual-textual co-grounding module.
In some embodiments, the textual-grounding should correctly or accurately reflect the progress (e.g., that the robot or mobile automated system is making) towards the goal, since the navigation agent 200 can then implicitly know where it is now and what the next instruction to be completed will be. With the visual-textual co-grounding, navigation agent 200 can ensure that the grounded instruction reasonably informs decision making when selecting a navigable direction. This may be necessary, but not sufficient, for ensuring that the notion of progress to the goal is encoded.
Thus, according to some embodiments, the navigation agent 200 may monitor the progress of the robot or mobile automated system towards its goal (process 360 of
Since the positions of localized instruction can be a strong indication of the navigation progress due to the structural alignment bias between navigation steps and instruction, the progress monitor module 250 can estimate how close the current viewpoint is to the final goal by conditioning on the positions and weights of grounded instruction. This can further enforce the result of textual-grounding to align with the progress made towards the goal and to ensure the correctness of the textual-grounding.
In some embodiments, the progress monitor module 250 aims to estimate the navigation progress by conditioning on three inputs: the history of grounded images and instructions, the current observation of the surrounding images, and the positions of grounded instructions. We therefore represent these inputs by using (1) the previous hidden state ht-1 and the current cell state ct of the LSTM 260, (2) the grounded surrounding images {circumflex over (v)}t, and (3) the distribution of attention weights of textual-grounding αt, as shown at the bottom of
In some embodiments, the progress monitor module 250 first computes an additional hidden state output htpm by using grounded image representations {circumflex over (v)}t as input, similar to how a regular LSTM computes hidden states except it uses concatenation over element-wise addition for empirical reasons. The hidden state output is then concatenated with the attention weights αt on textual-grounding to estimate how close the navigation agent 200 is to the goal. The output of the progress monitor ptpm, which represents the completeness of instruction-following, is computed as:
htpm=σ(Wh([ht-1,{circumflex over (v)}t])ß tan h(ct)),ptpm=tan h(Wpm([αt,htpm])) (5)
where Wh and Wpm are the learned parameters, ct is the cell state of the LSTM 260, ß denotes the element-wise product, and a is the sigmoid function.
Training
According to some embodiments, a new objective function is used to train the progress monitor module 250. The training target ytpm is defined as the normalized distance from the current viewpoint to the goal, i.e., the target will be 0 at the beginning and closer to 1 as the navigation agent 200 approaches the goal. Note that the target can also be lower than 0, if the navigation agent's current distance from the goal is farther than the starting point. Finally, the self-aware agent 200 is optimized with two cross-entropy losses, computed with respect to the outputs from both action selection and progress monitor.
where pk,t is the action probability of each navigable direction, λ=0:5 is the weight balancing the two losses, and ytnv is the ground-truth navigable direction at step t.
In some embodiments, use ADAM can be used as the optimizer during training. The learning rate is 1e−4 with batch size of 64 consistently throughout all experiments. When using beam search, the beam size is set to be 15. Categorical sampling can be performed during training for action selection.
Inference
In some embodiments, during inference, the navigation agent 200 can use or employ beam search (as described in more detail in Fried et al., 2018). In particular, while the navigation agent 200 decides which trajectories in the beams to keep, it is equally important to evaluate the state of the beams on actions as well as on the agent's confidence in completing the given instruction at each traversed viewpoint. This is accomplished by integrating the output of progress monitor module 250 into the accumulated probability of beam search. At each step, when candidate trajectories compete based on accumulated probability, the estimated completeness of instruction-following ptpm is integrated with action probability pk,t to directly evaluate the partial and unfinished candidate routes: ptbeam=ptpm×Pk,t
Experiments and Evaluation
In some embodiments, the navigation agent 200 can be evaluated using the Room-to-Room (R2R) dataset, as further described in more detail in Anderson et al., “Vision-and-language navigation: Interpreting visually-grounded navigation instructions in real environments,” In Proceedings of the IEEE Conference on Computer Vision and Pattern Recognition (CVPR), volume 2, 2018, which is incorporated by reference. The R2R dataset has 7,189 paths, with each path having three ground-truth navigation instructions written by humans. The whole dataset is divided into 4 sets: training, validation seen, validation unseen, and test sets unseen.
For evaluation, the same metrics used by previous work on the R2R task are followed: (1) Navigation Error (NE), mean of the shortest path distance in meters between the navigation agent's final position and the goal location; (2) Success Rate (SR), the percentage of final positions less than 3 m away from the goal location; and (3) Oracle Success Rate (OSR), the success rate if the navigation agent can stop at the closest point to the goal along its trajectory.
The self-aware navigation agent 200 of the present disclosure is compared with various existing approaches—e.g., Student-forcing (Anderson et al., 2018), RPA (Wang et al., “Look before you leap: Bridging model-free and model-based reinforcement learning for planned-ahead vision-and-language navigation,” In European Conference on Computer Vision (ECCV), 2018), and Speaker-Follower (Fried et al., 2018). As shown in the table of
Textually grounded agent. Intuitively, an instruction-following agent is required to strongly demonstrate the ability to correctly focus and follow the corresponding part of the instruction as it navigates through an environment. Thus, in some embodiments, the distribution of attention weights on instruction are recorded at each step as indications of which parts of the instruction are being used for action selection. All runs are averaged across both validation seen and unseen dataset splits. It is expected that the distribution of attention weights lies close to a diagonal, where at the beginning, the agent 200 focuses on the beginning of the instruction and shifts its attention towards the end of instruction as it moves closer to the goal.
To demonstrate, the method with panoramic action space (proposed in Fried et al., 2018) is used as a baseline for comparison. The self-aware navigation agent 200 with progress monitor demonstrates that the positions of grounded instruction over time form a line similar to a diagonal. This result may further indicate that the agent successfully utilizes the attention on instruction to complete the task sequentially. Both the baseline approach and the navigation agent 200 of the present disclosure were able to focus on the first part of the instruction at the beginning of navigation consistently. However, as the agents move further in unknown environments, the self-aware agent 200 can still successfully identify the parts of instruction that are potentially useful for action selection, whereas the baseline approach becomes uncertain about which part of the instruction should be used for selecting an action.
Ablation Study
Co-grounding. When comparing the baseline approach with row #1 in the navigation agent 200 and method of the present disclosure, it can be seen that the co-grounding agent 200 outperformed the baseline by a large margin. This is due to the fact that the navigation agent 200 uses the LSTM to carry both the textually and visually grounded content, and the decision on each navigable direction is predicted with both textually grounded instruction and the hidden state output of the LSTM. On the other hand, the baseline agent relies on the LSTM to carry visually grounded content, and uses the hidden state output for predicting the textually grounded instruction. As a result, it is observed that instead of predicting the instruction needed for selecting a navigable direction, the textually grounded instruction may match with the past sequence of observed images implicitly saved within the LSTM.
Progress monitor. The output of the progress monitor is integrated with the state-factored beam search (Fried et al., 2018), so that the candidate paths compete not only based on the probability of selecting a certain navigable direction but also on the estimated correspondence between the past trajectory and the instruction. As seen by comparing row #1 with #2 in the table of
Data augmentation. In the above, it is shown that each row in the approach of the present disclosure contributes to the performance. Each of them increases the success rate and reduces the navigation error incrementally. By further combining them with the data augmentation pre-trained from the speaker (Fried et al., 2018), the SR and OSR are further increased, and the NE is also drastically reduced. Interestingly, the performance improvement introduced by data augmentation is smaller than from Speaker-Follower on the validation sets (see Table of
Qualitative Results
To further validate the agent and method of the present disclosure, it is qualitatively shown how the agent 200 navigates through unseen environments by following instructions as illustrated in
Consider the trajectory on the left side in
In both cases illustrated in
Thus, a self-aware agent for navigating a mobile automated system is disclosed herein. According to some embodiments, the navigation agent includes two complementary modules: a visual-textual co-grounding module and a progress monitor module. The visual-textual co-grounding module identifies or determines the navigation instruction completed in the past, the navigation instruction needed in the next action, and the moving direction from surrounding images. The progress monitor module regularizes and ensures the grounded instruction correctly or accurately reflects the progress towards the goal by explicitly estimating the completeness of instruction-following. This estimation is conditioned on the positions and weights of grounded instruction. Experiments have shown that this approach sets a new state-of-the-art performance on the standard Room-to-Room dataset on both seen and unseen environments.
This description and the accompanying drawings that illustrate inventive aspects, embodiments, implementations, or applications should not be taken as limiting. Various mechanical, compositional, structural, electrical, and operational changes may be made without departing from the spirit and scope of this description and the claims. In some instances, well-known circuits, structures, or techniques have not been shown or described in detail in order not to obscure the embodiments of this disclosure. Like numbers in two or more figures represent the same or similar elements.
In this description, specific details are set forth describing some embodiments consistent with the present disclosure. Numerous specific details are set forth in order to provide a thorough understanding of the embodiments. It will be apparent, however, to one skilled in the art that some embodiments may be practiced without some or all of these specific details. The specific embodiments disclosed herein are meant to be illustrative but not limiting. One skilled in the art may realize other elements that, although not specifically described here, are within the scope and the spirit of this disclosure. In addition, to avoid unnecessary repetition, one or more features shown and described in association with one embodiment may be incorporated into other embodiments unless specifically described otherwise or if the one or more features would make an embodiment non-functional.
Although illustrative embodiments have been shown and described, a wide range of modification, change and substitution is contemplated in the foregoing disclosure and in some instances, some features of the embodiments may be employed without a corresponding use of other features. One of ordinary skill in the art would recognize many variations, alternatives, and modifications. Thus, the scope of the invention should be limited only by the following claims, and it is appropriate that the claims be construed broadly and in a manner consistent with the scope of the embodiments disclosed herein.
This application is a continuation of and claims priority to U.S. Non-Provisional application Ser. No. 16/176,955, filed Oct. 31, 2018, which in turn claims priority to U.S. Provisional Application No. 62/737,684, filed Sep. 27, 2018, both of which are incorporated by reference herein in their entirety.
Number | Name | Date | Kind |
---|---|---|---|
7831433 | Belvin et al. | Nov 2010 | B1 |
9811074 | Aichele et al. | Nov 2017 | B1 |
10282663 | Socher et al. | May 2019 | B2 |
10346721 | Albright et al. | Jul 2019 | B2 |
10366166 | Yu et al. | Jul 2019 | B2 |
10474709 | Paulus | Nov 2019 | B2 |
10521465 | Paulus | Dec 2019 | B2 |
10606898 | Tellex et al. | Mar 2020 | B2 |
11341356 | Frossard | May 2022 | B2 |
11417082 | Zheng | Aug 2022 | B2 |
20160161946 | Wuth Sepulveda et al. | Jun 2016 | A1 |
20160350653 | Socher et al. | Dec 2016 | A1 |
20170024645 | Socher et al. | Jan 2017 | A1 |
20170032280 | Socher | Feb 2017 | A1 |
20170140240 | Socher | May 2017 | A1 |
20180082171 | Merity et al. | Mar 2018 | A1 |
20180096219 | Socher | Apr 2018 | A1 |
20180121787 | Hashimoto et al. | May 2018 | A1 |
20180121788 | Hashimoto et al. | May 2018 | A1 |
20180121799 | Hashimoto et al. | May 2018 | A1 |
20180124423 | Choi | May 2018 | A1 |
20180129931 | Bradbury et al. | May 2018 | A1 |
20180129937 | Bradbury et al. | May 2018 | A1 |
20180129938 | Xiong et al. | May 2018 | A1 |
20180143966 | Lu et al. | May 2018 | A1 |
20180144208 | Lu et al. | May 2018 | A1 |
20180144248 | Lu et al. | May 2018 | A1 |
20180268220 | Lee | Sep 2018 | A1 |
20180268287 | Johansen et al. | Sep 2018 | A1 |
20180268298 | Johansen et al. | Sep 2018 | A1 |
20180300317 | Bradbury | Oct 2018 | A1 |
20180336198 | Zhong et al. | Nov 2018 | A1 |
20180336453 | Merity et al. | Nov 2018 | A1 |
20180349359 | McCann et al. | Dec 2018 | A1 |
20180373682 | McCann et al. | Dec 2018 | A1 |
20180373987 | Zhang et al. | Dec 2018 | A1 |
20190065939 | Bourgoin et al. | Feb 2019 | A1 |
20190130206 | Trott et al. | May 2019 | A1 |
20190130248 | Zhong et al. | May 2019 | A1 |
20190130249 | Bradbury et al. | May 2019 | A1 |
20190130273 | Keskar et al. | May 2019 | A1 |
20190130312 | Xiong et al. | May 2019 | A1 |
20190130896 | Zhou et al. | May 2019 | A1 |
20190130897 | Zhou et al. | May 2019 | A1 |
20190149834 | Zhou et al. | May 2019 | A1 |
20190188568 | Keskar et al. | Jun 2019 | A1 |
20190251168 | McCann et al. | Aug 2019 | A1 |
20190251431 | Keskar et al. | Aug 2019 | A1 |
20190258714 | Zhong et al. | Aug 2019 | A1 |
20190258939 | Min et al. | Aug 2019 | A1 |
20190286073 | Hosseini-Asl et al. | Sep 2019 | A1 |
20190295530 | Hosseini-Asl et al. | Sep 2019 | A1 |
20190362020 | Paulus et al. | Nov 2019 | A1 |
20190362246 | Lin et al. | Nov 2019 | A1 |
20200234468 | Lerchner et al. | Jul 2020 | A1 |
20200241574 | Lin | Jul 2020 | A1 |
20200342643 | Gouws et al. | Oct 2020 | A1 |
Number | Date | Country |
---|---|---|
2011170844 | Sep 2011 | JP |
2012216069 | Nov 2012 | JP |
2017156511 | Sep 2017 | JP |
Entry |
---|
International Search Report and Written Opinion from PCT Patent Application No. PCT/US2019/053200, dated Dec. 11, 2019, pp. 1-15. |
Hu et al., “Save Navigation with Human Instructions in Complex Scenes,” arXiv: 1809.04280v1, dated Sep. 12, 2018, pp. 1-8. |
Ma et al., “Self-Monitoring Navigation Agent via Auxiliary Progress Estimation,” arXiv: 1901.03035v1, dated Jan. 10, 2019, pp. 1-18. |
Mirowski et al., “Learning to Navigate in Cities without a Map,” arXiv: 1804.00168v3, dated Jan. 10, 2019, pp. 1-17. |
Anderson et al., “Vision-and-Language Navigation: Interpreting Visually-Grounded Navigation Instructions in Real Environments,” in Proceedings of the IEEE Conference on Computer Vision and Pattern Recognition (CVPR), Salt Lake City, Utah, USA, Jun. 18-22, 2018. pp. 3674-3683. |
Andreas et al., “Alignment-Based Compositional Semantics for Instruction Following,” in Proceedings of the 2015 Conference on Empirical Methods in Natural Language Processing (EMNLP), Lisbon, Portugal, Sep. 17-21, 2015, pp. 1165-1174. |
Antol et al., “VQA: Visual Question Answering,” in Proceedings of the IEEE International Conference on Computer Vision (ICCV), Santiago, Chile, Dec. 7-13, 2015. pp. 2425-2433. |
Artzi et al., “Weakly Supervised Learning of Semantic Parsers for Mapping Instructions to Actions,” in Transactions of the Association of Computational Linguistics (ACL), Sofia, Bulgaria, Aug. 4-9, 2013, pp. 49-62. |
Benn et al., “The Neural Basis of Monitoring Goal Progress,” Frontiers in Human Neuroscience, vol. 8, Article 688, Sep. 10, 2014, pp. 1-15. |
Berkman et al., “The Neuroscience of Goal Pursuit: Bridging Gaps Between Theory and Data,” G. B. Moskowitz & H. Grant. (ed.) The Psychology of Goals, 2009, pp. 98-126. |
Branavan et al., “Reinforcement Learning for Mapping Instructions to Actions,” in Proceedings of the Joint Conference of the 47th Annual Meeting of the ACL and the 4th International Joint Conference on Natural Language Processing of the (AFNLP), Suntec, Singapore, Aug. 2-7, 2009, pp. 82-90. |
Chang et al., “Matterport3D: Learning From RGB-D Data in Indoor Environments,” International Conference on 3D Vision (3DV), Quingdao, China, Oct. 10-12, 2017, pp. 667-676. |
Chatham et al., “Cognitive Control Reflects Context Monitoring, Not Motoric Stopping, in Response Inhibition,” PloS One, vol. 7, Issue 2, Feb. 2012. pp. 1-13. |
Cohn et al., “Incorporating Structural Alignment Biases Into an Attentional Neural Translation Model,” in Proceedings of North American Chapter of the Association for Computational Linguistics (NAACL), San Diego, California, USA, Jun. 12-17, 2016, pp. 876-885. |
Das et al., “Visual Dialog,” In Proceedings of the IEEE Conference on Computer Vision and Pattern Recognition (CVPR.), Honolulu, Hawaii, USA, Jul. 21-26, 2017. pp. 326-335. |
Das et al., “Embodied Question Answering,” in Proceedings of the IEEE Conference on Computer Vision and Pattern Recognition (CVPR), Salt Lake City, Utah, USA, Jun. 18-22, 2018, pp. 1-10. |
De Vries et al., “Talk the Walk: Navigating New York City Through Grounded Dialogue,” Jul. 13, 2018. 22 pages. arXiv:1807.03367. |
Fried et al., “Speaker-Follower Models for Vision-and-Language Navigation,” in 32nd Conference on Neural Information Processing Systems (NIPS), Montreal, Canada, Dec. 2-8, 2018, 12 pages. |
Gavrilyuk et al., “Actor and Action Video Segmentation From a Sentence,” in Proceedings of the IEEE Conference on Computer Vision and Pattern Recognition (CVPR), Salt Lake City, Utah, USA, Jun. 18-22, 2018, pp. 5958-5966. |
Gordon et al., “IQA: Visual Question Answering in Interactive Environments,” in Proceedings of the IEEE Conference on Computer Vision and Pattern Recognition (CVPR), Salt Lake City, Utah, USA, Jun. 18-22, 2018 pp. 4089-4098. |
Hu et al., “Natural language object retrieval,” in Proceedings of the IEEE Conference on Computer Vision and Parten1 Recognition (CYPR), Las Vegas, Nevada, USA, Jun. 26-Jul. 1, 2016, pp. 4555-4564. |
Kempka et al., “ViZDoom: A Doom-based AI Research Platform for Visual Reinforced Learning,” Proceedings of IEEE Conference of Computational Intelligence in Games 2016, Sep. 20-23, 2016, pp. 1-8. |
Lu et al., “Visual Relationship Detection with Language Priors,” in the 14th European Conference on Computer Vision (ECCV), Amsterdam, The Netherlands, Oct. 11-14, 2016, pp. 852-869. |
Lu et al., “Hierarchical Question Image Co-Attention for Visual Question Answering,” 30th Conference on Neural Information Processing Systems (NIPS). Barcelona, Spain. Jan. 1, 2016. pp. 1-9. |
Lu et al., “Neural baby talk,” in Proceedings of the IEEE Conference on Computer Vision and Pattern Recognition (CVPR), Salt Lake City, Utah, USA, Jun. 18-22, 2018, pp. 7219-7228. |
Ma et al., “Attend and Interact: Higher-Order Object Interactions for Video Understanding,” in Proceedings of the IEEE Conference on Computer Vision and Pattern Recognition (CVPR), Salt Lake City, Utah, USA, Jun. 18-22, 2018, pp. 6790-6800. |
MacMahon et al., “Walk the Talk: Connecting Language, Knowledge and Action In Route Instructions,” in Proceedings of the Twenty-First National Conference on Artificial Intelligence and the Eighteenth Innovative Applications of Artificial Intelligence Conference (AAAI), Boston, Massachusetts, USA, Jul. 16-20, 2006, pp. 1475-1482. |
Mei et al., “Listen, Attend, And Walk: Neural Mapping of Navigational Instructions to Action Sequences,” Proceedings of the Thirtieth Conference on Artificial Intelligence (AAAI), Phoenix, Arizona, USA, Feb. 12-17, 2016, pp. 2772-2778. |
Mirowski et al., “Learning to Navigate in Complex Environments,” in International Conference on Learning Representations (ICLR), Toulon, France, Apr. 24-26, 2017, pp. 1-9. |
Misra, et al., “Mapping Instructions and Visual Observations to Actions With Reinforcement Learning,” in Proceedings of the Conference on Empirical Methods in Natural Language Processing (EMNLP), Copenhagen, Denmark, Sep. 7-11, 2017, pp. 1004-1015. |
Misra, et al., “Tell Me Dave: Context-Sensitive Grounding of Natural Language to Manipulation Instructions,” The International Journal of Robotics Research, vol. 35, 2016, pp. 281-300. |
Mousavian et al., “Visual Representations for Semantic Target Driven Navigation,” May 15, 2018, 18 pages. arXiv:1805.06066. |
Nagaraja et al., “Modeling Context Between Objects for Referring Expression Understanding,” in European Conference on Computer Vision (ECCV), Amsterdam, Netherlands, Oct. 8-16, 2016, pp. 792-807. Springer Publishing (DOI: 10.1007/978-3-319-46493-0_48). |
Rohrbach et al., “Grounding of Textual Phrases in Images by Reconstruction,” in European Conference on Computer Vision (ECCV), Amsterdam, Netherlands, Oct. 8-16, 2016, pp. 817-834. Springer Publishing (DOI: 10.1007/978-3-319-46448-0_49). |
Tapaswi et al., “Movieqa: Understanding Stories in Movies Through Question-Answering,” in Proceedings of the IEEE Conference on Computer Vision and Pattern Recognition (CVPR), Las Vegas, Nevada, Jun. 26-Jul. 1, 2016, pp. 4631-4640. |
Tellex et al., “Understanding Natural Language Commands for Robotic Navigation and Mobile Manipulation,” in Proceedings of the Twenty-Fifth Conference on Artificial Intelligence (AAAI), San Francisco, California, USA, Aug. 7-11, 2011, pp. 1507-1514. |
Vaswani et al., “Attention is All You Need,” 31st Conference on Neural Information Processing Systems (NIPS 2017). Long Beach, CA. Dec. 4-9, 2017. pp. 1-15. |
Vogel et al., “Learning to Follow Navigational Directions,” in Proceedings of the 48th Annual Meeting of the Association for Computational Linguistics (ACL), Upsala, Sweden, Jul. 11-16, 2010, pp. 806-814. |
Wang et al., “Omnidirectional CNN for Visual Place Recognition and Navigation,” in Proceedings of the IEEE Conference on Robotics and Automation (ICRA), Brisbane, QLD, Australia, May 21-25, 2018. pp. 2341-2348. |
Wang et al., “Look Before You Leap: Bridging Model-Free and Model-Based Reinforcement Learning for Planned-Ahead Vision- and-Language Navigation,” in 5th European Conference on Computer Vision (ECCV), Munich, Germany, Sep. 8-14, 2018, pp. 38-55. Springer International Publishing: (https://www.doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-01270-0_3). |
Wayne et al., “Unsupervised Predictive Memory in a Goal-Directed Agent,” Mar. 28, 2018, 57 pages. arXiv:1803.10760. |
Xia et al., “Gibson Env: Real-World Perception for Embodied Agents,” in Proceedings of the IEEE Conference on Computer Vision and Pattern Recognition (CVPR), Salt Lake City, Utah, USA, Jun. 19-21, 2018, pp. 9068-9079. |
Yu et al., “Guided Feature Transformation (GFT): A Neural Language Grounding Module for Embodied Agents,” in 2nd Annual Conference on Robot Learning (CoRL), Zurich, Switzerland, Oct. 29-31, 2018, pp. 81-98. |
Zhou et al., “Towards Automatic Learning of Procedures From Web Instructional videos,” in The Thirty-Second AAAI Conference on Artificial Intelligence (AAAI), New Orleans, Louisiana, USA, Feb. 2-7, 2018, pp. 7590-7598. |
Zhou et al., “End-To-End Dense Video Captioning with Masked Transformer,” in Proceedings of the IEEE Conference on Computer Vision and Pattern Recognition (CVPR), Salt Lake City, Utah, USA, Jun. 18-22, 2018. pp. 8739-8748. |
Zhu et al., “Visual Semantic Planning using Deep Successor Representations,” in Proceedings of the IEEE International Conference on Computer Vision (ICCV), Venice, Italy, Oct. 22-29, 2017, pp. 483-492. |
Zhu et al., “Target-Driven Visual Navigation In Indoor Scenes Using Deep Reinforcement Learning,” in Proceedings of the IEEE International Conference on Robotics and Automation (ICRA), Singapore, May 29-Jun. 3, 2017, pp. 3357-3364. |
International Preliminary Report on Patentability received for PCT Patent Application No. PCT/US19/053200, dated Apr. 8, 2021, 8 pages. |
Otawara et al., “Grounding of natural language to the real environment to achieve interactive operation of autonomous driving”, Robotics Society of Japan, 36th Academic Lecture, THT 36th Annual Conference of the Robotics Society of Japan, Sep. 4, 2018,, 5 pages. |
Number | Date | Country | |
---|---|---|---|
20210286369 A1 | Sep 2021 | US |
Number | Date | Country | |
---|---|---|---|
62737684 | Sep 2018 | US |
Number | Date | Country | |
---|---|---|---|
Parent | 16176955 | Oct 2018 | US |
Child | 17332756 | US |