2009 American Control Conference 2009
DOI: 10.1109/acc.2009.5160627
|View full text |Cite
|
Sign up to set email alerts
|

Comparing apples and oranges through partial orders: An empirical approach

Abstract: In this paper, we try to understand what people mean when they say that two objects are "similar." This is an important question in the area of human-robot interactions, where robots must interpret human movements in order to act in a "similar" manner. Specifically, we assume that we are given a collection of empirically generated pairwise comparisons between a subset of so-called alternatives (members of a given set), which produces a partial order over the set of alternatives. Based on this partial order, an… Show more

Help me understand this report

Search citation statements

Order By: Relevance

Paper Sections

Select...
2
2
1

Citation Types

0
10
0

Year Published

2010
2010
2023
2023

Publication Types

Select...
3
3
1

Relationship

2
5

Authors

Journals

citations
Cited by 10 publications
(10 citation statements)
references
References 18 publications
(24 reference statements)
0
10
0
Order By: Relevance
“…In the case of synthetic data, we instead compute a normalized query count corresponding to the number of constituent triplet comparisons defining the relation of each body point to the head in the tuple. This is justified since in practice we decompose tuples in this way when feeding them into the embedding algorithm, and corresponds to the size of a tuple's transitive reduction (a common representation in learning-to-rank literature (Kingston and Egerstedt 2009)).…”
Section: Evaluation Metricsmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…In the case of synthetic data, we instead compute a normalized query count corresponding to the number of constituent triplet comparisons defining the relation of each body point to the head in the tuple. This is justified since in practice we decompose tuples in this way when feeding them into the embedding algorithm, and corresponds to the size of a tuple's transitive reduction (a common representation in learning-to-rank literature (Kingston and Egerstedt 2009)).…”
Section: Evaluation Metricsmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…In the case of synthetic data, we instead compute a normalized query count corresponding to the number of constituent triplet comparisons defining the relation of each body point to the head in the tuple. This is justified since in practice we decompose tuples in this way when feeding them into the embedding algorithm, and corresponds to the size of a tuple's transitive reduction (a common representation in learning-to-rank literature [33]). Additional experimental details such as hyperparameter selection are available in the appendix.…”
Section: Evaluation Metricsmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…2 Note that the subscript t is simply part of the function names xt, yt, etc, and is used to distinguish these functions from others to be introduced later.…”
Section: A Tracking With Nonparametric Time Warpingmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…In [2], this problem was partially addressed via supervised learning, and very little structure was assumed; the concept of "similarity" was learned from scratch. In this paper, we instead fix a particular definition for similarity a priori: Namely, we treat mimicking as a special optimal tracking problem with additional degrees of freedom.…”
Section: Introductionmentioning
confidence: 99%