Pith. sign in

REVIEW 4 major objections 5 minor 65 references

EgoCogNav: Cognition-aware Human Egocentric Navigation

T0 review · 4 major / 5 minor · reviewed 2026-08-03 · deepseek-v4-flash

Challenge this review Re-run · record.json Download PDF Read on arXiv ↗

Pith's one-line read A person's moment-to-moment feeling of being lost can be predicted from egocentric video, gaze, and motion, and the predicted uncertainty improves trajectory and head-motion forecasts.

desk verdict A useful dataset-and-task paper whose cognitive-behavioral claim is entangled with its own data-collection instructions; worth a careful revise-and-resubmit, not a desk reject. read the letter →

arxiv 2511.17581 v3 pith:UN5G5DBZ submitted 2025-11-15 cs.LG cs.CV

Zhiwen Qiu , Ziang Liu , Wenqian Niu , Tapomayukh Bhattacharjee , Saleh Kalantari This is my paper
classification cs.LGcs.CV
keywords egocentricnavigationperceivedpathuncertaintytrajectoryforecastinghead-motionmultimodallearningwayfindingcognitivemodelingdataset
verification ladder T0 review T1 audit T2 compute T3 formal

The pith

A machine-rendered reading of the paper's core claim, the machinery that carries it, and where it could break.

The reading

This paper tries to establish that the feeling of not knowing which way to go—perceived path uncertainty—can be learned as a moment-to-moment state from an egocentric stream of video, gaze, head motion, and recent walking, and that forecasting this state alongside trajectories and head pose yields better short-horizon predictions than ignoring cognition. The authors built EgoCogNav, which fuses these signals into a shared representation, predicts a single uncertainty value in [0,1], and uses that value to modulate how much the decoder trusts goal information versus raw sensory evidence. They also collected the CEN dataset: six hours of real indoor and outdoor navigation from 17 participants who continuously reported their uncertainty through a handheld controller. On held-out environments, the model's uncertainty estimates correlate with human reports much more strongly than entropy-theory or rule-based baselines, and predicted uncertainty rises at moments of scanning, hesitation, backtracking, and wrong turns. A sympathetic reader would care because current trajectory predictors treat navigation as homogeneous motion history; if this approach holds, assistive wayfinding and social robots could respond to confusion before it becomes visible in gait.

What carries the argument

The central mechanism is the uncertainty-gated fusion loop: a cognition head maps a time-pooled multimodal representation into a scalar belief U_t ∈ [0,1], and this belief modulates the feature mix through adaptive goal conditioning—h_tilde = (1 − U_t)·h_fuse + U_t·h_goal—so that when uncertainty is high, the decoder weights goal-consistent evidence more heavily. Parallel temporal decoders then forecast the body-frame trajectory (3-DOF: displacement and heading change) and head rotations (6-DOF), while auxiliary classifiers for environment type and behavioral events regularize the shared backbone during training. What makes the cognitive state learnable is the dataset's ground-truth anchor:

What would settle it

Run the same collection protocol with uncertainty measured passively (pupil dilation, gaze entropy, or heart-rate variability) instead of by joystick, and retrain or retest EgoCogNav; if its learned uncertainty no longer tracks behavioral events with a Spearman ρ near 0.64 and instead falls to the 0.13–0.17 range of the theory baselines, the model was reconstructing an instruction artifact rather than a cognitive state. A simpler check: hold out joystick labels for entire participants and see whether predicted uncertainty still predicts their hesitation and backtracking.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

EgoCogNav jointly forecasts a body-frame trajectory, head rotations, and a scalar perceived uncertainty from 3 seconds of egocentric video, body motion, head pose, gaze, and a navigation goal. A cognition head pools these features into U_t ∈ [0,1], trained to match human self-reports, and this uncertainty gates the fused features so high uncertainty relies more on goal-consistent evidence. On held-out environments it outperforms the strongest baseline on trajectory and head-rotation error. Its uncertainty predictions reach Spearman ρ = 0.64, far above two non-learning baselines, and peak for wrong turns and backtracks while rising for hesitation and scanning. The paper reads this as evidence

Load-bearing premise

The central claim depends on the 17 participants' continuous handheld-controller self-reports of perceived uncertainty being a faithful, non-reactive measure of a real internal state—and on the instructed route-finding behaviors (scan, confirm) not manufacturing the very uncertainty–behavior correlation the paper reports.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • A deployed system could flag high-predicted-uncertainty moments as prompts for assistance; the model's top-20% uncertainty moments match labeled difficulty events 45% of the time, versus 18–20% for the baselines.
  • Adding the cognitive signal changes motion forecasts, not just labels: on the hardest 20% of moments, EgoCogNav cuts ADE from 0.15 to 0.13 and head-rotation error from 0.088 to 0.083 against the strongest baseline.
  • Predicted uncertainty rises before route-finding behaviors—hesitation, scanning, wrong turns, backtracking—so the same model can be used to label environments by how confusing they are to navigate, not just by their geometry.
  • The CEN dataset gives the field a public, multimodal benchmark with synchronized video, gaze, head pose, trajectory, and moment-to-moment uncertainty reports, which the paper argues the closest prior egocentric navigation datasets do not provide.
  • The ablations show that both the horizon-weighted trajectory loss and the auxiliary environment/behavior classifiers contribute, meaning the improvements come from the full perception–cognition loop rather than any single input modality.

Reading between the lines

Editorial extensions of the paper, not claims the author makes directly.

  • Editorial inference: if the uncertainty signal transfers across people and places, it can be inverted into an environmental-difficulty heatmap: a few walk-throughs could reveal which junctions, occlusions, or sign placements reliably induce confusion, giving designers a continuous, cheap alternative to surveys.
  • Editorial inference: the goal-conditioning rule is a general recipe for embodied agents—use an internal confidence estimate to decide when to trust a goal prior rather than raw sensory evidence—and could be tested independently in simulated wayfinding agents with synthetic uncertainty labels.
  • Editorial inference: a sharper test of the cognitive claim would hold out joystick reports for entire participants and ask whether the model still predicts their behavior; if it does, the uncertainty head is recovering a real behavioral signal; if not, it is partly memorizing report styles.
  • Editorial inference: because the model outputs a single best path, its correlation with backtracking could reflect the model recognizing the same ambiguous scene rather than truly representing a decision conflict; a multi-hypothesis variant would separate these explanations.
Share X Bluesky LinkedIn Reddit HN

Editorial analysis

A structured set of objections, weighed in public.

Desk editor's note, referee report, and a circularity audit.

Referee Report

4 major / 5 minor

Summary. The paper proposes EgoCogNav, a multimodal egocentric navigation framework that jointly forecasts perceived path uncertainty, body-frame trajectory, and head motion from egocentric video, gaze, motion history, and navigation goals. The authors introduce the Cognition-aware Egocentric Navigation (CEN) dataset, containing 6 hours of real-world recordings from 17 participants across 42 indoor/outdoor sites, with continuous Xbox-controller self-reports of perceived uncertainty and annotations of behaviors and environment types. The architecture combines a frozen DINOv2 visual encoder, an action module for motion/gaze/goal encoding, a cognition head that regresses the self-reported uncertainty (Eq. 4), and adaptive goal conditioning (Eq. 1). Experiments compare against constant-velocity, linear-extrapolation, transformer, and EgoCast baselines, plus EMU/PATH-U uncertainty baselines, reporting improved trajectory/head forecasting and uncertainty–behavior correlations. Ablations and qualitative examples are also provided.

Significance. If the empirical claims hold, the CEN dataset would be a novel resource for cognition-aware egocentric navigation, and the task formulation—jointly predicting perceived uncertainty with motion—could enable assistive wayfinding and socially-aware navigation systems. The paper's strengths include the multimodal real-world data collection effort, the integration of cognitive state into a forecasting architecture, and the proposal of a concrete evaluation protocol with several metrics. However, the central claim that learned uncertainty 'strongly correlates with human-like behaviors' currently rests on a data-collection protocol that explicitly instructed participants to perform those very behaviors when uncertain, and on a supervised training signal derived from the same self-reports. The reported quantitative gains also lack error bars, seed counts, and split details, making it difficult to assess reliability. With additional validation and re-analysis, the work could become a solid contribution; in its present form the empirical foundation is insecure.

major comments (4)
  1. [§4.1, Eq. (4), Table 3] The data-collection protocol explicitly instructed participants to 'perform route-finding behaviors when uncertain such as scanning the surroundings for cues, confirming signage or landmarks.' This creates a demand characteristic that co-produces the self-reported uncertainty labels and the very behaviors used for validation (SCAN, CONFIRM, and arguably HES/LB). Because the uncertainty head is trained to regress those same self-reports (Eq. 4), the reported correlations in Table 3 (ΔU, effect sizes) may largely reflect protocol-induced co-occurrence rather than an emergent coupling between perceived uncertainty and behavior. The paper needs to address this directly: e.g., validate the self-report against independent measures (retrospective ratings, physiological signals), include a control condition without the instruction, report inter-rater reliability of behavior annotations, or at mi
  2. [§5.1, Tables 1–4] No error bars, number of seeds, or data-split details are reported. With 17 participants and 6 hours of data, differences such as ADE 0.14 vs 0.12 (Table 1) may be within noise. The 'High Uncertainty Scenarios' subset in Table 1 is described as 'top 20% highest uncertainty,' but the selection criterion is unspecified; if it is based on human labels, evaluation on this subset could introduce selection bias. The authors should specify the exact split (e.g., leave-participants-out vs. leave-environments-out), report results across multiple seeds with confidence intervals, and state how the high-uncertainty subset is defined and whether it uses ground-truth or predicted uncertainty.
  3. [§3.2, §5.1.2, Table 4] The claim that the cognitive signal 'improves trajectory and head-motion forecasting' is not supported by the ablations. Table 4 removes auxiliary losses and trajectory losses, but does not ablate the cognition head, the uncertainty loss (Eq. 4), or the adaptive goal conditioning (Eq. 1). Without an ablation that removes the uncertainty prediction/conditioning while keeping all other components, the contribution of the cognitive module to motion forecasting is untested. The paper should add such an ablation, or soften the claim accordingly.
  4. [§5.1.1, Table 2] The Spearman ρ=0.64 reported for uncertainty prediction measures supervised fit accuracy, since the model is directly regressed to human self-reports via Eq. (4). The abstract's phrasing 'learns the perceived uncertainty that strongly correlates...' implies an emergent or discovered signal, but the evaluation is on the same dataset whose labels were used for training. This circularity should be acknowledged explicitly, and the authors should report performance under a stricter protocol, e.g., leave-one-participant-out, or compare against a model trained without uncertainty labels to demonstrate that the learned representation captures something beyond the supervision signal.
minor comments (5)
  1. [§3.1] Typo: 'past window T1 = 30 steps (3s) and T1 = 10 steps (1s)' — the second T1 should be T2.
  2. [§1, §4.1] Minor language issues: 'We propose' should not be capitalized mid-sentence; 'dataset consisting 6 hours' is missing 'of'; 'videp' should be 'video'; 'Each design choice hels improve' should be 'helps improve.'
  3. [§5.1.2] The text refers to 'the validation set' while Section 5 states all results are on a held-out test set. Please clarify the evaluation protocol and use consistent terminology.
  4. [§5.1.1] The EgoCast baseline is adapted 'with more layers' but no details are given. Specify the adaptation for reproducibility.
  5. [§4] The paper claims to introduce a dataset 'to facilitate research in the field,' but no dataset release URL or availability statement is provided. For a dataset contribution, this is essential.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 0.0 of 10

No significant circularity: uncertainty is a supervised target evaluated on held-out data, and behavioral correlations are empirical validations rather than derivation-circle reductions.

full rationale

The paper's derivation chain is self-contained rather than circular. The uncertainty head is trained by direct regression to human self-reports (Eq. 4: LU = ||Û_t − U_human_t||²), and the reported MAE and Spearman ρ on held-out scenes are standard supervised accuracy results, not fitted quantities renamed as predictions. The behavioral-correlation analyses (Tables 2–3) compare the predicted uncertainty signal against separately annotated behavior events; although Section 4.1's instruction to 'perform route-finding behaviors when uncertain' may confound or inflate that association, the correlation is an empirical property of the learned signal under held-out evaluation, not a consequence of the loss function alone, so it does not reduce to the model's inputs by construction. Trajectory and head-motion improvements (Table 1) are evaluated against baselines on held-out navigation recordings and do not depend on the uncertainty labels for their metrics. The only author-overlapping citation ([61], PATH-U) is used as an adapted baseline, not as load-bearing support for the central claim. No uniqueness theorem, ansatz, or known-result renaming is imported from prior work by the same authors. The protocol-induced coupling between self-reported uncertainty and instructed scanning/confirming behaviors is a legitimate construct-validity threat, but it is not a circularity step under the criteria requiring an explicit equation-level or self-citation reduction.

Assumptions & free parameters 5 free parameters · 4 assumptions · 0 invented entities

The central claims rest on the fidelity of self-report labels, the reliability of behavior annotations, and the validity of the environment-unseen split. None of these is externally validated in the paper, and the dataset itself is not yet publicly available for independent checks.

free parameters (5)
  • loss weights = λ_traj=λ_head=λ_U=1, λ_var=0.3, α=0.3
    Section 3.2; chosen by hand, no sensitivity analysis. They determine the balance between trajectory, head, uncertainty, and auxiliary losses, so all reported metrics depend on them.
  • horizon discount γ = 0.98
    Eq. (2); hand-set, controls how strongly near-future steps are weighted in the trajectory loss.
  • temporal window and sampling = T1=30 steps (3 s), T2=10 steps (1 s) at 10 Hz; frames resized to 224×224
    Section 3.1; fixed by design and not justified by data or sensitivity experiments.
  • high-uncertainty subset threshold = top 20%
    Section 5.1.1; used to define 'High Uncertainty Scenarios' in Table 1. The ranking criterion (model-predicted or human-labeled uncertainty) is unspecified, making the subset a potentially important free choice.
  • optimizer hyperparameters = AdamW lr=5e-5, weight_decay=1e-4, batch=16, 200 epochs
    Section 3.3; hand-set with no tuning or sensitivity analysis reported.
assumptions (4)
  • domain assumption Continuous joystick self-reports are a valid measure of moment-to-moment perceived uncertainty for all 17 participants
    Section 4.1: participants hold an Xbox controller and report on a [0,1] scale. If this measurement distorts natural navigation or is inconsistent across participants, U_human and all uncertainty results are ungrounded.
  • domain assumption Perceived uncertainty is adequately represented by a single scalar at 10 Hz, sufficient for behavioral forecasting
    Section 3.1 treats U_t∈[0,1] as the cognitive state; no evidence is given that one scalar captures choice difficulty.
  • domain assumption Behavior and environment annotations (HES, WRONG, BACK, SCAN, CONFIRM, LB, JCT, OCC, etc.) are reliable enough for evaluation
    Section 4.1 describes annotation but reports no inter-annotator agreement or detailed annotation protocol.
  • domain assumption The held-out test split by environment truly prevents scene and participant leakage
    Section 5 states 'held-out test set with environments unseen during training' but the split procedure is not specified; overlapping participants or similar sites could weaken the generalization claim.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of EgoCogNav: Cognition-aware Human Egocentric Navigation." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/UN5G5DBZ

@misc{pith2026251117581,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: EgoCogNav: Cognition-aware Human Egocentric Navigation},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/UN5G5DBZ}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2511.17581}
}
read the original abstract

Modeling the cognitive and experiential factors of human navigation is central to deepening our understanding of human-environment interaction and to enabling safe social navigation and effective assistive wayfinding. Most existing methods focus on forecasting motions in fully observed scenes and often neglect human factors that capture how people feel and respond to space. To address this gap, we propose EgoCogNav, a multimodal egocentric navigation framework that jointly forecasts perceived path uncertainty, trajectories and head motion from egocentric video, gaze, and motion history. To facilitate research in the field, we introduce the Cognition-aware Egocentric Navigation (CEN) dataset consisting of 6 hours real-world egocentric recordings capturing diverse navigation behaviors in real-world scenarios. Experiments show that EgoCogNav learns the perceived uncertainty that strongly correlates with human-like behaviors such as scanning, hesitation, and backtracking while improving trajectory and head-motion forecasting on held-out navigation recordings.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2511.17581 by the authors.

Figure 1
Figure 1. Given a past window of motion, head rotations, gaze, and navigational goal, our model jointly predicts a future body-frame [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p002_1.png] view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. EgoCogNav architecture. Given a past egocentric video and sensory inputs, we fuse them into a shared representation with adaptive goal conditioning to jointly predict the current state of perceived uncertainty, future trajectory and head motion. future steps [3] given a predicted sequence Spred and ground truth Ltraj = X H i=1 γ i [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p004_2.png] view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. Qualitative visualizations. The top row presents BEV examples under high-uncertainty and behavior-eliciting scenarios. For each scenario on the bottom row, the left panel shows a BEV overlay with past trajectory (gray), ground-truth future, predicted future, and overlaid path uncertainty. The right panels show time-aligned egocentric frames (t+1 to t+3s) with ground-truth (red) and predicted (green) head positions. … view at source ↗
Figures from the paper (1 more)
Figure 4
Figure 4. Figure 4: Failure cases. Two failure cases highlight limits in long￾horizon scene memory and the lack of multi-hypothesis futures. 6. Conclusion In this paper we present several key contributions to the goal of cognition-aware egocentric navigation. First, we introduce the chall…

Discussion (0). Sign in to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

65 extracted references · 6 linked inside Pith

  1. [1]

    3d human pose perception from egocentric stereo videos

    Hiroyasu Akada, Jian Wang, Vladislav Golyanik, and Chris- tian Theobalt. 3d human pose perception from egocentric stereo videos. InProceedings of the IEEE/CVF Conference on computer vision and pattern recognition, pages 767–776,

  2. [2]

    So- cial lstm: Human trajectory prediction in crowded spaces

    Alexandre Alahi, Kratarth Goel, Vignesh Ramanathan, Alexandre Robicquet, Li Fei-Fei, and Silvio Savarese. So- cial lstm: Human trajectory prediction in crowded spaces. In Proceedings of the IEEE conference on computer vision and pattern recognition, pages 961–971, 2016. 2

    2016

  3. [3]

    Discount factor as a regularizer in reinforcement learning

    Ron Amit, Ron Meir, and Kamil Ciosek. Discount factor as a regularizer in reinforcement learning. InInternational con- ference on machine learning, pages 269–278. PMLR, 2020. 4

    2020

  4. [4]

    Singu- lartrajectory: Universal trajectory predictor using diffusion model

    Inhwan Bae, Young-Jae Park, and Hae-Gon Jeon. Singu- lartrajectory: Universal trajectory predictor using diffusion model. InProceedings of the IEEE/CVF Conference on Computer Vision and Pattern Recognition, pages 17890– 17901, 2024. 2

    2024

  5. [5]

    Hot3d: Hand and object tracking in 3d from egocentric multi-view videos

    Prithviraj Banerjee, Sindi Shkodrani, Pierre Moulon, Shreyas Hampali, Shangchen Han, Fan Zhang, Linguang Zhang, Jade Fountain, Edward Miller, Selen Basol, et al. Hot3d: Hand and object tracking in 3d from egocentric multi-view videos. InProceedings of the Computer Vi- sion and Pattern Recognition Conference, pages 7061–7071,

  6. [6]

    Tibor Bosse, Mark Hoogendoorn, Michel CA Klein, Jan Treur, C Natalie Van Der Wal, and Arlette Van Wissen. Mod- elling collective decision making in groups and crowds: In- tegrating social contagion and interacting emotions, beliefs and intentions.Autonomous Agents and Multi-Agent Sys- tems, 27(1):52–84, 2013. 1

    2013

  7. [7]

    Emerg- ing properties in self-supervised vision transformers

    Mathilde Caron, Hugo Touvron, Ishan Misra, Herv ´e J´egou, Julien Mairal, Piotr Bojanowski, and Armand Joulin. Emerg- ing properties in self-supervised vision transformers. InPro- ceedings of the IEEE/CVF international conference on com- puter vision, pages 9650–9660, 2021. 1, 3

    2021

  8. [8]

    Scaling egocentric vision: The epic-kitchens dataset

    Dima Damen, Hazel Doughty, Giovanni Maria Farinella, Sanja Fidler, Antonino Furnari, Evangelos Kazakos, Davide Moltisanti, Jonathan Munro, Toby Perrett, Will Price, et al. Scaling egocentric vision: The epic-kitchens dataset. In Proceedings of the European conference on computer vision (ECCV), pages 720–736, 2018. 3

    2018

Show all 65 references
  1. [9]

    Large scale simulation of pedestrian seismic evacuation including panic behavior.Sustainable Cities and Society, 94: 104527, 2023

    Melissa De Iuliis, Edoardo Battegazzorre, Marco Do- maneschi, Gian Paolo Cimellaro, and Andrea Giuseppe Bot- tino. Large scale simulation of pedestrian seismic evacuation including panic behavior.Sustainable Cities and Society, 94: 104527, 2023. 1

    2023

  2. [10]

    Wayfinding in healthcare facilities: Con- tributions from environmental psychology.Behavioral sci- ences, 4(4):423–436, 2014

    Ann Sloan Devlin. Wayfinding in healthcare facilities: Con- tributions from environmental psychology.Behavioral sci- ences, 4(4):423–436, 2014. 1, 2

    2014

  3. [11]

    Fusion-based wayfinding prediction model for multiple information sources

    Rohit K Dubey, Samuel S Sohn, Christoph Hoelscher, and Mubbasir Kapadia. Fusion-based wayfinding prediction model for multiple information sources. In2019 22th inter- national conference on information fusion (FUSION), pages 1–8. IEEE, 2019. 1

    2019

  4. [12]

    Cognitive modeling of virtual autonomous intelligent agents integrating human factors

    Lydie Edward, Domitile Lourdeaux, and Jean-Paul Barthes. Cognitive modeling of virtual autonomous intelligent agents integrating human factors. In2009 IEEE/WIC/ACM Interna- tional Joint Conference on Web Intelligence and Intelligent Agent Technology, pages 353–356. IEEE, 2009. 1

    2009

  5. [13]

    Project aria: A new tool for egocentric multi-modal ai research.arXiv preprint arXiv:2308.13561, 2023

    Jakob Engel, Kiran Somasundaram, Michael Goesele, Albert Sun, Alexander Gamino, Andrew Turner, Arjang Talattof, Arnie Yuan, Bilal Souti, Brighid Meredith, et al. Project aria: A new tool for egocentric multi-modal ai research.arXiv preprint arXiv:2308.13561, 2023. 3, 5

    2023 arXiv

  6. [14]

    Egocast: Forecasting egocentric human pose in the wild

    Maria Escobar, Juanita Puentes, Cristhian Forigua, Jordi Pont-Tuset, Kevis-Kokitsi Maninis, and Pablo Arbelaez. Egocast: Forecasting egocentric human pose in the wild. In 2025 IEEE/CVF Winter Conference on Applications of Com- puter Vision (WACV), pages 5831–5841. IEEE, 2025. 6

    2025

  7. [15]

    Wayfinding: A simple con- cept, a complex process.Transport Reviews, 32(6):715–743,

    Anna Charisse Farr, Tristan Kleinschmidt, Prasad Yarla- gadda, and Kerrie Mengersen. Wayfinding: A simple con- cept, a complex process.Transport Reviews, 32(6):715–743,

  8. [16]

    Ego4d: Around the world in 3,000 hours of egocentric video

    Kristen Grauman, Andrew Westbury, Eugene Byrne, Zachary Chavis, Antonino Furnari, Rohit Girdhar, Jackson Hamburger, Hao Jiang, Miao Liu, Xingyu Liu, et al. Ego4d: Around the world in 3,000 hours of egocentric video. In Proceedings of the IEEE/CVF conference on computer vi- sio...

    2022

  9. [17]

    Stochastic trajectory pre- diction via motion indeterminacy diffusion

    Tianpei Gu, Guangyi Chen, Junlong Li, Chunze Lin, Yong- ming Rao, Jie Zhou, and Jiwen Lu. Stochastic trajectory pre- diction via motion indeterminacy diffusion. InProceedings of the IEEE/CVF conference on computer vision and pattern recognition, pages 17113–17122, 2022. 1, 2

    2022

  10. [18]

    Comparison of values of pearson’s and spearman’s correlation coefficients on the same sets of data.Quaestiones geographicae, 30(2):87–93,

    Jan Hauke and Tomasz Kossowski. Comparison of values of pearson’s and spearman’s correlation coefficients on the same sets of data.Quaestiones geographicae, 30(2):87–93,

  11. [19]

    Sacson: Scalable autonomous control for social nav- igation.IEEE Robotics and Automation Letters, 9(1):49–56,

    Noriaki Hirose, Dhruv Shah, Ajay Sridhar, and Sergey Levine. Sacson: Scalable autonomous control for social nav- igation.IEEE Robotics and Automation Letters, 9(1):49–56,

  12. [20]

    Psychological entropy: a framework for understanding uncertainty-related anxiety.Psychological review, 119(2): 304, 2012

    Jacob B Hirsh, Raymond A Mar, and Jordan B Peter- son. Psychological entropy: a framework for understanding uncertainty-related anxiety.Psychological review, 119(2): 304, 2012. 1, 2, 3

    2012

  13. [21]

    Rong Huang, Xuan Zhao, Yufei Yuan, Qiang Yu, Chengqing Liu, and Winnie Daamen. Modeling pedestrian tactical and operational decisions under risk and uncertainty: A two- layer model framework.IEEE Transactions on Intelligent Transportation Systems, 24(5):5259–5281, 2023. 2

    2023

  14. [22]

    Discrete residual flow for probabilistic pedestrian behavior prediction

    Ajay Jain, Sergio Casas, Renjie Liao, Yuwen Xiong, Song Feng, Sean Segal, and Raquel Urtasun. Discrete residual flow for probabilistic pedestrian behavior prediction. InCon- ference on Robot Learning, pages 407–419. PMLR, 2020. 1

    2020

  15. [23]

    Multi-modal knowledge distillation-based human trajectory forecasting

    Jaewoo Jeong, Seohee Lee, Daehee Park, Giwon Lee, and Kuk-Jin Yoon. Multi-modal knowledge distillation-based human trajectory forecasting. InProceedings of the Com- puter Vision and Pattern Recognition Conference, pages 24222–24233, 2025. 1

    2025

  16. [24]

    Im- portance of hospital way-finding system on patient satisfac- 9 tion

    S Didem Kaya, Y Yalcin Ileri, and Aydan Yuceler. Im- portance of hospital way-finding system on patient satisfac- 9 tion. InBusiness Challenges in the Changing Economic Landscape-Vol. 2: Proceedings of the 14th Eurasia Business and Economics Society Conference, pages 33–40. Springer,

  17. [25]

    Human trajectory forecasting in crowds: A deep learning perspec- tive.IEEE Transactions on Intelligent Transportation Sys- tems, 23(7):7386–7400, 2021

    Parth Kothari, Sven Kreiss, and Alexandre Alahi. Human trajectory forecasting in crowds: A deep learning perspec- tive.IEEE Transactions on Intelligent Transportation Sys- tems, 23(7):7386–7400, 2021. 2

    2021

  18. [26]

    Socially compliant mobile robot naviga- tion via inverse reinforcement learning.The International Journal of Robotics Research, 35(11):1289–1307, 2016

    Henrik Kretzschmar, Markus Spies, Christoph Sprunk, and Wolfram Burgard. Socially compliant mobile robot naviga- tion via inverse reinforcement learning.The International Journal of Robotics Research, 35(11):1289–1307, 2016. 1

    2016

  19. [27]

    Ego-body pose es- timation via ego-head pose estimation

    Jiaman Li, Karen Liu, and Jiajun Wu. Ego-body pose es- timation via ego-head pose estimation. InProceedings of the IEEE/CVF Conference on Computer Vision and Pattern Recognition, pages 17142–17151, 2023. 2

    2023

  20. [28]

    In the eye of the be- holder: Gaze and actions in first person video.IEEE trans- actions on pattern analysis and machine intelligence, 45(6): 6731–6747, 2021

    Yin Li, Miao Liu, and James M Rehg. In the eye of the be- holder: Gaze and actions in first person video.IEEE trans- actions on pattern analysis and machine intelligence, 45(6): 6731–6747, 2021. 3

    2021

  21. [29]

    Ego-exo: Transferring visual representations from third-person to first-person videos

    Yanghao Li, Tushar Nagarajan, Bo Xiong, and Kristen Grau- man. Ego-exo: Transferring visual representations from third-person to first-person videos. InProceedings of the IEEE/CVF Conference on Computer Vision and Pattern Recognition, pages 6943–6953, 2021. 3

    2021

  22. [30]

    Egoexo-fitness: Towards egocentric and exocentric full-body action under- standing

    Yuan-Ming Li, Wei-Jin Huang, An-Lan Wang, Ling-An Zeng, Jing-Ke Meng, and Wei-Shi Zheng. Egoexo-fitness: Towards egocentric and exocentric full-body action under- standing. InEuropean Conference on Computer Vision, pages 363–382. Springer, 2024. 3

    2024

  23. [31]

    Decoupled weight decay regularization.arXiv preprint arXiv:1711.05101, 2017

    Ilya Loshchilov and Frank Hutter. Decoupled weight decay regularization.arXiv preprint arXiv:1711.05101, 2017. 4

    2017 arXiv

  24. [32]

    Aria everyday activities dataset.arXiv preprint arXiv:2402.13349, 2024

    Zhaoyang Lv, Nicholas Charron, Pierre Moulon, Alexander Gamino, Cheng Peng, Chris Sweeney, Edward Miller, Huix- uan Tang, Jeff Meissner, Jing Dong, et al. Aria everyday activities dataset.arXiv preprint arXiv:2402.13349, 2024. 3

    2024 arXiv

  25. [33]

    Nymeria: A mas- sive collection of multimodal egocentric daily motion in the wild

    Lingni Ma, Yuting Ye, Fangzhou Hong, Vladimir Guzov, Yifeng Jiang, Rowan Postyeni, Luis Pesqueira, Alexander Gamino, Vijay Baiyya, Hyo Jin Kim, et al. Nymeria: A mas- sive collection of multimodal egocentric daily motion in the wild. InEuropean Conference on Computer Vision, p...

    2024

  26. [34]

    Mental health and wayfinding.Trans- portation research part F: traffic psychology and behaviour, 81:342–354, 2021

    Roger L Mackett. Mental health and wayfinding.Trans- portation research part F: traffic psychology and behaviour, 81:342–354, 2021. 1

    2021

  27. [35]

    Fast inference and update of probabilistic density estimation on trajectory pre- diction

    Takahiro Maeda and Norimichi Ukita. Fast inference and update of probabilistic density estimation on trajectory pre- diction. InProceedings of the IEEE/CVF international con- ference on computer vision, pages 9795–9805, 2023. 2

    2023

  28. [36]

    Leapfrog diffusion model for stochastic trajectory prediction

    Weibo Mao, Chenxin Xu, Qi Zhu, Siheng Chen, and Yanfeng Wang. Leapfrog diffusion model for stochastic trajectory prediction. InProceedings of the IEEE/CVF conference on computer vision and pattern recognition, pages 5517–5526,

  29. [37]

    Simulation-based evaluation of ease of wayfind- ing using digital human and as-is environment models.IS- PRS International Journal of Geo-Information, 6(9):267,

    Tsubasa Maruyama, Satoshi Kanai, Hiroaki Date, and Mit- sunori Tada. Simulation-based evaluation of ease of wayfind- ing using digital human and as-is environment models.IS- PRS International Journal of Geo-Information, 6(9):267,

  30. [38]

    Social momentum: Design and evaluation of a framework for socially competent robot navigation.ACM Transactions on Human-Robot Interaction (THRI), 11(2):1–37, 2022

    Christoforos Mavrogiannis, Patr ´ıcia Alves-Oliveira, Wil Thomason, and Ross A Knepper. Social momentum: Design and evaluation of a framework for socially competent robot navigation.ACM Transactions on Human-Robot Interaction (THRI), 11(2):1–37, 2022. 1, 5

    2022

  31. [39]

    Core challenges of social robot navigation: A survey

    Christoforos Mavrogiannis, Francesca Baldini, Allan Wang, Dapeng Zhao, Pete Trautman, Aaron Steinfeld, and Jean Oh. Core challenges of social robot navigation: A survey. ACM Transactions on Human-Robot Interaction, 12(3):1– 39, 2023. 2

    2023

  32. [40]

    Toward human-like social robot navigation: A large-scale, multi-modal, social human navigation dataset

    Duc M Nguyen, Mohammad Nazeri, Amirreza Payandeh, Aniket Datar, and Xuesu Xiao. Toward human-like social robot navigation: A large-scale, multi-modal, social human navigation dataset. In2023 IEEE/RSJ International Confer- ence on Intelligent Robots and Systems (IROS), pages 7442–

  33. [41]

    Evaluating the tobii pro glasses 2 and 3 in static and dynamic conditions

    V Onkhar, D Dodou, and JCF De Winter. Evaluating the tobii pro glasses 2 and 3 in static and dynamic conditions. Behavior Research Methods, 56(5):4221–4238, 2024. 5

    2024

  34. [42]

    Dinov2: Learning robust visual features without supervision

    Maxime Oquab, Timoth ´ee Darcet, Th ´eo Moutakanni, Huy V o, Marc Szafraniec, Vasil Khalidov, Pierre Fernandez, Daniel Haziza, Francisco Massa, Alaaeldin El-Nouby, et al. Dinov2: Learning robust visual features without supervision. arXiv preprint arXiv:2304.07193, 2023. 1, 3

    2023 arXiv

  35. [43]

    Lookout: Real-world humanoid egocentric navigation

    Boxiao Pan, Adam W Harley, Francis Engelmann, C Karen Liu, and Leonidas J Guibas. Lookout: Real-world humanoid egocentric navigation. InProceedings of the IEEE/CVF In- ternational Conference on Computer Vision, pages 24977– 24988, 2025. 2, 3, 4, 5, 6

    2025

  36. [44]

    Stanford Univer- sity, 2006

    Xiaoshan Pan.Computational modeling of human and social behaviors for emergency egress analysis. Stanford Univer- sity, 2006. 1

    2006

  37. [45]

    The elderly wayfind- ing performance in an informative healthcare design indoors

    Amir Ehsan Pouyan, Abdul Hamid Ghanbaran, Abbas Hos- seinzadeh, and Amir Shakibamanesh. The elderly wayfind- ing performance in an informative healthcare design indoors. Journal of Building Engineering, 87:108843, 2024. 1, 2

    2024

  38. [46]

    Egocentric hu- man trajectory forecasting with a wearable camera and multi- modal fusion.IEEE Robotics and Automation Letters, 7(4): 8799–8806, 2022

    Jianing Qiu, Lipeng Chen, Xiao Gu, Frank P-W Lo, Ya-Yen Tsai, Jiankai Sun, Jiaqi Liu, and Benny Lo. Egocentric hu- man trajectory forecasting with a wearable camera and multi- modal fusion.IEEE Robotics and Automation Letters, 7(4): 8799–8806, 2022. 5

    2022

  39. [47]

    Human wayfinding in unfamiliar buildings: a simulation with a cognizing agent.Cognitive Processing, 2(3):363–388, 2001

    Martin Raubal. Human wayfinding in unfamiliar buildings: a simulation with a cognizing agent.Cognitive Processing, 2(3):363–388, 2001. 1, 2

    2001

  40. [48]

    A formal model of the process of wayfinding in built environments

    Martin Raubal and Michael Worboys. A formal model of the process of wayfinding in built environments. InInterna- tional conference on spatial information theory, pages 381–

  41. [49]

    Social-transmotion: Promptable human trajectory prediction.arXiv preprint arXiv:2312.16168,

    Saeed Saadatnejad, Yang Gao, Kaouther Messaoud, and Alexandre Alahi. Social-transmotion: Promptable human trajectory prediction.arXiv preprint arXiv:2312.16168,

    arXiv

  42. [50]

    Robots that can see: Leveraging human pose for trajectory prediction.IEEE Robotics and Automation Letters, 8(11):7090–7097, 2023

    Tim Salzmann, Hao-Tien Lewis Chiang, Markus Ryll, Dorsa Sadigh, Carolina Parada, and Alex Bewley. Robots that can see: Leveraging human pose for trajectory prediction.IEEE Robotics and Automation Letters, 8(11):7090–7097, 2023. 1 10

    2023

  43. [51]

    What is a savitzky-golay filter?[lecture notes].IEEE Signal processing magazine, 28(4):111–117,

    Ronald W Schafer. What is a savitzky-golay filter?[lecture notes].IEEE Signal processing magazine, 28(4):111–117,

  44. [52]

    Flomo: Tractable mo- tion prediction with normalizing flows

    Christoph Sch ¨oller and Alois Knoll. Flomo: Tractable mo- tion prediction with normalizing flows. In2021 IEEE/RSJ International Conference on Intelligent Robots and Systems (IROS), pages 7977–7984. IEEE, 2021. 2

    2021

  45. [53]

    Vlm-social-nav: So- cially aware robot navigation through scoring using vision- language models.IEEE Robotics and Automation Letters,

    Daeun Song, Jing Liang, Amirreza Payandeh, Amir Hossain Raj, Xuesu Xiao, and Dinesh Manocha. Vlm-social-nav: So- cially aware robot navigation through scoring using vision- language models.IEEE Robotics and Automation Letters,

  46. [54]

    Egotracks: A long-term egocentric vi- sual object tracking dataset.Advances in Neural Information Processing Systems, 36:75716–75739, 2023

    Hao Tang, Kevin J Liang, Kristen Grauman, Matt Feiszli, and Weiyao Wang. Egotracks: A long-term egocentric vi- sual object tracking dataset.Advances in Neural Information Processing Systems, 36:75716–75739, 2023. 3

    2023

  47. [55]

    xr-egopose: Egocentric 3d human pose from an hmd camera

    Denis Tome, Patrick Peluse, Lourdes Agapito, and Hernan Badino. xr-egopose: Egocentric 3d human pose from an hmd camera. InProceedings of the IEEE/CVF International Con- ference on Computer Vision, pages 7728–7738, 2019. 2

    2019

  48. [56]

    Evaluation of video masked autoen- coders’ performance and uncertainty estimations for driver action and intention recognition

    Koen Vellenga, H Joe Steinhauer, G ¨oran Falkman, and Tomas Bj ¨orklund. Evaluation of video masked autoen- coders’ performance and uncertainty estimations for driver action and intention recognition. InProceedings of the IEEE/CVF Winter Conference on Applications of Computer ...

    2024

  49. [57]

    Influencing behavioral attributions to robot motion during task execution

    Nick Walker, Christoforos Mavrogiannis, Siddhartha Srini- vasa, and Maya Cakmak. Influencing behavioral attributions to robot motion during task execution. InConference on Robot Learning, pages 169–179. PMLR, 2022. 1

    2022

  50. [58]

    Scene-aware ego- centric 3d human pose estimation

    Jian Wang, Diogo Luvizon, Weipeng Xu, Lingjie Liu, Kri- pasindhu Sarkar, and Christian Theobalt. Scene-aware ego- centric 3d human pose estimation. InProceedings of the IEEE/CVF Conference on Computer Vision and Pattern Recognition, pages 13031–13040, 2023. 3

    2023

  51. [59]

    Eg- onav: Egocentric scene-aware human trajectory prediction

    Weizhuo Wang, C Karen Liu, and Monroe Kennedy III. Eg- onav: Egocentric scene-aware human trajectory prediction. arXiv preprint arXiv:2403.19026, 2024. 2, 3, 5

    2024 arXiv

  52. [60]

    Simulation of spontaneous leader–follower behaviour in crowd evacuation

    Wei Xie, Eric Wai Ming Lee, and Yiu Yin Lee. Simulation of spontaneous leader–follower behaviour in crowd evacuation. Automation in Construction, 134:104100, 2022. 2

    2022

  53. [61]

    Path-u: A data-driven agent-based wayfinding model incorporating perceived path uncertainty and cognitive strategies in unfa- miliar indoor environments

    Qi Yang, Rohit K Dubey, and Saleh Kalantari. Path-u: A data-driven agent-based wayfinding model incorporating perceived path uncertainty and cognitive strategies in unfa- miliar indoor environments. InBuilding Simulation, pages 449–471. Springer, 2025. 1, 3, 6, 7

    2025

  54. [62]

    Estimating body and hand motion in an ego- sensed world

    Brent Yi, Vickie Ye, Maya Zheng, Yunqi Li, Lea M ¨uller, Georgios Pavlakos, Yi Ma, Jitendra Malik, and Angjoo Kanazawa. Estimating body and hand motion in an ego- sensed world. InProceedings of the Computer Vision and Pattern Recognition Conference, pages 7072–7084, 2025. 2

    2025

  55. [63]

    On the continuity of rotation representations in neural networks

    Yi Zhou, Connelly Barnes, Jingwan Lu, Jimei Yang, and Hao Li. On the continuity of rotation representations in neural networks. InProceedings of the IEEE/CVF conference on computer vision and pattern recognition, pages 5745–5753,

  56. [64]

    Runhe Zhu, Burcin Becerik-Gerber, Jing Lin, and Nan Li. Behavioral, data-driven, agent-based evacuation simulation for building safety design using machine learning and dis- crete choice models.Advanced Engineering Informatics, 55: 101827, 2023. 2

    2023

  57. [65]

    Follow people or signs? a novel way-finding method based on experiments and simulation.Physica A: Statistical Mechanics and its Applications, 573:125926,

    Yu Zhu, Tao Chen, Ning Ding, Mohcine Chraibi, and Wei- Cheng Fan. Follow people or signs? a novel way-finding method based on experiments and simulation.Physica A: Statistical Mechanics and its Applications, 573:125926,

Pith tools

Reviewed August 3, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.