PreprintCited by 330Embodied and Extended CognitionPsychiatry, Mental Health, NeuroscienceVisual perception and processing mechanisms

Where are we in the search for an Artificial Visual Cortex for Embodied Intelligence?

Open access
Majumdar, Arjun, Yadav, Karmesh, Arnaud, Sergio, Ma, Yecheng Jason, Chen, Claire, Silwal, Sneha, Jain, Aryan, Berges, Vincent-Pierre +7 more·2023·arXiv

Abstract

We present the largest and most comprehensive empirical study of pre-trained visual representations (PVRs) or visual 'foundation models' for Embodied AI. First, we curate CortexBench, consisting of 17 different tasks spanning locomotion, navigation, dexterous, and mobile manipulation. Next, we systematically evaluate existing PVRs and find that none are universally dominant. To study the effect of pre-training data size and diversity, we combine over 4,000 hours of egocentric videos from 7 different sources (over 4.3M images) and ImageNet to train different-sized vision transformers using Masked Auto-Encoding (MAE) on slices of this data. Contrary to inferences from prior work, we find that scaling dataset size and diversity does not improve performance universally (but does so on average). Our largest model, named VC-1, outperforms all prior PVRs on average but does not universally dominate either. Next, we show that task- or domain-specific adaptation of VC-1 leads to substantial gains, with VC-1 (adapted) achieving competitive or superior performance than the best known results on all of the benchmarks in CortexBench. Finally, we present real-world hardware experiments, in which VC-1 and VC-1 (adapted) outperform the strongest pre-existing PVR. Overall, this paper presents no new techniques but a rigorous systematic evaluation, a broad set of findings about PVRs (that in some cases, refute those made in narrow domains in prior work), and open-sourced code and models (that required over 10,000 GPU-hours to train) for the benefit of the research community.

Integrity signals

Registry

DataCite · 10.48550/arxiv.2303.18240

Cites

68 of 68 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Recomputing p-values needs the paper’s full text.

Claims the paper makes

We couldn’t retrieve this paper’s full text, so its claims and self-check weren’t run. The registry and citation checks still apply.

Claims other papers make about this one

Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?

  • Octo achieved an average success rate of 72% across six finetuning evaluation setups, compared to 20% for ResNet+Transformer Scratch and 15% for VC-1.

    “| Octo (Ours) | 70% | 75% | 50% | 60% | 100% | 80% | 72% |”

    From Octo: An Open-Source Generalist Robot Policy (2024) · cites this paper as [57]

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

15 of the 83 references couldn’t be matched to a known paper.

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Majumdar, A., Yadav, K., Arnaud, S., Ma, Y. J., Chen, C., Silwal, S., Jain, A., Berges, V.-P., Abbeel, P., Malik, J., Batra, D., Lin, Y., Maksymets, O., Rajeswaran, A., & Meier, F.
Venue
arXiv
Publisher
arXiv
Published
2023
Pages
655-677
ISSN
1049-5258 (ISSN-L)
OpenAlex
W7133188016
Cited by
49
References
83
Citations by year
2026: 12 · 2025: 14 · 2024: 21 · 2023: 2
FWCI
25.21
Type
conference paper
Language
en
Open access
Locations
  • neural information processing systems (publishedVersion)
  • arXiv (Cornell University) (submittedVersion, cc-by-sa)
  • arXiv (Cornell University)
Topics
  • Life Sciences › Neuroscience › Cognitive Neuroscience › Embodied and Extended Cognition
  • Physical Sciences › Computer Science › Artificial Intelligence › Psychiatry, Mental Health, Neuroscience
  • Life Sciences › Neuroscience › Cognitive Neuroscience › Visual perception and processing mechanisms
Keywords
embodied AI, visual cortex, artificial intelligence, visual perception, neuromorphic computing

About these checks

Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.

Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.

Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.

What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›

Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review