Kati8/ICLR_2023_2025 huggingface dataset:
authors: Tatiana Zemskova
authors: Aleksei Staroverov
authors: Kirill Muravyev
authors: Dmitry Yudin
authors: Aleksandr Panov
reviews: 
Comments: The authors propose a method for object navigation. The agent is equipped with an RGBD camera and GPS+compass. The proposed approach uses a skill fusion decider that selects whether to execute steps from an RL policies or classical map-based approaches. As the agent traverses the environment, it builds a semantic map of the environment that is robust to noise, achieved through image dilation/erosion and temporal accumulation of confidence. They benchmark their approach on the Habitat 2023 object navigation challenge and show the proposed approach outperforms the challenge winner on the validation scenes.
Strengths: * The authors propose an interesting approach for object navigation that outperforms the baselines. Because it uses both classical map-based approaches and learned approaches, it is able to leverage the best of both worlds.
* Approach is robust to segmentation noise
* Writing is generally clear with a few gaps here and there (see below).
* Useful and reasonable experiments.
    * The proposed approach outperforms the baselines on a recent object navigation challenge, though the improvement is marginal under the OneFormer setting.
    * Ablation study is useful. We can see how different parameter setups affect performance (e.g. number of frames, agent turn angle).
Weaknesses: * The motivation for the work is not very clear. Why do we think it's necessary to have the 4 combinations: classical exploration, classical goal reaching, RL-based exploration, RL-based goal reaching? What's the benefit over having just classical or just RL?
* Writing is generally clear with a few gaps here and there, such as the definition of L_{fusion}, or when RL-based exploration is used (it is in Fig. 2 but not mentioned in Sec. 4.1 Skill Fusion Decider).
* Navigation Image Sequences in 4.2 is not very well motivated. Is it to generally increase prediction accuracy by providing more contextual information about the scene/visuals? It's not clear how this relates to the segmentation model being trained on offline data.
* Very similar to SkillFusion (Staroverov et al.). The contributions over this prior work seem minor.
Recommendation: 3: reject, not good enough
Reviewer confidence: 3: You are fairly confident in your assessment. It is possible that you did not understand some parts of the submission or that you are unfamiliar with some pieces of related work. Math/other details were not carefully checked.
Soundness/correctness: 2 fair
Clarity: 3 good
reviews: 
Comments: This paper proposes SkillTron, a navigation approach that uses a newly proposed two-level representation of interactive semantic map with robot skill selection for the object goal navigation task. Experiments are conducted on Habitat Matterport3D challenge.
Strengths: - The paper presents a valid and reasonable system for the ObjectGoal Navigation task.
- Experiments show some improvement over baselines.
Weaknesses: - The paper writing needs significant improvement for both English and the writing flow. I cannot understand a lot of sentences. And I can barely read into understanding the paper details.
- The paper is more like an experiment report after participating the Habitat ObjectGoalNav challenge than a paper. The problem formulation is very specific for the specific challenge. I'm not sure if the paper has any generality that makes it interesting for general ICLR paper readers.
- The proposed system mostly uses previous works as its components. It's unclear if there is any technical contribution in the method.
- Experiments are weak, only comparing to 2 team submissions.
Recommendation: 1: strong reject
Reviewer confidence: 4: You are confident in your assessment, but not absolutely certain. It is unlikely, but not impossible, that you did not understand some parts of the submission or that you are unfamiliar with some pieces of related work.
Soundness/correctness: 2 fair
Clarity: 1 poor
reviews: 
Comments: The paper addresses the problem of visual object navigation by combining active visual exploration and visual navigation with classical map exploration approaches. Regarding visual based navigation, it builds on SegmATRon, using an adaptive loss function to improve object segmentation during inference and create interactive semantic map representations. The proposed method improves the state-of-the-art (sota) on simulated data from the Habitat simulator and the Habitat challenge.

### Comments after the rebuttal
The authors did not provide answers to the comments made by me and the other reviewers. Based on these comments, there are important issues that need to be addressed before the paper can be accepted for publication.
Strengths: The paper proposes a complete architecture containing both learning-based and classic map-based planning methods to improve the performance on the visual object navigation task. The two approaches are combined using a decision module. Navigation is performed either by choosing actions based on a reinforcement learning pipeline fed by semantic segmentation of the scene, or by classical map-based navigation actions achieving both exploration and goal reaching. In the case of visual based navigation, the proposed method exploits the advantages of SegmATRon to achieve more reliable segmentation of the scene via online modification of the segmentation model weights during inference by using a buffer of frames collected during the execution of the actions.
Weaknesses: The writing quality of the paper and the use of English could be improved. The paper also suffers from the quite tight page limit as the descriptions both of the full model and the individual modules are quite brief without covering crucial details regarding their motivation and the relative design choices. In fact, it appears to be very hard to reproduce this work based on the content of the paper, as many details regarding the architecture and the parameters of each module are not provided. 

Another crucial aspect regards relation to prior work. It appears that the proposed architecture is heavily based on the SkillFusion paper, including a more powerful semantic segmentation approach (SegmATRon). This is not clearly stated in the text. It is crucial to make a detailed comparison between the SkillFusion model and the one presented in this work (SkillTRon). In general, it seems that the proposed method is a combination of sota methods. This is not a problem in general, but a comprehensive comparison with the corresponding methods should be provided, clarifying what are the relative improvement and contributions of the proposed work with respect to previous ones.
Recommendation: 3: reject, not good enough
Reviewer confidence: 3: You are fairly confident in your assessment. It is possible that you did not understand some parts of the submission or that you are unfamiliar with some pieces of related work. Math/other details were not carefully checked.
Soundness/correctness: 2 fair
Clarity: 2 fair