Visit

RELATED STORIES


RELATED STORIES


RELATED STORIES


RELATED STORIES


RELATED STORIES

By Tom Fleischman

Cornell Tech researchers have developed a mixed-reality (XR) driving simulator system that could lower the cost of testing vehicle systems and interfaces, such as the turn signal and dashboard.

Through the use of a publicly available headset, virtual objects and events are superimposed into the view of participants driving unmodified vehicles in low-speed test areas, to produce accurate and repeatable data collection about behavioral responses in real-world driving tasks.

Doctoral students Frank Bu, left, and David Goedicke, co-authors of the research on the XR-OOM mixed-reality driving simulation system, are pictured outside the Fiat virtual simulation vehicle, inside the Tata Center at Cornell Tech. (Lindsay France/Cornell University)
Doctoral students Frank Bu, left, and David Goedicke, co-authors of the research on the XR-OOM mixed-reality driving simulation system, are pictured outside the Fiat virtual simulation vehicle, inside the Tata Center at Cornell Tech. (Lindsay France/Cornell University)

Doctoral student David Goedicke is lead author of “XR-OOM: MiXed Reality Driving Simulation With Real Cars For Research and Design,” which he will present at the Association for Computing Machinery’s CHI 2022 conference, April 30-May 5 in New Orleans.

The senior author is Wendy Ju, associate professor of information science at the Jacobs Technion-Cornell Institute at Cornell Tech and the Technion, and a member of the information science field at Cornell. Hiroshi Yasuda, human-machine interaction researcher at Toyota Research Institute, also contributed to the study.

This work is an offshoot of research Ju’s lab conducted in 2018, which resulted in VR-OOM, a virtual-reality on-road driving simulation program. This current work takes that a step farther, Goedicke said, by combining video of the real world – known as “video pass-through” – in real time, with virtual objects.

“What you’re trying to do is create scenarios,” he said. “You want to feel like you’re driving in a car, and the developer wants full control over the scenarios you want to show to a participant. Ultimately, you want to use as much from the real world as you can.”

This system was built using the Varjo XR-1 Mixed Reality headset, along with the Unity simulation environment, which previous researchers demonstrated could be usable for driving simulation in a moving vehicle. XR-OOM integrates and validates these into a usable driving simulation system that incorporates real-world variables, in real time.

“One of the issues with traditional simulation testing is that they really only consider the scenarios and situations that the designers thought of,” Ju said, “so a lot of the important things that happen in the real world don’t get captured as part of those experiments. (XR-OOM) increases the ecological validity of our studies, to be able to understand how people are going to behave under really specific circumstances.”

One challenge with XR versus VR is the faithful rendering of the outside world, Goedicke said. In mixed reality, what’s on the video screen needs to precisely match the outside world.

“In VR, you can trick the brain really easily,” he said. “If the horizon doesn’t quite match up, for instance, it’s not a big problem. Or if you’re making a 90-degree turn but it was actually more like 80 degrees, your brain doesn’t care all that much. But if you try to do this with mixed reality, where you’re incorporating actual elements of the real world, it doesn’t work at all.”

Doctoral student David Goedicke sits behind the wheel of the Fiat virtual simulation vehicle, inside the Tata Center at Cornell Tech. (Lindsay France/Cornell University)
Doctoral student David Goedicke sits behind the wheel of the Fiat virtual simulation vehicle, inside the Tata Center at Cornell Tech. (Lindsay France/Cornell University)

To test the validity of their method, the researchers designed an experiment with three conditions: No headset (Condition A); headset with video pass-through only (Condition B); and headset with video pass-through and virtual objects (Condition C).

The participants were asked to perform several stationary tasks, including starting the vehicle, adjusting seat and mirrors, fastening safety belt, and verbally describing which dashboard lights are visible. Participants were also asked to perform several low-speed driving tasks, including left and right turns, slalom navigation and stopping at a line. The drivers in conditions A and B had to navigate around actual physical cones, placed 8 feet apart; those in Condition C saw superimposed cones in their headsets.

Most participants successfully completed all cockpit tasks, with most of the failed attempts attributable to unfamiliarity with the vehicle. Most also were successful in the driving tasks, with slalom navigation being most difficult for all, regardless of condition.

This success validates the potential, Ju said, of this technology as a low-cost alternative to elaborate facilities for the testing of certain onboard vehicle technologies.

“This kind of high-resolution, mixed-reality headset is becoming a lot more widely available, so now we’re thinking about how to use it for driving experiments,” Ju said. “More people will be able to take advantage of these things that will be commercially available and inexpensive really soon.”

Other co-authors included Sam Lee, M.S. ’21; and doctoral students Alexandra Bremers and Fanjun Bu.

This research was supported by the Toyota Research Institute.

This story originally appeared in the Cornell Chronicle.


According to a team of Cornell researchers, the emergence of non-fungible tokens (NFTs) in the art world is poised to do one of two things: either fully empower artists with more creative and financial control of their work, or kick-start a “completely dysfunctional” art market characterized by bot-driven prices and undetectable digital heists.

The team from Cornell Tech has written a new primer that makes several recommendations for how to avoid this dysfunctional, dystopian future. This includes:

  • creating smart contracts for NFT distribution that function like “safe documents” for startups
  • automated processes for vetting NFT buyers and preventing market manipulation by bots, including purchase limits and sales restrictions for certain auctions
  • innovative royalty-payment structures that offer commissions or other financial incentives to NFT artists

 

“While there have been many pieces exploring NFTs recently, we believe this paper is the first true exploration of NFTs as an extension and transformation of the contemporary fine art market,” says lead author Sarah Allen, the research program manager for Cornell Tech’s Initiative for CryptoCurrency and Contracts (IC3).

The paper was co-written by Cornell Tech professors Ari Juels and Mukti Khaire, IC3 research engineer Tyler Kell, and researcher Siddhant Shrivastava of the Singapore University of Technology and Design (SUTD). Juels is a blockchain researcher who also serves as Chief Scientist of Chainlink Labs, a top 25 cryptocurrency with a $6.6b market cap, while Khaire is a business professor with expertise in traditional art markets. The work was based at the Jacobs Institute at Cornell Tech.

Smart Contracts

In the world of venture funding, investors and lawyers have pulled together standardized “safe documents” as an inexpensive way to close an investment so that both parties are reasonably protected. Juels says that a similar set of smart contracts for distributing and reselling NFT artworks could protect participants from the challenges arising in what is today a largely unregulated market.

Over time, a more ambitious system is perhaps possible, for instance, an engine that allows artists to tailor contracts to their specific preferences, but with strong guardrails in terms of legal enforceability.

Automated Buyer-Vetting

Allen and her colleagues say that the bot-driven nature of the NFT marketplace means that art sellers will have to get more creative in vetting buyers to make the purchasing process more egalitarian for us non-algorithms. Some ways to do this include:

  • discounts for established NFT artists
  • “fair drops” of new work (e.g., limiting purchases to one piece per buyer to
    prevent accumulation by bots)
  • in some cases, restricting sales to buyers who have previously purchased works that meet certain criteria (e.g., selling only to buyers who already own works by a given artist)

​​Innovative Royalty Structures

The team argues that the NFT art market will provide more autonomy for artists if it continues to offer robust royalty structures for creators. For example, DADA.nyc pays NFT artists a 30 percent commission for resales of their work – a key way for artists to financially profit after their initial purchase. A similar structure was attempted in the traditional art market with “droit de suite”, but enforcement has been impractical and only attempted in a few countries. In contrast, NFT royalty payments are borderless and enforceable for all transactions.

Some companies get even more inventive: Eulerbeats, for example, created a set of NFT artworks with a limited number of copies (“prints”) and sold them to generate a royalty paid to the owner of the original NFT.  Rather than reselling prints, owners also have the option of sending them to a contract that “burns” them and pays a reward for reducing the overall supply.

The researchers say that we’re really only at the beginning in terms of the kinds of royalty structures that could incentivize artists, buyers, and sellers. For instance, they imagine a future NFT collection that adds a bit of a gambling component, in which all royalties are awarded by lottery to one randomly selected owner of a piece from the collection.

Researchers at Cornell Tech and elsewhere are working to design systems to enable a fair, forward-looking NFT art market. For example, this spring Juels and colleagues collaborated with digital artist Zach Lieberman to demonstrate an auction system that uses decentralized identity technology to ensure “fair drops” of NFTs (i.e. one person, one entry).

“That raffle was a key first step in showing that we can limit the dominance of bots as artists sell their work,” says Allen. “More tools like this will be required to ensure that the NFT art market fulfills its full promise rather than becoming a dysfunctional, undemocratic dystopia.”

Related Links

Paper: “NFTs for Art and Collectibles”
IC3
Ari Juels
Mukti Khaire



RELATED STORIES


RELATED STORIES


RELATED STORIES