Datasets:
Access request pending and contact email invalid
Hello,
I submitted an access request for the Intel Robotic Welding Multimodal Dataset.
The email address listed in the Dataset Card appears to be invalid, so I was unable to contact the maintainer.
Could someone from the Intel Labs team let me know the correct contact method?
Thank you.
Hi - adding to this thread, because the access queue for this dataset appears to be unmonitored rather than simply slow.
In discussion #1, three separate people have requested access since April 2026 and none received a reply. My own request has been pending since 31 July 2026 (account: ssw08). The contact address on the dataset card, jose.a.lopez@intel.com, was reported in this thread as unreachable, and @amr-lopezjos is the only contact listed but is not a member of the IntelLabs organization here - so I suspect the approval notifications are not reaching anyone who can act on them.
Tagging three people who plausibly can:
@tarakt - co-author of arXiv:2409.02290 and an IntelLabs org member
@vagheshpatel - published Intel/qwen3.5-2b-vlm-weld-explainability-lora, trained on this dataset, last month
@michaelbeale-il - Intel / Intel Labs org maintainer
For context: I am a trainee at the AI Academy, a national AI talent development program funded by the Ministry of Science and ICT (MSIT) of the Republic of Korea. My final capstone project is a proof-of-concept for weld defect detection, due December 2026. It is strictly non-commercial and for educational assessment, not a deployed inspection system. I will comply fully with the Intel Research Use License Agreement and am happy to provide written confirmation of enrollment from the program office.
Could someone review the pending queue, or point us to the current owner of the repository?
To be clear about scope: I am asking for the multimodal data, not the images alone. The audio matters for my project specifically - the paper reports audio outperforming video on porosity (0.995 vs 0.987 AUC), overlap (0.974 vs 0.852) and crater cracks (0.945 vs 0.844), and porosity is one of my target defect classes. If releasing the full 39.9 GB archive to external requesters is not practical, a reduced subset of the FLAC audio together with the post-weld images and their labels would already be enormously useful.
One related question, in case it is easier to answer than the access request: the dataset card lists the audio as 1 channel at 16 kHz, while the paper describes two high-bandwidth microphones recording at 192 kHz. Is the published version downsampled relative to the data used in the paper? Knowing that would help me set realistic expectations before building on the audio branch.
Thank you for making this work public.