MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W1484555300 · doi:10.1002/rob.21490

Mapping, Planning, and Sample Detection Strategies for Autonomous Exploration

2013· article· en· W1484555300 on OpenAlexaff
Arun Das, Michael Diu, Neil Mathew, Christian Scharfenberger, James Servos, Andy Wong, John Zelek, David A. Clausi, Steven L. Waslander

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Field Robotics · 2013
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEngineering
TopicRobotics and Sensor-Based Localization
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Waterloo
Fundersnot available
KeywordsSample (material)Computer scienceFidelityField (mathematics)RobotGlobal Positioning SystemSimultaneous localization and mappingObject detectionReal-time computingAutonomous robotObject (grammar)Artificial intelligenceHigh fidelityComputer visionMobile robotEngineeringPattern recognition (psychology)Mathematics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Abstract This paper presents algorithmic advances and field trial results for autonomous exploration and proposes a solution to perform simultaneous localization and mapping (SLAM), complete coverage, and object detection without relying on GPS or magnetometer data. We demonstrate an integrated approach to the exploration problem, and we make specific contributions in terms of mapping, planning, and sample detection strategies that run in real‐time on our custom platform. Field tests demonstrate reliable performance for each of these three main components of the system individually, and high‐fidelity simulation based on recorded data playback demonstrates the viability of the complete solution as applied to the 2013 NASA Sample Return Robot Challenge.

Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.

How this classification was reachedexpand

Full frame machine prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.002
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Simulation or modeling · Consensus signal: Simulation or modeling
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.003
Threshold uncertainty score0.007

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.002
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.001
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.000

Machine scores (provisional)

The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.

Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.

Opus teacher head0.025
GPT teacher head0.235
Teacher spread0.211 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designSimulation or modeling
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".

Quick stats

Citations43
Published2013
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of Field RoboticsSame topicRobotics and Sensor-Based LocalizationFrench-language works237,207