Line-Crawling Robot Navigation: A Rough Neurocomputing Approach
Bibliographic record
Abstract
This chapter considers a rough neurocomputing approach to the design of the classify layer of a Brooks architecture for a robot control system. This paradigm for neurocomputing that has its roots in rough set theory, works well in cases where there is uncertainty about the values of measurements used to make decisions. In the case of the line-crawling robot (LCR) described in this chapter, rough neurocomputing works very well in classifying noisy signals from sensors. The LCR is a robot designed to crawl along high-voltage transmission lines where noisy sensor signals are common because of the electromagnetic field surrounding conductors. In rough neurocomputing, training a network of neurons is defined by algorithms for adjusting parameters in the approximation space of each neuron. Learning in a rough neural network is defined relative to local parameter adjustments. Input to a sensor signal classifier is in the form of clusters extracted from convex hulls that “enclose” similar sensor signal values. This chapter gives a fairly complete description of a LCR that has been developed over the past three years as part of a Manitoba Hydro research project. This robot is useful in solving maintenance problems in power systems. A description of the locomotion features of a line-crawling robot and the basic architecture of a rough neurocomputing system for robot navigation are given. A brief description of the fundamental features of rough set theory used in the design of a rough neural network is included in this chapter. A sample sensor signal classification experiment using a recent implementation of rough neural networks is also given. These keywords were added by machine and not by the authors. This process is experimental and the keywords may be updated as the learning algorithm improves.
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 imitationNot 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.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
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.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
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".