MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W1589007213 · doi:10.1109/iccse.2015.7250209

Fault detection in mobile robots using sensor fusion

2015· article· en· W1589007213 on OpenAlexaff
Anam Abid, Muhammad Tahir Khan, C. W de Silva

Bibliographic record

Venuenot available
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEngineering
TopicFault Detection and Control Systems
Canadian institutionsUniversity of British Columbia
Fundersnot available
KeywordsFault detection and isolationSensor fusionReal-time computingComputer scienceMobile robotFusionFault (geology)RobotArtificial intelligenceComputer visionFault toleranceEmbedded systemDistributed computing

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Fault detection and isolation in mobile robots has become a challenging task primarily due to uncertain and dynamic operating environments. The design of model-based fault detection methods would not be a practical real-time solution in view of the dynamic and uncertain nature of the problem. Also, conventional single-sensor approaches have limitations in practical applications. In this paper, a method of fault detection and isolation (FDI) based on a multi-level data fusion and response (behavioral) analysis technique is presented. The proposed FDI scheme mainly consists of pre-processing, sensor-fusion, a conflict monitoring unit, a confidence level computation unit, a high-level information fusion unit and a fault isolation unit. The developed FDI method is implemented in a simulated robot environment employing IR/camera fusion for navigation and obstacle avoidance. The fusion-based FDI method is tested under faults in camera and IR sensor. With the developed approach, faults are detected in a timely manner and isolated accurately. Also, with the incorporation of sensor fusion, reliable and accurate sensor information is adaptively fused and fault tolerance is achieved under camera/IR sensor faults.

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 distilled prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation 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: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.173
Threshold uncertainty score0.304

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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 head0.019
GPT teacher head0.240
Teacher spread0.221 · 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 teacher head, 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

Citations20
Published2015
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same topicFault Detection and Control SystemsFrench-language works237,207