MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W1603948147

Comparison of feature detection techniques for AUV navigation along a trained route

2013· article· en· W1603948147 on OpenAlex

Why this work is in the frame

A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.

affAt least one author lists a Canadian institution in the pinned OpenAlex snapshot.

Bibliographic record

Venue2013 OCEANS - San Diego · 2013
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEngineering
TopicRobotics and Sensor-Based Localization
Canadian institutionsMemorial University of Newfoundland
Fundersnot available
KeywordsSonarComputer visionArtificial intelligenceComputer scienceFeature extractionFeature (linguistics)Scale-invariant feature transformSide-scan sonarContext (archaeology)Matching (statistics)Path (computing)Orb (optics)Hough transformPattern recognition (psychology)Image (mathematics)GeographyMathematics
DOInot available

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Autonomous underwater vehicles (AUV)s traversing a path will incur positional error drift over time while submerged. We are developing a route following system which is based upon features extracted from the seabed using sidescan sonar collected in a training phase. Through matching of sonar images, this system navigates over a path without the need for a continual global position estimate. At the core of this system is the need to reliably extract features and match images derived from the sonar. At our disposal is an array of algorithms which implement the OpenCV common interface for feature extraction and matching. Using pre-collected sets of data we compare the performance of several of these algorithms in the context of matching sonar image tiles. Our results compare the performance of various feature types over two common sets of data. The feature types tested include SIFT[12], SURF[3], MSER[13], STAR[1], ORB[15], and BRIEF[4].

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.

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: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.563
Threshold uncertainty score0.586

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 head0.014
GPT teacher head0.255
Teacher spread0.241 · 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