Recent advances in simultaneous localization and map-building using computer vision
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Simultaneous localization and map-building (SLAM) continues to draw considerable attention in the robotics community due to the advantages it can offer in building autonomous robots. It examines the ability of an autonomous robot starting in an unknown environment to incrementally build an environment map and simultaneously localize itself within this map. Recent advances in computer vision have contributed a whole class of solutions for the challenge of SLAM. This paper surveys contemporary progress in SLAM algorithms, especially those using computer vision as main sensing means, i.e., visual SLAM. We categorize and introduce these visual SLAM techniques with four main frameworks: Kalman filter (KF)-based, particle filter (PF)-based, expectation-maximization (EM)-based and set membership-based schemes. Important topics of SLAM involving different frameworks are also presented. This article complements other surveys in this field by being current as well as reviewing a large body of research in the area of vision-based SLAM, which has not been covered. It clearly identifies the inherent relationship between the state estimation via the KF versus PF and EM techniques, all of which are derivations of Bayes rule. In addition to the probabilistic methods in other surveys, non-probabilistic approaches are also covered.
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 | 0.001 | 0.004 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.004 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.004 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 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".