MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W1980549145 · doi:10.1109/icra.2012.6224741

Indexing visual features: Real-time loop closure detection using a tree structure

2012· article· en· W1980549145 on OpenAlexaff
Yang Liu, Hong Zhang

Bibliographic record

Venuenot available
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldComputer Science
TopicAdvanced Image and Video Retrieval Techniques
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Alberta
Fundersnot available
KeywordsComputer scienceSearch engine indexingArtificial intelligenceTree structureKey framePattern recognition (psychology)ScalabilityComputer visionTree (set theory)Feature extractionFeature (linguistics)Frame (networking)Data structureMathematicsDatabase

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

We propose a simple and effective method for visual loop closure detection in appearance-based robot SLAM. Unlike the Bag-of-Words (BoW hereafter) approach in most existing work of the problem, our method uses direct feature matching to detect loop closures and therefore avoid the perceptual aliasing problem caused by the vector quantization process of BoW. We show that a tree structure can be efficient in online loop closure detection. In our method, a KD-tree is built over all the key frame features and an indexing table is kept for retrieving relevant key frames. Due to the efficiency of the tree-based feature matching, loop closure detection can be achieved in real-time. To investigate the scalability of the method, we also apply the scale dependent feature selection in our method and show that the run time can be reduced significantly at the expense of sacrificing the performance to some extent. The proposed method is validated on an indoor SLAM dataset with 7,420 images.

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)0.000
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: Bench or experimental · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.003
Threshold uncertainty score0.007

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.002
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0020.002
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.002
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.001

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.

Opus teacher head0.014
GPT teacher head0.301
Teacher spread0.287 · 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 designBench or experimental
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

Citations33
Published2012
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same topicAdvanced Image and Video Retrieval TechniquesFrench-language works237,207