MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W1981269465 · doi:10.1109/icma.2013.6618066

A comparison of several nonlinear filters for mobile robot pose estimation

2013· article· en· W1981269465 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

Venuenot available
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldComputer Science
TopicTarget Tracking and Data Fusion in Sensor Networks
Canadian institutionsCarleton University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsExtended Kalman filterParticle filterKalman filterInvariant extended Kalman filterMobile robotComputer scienceMonte Carlo localizationControl theory (sociology)Ensemble Kalman filterNoise (video)RobotArtificial intelligenceFilter (signal processing)Nonlinear filterNonlinear systemComputer visionFilter design

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Pose estimation for mobile robots is one of subjects attracting a lot of attention in recent years. In order to remove process and measurement noise of the non-linear/non-Gaussian system, a number of filtering approaches are available: the extended Kalman filter (EKF), the unscented Kalman filter (UKF) and several variants of the particle filter (PF). In this paper, we compare the accuracy and computational load of the EKF, UKF and particle filter (bootstrap algorithm). A mobile robot is simulated. The simulation results indicate that the bootstrap particle filter has the best state estimation accuracy and the most computational cost. The UKF performs almost equivalently with EKF and they both have much less computational cost than the PF.

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: Simulation or modeling
GenreCandidate signal: Methods · Consensus signal: Methods
Teacher disagreement score0.414
Threshold uncertainty score0.287

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 head0.024
GPT teacher head0.316
Teacher spread0.292 · 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