MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W1983872221 · doi:10.1109/iros.2013.6696350

Visual teach and repeat, repeat, repeat: Iterative Learning Control to improve mobile robot path tracking in challenging outdoor environments

2013· article· en· W1983872221 on OpenAlexaff
Chris J. Ostafew, Angela P. Schoellig, Timothy D. Barfoot

Bibliographic record

Venuenot available
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEngineering
TopicIterative Learning Control Systems
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Toronto
Fundersnot available
KeywordsIterative learning controlTerrainMobile robotController (irrigation)Computer sciencePath (computing)RobotTracking (education)Global Positioning SystemFeed forwardControl theory (sociology)Motion planningComputer visionArtificial intelligenceEngineeringControl engineeringControl (management)Geography

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

This paper presents a path-repeating, mobile robot controller that combines a feedforward, proportional Iterative Learning Control (ILC) algorithm with a feedback-linearized path-tracking controller to reduce path-tracking errors over repeated traverses along a reference path. Localization for the controller is provided by an on-board, vision-based mapping and navigation system enabling operation in large-scale, GPS-denied, extreme environments. The paper presents experimental results including over 600 m of travel by a four-wheeled, 50 kg robot travelling through challenging terrain including steep hills and sandy turns and by a six-wheeled, 160 kg robot at gradually-increased speeds up to three times faster than the nominal, safe speed. In the absence of a global localization system, ILC is demonstrated to reduce path-tracking errors caused by unmodelled robot dynamics and terrain challenges.

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)0.001
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation 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 score0.003
Threshold uncertainty score0.006

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.001
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 science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0000.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.000

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 head0.004
GPT teacher head0.217
Teacher spread0.213 · 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 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

Citations53
Published2013
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same topicIterative Learning Control SystemsFrench-language works237,207