Neural Network-Based Multiple Robot Simultaneous Localization and Mapping
Bibliographic record
Abstract
In this paper, a decentralized platform for simultaneous localization and mapping (SLAM) with multiple robots is developed. Each robot performs single robot view-based SLAM using an extended Kalman filter to fuse data from two encoders and a laser ranger. To extend this approach to multiple robot SLAM, a novel occupancy grid map fusion algorithm is proposed. Map fusion is achieved through a multistep process that includes image preprocessing, map learning (clustering) using neural networks, relative orientation extraction using norm histogram cross correlation and a Radon transform, relative translation extraction using matching norm vectors, and then verification of the results. The proposed map learning method is a process based on the self-organizing map. In the learning phase, the obstacles of the map are learned by clustering the occupied cells of the map into clusters. The learning is an unsupervised process which can be done on the fly without any need to have output training patterns. The clusters represent the spatial form of the map and make further analyses of the map easier and faster. Also, clusters can be interpreted as features extracted from the occupancy grid map so the map fusion problem becomes a task of matching features. Results of the experiments from tests performed on a real environment with multiple robots prove the effectiveness of the proposed solution.
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 | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 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".