MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2071067499 · doi:10.1109/crv.2010.32

Rough Terrain Reconstruction for Rover Motion Planning

2010· article· en· W2071067499 on OpenAlexaffabout
David Gingras, Tom Lamarche, Jean-Luc Bedwani, Érick Dupuis

Bibliographic record

Venuenot available
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldComputer Science
TopicRobotic Path Planning Algorithms
Canadian institutionsHydro-QuébecCanadian Space Agency
Fundersnot available
KeywordsTerrainComputer scienceComputer visionMotion planningBoundary (topology)Artificial intelligenceHausdorff distanceComputer graphics (images)Point (geometry)RobotTriangle meshRemote sensingGeologyGeographyGeometryMathematicsCartography

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

A two-step approach is presented to generate a 3D navigable terrain model for robots operating in natural and uneven environment. First an unstructured surface is built from a 360 degrees field of view LIDAR scan. Second the reconstructed surface is analyzed and the navigable space is extracted to keep only the safe area as a compressed irregular triangular mesh. The resulting mesh is a compact terrain representation and allows point-robot assumption for further motion planning tasks. The proposed algorithm has been validated using a large database containing 688 LIDAR scans collected on an outdoor rough terrain. The mesh simplification error was evaluated using the approximation of Hausdorff distance. In average, for a compression level of 93.5%, the error was of the order of 0.5 cm. This terrain modeler was deployed on a rover controlled from the International Space Station (ISS) during the Avatar Explore Space Mission carried out by the Canadian Space Agency in 2009.

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: Simulation or modeling
GenreCandidate signal: Methods · Consensus signal: Methods
Teacher disagreement score0.004
Threshold uncertainty score0.007

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0020.001

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 head0.020
GPT teacher head0.273
Teacher spread0.252 · 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
GenreMethods

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

Citations37
Published2010
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same topicRobotic Path Planning AlgorithmsFrench-language works237,207