MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2078429540 · doi:10.1109/crv.2013.12

Charlie Rides the Elevator -- Integrating Vision, Navigation and Manipulation towards Multi-floor Robot Locomotion

2013· article· en· W2078429540 on OpenAlexaff
Daniel M. Troniak, Junaed Sattar, Ankur Gupta, James J. Little, Wesley P. Chan, Ergun Calisgan, Elizabeth A. Croft, H. F. Machiel Van der Loos

Bibliographic record

Venuenot available
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEngineering
TopicElevator Systems and Control
Canadian institutionsUniversity of British Columbia
Fundersnot available
KeywordsElevatorRobotComputer scienceArtificial intelligenceMachine visionMobile robotComputer visionTask (project management)Robot controlHuman–computer interactionSimulationEngineeringSystems engineering

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

This paper presents the design, implementation and experimental evaluation of a semi-humanoid robotic system for autonomous multi-floor navigation. This robot, a Personal Robot 2 named Charlie, is capable of operating an elevator to travel between rooms located on separate floors. Our goal is to create a robotic assistant capable of locating points of interest, manipulating objects, and navigating between rooms in a multi-storied environment equipped with an elevator. Taking the elevator requires the robot to (1) map and localize within its operating environment, (2) navigate to an elevator door, (3) press the up or down elevator call button, (4) enter the elevator, (5) press the control button associated with the target floor, and (6) exit the elevator at the correct floor. To that end, this work integrates the advanced sensorimotor capabilities of the robot - laser range finders, stereo and monocular vision systems, and robotic arms - into a complete, task-driven autonomous system. While the design and implementation of individual sensorimotor processing components is a challenge in and of itself, complete integration in intelligent systems design often presents an even greater challenge. This paper presents our approach towards designing the individual components, with focus on machine vision, manipulation, and systems integration. We present and discuss quantitative results of our live robotic system, discuss difficulties faced and expose potential pitfalls.

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)0.001
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: Bench or experimental · Consensus signal: Bench or experimental
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.004
Threshold uncertainty score0.013

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.001
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0040.001

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 head0.010
GPT teacher head0.218
Teacher spread0.208 · 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

Citations36
Published2013
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same topicElevator Systems and ControlFrench-language works237,207