Landmark detection and localization for mobile robot applications: a multisensor approach
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.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
SUMMARY This paper describes a landmark detection and localization using an integrated laser-camera sensor. Laser range finder can be used to detect landmarks that are direction invariant in the laser data such as protruding edges in walls, edges of tables, and chairs. When such features are unavailable, the dependant processes will fail to function. However, in many instances, larger number of landmarks can be detected using computer vision. In the proposed method, camera is used to detect landmarks while the location of the landmark is measured by the laser range finder using laser-camera calibration information. Thus, the proposed method exploits the beneficial aspects of each sensor to overcome the disadvantages of the other sensor. While highlighting the drawbacks and limitations of single sensor based methods, an experimental results and important statistics are provided for the verification of the affectiveness sensor fusion method using Extended Kalman Filter (EKF) based simultaneous localization and mapping (SLAM) as an example application.
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 imitationNot 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.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
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.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it