MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2084274334 · doi:10.1109/iccvw.2009.5457442

A high speed iterative closest point tracker on an FPGA platform

2009· article· en· W2084274334 on OpenAlexafffund
Michael S. Belshaw, Michael Greenspan

Bibliographic record

Venuenot available
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEngineering
TopicRobotics and Sensor-Based Localization
Canadian institutionsQueen's University
FundersUniversity of TorontoOntario Centres of Excellence
KeywordsField-programmable gate arrayComputer scienceIterative closest pointPoint (geometry)Computer visionArtificial intelligenceComputer hardwarePoint cloudMathematicsGeometry

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

This paper presents and examines a hardware implementation of a high speed Iterative Closest Point (ICP) based object tracking system, which uses stereo vision disparities as input. Custom field programmable gate array (FPGA) hardware has been designed to handle the inherent bottlenecks that result from the large input and processing bandwidths of the range data. The custom hardware has been implemented and tested on various objects, using both software simulation and hardware tests. Results indicate that the tracker is able to successfully track freeform objects along arbitrary paths at rates of over 200 frames-per-second. Tracking errors are low, in spite of substantial sensor and stereo extraction noise. The tracker is able to track linear paths within 1.57 mm and 2.80 degrees and gracefully degrades under occlusion. This high speed hardware implementation with 16 parallel nearest neighbor units has a five times speed improvement when compared to a software k-d tree implementation.

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: Bench or experimental · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.004
Threshold uncertainty score0.014

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 communication0.0000.001
Open science0.0010.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0040.002

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 head0.014
GPT teacher head0.225
Teacher spread0.211 · 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

Citations20
Published2009
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same topicRobotics and Sensor-Based LocalizationFrench-language works237,207