MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2090689166 · doi:10.1177/0278364913486362

Scale-free coordinates for multi-robot systems with bearing-only sensors

2013· article· en· W2090689166 on OpenAlexaff
Alejandro Cornejo, Andrew J. Lynch, Elizabeth Fudge, Siegfried Bilstein, Majid Khabbazian, James McLurkin

Bibliographic record

VenueThe International Journal of Robotics Research · 2013
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEngineering
TopicIndoor and Outdoor Localization Technologies
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Winnipeg
Fundersnot available
KeywordsRobotComputer scienceGeneralized coordinatesAlgorithmComputer visionArtificial intelligenceMathematics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

We propose scale-free coordinates as an alternative coordinate system for multi-robot systems with large robot populations. Scale-free coordinates allow each robot to know, up to scaling, the relative position and orientation of other robots in the network. We consider a weak sensing model where each robot is only capable of measuring the angle, relative to its own heading, to each of its neighbors. Our contributions are three-fold. First, we derive a precise mathematical characterization of the computability of scale-free coordinates using only bearing measurements, and we describe an efficient algorithm to obtain them. Second, through simulations we show that even in graphs with low average vertex degree, most robots are able to compute the scale-free coordinates of their neighbors using only two-hop bearing measurements. Finally, we present an algorithm to compute scale-free coordinates that is tailored to low-cost systems with limited communication bandwidth and sensor resolution. Our algorithm mitigates the impact of sensing errors through a simple yet effective noise sensitivity model. We validate our implementation with real-world robot experiments using static accuracy measurements and a simple scale-free motion controller.

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 distilled prediction

Teacher imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation 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: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.792
Threshold uncertainty score0.278

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0010.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.062
GPT teacher head0.327
Teacher spread0.265 · 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 teacher head, not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designSimulation or modeling
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

Citations28
Published2013
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueThe International Journal of Robotics ResearchSame topicIndoor and Outdoor Localization TechnologiesFrench-language works237,207