MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2125363383 · doi:10.1109/ccece.2007.308

Multiple Sensor Fusion in Mobile Robot Localization

2007· article· en· W2125363383 on OpenAlexaff
K. Srinivasan, Jason Gu

Bibliographic record

Venuenot available
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEngineering
TopicRobotics and Sensor-Based Localization
Canadian institutionsDalhousie University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsEncoderMobile robotGyroscopeSensor fusionComputer scienceRotary encoderRobotComputer visionInertial measurement unitMotion planningPath (computing)SlippageArtificial intelligenceObstacle avoidanceUltrasonic sensorEngineeringAcoustics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The fusion of multi-sensory information plays a key role in driving a mobile robot over a fixed lane, object recognition, obstacle avoidance, self localization and path planning. To learn the environment using multi-sensory information, we need both an accurate sensor model and a reasonable sensor fusion methodology. In this paper a novel technique is explained combining data's from ultrasonic sensor, encoder and gyroscope. Encoder is often utilized for the position estimation by accumulating the number of times the wheel rotates. Since the B21r robot relies only on encoder data information for localization, the motivation behind this technique is to reduce the wheel-drift that occurs in encoder due to slippage error and bumps on the path that causes the robot to move in a elliptical path when intended to move in a circular path. The B21r mobile robot has forty eight ultrasonic sensors, twenty four at the base and twenty four at the body of the robot. The ultrasonic sensors are used to develop an obstacle avoidance algorithm based on virtual force field (VFF) technique. The algorithm is then combined with a rule based algorithm for the inertial sensors namely encoder and gyroscope, which switches the control back and forth between the encoder and the gyroscope depending on the slippage error caused in the encoder. The simulation results show the path of the robot with the conventional encoder data alone and then with the algorithm implemented. The results and future expansion of the study and the merits of the algorithm are discussed.

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)0.002
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: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.002
Threshold uncertainty score0.006

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.002
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.001
Scholarly communication0.0010.002
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.000

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 head0.008
GPT teacher head0.214
Teacher spread0.206 · 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
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

Citations16
Published2007
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

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