MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2129133800 · doi:10.1109/icra.2013.6631020

Occupancy grid mapping with Markov Chain Monte Carlo Gibbs sampling

2013· article· en· W2129133800 on OpenAlexafffund
Rehman S. Merali, Timothy D. Barfoot

Bibliographic record

Venuenot available
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEngineering
TopicRobotics and Sensor-Based Localization
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Toronto
FundersUniversity of Toronto
KeywordsOccupancy grid mappingMarkov chain Monte CarloOccupancyComputer scienceGibbs samplingMonte Carlo methodSampling (signal processing)Posterior probabilityMarkov chainMetropolis–Hastings algorithmGridDiscretizationAlgorithmMathematical optimizationBayesian probabilityMobile robotArtificial intelligenceMathematicsStatisticsMachine learningRobotComputer visionEngineeringGeometry

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Occupancy grids have been widely used for mapping with mobile robots for nearly 30 years. Occupancy grids discretize the analog environment and seek to determine the occupancy probability of each cell. Traditional occupancy grid mapping methods make two assumptions for computational efficiency and it has been shown that the full posterior is computationally intractable without these assumptions. This paper employs a form of Markov Chain Monte Carlo (MCMC) known as Gibbs sampling to sample from the full posterior. By drawing many samples, we are able to capture the full posterior, which more accurately represents the uncertainty in the map due to sensor measurement error. The MCMC method is shown to compute the full posterior in a 1D toy example, and it is shown to be computationally tractable, though not online, for realistic 2D simulations.

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)0.007
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 score0.011
Threshold uncertainty score0.021

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.007
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0010.001
Scholarly communication0.0010.002
Open science0.0020.002
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 head0.012
GPT teacher head0.182
Teacher spread0.170 · 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

Citations5
Published2013
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

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