MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2131182778 · doi:10.1109/robot.2008.4543740

Embedded auditory system for small mobile robots

2008· article· en· W2131182778 on OpenAlexaff
Simon Brière, Jean-Marc Valin, François Michaud, Dominic Létourneau

Bibliographic record

Venuenot available
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldComputer Science
TopicSpeech and Audio Processing
Canadian institutionsUniversité de Sherbrooke
Fundersnot available
KeywordsLaptopComputer scienceDigital signal processingRobotDigital signal processorMobile robotAudio signal processingEmbedded systemSignal processingReal-time computingComputer hardwareAudio signalArtificial intelligenceOperating system

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Auditory capabilities would allow small robots interacting with people to act according to vocal cues. In our recent work, we have demonstrated AUDIBLE, an auditory system capable of sound source localization, tracking and separation in real-time, using an array of eight microphones and running on a laptop computer. The system is able to localize and track up to four sources, while separating up to three sources in real-time in noisy environments. Signal processing techniques can be quite computer intensive, and the question of making it possible for this system to run on platforms that cannot carry a laptop computer onboard can be raised. This paper reports our investigation of the appropriate compromises to be made to AUDIBLE's implementation in order to port the system on an embedded DSP (Digital Signal Processor) platform. The DSP implementation is fully functional and performs well with minor limitations compared to the original system i.e., limitations on sound source duration and on the number of sources that can be processed simultaneously. Results demonstrate that it is feasible to port AUDIBLE on embedded platforms, opening up its use in field applications such as human-robot interaction in real life settings.

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)0.000
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: Bench or experimental · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Methods · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.737
Threshold uncertainty score0.304

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
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 science0.0000.000
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 head0.026
GPT teacher head0.233
Teacher spread0.207 · 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 designBench or experimental
Domainnot available
GenreMethods

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

Citations12
Published2008
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same topicSpeech and Audio ProcessingFrench-language works237,207