MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2147280885 · doi:10.1109/iscv.1995.477057

Where to look next in 3D object search

2002· article· en· W2147280885 on OpenAlex

Why this work is in the frame

A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.

affAt least one author lists a Canadian institution in the pinned OpenAlex snapshot.

Bibliographic record

Venuenot available
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEngineering
TopicRobotics and Sensor-Based Localization
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Toronto
Fundersnot available
KeywordsComputer scienceTask (project management)Object (grammar)Range (aeronautics)Artificial intelligenceComputer visionObject detectionSpace (punctuation)Probability distributionPattern recognition (psychology)MathematicsEngineering

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The task of sensor planning for object search is formulated and a mechanism for "where to look next" for this task is presented. The searcher is assumed to be a mobile platform equipped with an active camera and a method of calculating depth, like stereo or a laser range finder. The formulation casts sensor planning as an optimization problem: the goal is to maximize the probability of detecting the target object with minimal cost. The search space is thus characterized by the probability distribution of the presence of the target. The control of the sensing parameters depends on the current state of the search space and the detecting ability of the recognition algorithm. In order to represent the environment and to efficiently determine the sensing parameters over time, a concept called the sensed sphere is proposed and its construction, using a laser range finder, is derived. The result of each sensing operation is used to update the status of the search space.

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.

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 categoriesInsufficient payload (model declined to judge)
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Simulation or modeling · Consensus signal: Simulation or modeling
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.565
Threshold uncertainty score1.000

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)0.0010.001

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 head0.024
GPT teacher head0.220
Teacher spread0.196 · 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

Quick stats

Citations32
Published2002
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

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