MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2154343844 · doi:10.1109/robot.2008.4543554

Dynamic visibility checking for vision-based motion planning

2008· article· en· W2154343844 on OpenAlexaff
Simon Léonard, Elizabeth A. Croft, James J. Little

Bibliographic record

Venuenot available
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldComputer Science
TopicAdvanced Vision and Imaging
Canadian institutionsUniversity of British Columbia
Fundersnot available
KeywordsComputer scienceComputer visionVisibilityFrustumTrajectoryArtificial intelligenceMotion planningPath (computing)Field (mathematics)Position (finance)Field of viewVisual servoingAlgorithmImage (mathematics)RobotMathematics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

An important problem in position-based visual servoing (PBVS) is to guarantee that a target will remain within the field of view for the duration of the task. In this paper, we propose a dynamic visibility checking algorithm that, given a parametrized trajectory of the camera, determines if an arbitrary 3D target will remain within the field of view. We reformulate this problem as the problem of determining if the 3D coordinates of the target collide with the frustum formed by the camera field of view during the camera trajectory. To solve this problem, our algorithm computes and compares the shortest distance between the target and the frustum with the length of the trajectory described by the target in the camera's coordinate frame. Furthermore, we demonstrate that our algorithm can be combined with path planning algorithms and, in particular, probabilistic roadmaps (PRM). Results suggest that our algorithm is computationally efficient even when the target moves in the vicinity of image borders. In simulations, we use our dynamic visibility checking algorithm in conjunction with a PRM to plan collision free paths while providing the guarantee that a specific target will not leave the field of view.

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: Simulation or modeling · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Methods · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.933
Threshold uncertainty score0.335

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 communication0.0000.001
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 head0.029
GPT teacher head0.338
Teacher spread0.309 · 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
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

Citations19
Published2008
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same topicAdvanced Vision and ImagingFrench-language works237,207