MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2155390387 · doi:10.1109/crv.2012.8

Multi-Scale Saliency-Guided Compressive Sensing Approach to Efficient Robotic Laser Range Measurements

2012· article· en· W2155390387 on OpenAlexaff
Shimon Schwartz, Alexander Wong, David A. Clausi

Bibliographic record

Venuenot available
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEngineering
TopicSparse and Compressive Sensing Techniques
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Waterloo
Fundersnot available
KeywordsCompressed sensingComputer scienceRange (aeronautics)Data acquisitionLaserScale (ratio)Artificial intelligenceComputer visionSignal reconstructionSIGNAL (programming language)LidarIterative reconstructionSignal processingRemote sensingEngineeringOpticsPhysicsDigital signal processingGeology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Improving laser range data acquisition speed is important for many robotic applications such as mapping and localization. One approach to reducing acquisition time is to acquire laser range data through a dynamically small subset of measurement locations. The reconstruction can then be performed based on the concept of compressed sensing (CS), where a sparse signal representation allows for signal reconstruction at sub-Nyquist measurements. Motivated by this, a novel multi-scale saliency-guided CS-based algorithm is proposed for an efficient robotic laser range data acquisition for robotic vision. The proposed system samples the objects of interest through an optimized probability density function derived based on multi-scale saliency rather than the uniform random distribution used in traditional CS systems. Experimental results with laser range data from indoor and outdoor environments show that the proposed approach requires less than half the samples needed by existing CS-based approaches while maintaining the same reconstruction performance. In addition, the proposed method offers significant improvement in reconstruction SNR compared to current CS-based approaches.

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: Simulation or modeling
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.592
Threshold uncertainty score0.969

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 head0.082
GPT teacher head0.273
Teacher spread0.191 · 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
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

Citations9
Published2012
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same topicSparse and Compressive Sensing TechniquesFrench-language works237,207