MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2162573538 · doi:10.1109/iros.2011.6095027

Mobile 3D object detection in clutter

2011· article· en· W2162573538 on OpenAlexaff
David Meger, James J. Little

Bibliographic record

Venue2011 IEEE/RSJ International Conference on Intelligent Robots and Systems · 2011
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEngineering
TopicRobotics and Sensor-Based Localization
Canadian institutionsUniversity of British Columbia
Fundersnot available
KeywordsArtificial intelligenceComputer visionComputer scienceClutterObject detectionCognitive neuroscience of visual object recognitionObject (grammar)Point cloudMinimum bounding boxSet (abstract data type)Pattern recognition (psychology)Image (mathematics)Radar

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

This paper presents a method for multi-view 3D robotic object recognition targeted for cluttered indoor scenes. We explicitly model occlusions that cause failures in visual detectors by learning a generative appearance-occlusion model from a training set containing annotated 3D objects, images and point clouds. A Bayesian 3D object likelihood incorporates visual information from many views as well as geometric priors for object size and position. An iterative, sampling-based inference technique determines object locations based on the model. We also contribute a novel robot-collected data set with images and point clouds from multiple views of 60 scenes, with over 600 manually annotated 3D objects accounting for over ten thousand bounding boxes. This data has been released to the community. Our results show that our system is able to robustly recognize objects in realistic scenes, significantly improving recognition performance in clutter.

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)0.002
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation 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: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.003
Threshold uncertainty score0.006

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.002
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0020.001
Bibliometrics0.0020.001
Science and technology studies0.0010.001
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0020.002
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.002

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 head0.059
GPT teacher head0.253
Teacher spread0.195 · 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 designBench or experimental
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

Citations2
Published2011
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venue2011 IEEE/RSJ International Conference on Intelligent Robots and SystemsSame topicRobotics and Sensor-Based LocalizationFrench-language works237,207