MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2163089921 · doi:10.1109/robot.2006.1642354

Continuous motion, outdoor, 2 1/2D grid map generation using an inexpensive nodding 2-D laser rangefinder

2006· article· en· W2163089921 on OpenAlexaff
Gregory S. Broten, Jack Collier

Bibliographic record

Venuenot available
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEngineering
TopicRobotics and Sensor-Based Localization
Canadian institutionsDefence Research and Development Canada
Fundersnot available
KeywordsComputer scienceComputer visionGridArtificial intelligenceTerrainGrid referenceRange (aeronautics)Set (abstract data type)Variance (accounting)Fuse (electrical)LaserData setRobotMobile robotMathematicsEngineeringOpticsGeography

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

This paper introduces a technique for creating 2 1/2D grid maps of unstructured, outdoor environments, while traveling at high speeds, using an inexpensive nodding 2-D laser rangefinder. The nodding mechanism allows the acquisition of multiple range data sets for terrain in front of the robot. While these multiple data sets alleviate some of the problems traditionally associated with laser rangefinders, they also introduce a new set of problems. The paper investigates and quantifies factors that determine the accuracy of a map generated using a nodding laser rangefinder and derives an optimal basis for minimizing these errors. This research has determined that the most significant source of errors, for a nodding laser rangefinder configuration, are the roll, pitch and yaw accuracy for the laser beam. A variance weighted statistical approach was implemented to optimally fuse the range data into the 2 1/2D grid map. Simulations and experiments were conducted, demonstrating the performance of the variance weighted technique as superior to classical statistical methods

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)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.001
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 score0.002
Threshold uncertainty score0.004

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.000

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 head0.022
GPT teacher head0.218
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

Citations8
Published2006
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

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