MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2331478043 · doi:10.1115/dscc2010-4297

State Estimation for Kinematic Model Over Lossy Network

2010· article· en· W2331478043 on OpenAlexaff
Soo Jeon

Bibliographic record

Venuenot available
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldComputer Science
TopicDistributed Control Multi-Agent Systems
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Waterloo
Fundersnot available
KeywordsLossy compressionControl theory (sociology)Kalman filterCovarianceComputer scienceKinematicsEstimatorNetwork packetDropout (neural networks)Filter (signal processing)MathematicsStatisticsArtificial intelligenceMachine learning

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The major benefit of the kinematic Kalman filter (KKF), i.e., the state estimation based on kinematic model is that it is immune to parameter variations and unknown disturbances regardless of the operating conditions. In carrying out complex motion tasks such as the coordinated manipulation among multiple machines, some of the motion variables measured by sensors may only be available through the communication layer, which requires to formulate the optimal state estimator subject to lossy network. In contrast to standard dynamic systems, the kinematic model used in the KKF relies on sensory data not only for the output but also for the process input. This paper studies how the packet dropout occurring from the input sensor as well as the output sensor affects the performance of the KKF. When the output sensory data are delivered through the lossy network, it has been shown that the mean error covariance of the KKF is bounded for any non-zero packet arrival rate. On the other hand, if the input sensory data are subject to lossy network, the Bernoulli dropout model results in an unbounded mean error covariance. More practical strategy is to adopt the previous input estimate in case the current packet is dropped. For each case of packet dropout models, the stochastic characteristics of the mean error covariance are analyzed and compared. Simulation results are presented to illustrate the analytical results and to compare the performance of the time varying (optimal) filter gain with that of the static (sub-optimal) filter gain.

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)0.002
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.006
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation 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 score0.014
Threshold uncertainty score0.028

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0020.006
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0000.001
Science and technology studies0.0010.001
Scholarly communication0.0010.003
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0010.001
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 head0.013
GPT teacher head0.258
Teacher spread0.246 · 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 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

Citations0
Published2010
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same topicDistributed Control Multi-Agent SystemsFrench-language works237,207