MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2944892486 · doi:10.1109/access.2019.2918586

An Advanced Cooperative Positioning Algorithm Based on Improved Factor Graph and Sum-Product Theory for Multiple AUVs

2019· article· en· W2944892486 on OpenAlexaff
Shiwei Fan, Ya Zhang, Chunyang Yu, Minghong Zhu, Fei Yu

Bibliographic record

VenueIEEE Access · 2019
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEngineering
TopicUnderwater Vehicles and Communication Systems
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Calgary
FundersNational Natural Science Foundation of China
KeywordsExtended Kalman filterAlgorithmComputer scienceKalman filterFactor graphSensor fusionFilter (signal processing)GraphArtificial intelligenceComputer visionTheoretical computer science

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

In this research, a novel autonomous underwater vehicle (AUV) cooperative positioning algorithm is proposed to solve the implementation problem of multi-sensor-fusion applications. Different from the traditional methods [i.e., the extended Kalman filter (EKF), unscented Kalman filter (UKF), and iteration extended Kalman filter (IEKF)], which have large linearity error under the condition of nonlinear observation equation when multiple AUV are cooperative positioning, the proposed algorithm utilized the Baysis filter to solve the AUV cooperative problem. Factor graph and sum-product (FGS)-based cooperative positioning algorithm is established to mathematically implement the Bayse filter by converting the global function estimation problem into a local function sum-product estimation problem. Furthermore, to improve the performance of the proposed algorithm, a robust data processing method is presented by introducing a transform matrix to the estimated position information. To demonstrate and verify the proposed methods, the simulation and real tests in different scenarios are performed in this research. Compared with the traditional EKF, UKF, and IEKF cooperative positioning algorithm, the positioning error of the proposed improved FGS (IFGS) cooperative positioning algorithm is obviously smaller than that of the other three algorithms. Moreover, the IFGS algorithm can reduce the complexity of the algorithm, available improving the computational speed of the whole system. This proposed algorithm has important theoretical and practical value for the both industry and academic areas.

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: Simulation or modeling · Consensus signal: Simulation or modeling
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.009
Threshold uncertainty score0.018

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0010.001
Scholarly communication0.0010.002
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0020.001

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 head0.016
GPT teacher head0.269
Teacher spread0.253 · 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

Citations31
Published2019
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueIEEE AccessSame topicUnderwater Vehicles and Communication SystemsFrench-language works237,207