MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2966304369 · doi:10.1109/icphys.2019.8780288

Building 2D Maps with Integrated 3D and Visual Information using Kinect Sensor

2019· article· en· W2966304369 on OpenAlexaff
Gayan Brahmanage, Henry Leung

Bibliographic record

Venuenot available
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEngineering
TopicRobotics and Sensor-Based Localization
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Calgary
Fundersnot available
KeywordsComputer visionArtificial intelligenceRGB color modelComputer scienceSimultaneous localization and mappingMobile robotRobotFuse (electrical)Laser scanningLaserEngineering

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

RGB-D sensors can be used as a cost effective alternative to expensive laser scanners for small scale indoor mapping applications. Since RGB-D cameras provide both color and depth data, it is possible to fuse these two data frames in 2D mapping to exploit the advantages over laser scanners. An improved technique is to capture the navigation environment in an application for goal-oriented navigation and situation assessment using a mobile robot. The proposed technique is based on incorporating RGB images and 3D information to existing 2D Simultaneous Localization And Mapping (SLAM); which has not been clearly investigated before. By integrating visual and 3D information using an inexpensive RGB-D camera, the mobile robot is better equipped to perform tasks such as sign detection, object detection, and text understanding. The motivation for such an approach is to use 3D and visual information with reduced complexity. The performance of 2D mapping is exploited here by replacing the laser scanner with a RGB-D camera. In addition, memory usage is reduced by selecting key RGB-D frames from its sequence by comparing the number of overlapped RGB features. The proposed approach is evaluated for accuracy and consistency using experimental data gathered from a real environment.

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: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.390
Threshold uncertainty score0.298

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 head0.005
GPT teacher head0.200
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 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

Citations1
Published2019
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

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