MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2967552374 · doi:10.1109/icra.2019.8793608

Group Surfing: A Pedestrian-Based Approach to Sidewalk Robot Navigation

2019· article· en· W2967552374 on OpenAlexaff
Yuqing Du, Nicholas J. Hetherington, Chu Lip Oon, Wesley P. Chan, Camilo Perez Quintero, Elizabeth A. Croft, H. F. Machiel Van der Loos

Bibliographic record

Venuenot available
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEngineering
TopicEvacuation and Crowd Dynamics
Canadian institutionsUniversity of British Columbia
Fundersnot available
KeywordsCrowdsPedestrianComputer scienceRobotMobile robotMobile robot navigationCollision avoidanceComputer visionArtificial intelligenceSimulationHuman–computer interactionCollisionRobot controlEngineeringTransport engineeringComputer security

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

In this paper, we propose a novel navigation system for mobile robots in pedestrian-rich sidewalk environments. Sidewalks are unique in that the pedestrian-shared space has characteristics of both roads and indoor spaces. Like vehicles on roads, pedestrian movement often manifests as linear flows in opposing directions. On the other hand, pedestrians also form crowds and can exhibit much more random movements than vehicles. Classical algorithms are insufficient for safe navigation around pedestrians and remaining on the sidewalk space. Thus, our approach takes advantage of natural human motion to allow a robot to adapt to sidewalk navigation in a safe and socially-compliant manner. We developed a group surfing method which aims to imitate the optimal pedestrian group for bringing the robot closer to its goal. For pedestrian-sparse environments, we propose a sidewalk edge detection and following method. Underlying these two navigation methods, the collision avoidance scheme is human-aware. The integrated navigation stack is evaluated and demonstrated in simulation. A hardware demonstration is also presented.

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: none
Teacher disagreement score0.551
Threshold uncertainty score0.641

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 head0.010
GPT teacher head0.206
Teacher spread0.196 · 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

Citations38
Published2019
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same topicEvacuation and Crowd DynamicsFrench-language works237,207