A Comparative Study on Machine Learning Algorithms for the Control of a Wall Following Robot
Bibliographic record
Abstract
A comparison of the performance of various machine learning models to predict the direction of a wall following robot is presented in this paper. The models were trained using an open-source dataset that contains 24 ultrasound sensors readings and the corresponding direction for each sample. This dataset was captured using SCITOS G5 mobile robot by placing the sensors on the robot waist. In addition to the full format with 24 sensors per record, the dataset has two simplified formats with 4 and 2 input sensor readings per record. Several control models were proposed previously for this dataset using all three dataset formats. In this paper, two primary research contributions are presented. First, presenting machine learning models with accuracies higher than all previously proposed models for this dataset using all three formats. A perfect solution for the 4 and 2 inputs sensors formats is presented using Decision Tree Classifier by achieving a mean accuracy of 100%. On the other hand, a mean accuracy of 99.82% was achieves using the 24 sensor inputs by employing the Gradient Boost Classifier. Second, presenting a comparative study on the performance of different machine learning and deep learning algorithms on this dataset. Therefore, providing an overall insight on the performance of these algorithms for similar sensor fusion problems. All the models in this paper were evaluated using Monte-Carlo cross-validation.
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 imitationNot 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.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.004 | 0.010 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
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.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
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".