MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W3015435304 · doi:10.1109/crv50864.2020.00034

Evaluation of Skid-Steering Kinematic Models for Subarctic Environments

2020· preprint· en· W3015435304 on OpenAlexaff
Dominic Baril, Vincent Grondin, Simon-Pierre Deschênes, Johann Laconte, Maxime Vaidis, Vladimír Kubelka, André Gallant, Philippe Giguère, François Pomerleau

Bibliographic record

Venuenot available
Typepreprint
Languageen
FieldEngineering
TopicRobotic Locomotion and Control
Canadian institutionsUniversité LavalCenter for Northern Studies
Fundersnot available
KeywordsOdometrySkid (aerodynamics)TerrainRobotKinematicsRobustness (evolution)SnowComputer scienceSubarctic climateMotion planningMobile robotSimulationArtificial intelligenceEngineeringMeteorologyGeologyGeography

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

In subarctic and arctic areas, large and heavy skid-steered robots are preferred for their robustness and ability to operate on difficult terrain. State estimation, motion control and path planning for these robots rely on accurate odometry models based on wheel velocities. However, the state-of-the-art odometry models for skid-steer mobile robots (SSMRs) have usually been tested on relatively lightweight platforms. In this paper, we focus on how these models perform when deployed on a large and heavy (590kg) SSMR. We collected more than 2km of data on both snow and concrete. We compare the ideal differential-drive, extended differential-drive, radius-of-curvature-based, and full linear kinematic models commonly deployed for SSMRs. Each of the models is fine-tuned by searching their optimal parameters on both snow and concrete. We then discuss the relationship between the parameters, the model tuning, and the final accuracy of the models.

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: Methods · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.987
Threshold uncertainty score0.751

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 head0.072
GPT teacher head0.267
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
GenreMethods

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
Published2020
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same topicRobotic Locomotion and ControlFrench-language works237,207