A Flexible Method for Performance Evaluation of Robot Localization
Why this work is in the frame
A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
An important research issue in mobile robotics is performance assessment of robot SLAM algorithms in terms of their localization accuracy. Typically, SLAM algorithms are evaluated with the help of benchmark datasets or expensive equipment such as motion capture. Benchmark datasets however, are environment-specific, and use of motion capture constrains spatial coverage and affordability. In this paper, we present a novel method for SLAM performance evaluation, which only uses distinctive markers (such as AR tags), randomly placed in the robot navigation environment at arbitrary locations, and observes these markers with a camera onboard of the robot. Formulated as a generative latent optimization (GLO) problem, our method uses the local robot-to-marker poses to evaluate the global robot pose estimates by a SLAM algorithm and therefore its performance. Through extensive experiments on two robots, three localization/SLAM algorithms and both LiDAR and RGB-D sensors, we demonstrate the feasibility and accuracy of our proposed method.
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.
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot 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.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 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 it