MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W3177709504 · doi:10.3390/app11146366

Development of Sensing Algorithms for Object Tracking and Predictive Safety Evaluation of Autonomous Excavators

2021· article· en· W3177709504 on OpenAlexafffund
Abdullah Rasul, Jaho Seo, Amir Khajepour

Bibliographic record

VenueApplied Sciences · 2021
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEngineering
TopicHydraulic and Pneumatic Systems
Canadian institutionsUniversity of WaterlooOntario Tech University
FundersNatural Sciences and Engineering Research Council of Canada
KeywordsExcavatorCollisionLidarComputer scienceKey (lock)Collision avoidanceAlgorithmPoint cloudTracking (education)Real-time computingEngineeringSimulationArtificial intelligenceCivil engineeringComputer securityRemote sensing

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

This article presents the sensing and safety algorithms for autonomous excavators operating on construction sites. Safety is a key concern for autonomous construction to reduce collisions and machinery damage. Taking this point into consideration, our study deals with LiDAR data processing that allows for object detection, motion tracking/prediction, and track management, as well as safety evaluation in terms of potential collision risk. In the safety algorithm developed in this study, potential collision risks can be evaluated based on information from excavator working areas, predicted states of detected objects, and calculated safety indices. Experiments were performed using a modified mini hydraulic excavator with Velodyne VLP-16 LiDAR. Experimental validations prove that the developed algorithms are capable of tracking objects, predicting their future states, and assessing the degree of collision risks with respect to distance and time. Hence, the proposed algorithms can be applied to diverse autonomous machines for safety enhancement.

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)0.001
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: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.732
Threshold uncertainty score0.217

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.000
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 head0.050
GPT teacher head0.282
Teacher spread0.232 · 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

Citations15
Published2021
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueApplied SciencesSame topicHydraulic and Pneumatic SystemsFrench-language works237,207