MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W3207562721 · doi:10.48550/arxiv.1710.11319

Learning Motion Predictors for Smart Wheelchair using Autoregressive\n Sparse Gaussian Process

2017· preprint· W3207562721 on OpenAlexaff
Zicong Fan, Meng Lili, Chen Tian Qi, Jingchun Li

Bibliographic record

VenuearXiv (Cornell University) · 2017
Typepreprint
Language
FieldComputer Science
TopicGaze Tracking and Assistive Technology
Canadian institutionsUniversity of British Columbia
Fundersnot available
KeywordsJoystickArtificial intelligenceWheelchairBlack boxProcess (computing)Computer scienceMotion controlSimulationMotion captureEngineeringMotion (physics)Computer visionControl engineeringRobot

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Constructing a smart wheelchair on a commercially available powered\nwheelchair (PWC) platform avoids a host of seating, mechanical design and\nreliability issues but requires methods of predicting and controlling the\nmotion of a device never intended for robotics. Analog joystick inputs are\nsubject to black-box transformations which may produce intuitive and adaptable\nmotion control for human operators, but complicate robotic control approaches;\nfurthermore, installation of standard axle mounted odometers on a commercial\nPWC is difficult. In this work, we present an integrated hardware and software\nsystem for predicting the motion of a commercial PWC platform that does not\nrequire any physical or electronic modification of the chair beyond plugging\ninto an industry standard auxiliary input port. This system uses an RGB-D\ncamera and an Arduino interface board to capture motion data, including visual\nodometry and joystick signals, via ROS communication. Future motion is\npredicted using an autoregressive sparse Gaussian process model. We evaluate\nthe proposed system on real-world short-term path prediction experiments.\nExperimental results demonstrate the system's efficacy when compared to a\nbaseline neural network model.\n

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 categoriesMeta-epidemiology (narrow), Science and technology studies, Research integrity
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 score0.549
Threshold uncertainty score1.000

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0030.001
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0040.002
Research integrity0.0010.002
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 head0.103
GPT teacher head0.233
Teacher spread0.130 · 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.

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

Citations0
Published2017
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venuearXiv (Cornell University)Same topicGaze Tracking and Assistive TechnologyFrench-language works237,207