MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort

Detection of Wheelchair Orientation in Human-Robot Interactions

2021· article· en· W3214045974 on OpenAlexaff
Jessica Y. Bo, H. F. Machiel Van der Loos

Bibliographic record

Venuenot available
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldComputer Science
TopicGaze Tracking and Assistive Technology
Canadian institutionsUniversity of British Columbia
Fundersnot available
KeywordsWheelchairComputer scienceArtificial intelligenceOrientation (vector space)RobotMobile robotComputer visionCluster analysisLaser scanningObject detectionClassifier (UML)Pattern recognition (psychology)LaserMathematics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Autonomous mobile robots are being introduced in human-populated environments with increasing frequency, notably in hospitals and long-term care facilities. Ensuring safe and intuitive human robot interaction (HRI) is becoming a growing need, especially for pedestrians with mobility aids such as wheelchairs. The dynamics of wheelchair users differ from those of foot pedestrians, so accurate characterization of a wheelchair’s location and orientation for state estimation is crucial. The 2D laser scanner is a well-suited sensor for accurate distance measurements with fast computation speeds, but the sparsity of its data is often a hindrance to effective object detection. Despite so, 2D range data from laser scanners is found to be effective in the detection and orientation estimation of wheelchairs, even in cluttered environments. The range data from the scanner is pre-processed by segmenting out objects using density-based clustering. A two-step classification algorithm first identifies wheelchair candidates from segmented objects with the random forest classifier, then estimates the wheelchair’s orientation as one of six classes with a neural network. The models achieve 98% true positive rate for detection and 86% for orientation classification. The outcomes of this research can inform future works in building a real time wheelchair detection and state estimation for mobile robots.

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: Bench or experimental · Consensus signal: Bench or experimental
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.691
Threshold uncertainty score0.152

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 head0.022
GPT teacher head0.298
Teacher spread0.275 · 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 designBench or experimental
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
Published2021
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same topicGaze Tracking and Assistive TechnologyFrench-language works237,207