MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4317553727 · doi:10.1109/lra.2023.3238173

An Efficient Global Optimality Certificate for Landmark-Based SLAM

2023· article· en· W4317553727 on OpenAlexafffund
Connor Holmes, Timothy D. Barfoot

Bibliographic record

VenueIEEE Robotics and Automation Letters · 2023
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEngineering
TopicRobotics and Sensor-Based Localization
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Toronto
FundersNatural Sciences and Engineering Research Council of Canada
KeywordsLandmarkComputer scienceSimultaneous localization and mappingSolverMathematical optimizationGraphCertificateRobustness (evolution)Theoretical computer scienceArtificial intelligenceMathematicsRobotMobile robot

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Modern state estimation is often formulated as an optimization problem and solved using efficient local search methods. These methods at best guarantee convergence to local minima, but, in some cases, global optimality can also be certified. Although such global optimality certificates have been well established for 3Dpose-graph optimization, the details have yet to be worked out for the 3D landmark-based SLAM problem, in which estimated states include both robot poses and map landmarks. In this letter, we address this gap by using a graph-theoretic approach to cast the subproblems of landmark-based SLAM into a form that yields a sufficient condition for global optimality. Efficient methods of computing the optimality certificates for these subproblems exist, but first require the construction of a large data matrix. We show that this matrix can be constructed with complexity that remains linear in the number of landmarks and does not exceed the state-of-the-art computational complexity of one local solver iteration. We demonstrate the efficacy of the certificate on simulated and real-world landmark-based SLAM problems. We also integrate our method into the state-of-the-art SE-Sync pipeline to efficiently solve landmark-based SLAM problems to global optimality. Finally, we study the robustness of the global optimality certificate to measurement noise, taking into consideration the effect of the underlying measurement graph.

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 machine prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.003
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.016
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Theoretical or conceptual · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.005
Threshold uncertainty score0.018

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0030.016
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0020.001
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0010.002
Scholarly communication0.0020.003
Open science0.0020.005
Research integrity0.0010.004
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0050.002

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 head0.034
GPT teacher head0.263
Teacher spread0.229 · 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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designTheoretical or conceptual
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

Citations22
Published2023
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueIEEE Robotics and Automation LettersSame topicRobotics and Sensor-Based LocalizationFrench-language works237,207