A Comparison of Multiple Odor Source Localization Algorithms
Bibliographic record
Abstract
There are two primary algorithms for autonomous multiple odor source localization (MOSL) in an environment with turbulent fluid flow: Independent Posteriors (IP) and Dempster-Shafer (DS) theory algorithms. Both of these algorithms use a form of occupancy grid mapping to map the probability that a given location is a source. They have potential applications to assist in locating emitting sources using mobile point sensors. However, the performance and limitations of these two algorithms is currently unknown, and a better understanding of their effectiveness under various conditions is required prior to application. To address this knowledge gap, we tested the response of both algorithms to different environmental and odor search parameters. The localization performance of the algorithms was measured using the earth mover's distance. Results indicate that the IP algorithm outperformed the DS theory algorithm by minimizing source attribution in locations where there were no sources, while correctly identifying source locations. The DS theory algorithm also identified actual sources correctly but incorrectly attributed emissions to many locations where there were no sources. These results suggest that the IP algorithm offers a more appropriate approach for solving the MOSL problem in environments with turbulent fluid flow.
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 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 itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.
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".