Autonomous Cooperative Wall Building by a Team of Unmanned Aerial Vehicles in the MBZIRC 2020 Competition
Why this work is in the frame
A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
This paper presents a system for autonomous cooperative wall building with a team of Unmanned Aerial Vehicles (UAVs). The system was developed for Challenge 2 of the Mohamed Bin Zayed International Robotics Challenge (MBZIRC) 2020. The wall-building scenario of Challenge 2 featured an initial stack of bricks and wall structure where the individual bricks had to be placed by a team of three UAVs. The objective of the task was to maximize collected points for placing the bricks within the restricted construction time while following the prescribed wall pattern. The proposed approach uses initial scanning to find a priori unknown locations of the bricks and the wall structure. Each UAV is then assigned to individual bricks and wall placing locations and further perform grasping and placement using onboard resources only. The developed system consists of methods for scanning a given area, RGB-D detection of bricks and wall placement locations, precise grasping and placing of bricks, and coordination of multiple UAVs. The paper describes the overall system, individual components, experimental verification in demanding outdoor conditions, the achieved results in the competition, and lessons learned. The presented CTU-UPenn-NYU approach achieved the overall best performance among all participants to won the MBZIRC competition by collecting the highest number of points by correct placement of a high number of bricks.
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.
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 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| 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 it