MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4390720519 · doi:10.1017/9781009299909.004

Linear-Gaussian Estimation

2024· book-chapter· en· W4390720519 on OpenAlexaff

Bibliographic record

VenueCambridge University Press eBooks · 2024
Typebook-chapter
Languageen
FieldComputer Science
TopicGaussian Processes and Bayesian Inference
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Toronto
Fundersnot available
KeywordsKalman filterTrajectoryContext (archaeology)GaussianGaussian processComputer scienceExtended Kalman filterLinear systemNonlinear systemMaximum a posteriori estimationMathematical optimizationMathematicsArtificial intelligenceStatistics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

We begin our journey into state estimation by considering systems that can be modelled using linear equations corrupted by Gaussian noise. While these linear-Gaussian systems are severe approximations of real robots, the mathematics are very amenable to straightforward analysis. We discuss the difference between Bayesian estimation and maximum a posteriori estimation in the context of batch trajectory estimation; these two approaches are effectively the same for linear systems, but this contrast is crucial to understanding the results for nonlinear systems later on. After introducing batch trajectory estimation, we show how the structure of the problem gives rise to sparsity in our equations that can be exploited to provide a very efficient solution. Indeed, the famous Rauch-Tung-Striebel smoother (whose forward pass is the Kalman filter) is equivalent to solving the batch trajectory problem. Several other avenues to the Kalman filter are also explored. Although much of the book focusses on discrete-time motion models for robots, we show how to begin with continuous-time models as well; in particular, we make the connection that batch continuous-time trajectory is an example of Gaussian process regression, a popular tool from machine learning.

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)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.004
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Methods · Consensus signal: Methods
Teacher disagreement score0.010
Threshold uncertainty score0.032

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.004
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.001
Scholarly communication0.0020.003
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0010.003
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0100.006

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 head0.017
GPT teacher head0.209
Teacher spread0.191 · 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 designNot applicable
Domainnot available
GenreMethods

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
Published2024
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueCambridge University Press eBooksSame topicGaussian Processes and Bayesian InferenceFrench-language works237,207