Optimizing SLAM Evaluation Footprint Through Dynamic Range Coverage Analysis of Datasets
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Simultaneous Localization and Mapping (SLAM) is considered an ever-evolving problem due to its usage in many applications. Evaluation of SLAM is done typically using publicly available datasets which are increasing in number and the level of difficulty. Each dataset provides a certain level of dynamic range coverage that is a key aspect of measuring the robustness and resilience of SLAM. In this paper, we provide a systematic analysis of the dynamic range coverage of datasets based on a number of characterization metrics, and our analysis shows a huge level of redundancy within and between datasets. Subsequently, we propose a dynamic programming (DP) algorithm for eliminating the redundancy in the evaluation process of SLAM by selecting a subset of sequences that matches a single or multiple dynamic range coverage objectives. It is shown that, with the help of dataset characterization and DP selection algorithm, a reduction in the evaluation effort can be achieved while maintaining the same level of coverage. We also compare our proposed algorithm with other available methods and provide evidence of its superiority regardless of the increase in the number of objectives or dataset sequences.
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 | 0.001 |
| 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".