MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4393196707 · doi:10.1002/rob.22319

Developing an expansion‐based obstacle detection using panoptic segmentation

2024· article· en· W4393196707 on OpenAlexaff
Saied Pirasteh, Masood Varshosaz, Samira Badrloo, Jonathan Li

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Field Robotics · 2024
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEngineering
TopicRobotics and Sensor-Based Localization
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Waterloo
Fundersnot available
KeywordsObstaclePanopticonSegmentationArtificial intelligenceComputer visionComputer scienceGeographySociology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Abstract Safe Micro Aerial Vehicle (MAV) navigation requires detecting and avoiding obstacles. For safe MAV navigation, expansion‐based algorithms are effective for detecting obstacles. However, accurate and real‐time obstacle detection is a fundamental challenge. Some traditional methods focus on extracting geometric features from images and applying geometric constraints to identify potential obstacles. Others may leverage machine learning algorithms for object detection and classification, using features such as texture, shape, and context to distinguish obstacles from background clutter. The choice of approach depends on factors such as the specific requirements of the application, the complexity of the scene, and the available computational resources. Since obstacles, in reality, take the form of objects (e.g., persons, walls, pillars, trees, automobiles, and other structures), it is preferable to represent them according to human comprehension and as objects. Therefore, the objective of this study is to reflect on the previous research and address the issues mentioned above by extracting objects from the fisheye image using a panoptic deep‐learning network. The extracted object regions are, then, used to identify obstacles with a novel area‐based expansion rate we developed in a previous study. We compared the accuracy of obstacle detection in our proposed method to the existing method when moving forward and to the right; thus, we improved it between 10% and 18%, respectively. In addition, compared with the existing method, and due to replacing a single object with multiple regions, obstacle‐detection runtime for forward and right direction is 15.71 and 25.5 times faster, respectively, and the required match points have decreased by 49% and 55%.

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)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.001
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Simulation or modeling · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.012
Threshold uncertainty score0.023

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0020.001

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 head0.280
Teacher spread0.246 · 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 designSimulation or modeling
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

Citations3
Published2024
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of Field RoboticsSame topicRobotics and Sensor-Based LocalizationFrench-language works237,207