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 OpenAlex

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.

affAt least one author lists a Canadian institution in the pinned OpenAlex snapshot.

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.

Full frame distilled prediction

Teacher imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Simulation or modeling · Consensus signal: Simulation or modeling
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.701
Threshold uncertainty score0.345

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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.

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