Prediction of SLAM ATE Using an Ensemble Learning Regression Model and 1-D Global Pooling of Data Characterization
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Robustness and resilience in simultaneous localization and mapping (SLAM) are critical requirements for modern autonomous robotic systems. One of the essential steps to achieving robustness and resilience is the ability of SLAM to have an integrity measure for its estimates, thus having internal fault tolerance mechanisms to deal with performance degradation. In this work, we introduce a novel method for predicting SLAM localization error based on the characterization of raw sensor inputs. The proposed method relies on using a random forest regression model trained on 1-D global pooled features generated from characterized raw sensor data. The model is validated by using it to predict the performance of ORB-SLAM3 on three different datasets running in four different operating modes, resulting in an average prediction accuracy of up to 93.1 % and 80.45 % for ATE and APE, respectively. Then, the paper studies the quality of prediction with limited training data and proves that we can maintain proper ATE and APE prediction quality when training on only 20 % and 40% of the data, respectively. Finally, the paper discusses the impact of out-of-distribution predictions on prediction accuracy.
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 | 0.000 |
| 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".