MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort

A review of SLAM techniques and applications in unmanned aerial vehicles

2024· review· en· W4401344624 on OpenAlexaff
Ruinan Fang, Peidong He, Yangyang Gao

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Physics Conference Series · 2024
Typereview
Languageen
FieldEngineering
TopicRobotics and Sensor-Based Localization
Canadian institutionsYork University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsSimultaneous localization and mappingExtended Kalman filterRobustness (evolution)RoboticsComputer scienceKalman filterArtificial intelligenceDroneRelation (database)Computer visionRobotReal-time computingMobile robotData mining

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Abstract Simultaneous Localisation and Mapping (SLAM) is a foundational idea in the field of robotics. It involves the processing of sensor signals and the optimisation of pose-graphs. SLAM has found several applications in various domains, including but not limited to courier services, agriculture, environmental monitoring, and military operations, particularly with the use of Unmanned Aerial Vehicles (UAVs). There exist several applications. This work aims to provide a comprehensive analysis of three Simultaneous Localization and Mapping (SLAM) algorithms, namely CNN-SLAM, Linearized Kalman Filter (LKF), and Extended Kalman Filter (EKF). Additionally, it will explore the utilisation of SLAM algorithms in Unmanned Aerial Vehicles (UAVs) by examining its use in precision agriculture, geological surveys, and Emergency Scenarios. This section will outline certain issues that SLAM algorithms may encounter in relation to wide area applications, real-time processing and efficiency, robustness, and dynamic objects within the environment. Ultimately, this study will undertake a comparative analysis of the merits and drawbacks associated with the three algorithms, while also putting up potential remedies for the aforementioned issues.

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 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: Other design · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Review · Consensus signal: Review
Teacher disagreement score0.848
Threshold uncertainty score0.614

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
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 head0.031
GPT teacher head0.298
Teacher spread0.267 · 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 teacher head, not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designOther design
Domainnot available
GenreReview

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

Citations1
Published2024
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of Physics Conference SeriesSame topicRobotics and Sensor-Based LocalizationFrench-language works237,207