RTS-GT: Robotic Total Stations Ground Truthing dataset
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Numerous datasets and benchmarks exist to assess and compare Simultaneous Localization and Mapping (SLAM) algorithms. Nevertheless, their precision must follow the rate at which SLAM algorithms improved in recent years. Moreover, current datasets fall short of comprehensive data-collection protocol for reproducibility and the evaluation of the precision or accuracy of the recorded trajectories. With this objective in mind, we proposed the Robotic Total Stations Ground Truthing dataset (RTS-GT) dataset to support localization research with the generation of six-Degrees Of Freedom (DOF) ground truth trajectories. This novel dataset includes six-DOF ground truth trajectories generated using a system of three Robotic Total Stations (RTSs) tracking moving robotic platforms. Furthermore, we compare the performance of the RTS-based system to a Global Navigation Satellite System (GNSS)-based setup. The dataset comprises around sixty experiments conducted in various conditions over a period of 17 months, and encompasses over 49 kilometers of trajectories, making it the most extensive dataset of RTS-based measurements to date. Additionally, we provide the precision of all poses for each experiment, a feature not found in the current state-of-the-art datasets. Our results demonstrate that RTSs provide measurements that are 22 times more stable than GNSS in various environmental settings, making them a valuable resource for SLAM benchmark development.
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 imitationNot 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.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.002 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.005 | 0.007 |
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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), 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".